> On 26 Mar 2007 05:54:41 -0700, "tg" earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>

>>On Mar 26, 8:19 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:40:08 -0700, Sir Frederick

>

>>> fuzzysys.com> wrote:

>

>>>

>

>>>>If there are any out there who still don't yet completely understand the
>>>>difference between liberal and conservative, please write me and I'll try to
>>>>make it more clear to you.

>

>>> Instead, I'll try state my disagreements with your views.

>

>>> The term "conservative" means exactly what it implies.
>>> Conservatives oppose change and prefer the status quo.
>>> Liberals see need for certain changes and are the movers
>>> and shakers of what they see as needed changes.

>

>>> Abe Lincoln was a liberal who envisioned a _united_ states
>>> which would not be half slave and half free. Liberals sided
>>> with female garment factory workers who marched protesting
>>> the terrible working conditions they suffered during their twelve
>>> hour work days, and were beat up by corporate goon squads
>>> who fought for the status quo (conservatives). Liberals
>>> sided with women seeking the right to vote while conservatives
>>> opposed it. Liberals sided again with blacks during the sixties
>>> when great strides were made in futher "freeing of the slaves",
>>> as it were.

>

>>> Liberals witnessed millions of hard working people unable to
>>> save and invest during their working years and living in
>>> extreme poverty in their old age. They managed, over
>>> conservative opposition, to create Social Security.

>

>>> A iiberal named John Dewey envisioned public school systems
>>> funded by taxpayers on the grounds that democracy demands
>>> that all citizens have a minimum amount of education in order
>>> to flourish.

>

>>> Liberalism is not about socialism, or "creeping socialism", or
>>> creation of a welfare state. In fact, it could be said that
>>> conservatives force a welfare state and socialism since they
>>> aren't creative enough to avoid the inevitable Big Brother
>>> putting the clomps on them :) Case in point was the rise
>>> of workers union movements to have clout with employers
>>> too conservative, unimaginative, and creative to have
>>> avoided such movements. Large corporations eventually
>>> became like some kind of benevolent Big Brother to
>>> employees, and it's unfortunate that their conservative
>>> managements had to be dragged howling and screaming
>>> along the way.

>

>>Agree with most of the historical observation but the real dichotomy
>>is between authoritarian psychology and individual empowerment. It is
>>difficult to argue that unions are not also conservative in your
>>sense---the kind of 'marriage' that grew up between GM and its unions
>>was certainly not healthy for anyone.

>
> Not to digress too much, I hope, but I've always thought that all
> employees should have a "piece of the action" rather than just a
> paycheck. As a professional employee (engineer) I was considered
> a part of management and enjoyed receiving shares of stock as partial
> compensation in some small companies I worked for. I've always
> thought that treating non-professional employees as "them" and
> not "us" is a mistake. Corporations treat stockholders as "us" and
> place much higher prioriity on investors than on their workers.
>
> Insofar as the dichotomy between authoritarian psychology and
> individual empowerment goes, I don't see how that enters into
> a discussion of what liberalism and conservatism is.
>

>>You have to keep applyiing a test as conditions change. Once upon a
>>time, food was produced and consumed locally. So agribusiness would be
>>a liberal movement by your definition---but now, people are
>>'innovating' when they talk about local food. I think my dichotomy is
>>more useful in characterizing what's going on.

>
> Sure, conditions change, but the definitions of liberalism and
> conservatism don't. You've simply offered an example of something
> that liberals would advocate at one time, but not at another time
> under different circumstances, and vice versa. Both liberals
> and conversatives wafflling back and forth :)
>
> I can easily see myself waffling back and forth on labor unions ...
> perhaps being a strong advocate in the early part of the last
> century, and then reacting very negatively to the monsters
> that were created by the later part of that century. But again, my
> point is that the monsters wouldn't have been needed in the first
> place if conservatives had been more creative and imaginative.
>

> Art