You're going to have to clarify what you mean by "liberals versus conservatives". An American liberal is much different than a European liberal.

Also, political ideology is not limited to a one-dimensional spectrum. Political ideology can be nicely summarized using a two-dimensional plane, as an Authoritarian-Libertarian y-axis and a Right-Left x-axis.

Keep in mind that this tends to be a left-leaning forum. In any case, you will not get a decent debate or statistics because posting on threads is entirely voluntary, which produces inaccurate results.

Since 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been bastardized into obscurity - and disturbingly proudly so - by a lot of political commentators, I'm going to supply (my understanding of) the academic definitions of those words.

Liberalism is a political ideology that holds supreme the values of individual freedom and the equality of individuals as persons. Naturally, depending on how one understands those two values and evaluates policies through those understandings, liberalism can be invoked as the philosophical basis behind a wide variety of policies, sometimes even contradictory ones; but generally, liberal polities will have some of the same characteristics - constitutions, democratic elections to decide the allotment of leadership responsibilities, respect for human and civil rights, and some form of market economy.

Conservatism is a political ideology that stresses as paramount the conservation of the present sociopolitical order and its various institutions. Conservatism, then, is necessarily contextual - what it means is entirely dependent on its place and time. It stands in opposition to progressivism, which is a political ideology focused on critiquing and changing aspects of the present sociopolitical order and institutions therein.

What you'll notice, of course, is that, despite the popularity of the conservative-liberal dichotomy, the two terms aren't necessarily in contrast. In fact, virtually all of America is liberal. The dichotomy is just an oversimplified summary of the ongoing debate on what, precisely, liberalism in America is, and what it should be. You'll hear reference to such a split as one between 'classical' liberals and 'social' liberals. (The former tend toward 'conservatism' in the American understanding, the latter toward 'liberalism.') That split is a little more complicated than is called for right now, but if this thread goes anywhere you'll probably run into it later.

Another thought, kind of directed toward Gunfighter06 but not necessarily. At risk of speaking too much in absolutes, there is no such thing as a 'nice' summary of any political ideology worth taking seriously. Political issues are entirely too nuanced to be covered completely by a pair of dichotomies, and I think we actually do a disservice to the public discourse by continuing to perpetuate dichotomous understanding of politics.

For example, I would undoubtedly fall under the right-libertarian sector of your graph, but I consider myself a progressive and a strict anti-conservative, and philosophically I'm certainly as much a member of that 'left-leaning' side of the forum as most everyone else here. The graph, though, might put me with the likes of Lew Rockwell or the contemporary John Birch Society, an association which I'd find repulsive and appalling.

So I'd really like to discourage trying to summarize politics with an axis or two. The issues run much, much deeper.

If anything, modern American conservatism is more reactionary than "conservative", even in the bastardized form that the word currently holds.

^This is definitely true. 'Conservatism' as it's commonly used isn't about conserving the present order, it's about returning to a previous* order.

*: In theory, anyway. I tend to observe that a lot of self-identified conservatives understand America's past in a rather different light than everyone else, and that such the previous order they describe, while sufficiently rooted in past institutions and values to maintain reactionary status, often didn't exist as they describe it.

No it existed exactly how they describe it. They use all those buzz words so they must know what they are talking about...

As a reactionary, I'd like to say that a majority of politically polarized people (at least in the U.S.) are polarized in their own way rather than being skewed Conservative or Liberal. Most voters don't agree on everything that their party does, and the parties are becoming more vague in whom they support and what their platforms are. Modern politics are dominated more by individual concerns than general ideologies. Thus, you get more and more Conservatives voting Democrat and Liberals voting Republican.
About 52% of the American population considers themselves politically polarized. Now, this does not mean that 48% vote independent or swing evenly. There tends to be a general liberal lean for a majority of American citizens. Even True Moderates are more likely to vote Democrat simply because of how each party campaigns to either broaden or narrow their ideologies. Interestingly enough, however, the general populous is slowly becoming more and more politically polarized. As this movement is more likely to occur in a smaller, community setting, each U.S. County is beginning to show leans one way or the other. Small pockets scattered across the country are starting to show their idealization, while States are becoming more unstable and the nation even more so.
Remember, though, that idealization occurs one issue at a time, so a group of people who support gay rights may take on a pro gun rights stance and be split between the two parties.

So, to answer the question of what 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' mean, I think you would have to go with the party definitions. It matters not which party you would like to support any more, but whichever one promotes the candidate that you agree with most. You will find that parties are no longer the economic political dominators that they used to be. They are beginning to hold more candidate centered campaigns rather than party centered ones. Of course, all of this should create confusion, because that is what the world is coming to. Once you lose the black and white definitive sides of an argument, then there becomes nothing to hold the political process together, and you are ended with numerous factions. Hyper-pluralism follows, and the nation falls into a state of gridlock. Of course, European states are much closer to such roads to anarchy, and thus an ignorant, liberal bias guides the people to economic crisis after cultural conflict, ultimately until Europe has brought the entire industrialized world down with it, and you have dozens of third-world countries across the globe acting as the new superpowers.
So thank you, ignorant masses, thank you for destroying the free world under the guise of freedom and liberalism, which, I might add, is a flawed concept that is no longer relevant to the modern world. For now, it is no longer the people who are forced to do what needs to be done by the will of the governed, it is the governed who are forced to do the misguided will of the people. But you mustn't understand why I have spent the time to go off on this tangent, so I will stop. But know one thing: Obama will be reelected. And after that, all hope for those who claim to have any power or any free will shall be lost.

Oh, I feel stupid! I just poured my mind out into a troll thread...

cut and paste is fantastic isnt it.....

left leaning forum in the main! OMG - bloody liberals thats whats wrong with the world....letting murderers off.....etc etc etc.....

