Explaining Conservatism to Liberals: A Centrist's Perspective

[QuestionMan]

Disclaimer: I am NOT a Conservative, I simply understand how they think and why they think the way they do. This myTake is simply meant to explain their views.

Hello Bernie Sanders supporters and other liberals this myTake is for you. I know when you hear the term Conservative you think of an old rich White dude in a suit that probably doesn't pay his fair share of taxes.

Someone that looks like this:

Newt Gingrich

Now I'm here to blow your mind. No Republicans and Conservatives are not Ebeneezer Scrooge.

So what do Conservatives believe in?

I will be discussing the two main types of Conservatism. Fiscal and Social Conservatism.

Fiscal Conservatives believe

That lowering taxes and regulations on businesses allows them to hire more people.

They believe that individuals know better than government on how to spend their money and taxes should be kept low for all. It allows for us to have more money in our pockets and spend it to fulfill our needs and wants.

Fiscal Conservatism also promotes laissez-faire capitalism since regulations tend to make businesses less competitive. That is not to say that all regulations must be eliminated, of course not. Simply those that are excessive.

A lot of what Fiscal Conservatives believe stems from the size of the government. The smallest possible government being preferred.

Social Conservatives believe

In traditional values, such as the importance of the nuclear family, religion, opposition to same-sex marriage and the termination of pregnancy.

Social conservatives are in complete opposition to the trends in modern society. As a movement social conservatism changes with time since people begin to start making exceptions to rules they had.

A good example of this is pre-maritial sex. Not long ago it was considered a taboo but nowadays it is the norm.

Traditional gender roles are viewed by social conservatives as the fundamental basis of which families can achieve happiness. Men work, women stay at home cooking, cleaning and taking care of the children.

From the above video, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this woman is not satisfied with her life. Anyone who claims to be fully committed to their job and not be interested in having a significant other, is either asexual or has built up a wall around them self.

The very idea of equality between men and women frightens social conservatives since it threatens the established dynamic between men and women. Often times they will blame feminism for the emasculation of males and call for a return to the patriarchal dynamic; when in reality it is just insecurity amongst those men preaching for a return to the way things were.

Social conservatism is by far the most dogmatic ideology but it has its benefits.

By being close minded they are far less likely to engage in risky behaviours such as drinking alcohol (if they're Muslim) or smoking marijuana.

By waiting until marriage they avoid the possibility of contracting STDs and prevent a teenage pregnancy from occurring.

Dressing modestly allows sends a message that the individual is not a piece of meat and should be taken seriously which is also a big part of social conservatism.

So there you have it, a glimpse at conservatism. It may have its flaws but it also has its benefits.

It isn't just a bunch of crazy people hating on gays and poor people.

I hope this myTake got you thinking.

This myTake was inspired by all the GAG Liberals.

[BlueCoyote]

The mistake that fiscal conservatives tend to make is that they believe that "less government" is an ur-conservative idea. It's not. In its most radical version, anarchism, the idea is actually very much left-wing. Apart from the pseudo-left party-and-limousine democrats like Obama or Hillary, there are a lot of left people on the left fringes who support anarchism. The inventor of the idea, Russian philosopher Michail Bakunin was a friend (and critic) of Karl Marx. But even in today's time, there are some important people who fight for this ideology. One very prominent figure is American linguist and intellectual Noam Chomsky. He supports a system called "syndicalism", which is a very typical and true form of anarchism in the sense that Bakunin imagined it. We know this system works really well thanks to a number of real-life "experiments". The most important happened in the 1930s during the Spanish civil war. In those days, there were tens of thousands of (left) anarchists who got together and formed a syndicalist system in Barcelona and other, smaller towns. Not only did this make the members of their community happier in terms of life quality but their economy also flourished (as much as it could during a brutal war). Unfortunately, the system was completely destroyed after they were killed, deported, or run out of the country by Franco's troops.

Many conservatives (especially in the US) don't know this but anarchist tendencies are in fact something very new in the conservative agenda. They have only existed since the Reagan-Thatcher-era in the 1980s. No conservative would have come on the idea of praising "no/less government" 50 or 60 years ago. The reason for this is largely that REAL anarchism has very, very little to do with the type of pseudo-anarchism that modern conservatives seek. According to conservatives, all institutions like the police or the army should be maintained. In other words: they do very much support governmental institutions of suppression. Why? Because THEY THEMSELVES don't have to fear this institutions. Conservatives don't care about people being free in a true sense, they care about monetary profit. This is why they support laissez-fair capitalism. The argument that conservatives open a business out of pure altruism, so they can "donate" some jobs to unemployed people is ridiculous. Yes, if you own a bakery with 5-10 employees, you care about them. If you own a multi-billion cooperation, all you care about is money.

