because i often see the terms "conservative" and "liberal" nauseatingly abused
i wanted to offer a handy guide to their proper* use
(* use is proper when it does not nauseate me)

conservatives desire no change
historically
conservatism was a reaction to irresponsible progressivism
a desire to keep known working systems
over exploring the new social architectures that came with the scientific era
and possibly screwing things up badly

conservatism is a very useful engineering principle
that arises in any risk/reward analysis phase of design

but conservatives get fucked with a lot
because the social structures are always changing anyways
and so they end up having to be regressivists to some past ideal structure
(which they end up mythicising and building avoidance reactions to avoid seeing that past's problems)

but they aren't really regressivists really
not all the way

they aren't anarchists
in fact most conservatives have a quite a law they desire over you

conservatism tends to accumulate fundamentalists
and other fanatical mythicists
and similar types that breed fastest in hard times

from any "now" there are three political directions one may favor
progressive (larger governmental power over individual actions)
conservative (no change)
regressive (lessened government controls)

it is common for libertarians to point to a two category classification of powers over actions:
control over social actions
control over fiscal actions

fiscal regressives desire smaller government expenditures and taxation
social regressives desire fewer laws against consensual actions

they then draw these pretty diamonds
where they get to be on top or bottom (whichever they prefer at the time)
in opposition to ugly bestial totalitarianism
with pansy-assed republicans and democrats on the left and right
fighting for scraps in some comical cosmic tragedy

but really there are a lot of distinct actions the government may consider control over
and very complicated landscapes of thought on what might be healthiest

progressives on some actions may be (and usually are) regressive on others
so in none of this is there a natural dichotomy that truly distinguishes a two-party system

^..^

you may notice i have not yet used the word "liberal"

classically
liberalism was the application of scientific models of social structures
to the prediction of healthy governments

often
classical liberals used rights-based a priori foundations

the rise of enlightenment politics came as obvious abuses of power in aristocracies were exposed
and many classical liberals were quite fiscally and socially regressive
an opposition to existing governmental overreach

progressivism always has it's appeal
though
particularly when there might be the potential for synergy and collective benefit
and progressivism has popped up quite often in the history of liberalism

so what does all this mean for the republicans and democrats?

very little

they will continue to get along with only the weakest of compass
washed out by the sea of moderation that sets in with traditional ties
and many nauseating newsgroup fights on who is more liberal or conservative
will continue to occur for as long as these two parties exist

[like those famous usenet posts between patrick henry and alexander hamilton
in the classic thread "re: federalists think you're stupid"]

^..^

however
it is still instructive to actually get metrics on the leading candidates and platforms
and measure their degree of progressiveness and regressiveness on various issues
even though such an endeavor could never dent the historic usenet battles of liberal-v-conservative

fiscally
mccain's platform appears to be pretty fiscally conservative
in that it would keep the large deficits to support the aggressions in iraq
and continue with the much the same taxation schedule

in these times
conservatism is actually quite progressive compared to sustainable fiscal policy
(which again is fucking with a lot of conservatives)

more fiscally regressive
clinton apparently (now) would remove troops from iraq
but has large designs to funnel funds to the insurance industry
and is generally more progressive fiscally to elite interests in sectors not among the modern graft

the most fiscally regressive of the major candidates is obama
who currently has proposed the smallest budget of the candidates
removing nearly all deployment in iraq and focussing on attainable progressive policies

on social issues
the split appears to be the same but the categorisation is very poor and weak

again mccain appears the most conservative
looking to maintain the new powers of the patriot act and related "protect america" laws
and he appears likely not to challenge existing "liberal" freedoms like abortion

hillary again appears in the middle
slightly regressive but mostly siding with conservation of the existing power structures
she has mentioned some affinity to certain declarations of social freedom
but has not been very active in these pursuits

obama
as with fiscal policy
has been more actively regressive in social policy
fighting to give rights to citizens like online access to appropriations
or the ability to sue for privacy violations by telecoms

below them all would likely be ron paul
confusing even the libertarian newsgroup geeks
desperately trying to classify his position on the libertarian diamond
taking into account his strangely progressive positions on immigration and abortion
which throw the simple models all out of whack

^..^

of course
non of this really matters to the race

there will still be those who label obama the "most liberal" because of some magazine article
or will call hillary a communist or marxist bitch
(also a crypto-republican)

very few will still have an easy label for mccain
causing much hillarity and fun for all involved

that is the nature of the debate from this point out
which will likely allow everyon to conveniently forget the house and senate races this season
(where the real bill origination and funding powers are seated)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar