Yesterday, in my typically discursive fashion, in ‘Uncertainty vs certainty. Growing out of old beliefs‘. I reflected on same-sex marriage law reform (or ‘marriage equality’). I wrote that as our thinking matures and we make friends with uncertainty, matters can seem to move beyond what we’re told is true and, for a time, believe to be true.
I also suggested that despite appearances, such ‘moral’ issues can be less a matter of ‘liberal’ vs ‘conservative’ than we might think, and that our allegience to such labels/tribes/modes of thought can also prove to be flexible — in a positive way.
Today my RSS feed contained an interesting article from NewsHounds.us (tagline:‘We watch Fox so you don’t have to!’): ‘Fox & Friends Host Another Outraged Conservative Parent‘ about a debate that arose in an American school about the crossword puzzle clues given to a class of year 8 students…
The ‘controversy’ involves the definition of ‘conservative’ used for Civics class crossword puzzle for 8th graders in a Wisconsin school district. While ‘liberalism’ is defined as “the political belief of equality and personal freedom for everyone, often changing the current system to increase government protection of civil liberties,” conservatism is classified as “the political belief of preserving traditional moral values by restricting personal freedoms and encouraging prosperity through economic freedom.”
Now, I acknowledge that in the USA, such partisan ‘debate’ (cough) is often a duel at twenty paces with fully-loaded propagandas, but, you know what?
Those seem pretty reasonable potted definitions to me.
What do you think?
– P
I would have to agree with that definition.
Funny to click on your blog and see a post in regards to the power of labels. I am doing a research project at the moment on moral panic and its effects which has led me to the issue of social stigma and the impact of labels on an individual.
My new “hero” is Dr. Bruce Link. His research is amazing.
What a coincidence about your work with labels — often used (these days/forever) to ‘shame’ people.
Check out this post: http://www.thepaepae.com/dishonestly-defending-your-reputation-no/15539/
…which contains this deathless prose:
Why is the liberal definition positive and the conservative definition uses the word “restricting freedoms” – a negative adjective?
The conservative definition can easily include a political belief of ‘equality’ as used for liberals.
Would like to see definitions that are both positive or both negative – that is equality.
Are the words ‘moral’ and ‘tradition’ synonomous with a religious or unacceptable political view? We all have a morality and values otherwise stealing or killing could occur with no penalty. Tradition in many cultures is passed down through generations and is a taonga.
In my experience definition of liberal and conservative share common descriptions and people can cross over between both on different issues. Why does the media continue to want to label someone? I cant figure that out.
Anyone out there with the answer?
Hi Rosie,
Thanks for comments.
Is ‘restricting freedoms’ always a negative, really? You don’t have the freedom to drive on the ‘wrong’ side of the road, nor at whatever speed you like. You don’t have the freedom to just take (steal) someone else’s property or harm another person, just as you say.
In the social/moral arena, it seems to me that placing ‘restrictions’ (whether on freedoms or actions) is a big part of ‘conservatism’? Censorship is a conservative value, so is restricting media (movies/publications etc) to age ranges.
It seems to me in the context of, say, the same sex marriage debate, that the argument is about freedom vs restrictions to freedom. Two people say they want to get married, and it seems the ‘conservative’ response is: “No way! We don’t want THAT happening, even though it’s not affecting us. That doesn’t fit the ‘traditional’ pattern for marriage. Marriage is defined as [fill in the blank] and we want the state to *restrict* the right to get married.”
I agree with you that conservative and liberal are both concerned with justice and ‘fairness’ — although there are some nuances to do with what ‘fair’ means that sometimes get highlighted by the responses to tax.
Please be clear the definitions above are not MY definitions, although I quite like them as an ‘in a nutshell’ version.
– P
Peter,
The actual word ” restricting” has negative connotations.
I was aware the definitions came from elsewhere.
Any comment on my previous last question?
I am happy to state my position, will listen to a good argument,but I don’t like labelling someone who does not share my viewpoint.So why does the media do it e.g. a certain talkback host on radio Live called opponents of same-sex marriage “bigots”.
Does it? Doesn’t ANY process of sorting or judgement or limit *necessarily* include restrictions? If you’re not tall enough to go on the rides at Rainbow’s End, you don’t. Is that ‘negative’?
As for this Q: “Why does the media continue to want to label someone?”
I don’t have a view of ‘media’ as a monolithic thing, just as I don’t think all ‘Christians’ see things the same way.
Some people readily label those with whom they disagree, some don’t. Some people are bigots.
– P
“Placing restrictions is a big part of conservatism”.
Another word for restrictions is moderation – which is precisely what happened when I posted a comment on this blog and whenever comments are posted on Fairfax publications.
I am confused as the print media prides itself on being liberal and maybe The Paepae. I could be wrong. Am I now giving people labels? – sorry no offensive meant.
Thanks Rosie. I stand by my earlier comment: “In the social/moral arena, it seems to me that placing ‘restrictions’ (whether on freedoms or actions) is a big part of ‘conservatism’”
I perceive some of those of the conservative persuasion (including, respectfully, Lucia Maria) as wanting to restrict the rights and freedoms of others — in this case, wanting to impose a definition of marriage that others who are not of their persuasion do not acknowledge as complete.
The issue goes beyond your ‘moderation’ examples, it seems to me, because the conservative viewpoint seeks to control/limit the actions and entitlements of other citizens who have done nothing to go into their ‘territory’ or to subject themselves to rule by biblical or other laws which they, again, do not acknowledge.