[BlueCoyote]

And by the way: that is one important misjudgment conservatives have about liberals. Liberals are not economy-hating people. I do care very much about the economy and businesses. However, I care about small to medium sized businesses. I am SO glad, I can't even tell you how glad I am that in my country Switzerland, we still have so many small businesses. They are the backbone of our society and our economy. In the US, sadly, small businesses have almost gone extinct except for the big metropolitan areas. I've lived in America for a while and all I saw around my town were huge, multi-billion chains. People went shopping at Walmart or K-mart, people went eating at Subway or Applebee's or Dennis or Country Buffet, people had their coffees in Starbucks and their ice cream from Ben&Jerries. The whole US government and economy is controlled by multi-billion, often multi-national cooperations. They are the Rockefellers of our time. THESE are the ones liberals oppose and conservatives support.

[QuestionMan]

I agree with you to some extent. I too favour small businesses over large businesses.
However both are a vital part of the economy, the later being more so simply based on its size.
The government can't afford to be anti-big business.

[BlueCoyote]

I don't necessarily suggest that the government should be against them (though I personally wouldn't mind much in the current system), but I want them to be treated like everyone else. Sadly, in the corporate capitalism of our post modern world, large multi-billion corporations are the holy cow of all governments. This is particularly true of America but it is also true for many other countries like England, Germany, China or Japan. Conservatives like to exclaim how we treat large corporations too ignorantly... to me, that sounds like a slave owner whining about how HE is being treated by his slaves. In other words: it's absurd. Large corporations have an incredible power. Take Nestlé, one of the few super-large Swiss corporations. Nestlé does tons of evil crap around the world. One of the craziest things they do is to buy fresh water sources all over Africa and central Asia to make more profit by bottling that water and shipping it to developed world. Due to this, millions of people

[BlueCoyote]

have already died a miserable, painful death. Imagine yourself living in a village in Africa and one day, some western guy from this large corporations comes up to you and says "sorry this well now belongs to us". You say "wait! But I need this water! We drink it, we shower with it, my little daughter is sick, she needs water!" and he just goes like "well you can buy it for 2 bucks a bottle" (which would probably be a one week salary for you). I can't even tell you how fucked-up I think that is. Or another example from the US and Europe: financial crisis 2008. Everyone said "banks are 'too big to fail'". Now, that's the core of what I hate about this system. I'm not against capitalism but I am against this fucked-up, corrupt corporate-dictatorship. In a true capitalist system, governments would have said "look, you messed up, that's it. Your problem to deal with. Plus: people who committed crimes will go to jail. Clean up your own shit". Instead, governments in America and Europe saved

[BlueCoyote]

all these large banks and NOBODY of these corrupt assholes who created this whole crisis was ever put into a court room. That's craaaazy man. That's not capitalism, it's licking rich people's assholes by privatizing profits and socializing losses and fuck-ups. Unfortunately, that is the system most modern conservatives support and I can't understand that. In my opinion, you either privatize profits AND losses... or, even better, you socialize everything. By that I don't mean that the government buys up everything but instead I'm thinking of a system where a bank is owned by all of its clients. If you've got an account with a bank, you also have a vote. In Germany (and other countries) such banks exist and interestingly, they survived the crisis of 2008 better than other corporations and banks. 200-300 years ago, the western world achieved political democracy. Now our next big step is to achieve economic democracy as well.

[QuestionMan]

I completely agree with you. Large corporations need to be held accountable. In Iceland the bankers were arrested after the 2008 crisis we should've done the same. I don't believe in bailing out businesses, if you fail you fail. A big problem I'd say is when businesses get too big and control the market through oligopolies. In Canada our internet and phone companies are only a handful of companies plus their subsidiaries and they control the market. They set ridiculously high prices in return for crappy service. Small companies can't compete because the established players are too powerful.

I believe in capitalism, it's the greatest system in the world, but when people tip the scales in their favour they ruin it for everyone else. We need constant competition not one company above all.

[aliceinwonderland69]

"Anyone who claims to be fully committed to their job and not be interested in having a significant other, is either asexual or has built up a wall around them self."
Not only is this incorrect but it's also out of context with the rest of the take.
Also the last three examples can apply to a non-conservative.

[QuestionMan]

How is it incorrect?
Yes the last 3 can but they are conservative stances adopted by non-conservatives.

