What are the most compelling arguments for becoming a conservative or a liberal?

[Minister of Truth]

cant be a con;

they are just such embarrassingly obvious parrots of the Vast Right Wing Propganda Machine including the likes of Foxanganda, Alex J. Beck, Drug Rush & Ron "the con man," Paul and baby Ron.

[honestamerican]

Conservatives betray America by not looking at the issues objectively.

Like them insinuating for years that Clinton was solely responsible for the 9/11/2001 attack. Ignoring the FACT Bush ignored terrorism until then.

Presidential daily brief(PDB)
8/6/2001
"Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"
The ones leading up to this one are still classified so we have no idea what they said about terrorism.

Just as they ignore that Bush lied to Congress to get authorization to invade Iraq.
Bush;
Saddam is trying to acquire yellow cake uranium from Niger!

Just as they still ignore the way Bush and the republicans paid for the wars through 'special appropriations' so that their budget deficits would not look so bad to the public.

Then there are cons here on YA who insinuate the whole debt is because of Obama.

[Lord Revan]

Personally neither side is persuading me to join them. I prefer to remain an independent and a centrist. Both sides are too extreme in my opinion and only care about their special interest groups and pleasing their party extremists.

Neither a conservative or liberal is getting my vote next election.

[Politics dude 101]

I was originally pretty Conservative but gradually became more and more liberal as I got older. I think the recession really solidified me as a left-winger. The ideal government for me is the Swedish model. It's a very free society with a dynamic economy and low poverty rates because of a generous safety net. The Nordic states constantly rate as the happiest countries in the world and are doing very well in this economic meltdown. There isn't really a compelling argument for either one. You just believe in Conservatism or Liberalism amongst other political ideologies. If you believe in a smaller federal government, lower taxes, and traditional values then you are a Conservative. If you believe in a larger federal government, generous social safety net, mixed economy and social liberal values such as pro gay marriage and pro women rights, then you are a liberal. Not any arguments just what you gravitate towards.

[loudwren787]

The Liberal ideology is a theory which holds forth beliefs that have no basis in reality.
They are Advocates of a policy that empowers a strong government to enslave its people with a high tax burden.The problems we face today are because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from
the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse over loose fiscal policy
A broken government can't be fixed by the same government that broke it. ~~~

[jgcii]

The most compelling argument for Liberal is that you can live off the government benefits that you in no way earned.

For Conservative - you can sleep at night knowing that thoughtful rational ideas are abound and they are in no way concerned with how it makes someone "feel"

[buckeye_12207]

In my case (which is the only case I can attest to) my political sympathies seem to have developed unconsciously, if that's the word, partly through the example of my family-who as far as I can recall were "orthodox" Democrats, as most people would have been in my hometown-and partly through the accident of having come up in the 1960s, with an example of a more heterodox leftism evident around me. In any case, I turned out to regard myself as a radical; the meaning of which word leads to a whole other story,


buckeye

[PoBoy]

We need to separate out fiscal and social conservatism. Moderate [slightly right of center] fiscal conservatism is a good thing.

But social conservatism is destroying America. It has already infected our churches and is destroying Christianity [Christ did not say "Hate your neighbor!"]. It is causing the downward drift of our intelligence and our ability to raise our children.

That is the argument for becoming a liberal [social liberal]. The social conservatives are destroying us and taking our freedom in the process. Vote against them.

[Socrates]

Conservatism is about going with tried and true methods of governance before jumping to new, experimental, even Utopian methods. American Conservatism believes in equal opportunity, equal justice, individualism and charity. It holds in great reverence the Constitution and it's ideals of limited federal government and natural (individual) rights. Individual rights are those inherent in the people and do not need an outside enabler (like government) to make them work. It also believes in the power and ability of free market principles to make every ones life better. Although these are principles on Conservatism, it is also pragmatic to bend to a certain extent to non-Conservative principles that may already be in place. For instance, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid may be over-steps of limited Federal government, but they are willing to live with them and just reform them from the bloated, bureaucratic, wasteful mess they are. Neither would it want to go back to the pure market-driven, exploitative days of the Industrial Revolution. Conservatism has no problem with natural inequity in life, just as long as individuals are not blocked or impeded their rising above those inequities. The implied Constitutional mandate of the proper role of government, being the protection of rights and liberties of it's citizens is the mechanism that support this. This does not guarantee happiness, but it protects their pursuit of it. The individuals abilities is what determines how far they can go. For those who have difficulty, there is charity, even a hand-up from government to a certain extent, but not a handout. Compassion is not measured by how many people government can take care of, but by how many people DON'T have to be taken care of by government, trapped by welfare.

Progressive Liberalism on the other hand, has a somewhat Utopian vision, it believes that any, even all inequities must be removed from life. This requires government involvement and control to "reshape" society. This has the effect of Progressive government simply giving people stuff as well as making it the definer, creator, regulator, rationer of rights; not the individual. All this makes those who don't simply give stuff to people (Conservatives), look "mean", "greedy", "hateful", "uncaring", etc. Conservatives want to do thing that lift all boats, not selected ones.

There is plenty of misunderstanding of policies that Conservatives support. That is often due to Liberals focusing on the superficial, emotional reactions to the issues, measured by how much "stuff is given". Just one example are tax cuts. Supply side (trickle-down) economics that Conservatives support, has worked to revive the economy, even making a booming one, EVERY TIME it's been employed. Policies of Harding, Coolidge, JFK (posthumously), Reagan, Clinton (cap gains tax cut) and Bush are all examples of this working. A tax cut for business and/or job creators (2/3 of all small business and their owners are effected by the high-end tax bracket) act as a shot in the arm, freeing up cash to reinvest in the company, upgrade machinery, hire, buy more raw supplies, etc. All these thing go into productivity. The aggregate effect is to cause horizontal business expansion, creating jobs. It builds off itself.

Conservatives believes in the ability of individuals to go as far as their abilities will take them. This is important in a society of 317 million people. What sounds more sustainable; 317 million people taking care of themselves or one entity trying to take care of 317 million people? Progressive Liberalism is good at providing quick relief by throwing money at the problem. However, they end up making this "help" permanent, either by naiveté or by design, the latter for means of control. Progressive Liberalism does not know how to raise people out of poor conditions, Conservatives do.

Do you have doubts to this? I'm sure you do. You have been surrounded by superficial, emotional rhetoric to bolster Progressive Liberal ideas. Ask questions. See who gives you the most substantial answers.