@ President Eden

You are correct in the political issues are far too nuanced to be summarized into a two-axis graph, but the two-axis spectrum does deserve recognition as an easy way to see what someone's basic ideology is. Personally, I am fairly far right, but about dead even between authoritarian and libertarian.

I was simply trying to point out that a one axis definition of political views is *really* incorrect.

@ Jack Klein

Yeah, you're right about that too. Classical liberalism (also known as libertarianism) is much different than modern American progressive liberalism. Also, modern American "conservatism" isn't conservative at all, since "conservatives" do not advocate the preservation of the political status quo.

European liberals are completely discredited by the collapse of the welfare state so they don't need defining.

^ Glad to see that TC finally knows what's up.

If this is a left-leaning forum, then I wonder where the center starts.

There is no such thing as a True Moderate. The closest thing you get is someone who looks at each and every case without bias (something that is naturally impossible) and judges individually. Such actions lead to a slowed judicial process and, again, gridlock and stagnation. There is no 'right' form of government. All forms work given the right circumstances. It's just a matter of doing the right things at the right time, whatever is best for the nation at a given time.

The 'authoritarian-libertarian' axis is a bunch of horsepuckey meant to make so-called "libertarians" feel good about themselves. But it doesn't work at all. Left-liberals aren't "libertarian" on certain social issues, for example, guns. Affirmative action (and really anything related to race and gender equality) is another problematic case for that nonsensical chart.

The real axis is between those who are for progressive change and those who uphold 'tradition'. Everything else is just colored bubbles.

I disagree with that. Anti-gun-rights "Left-liberals" as you defined them, aren't really liberals at all in the classical sense of the word. Your post represents the bastardization (sorry for stealing your word, PE) of the word "liberal".

Progressive liberals are actually quite authoritarian in their methods.

Don't call it a nonsensical chart. The chart which I described (the one proposed by the Political Compass Organization) was probably made by PhDs in political science who have been in school since your mother has been wiping your ass.

"Progressive liberals are actually quite authoritarian in their methods. "

Thanks for proving my point, genius, minus the use of the meaningless epithet "authoritarian", which effectively means anything Cato doesn't approve of.

According to the Nolan Chart, left-liberals are "socially liberal" when as you said, they're "authoritarian" on the gun issue. So it doesn't work.

Face it, libertarians are just far-right Republicans who want legalized drugs.

Classical liberalism is not the same as modern day "libertarianism". Adam Smith and John Locke have nothing in common with those fools.

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.”

~G.K. Chesterton

"Face it, libertarians are just far-right Republicans who want legalized drugs."

And favor gay marriage (where government marriage laws exist) and an end to imperialism and aggressive wars. They also oppose crony capitalism (including the sacred Farm Subsidies), conscription, and the death penalty. But yeah, aside from all that, no difference at all.

People still talk to Putin about what it means to be libertarian?

And on a far more important note, missed you TC baby <3

Favor gay marriage by pandering to psychotic anti-gay pastors, defending state sodomy laws, and voting for DOMA. Libertarians aren't pro-gay marriage, they just prefer it if state governments abuse gays more than the feds. After all, you can 'vote with your feet' if you don't like it, just ask the millions who fled the Black Belt South.

"and an end to imperialism and aggressive wars."

Most libertarians don't give a damn about war. Ron Paul, the supposed anti-war hero, voted to give Bush a blank check when it came to the 'War on Terror', the most expansive, indefinite, and aggressive war power ever given to a President. Nor do they concern themselves about government surveillance and FBI terror, as we've found out. No, instead they make common cause with the neo-McCarthyite John Birch Society, and people who wanted to butcher the Sandinistas and kill the Vietnamese.

"They also oppose crony capitalism (including the sacred Farm Subsidies)"

Oh I forgot, they're far-right Republicans who don't have a clue about economics.

"conscription, and the death penalty."

Since when did all libertarians oppose the death penalty? Hell, since when did most even oppose the death penalty?

http://mises.org/daily/4468

And what Republicans seriously support conscription?

People still talk to PE about anything political?

".letting murderers off.....etc etc etc....."

Like George Zimmerman? Luis Posada? Get real.

You left out that we also eat babies.

Your not so secret love for anything Mormon or Muslim is yet more proof of your LGBTQophile tendencies, I'm sure.

@ Putin33

I didn't prove your point. The Left-Right axis is the x axis and the Authoritarian-Libertarian axis is the y axis. American progressive liberals are not really "liberal" in the classical sense because they are authoritarian. Their views, including their views on social issues are very authoritarian. They can accurately be graphed in the second quadrant of the graph.

"Classical liberalism is not the same as modern day "libertarianism". Adam Smith and John Locke have nothing in common with those fools."

Of course not. They are two different phrases from two different time periods, but they both represent a very similar philosophy.

"Government, as explained by Adam Smith, had only three functions: protection against foreign invaders, protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, and building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide."

Gee, that sure sounds a lot like modern American libertarians.

"Gee, that sure sounds a lot like modern American libertarians."

Really, that's why he was in favor of the Navigation Laws. Glowingly so.

" American progressive liberals are not really "liberal" in the classical sense because they are authoritarian."

They're not liberal in the 'classical' sense because classical liberals worship at the cult of cannibalistic markets. But according to that graph they are socially liberal as compared to conservatives, who support regulating women's vaginas, imposing the church on non-believers, anti-gay laws, etc. But as I said, that graph doesn't work because both sides favor government action on social laws, just in different ways. Conservatives favor intervention to defend 'traditions' - meaning white male heterosexual Christian traditions. Liberals favor interventions to advance equality.