[SüßeJäger]

I have one problem with it. No conservative is frightened by equality between men and women. Most conservatives view the "equality movement" as bull shit. They don't want equal rights, they want special rights and considerations. That's wrong. I'm a libertarian/constitutionalist, most of the time I'm pretty conservative or "right wing" if you want but I do have beliefs that are viewed as quite left too. For instance the legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other harder drugs. These are viewed as left wing stances but to me, they're Constitutional stances. The Constitution does not allow for the govt telling people what they cannot put into their bodies (or must put in their bodies i. e. vaccines). I also support things like clean needle programs however, not paid for by the govt, only donations. I'm anti-war 90% of the time. I think every war after WW2 was a sham by the military industrial complex. They just made a few people über rich on the backs of thousands of dead/crippled people. I'm for shutting down Guantanamo Bay--UNLESS, the U. S. govt declares war on its enemies as the Constitution requires before we go to war which includes things that are actually a war but on paper they're a "policing action". Bull shit, it's a war (i. e. Vietnam). How can you have prisoners of war when war hasn't been declared? They are entitled to due process. I'm for legalizing prostitution. It's nobody's business who has sex with who especially the govt and if I decide to pay them for services, again nobody's business especially the govt. I think liberals have the wrong impression of conservatives for the most part. Both libs and conservatives really want the same things, we just disagree on how to get there. Conservatives aren't greedy, racist, war mongering, hate the environment evil people. I'm from an ultra conservative state, the most conservative state in the nation (or at least tied for it). Conservatives are the nicest people you can meet. They just want the govt out of their business and off their backs so they can make a living and do what's best for them and their families. Washington D. C. doesn't know what's best for you, you do! Why not have the lowest taxes for everyone? Why not have the most freedom possible as long as you're not hurting others? Why not let states make their own choices, they're closer to you and you have more say in a state. Ill shut up lol. Nobody's going to listen any way lol. Good my take!

[QuestionMan]

A lot of people seem to be missing my point. Social conservatives tend to cling onto the idea of gender roles. The man is the head of the household, while the wife cooks and cleans and cares for the children. They are completely opposed to women having equal say in the marriage.

[SüßeJäger]

I'm sure there are some like that but not most. Being a stay at home wife/mom is not a low, degrading thing. It's a great thing. As far as equality, there's no reason she couldn't have equal say just cuz she's a stay at home mom. I don't know why people see that as a bad thing. I had 2 girlfriends and my wife that WANTED to be a stay at home mom even though 2 of them had bachelor's degrees. I was fine with that and supported anything they wanted to do. I'm glad she wanted to be with our daughter through the day and not have some weirdo babysitter teaching her bad things and habits.

[QuestionMan]

Good point.
I guess I was just raised differently. Both my parents worked full time and I'd expect the same from my wife otherwise I'd see her as a leach.
Although you could argue that giving a stay at home wife an allowance for doing chores is a form of payment for services she does, I would much rather most chores be done by a maid.

[SüßeJäger]

I didn't give her an allowance, we just spent money as we needed and wanted to. If either of us wanted to buy something more than maybe $50 for ourselves, we asked the other. Not to get permission or anything just to communicate and make sure the other didn't have other plans and to make sure there's nothing that needs to be paid before playing. She worked as hard as I did. Doing all the shopping, cleaning, cooking and most of the child care. She actually did make some money too. She watched 3 other kids and charged their mom's $75 a week so that was $675 a month. That paid for her stuff she wanted usually, I was taking home $5500 a month. My truck and her car were both paid for so we were fine even with one (basically) income.

[Anonymous]

I love Gavin McInnes, that dude is a legend.

Also, as a traditional conservative, let me add more to your take.

There are two main types of conservatives in America today. Neoconservatives and Traditional Conservatives (or Paleoconservatives).

Neocons:
-Neocons believe in free international trade, meaning no tariffs in place for imports or exports internationally for corporations to pay. Meaning that any corporation in the US can freely go anywhere worldwide and produce their goods there, and bring them back to America or the rest of the world to sell. Which is why you see places like China or Mexico where all the manufacturing companies have gone to produce goods on starvation wages to maximize profit. TLDR: They're not protectionist.

-Neocons also believe in interventionism, meaning using our strong military to go anywhere worldwide and intervene for the slightest reasons of terror or threat to America. For example, the Iraq war.

-Lastly, they also don't mind legal immigration, even if it's in very large amounts, as long as it's legal, they don't mind.