For instance, here at The Paepae, I have the say about what appears on the website. I have the complete authority to control that.
But in a democracy, there is no such emperor. We are ‘ruled’ by a House of Representatives which is subject to electoral ‘discipline’ by the populace, and, appropriately, sensitive to the changing desires of the populace.
If were otherwise, women still wouldn’t have the vote, neither would Maori, the Chinese would still be discriminated against by the tax system, homosexuality would be a criminal offence, pubs would still close at 6:00 pm, ‘family planning’ and contraception would be outlawed … and so on.
I don’t really have anything more to say about your ‘liberal media’ idea. It’s balanced (ha) by an equally strongly held view by some that media are just corporate shills.
Lastly, don’t worry too much about your use of labels. From what you’ve written so far, I certainly don’t take any offence.
– P
A simple answer is some people can’t stand in middle ground if they have a dog in the fight they simply can’t mentally decide to allow their Dog to have the day off, it must keep fighting.
Just like Peter. hes posting all this theory on peoples points of view respect of other opinions. But even he is a compromised Labour Conservative Lefty. Who has never displayed anything to the contary. At least on this Site anyway.
They are not good definitions. If I get time, I’ll come back later and critique the definitions in a more thorough manner. A brief point – they are ascribing economic liberalism to conservatives, and suggesting necessary government intervention to liberals. They frame conservatives as focused on traditional moral values, when that is simply an area of conflict with liberals.
Conservatism holds that social structures and traditions are beyond just moral values, and should not be torn down. Liberals focus on individualism, conservatives on interconnectness, thus that the institutions of society. Liberals have an optimistic view of human nature, Conservatives hold to what they would describe as a more “realist” view of human nature that requires safeguards made to protect the social fabric.
Liberals believe in rationalism, and Conservatives hold that reason without morals is dangerous, that society is too complex and opinions too diverse and subjective to rely so much on rationalism.
Of course, there are many positive and negative strands to both liberalism and conservatism, and shared values across the two ideologies, which makes the discussion harder as the ground shifts quickly depending upon the perspective.
But unfortunately, I have no more time today, so I’ll just say that I am not in favour of the reductionism of the definition above, clearly constructed by a liberal. Or perhaps their evil offspring, the Progressive 🙂
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
What about this?:
and this ‘declaration’ (which I cited here http://www.thepaepae.com/louise-mensch-right-wing-vixen-part-2/21108/ )
It’s a topic worth chewing over, in my opinion. Here’s a bit of context: http://www.thepaepae.com/declaring-where-youre-coming-from/24628/
Interesting observations some on the surface seem accurate others not so sure.
Its hard to describe the 2 different criteria/ideologies. And I find it easier to use examples rather than descriptions.
So I am not going to even claim to have a brilliant explanation.
However I know rubbish when I see it.
Sorry Peter “Conservative means deliver liberal ends” What does that even mean? Its just wishy washy with no substance.
From the descriptions here people would generally label me a liberal (I think) Cool fine with that. Even though I am not happy to label myself. like Louise Mensch the moment your admit to a label your views should be basically ignored (harsh I know) but by admitting your one side of the fence how can you possibly be in a position to offer fair judgement. your comprised.
Just why Peter will not admit where he stands even though he consistently displays otherwise In some cases you won’t be speaking your mind or personal beliefs because you have predetermined your view.
One thing that does get my Hackles up is Conservatives who just don’t want to change their Social structures/traditions as ZenTiger puts it with no reasoning except “why change for the sake of changing”. Often NIMBY mentality. It really pisses me off. Or come up with non sequitur to defend their position a common logical fallacy used.
Won’t I? I’m not sure what you’re looking for Craig, but in addition to my replies to your previous repeated attempts to (wrongly) paint me as some sort of ‘Labour shill’, please refer to these posts/comments:
http://www.thepaepae.com/bill-clintons-still-got-the-shine-unlike-some/25719/comment-page-1/#comment-18577
http://www.thepaepae.com/linking-to-sources-vital-for-credibility-sean-wood/15068/comment-page-1/#comment-7925
http://www.thepaepae.com/te-radars-eating-the-dog-—-well-done/10282/
I have told you before Craig, it’s tiresome re-litigating the question of my [alleged] partisan political allegiances with a sock puppet. Topic closed, as far as I am concerned.
– Peter
Interestingly – picking on your closing para … i’ve never perceived you as having partisan anything … in fact i’ve seen you as being a gaping maw of niceness and inclusiveness. It sickens me deeply.
But it means you are something i am not .. and i will simply have to live with.
You could at least try to be partisan and horrible for once in your miserable inclusive nice life … jeez
Yeah, I really must break out my crypto-facsist poncho from my days at VUW. It’s in a box somewhere, if I recall, with 40 hour famine stickers and my The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars vinyl …
Now you are edging closer to reality my son …
You really do need a break from all that niceness, whole-earth, sunset/technology quasi sexual relationship thingy and definitely the BMW fixation …
Even Ozzy admits to falling from grace it seems … and i just love the Prince of Darkness …
And that 40 hour famine … it was a front for so many conspiracies … and ponchos were definitely linked to Guevara and the commies …
Cant you do better than Ziggy Stardust mate … gods … do you even have a pulse …