Now, traditional conservatives (like me, and Donald Trump):

-Paleocons (aka traditional conservatives) are against Free Trade and believe in protectionism. This means that they want to place tariffs on corporations if they decide to produce or sell internationally. This way, it is to their benefit to stay within their country and employ their own people, that way the unemployment rate would go down significantly and you put your own people first. With enough tariffs in place, corporations can move out of places like China and Mexico and return to the US and produce there. They are still free to produce internationally, but it's not to their benefit due to the tariffs. Paleocons believe in putting America first and its people first, before anything.

-They also believe in isolationism, meaning absolutely no military intervention unless an actual war breaks out or some scenario comes up where it's necessary. Instead, they believe in a solid military funding and keeping a good national defense, and being neutral to the majority of the world while having some alliances.

-Lastly, on the topic of immigration, they believe in immigration reform, meaning absolutely no immigration (not even legally) until the unemployment rate goes down and people assimilate.

So in conclusion, traditional conservatives are real conservatives, unlike neocons. Socially, they are the same. Hope this helped!

TRUMP 2016!

[Opinion Owner]

There are still other minor differences between the two ideologies here and there, but those are the main ones.

[QuestionMan]

I mentioned the 2 main ones since there are many to focus on.
My views are far more complex than any established label. I take beliefs from both sides of the spectrum an mix them together.
For example, I support fiscal conservatism but oppose laissez faire. I believe if a business is purposely cheating the consumers by providing a poorer quality service then it could and jacks up prices then the government should intervene. This often happens with oligopolies and can be seen everywhere in Canada. Our internet and phone companies are only a handful of companies plus their subsidiaries and they control the market. They set ridiculously high prices in return for crappy service. Small companies can't compete because the established players are too powerful.

[Opinion Owner]

You're not a fiscal conservative if you're against laissez-faire. But yeah, as you said you're not bound to an ideology so what you says makes sense.

[QuestionMan]

I believe in lower taxes and less regulations I just oppose laissez faire.

[Opinion Owner]

Oh wait, I misread what you said. Yeah traditional conservatives are usually not in favor of laissez-faire, and I agree with you to an extant on what you said.

[SüßeJäger]

One paleo conservative to another, great post. I like the term old right for some reason. I'd bet you just might be a Ron Paul guy too lol.

[Opinion Owner]

@SüßeJäger I'm a huge Pat Buchanan guy, he's my favorite. I like Ron Paul as well though.

[SüßeJäger]

Yeah, I don't mind Pat Buchanan. I was pissed at him at one time cuz I'm ashamed to admit it, I'm a recovering neo-con. My name is Jäger and I'm a neo-con, neo-cons anonymous.

[Lovelinefan]

I think it's worth pointing out what conservatives are AGAINST, just as much as it's important to highlight what they are FOR.

The big issue for me is on government-provided social programs.
Liberals tend to favor government handouts (welfare, food stamps, free healthcare, free college), but the truth is that the money is coming from SOMEWHERE (Sorry kids, nothing in life is truly free). Obviously these social programs are paid for from taxes collected from people earning money.
Yeah, yeah... the rich business owners don't pay "their fair share" because of loopholes and tax breaks given to business owners. But the truth is, from a pure dollar amount perspective, rich people ARE paying a lot more than their "fair share", and they're paying sales tax, property tax, excise tax, and using fewer government provided services (public schools, for example)

Another one that's a hot topic this election cycle is the federal minimum wage... Liberals want $15/hr, but conservatives see that and realize that just like with government provided social programs, that extra money is going to come from somewhere... and it ain't coming out of the CEO's salary! The cost would be passed along to the consumer, so the cashier at the gas station would be making $15/hr but the $1.25 Slurpee is going to now be $2.50 and the Dollar Menu at McDonalds would be turned into the Two-Dollar Menu... Or, those minimum wage jobs will just be replaced with computers. You see it already at grocery stores with the self-checkout.
Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a "living wage". Minimum wage is for kids working part time in high school. If you're trying to raise a family on minimum wage, you've clearly done something wrong! Minimum wage should be a starting point, but people should not be planning on staying at minimum wage for long enough to need to live off of it!

[123cheesecake]

liberals tend to favour government handouts so they can afford to be lazy then? haha makes sense

[Lovelinefan]

@123cheesecake Well, to generalize them all as lazy might be going a bit far, but yes... That's a big part of why the democrats historically have done much better with minorities and poor people, where as conservative republicans tend to do better with wealthier white people. It's not because the republicans are against minorities, but the democrats say "We'll give you free cell phones! We'll increase the minimum wage! We'll make the wealthy pay for you to go to college for free! We'll give you welfare and food stamps until the end of time!" and the republicans are thinking "Wait a minute, who's going to pay for all that free shit? I busted my ass to start a business and make a bunch of money, and now you want to take it and use it to pay for those people to have cell phones? And I'm supposed to pay the kid sweeping the floors in my business $15/hr so he can support his family at an entry level job? No way!"

[JRICHARDS1996]

This was a very fair Take which clarified the conservative position quite concisely. However, if you do not mind, I am going to voice my own opinion that 'conservatism' in the true sense of the word does not exist in the United States. We were founded upon the ideals of the Enlightenment which were incredibly liberal and progressive. We rebelled against a traditional European monarchy. Our founding fathers were the same chaps who butchered Bibles to remove the bits they did not like (Either Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin). Essentially the debate in our nation is not between conservatism and liberalism, but between different degrees of liberalism. A more fitting title for American conservatism would be 'mild liberalism' or something along those lines.

[QuestionMan]

Interesting viewpoint thank you for sharing.
To an extent I agree with you because the ideals of John Locke which the US is founded on are considered classical liberal. However, I would have to disagree with saying that it is various degrees of liberalism that we've seen over the years based solely on the definitions of liberalism and conservatism.
Conservatism tends to favour the status quo, and although that changes over time due to the actions taken by Liberals to change society, Conservatives are the ones that cement the status quo created as a result of the tug of war between change and the status quo ante.

[fueledbythc]

I've been always against fiscal and especially social conservatism. Fiscal because I think things like universal health care is necessary. Social maybe because I grew up in Vancouver and it's an extremely liberal city and I got used to seeing liberal norms over the traditional life.

[QuestionMan]

I'm strongly against universal health care.
Seeing how crappy and poorly managed our Canadian system is makes me prefer a two-tier system.
Publicly funded insurance for those that can't afford but at the same time private insurance for everyone else.
It will actual cost a lot less if implemented correctly and we won't have 1/5 doctors fleeing to the US for a bigger pay cheque.

[BusinessBasketball]

I find social conservatives and neoconservatives to be the worst. Social conservatives like to judge because someone is different from them. Also they want to set us back to the 1950's while I want us to push forward to the 2050s. Neoconservatives want wars. Wars are expensive and wreck the economies.

[Waffles731]

I know some conservatives are reasonable,
A Republican Senator is one of the handful of politiicans I respect (I'm talking about the war hero John Mccain.)

[gotc147]

You were doing great until you said social conservatives are frightened of sexual equality.

Not only is this incorrect, it shows that you aren't as centrist as you say you are.

[QuestionMan]

I was pointing to social conservatives that aim to protect gender roles.

[gotc147]

I know what you were trying to say, but using the term "frighten" is not just a simple poor choice of words, it sends a message and puts a label on those you are talking about, it completely removes any sense of integrity or fairness in your assessment.

[QuestionMan]

Touche

[coachTanthony]

This is the video you should have used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3Vo-XvFoI

[QuestionMan]

I'm aware of the video but it is extremely biased.

[Anonymous]

What you just called fiscal conservatism is what I understand economic liberalism to mean. Adam Smith, the most prominent liberal, in the 1700s, described it in his book the wealth lf nations. Conservatives recently adopted much of this policy however its not the same thing. For example many conservatives believe in protectionism whereas classical liberalists did not.

Liberal is a word thrown around a lot these days but basically its just used to describe anyone of a leftward persuasion.

[QuestionMan]

I'm aware of Adam Smith's work but would have to criticize him for having too much faith in the laissez faire. Most people don't know what a classical liberal is, the more commonly used term is fiscal conservative.

[NearlyNapping]

It's quite obvious that you don't know much about conservatives either. Most of this is not even close.

[QuestionMan]

Please educate me then.

[Phoenix98]

Interesting, personally I find having a nice medium between fiscal and social conservatism to be the best thing.

[QuestionMan]

Yup I agree

[violettasanchez]

So the woman got pissed not because of his outrageous comment, but because she is not satisfied with her life? Hahahaha everything was going moderate till I read that.

[Spermdumster666]

im in the centre myself with slight conservative leanings on things but liberal on others.

[echoaj]

So are you also going to do a My take on explaining Liberalism to Conservatives?

[QuestionMan]

I will when I get the chance.
Glad you're interested :)

[echoaj]

Ight cool

[Anonymous]

I think what you're saying is most fiscal conservatives passed first year economics.

[QuestionMan]

Yes they did :)

[Maxemeister]

I guess I'm a centrist, as well. Maybe slightly to the left