Liberals and conservatives are siblings of the same parent, "Classic Liberalism"

In my view, both conservatives and liberals share classical liberalism as a parent.

This philosophical heritage manifests in the core values extant on both sides of the political spectrum, rooted in the belief in individual liberty, the rule of law, and a preference for limited government intervention in the lives of citizens. These foundational principles of classical liberalism have undeniably shaped the ideologies of both major U.S. political parties. However, the evolution of their concerns and interests over time has led to a significant divergence, reflecting the dynamic nature of political ideology and its adaptation to changing societal needs and values.

I think the conservative mantra 'small government, limited government' alludes to the early voices of classic liberalism, which is a nice soundbite,but my observation is that conservatives pay mere lip service to it, and we can get into a debate on that point, but it's not the point of this OP. Conservatives might argue that 'limited government' was never the 'parent idea' of modern liberalism, but this is a misunderstanding of the left, we are not so much for 'big government' which is the false picture the right loves to paint of us libs, as we are for 'good government' which means, regulation that works, and promotes efficiency. Some regs are good, some are bad. Can we both agree on that point?

Ahh, but I can hear the counter arguments swelling already, that go something like, 'hey, wait a minute, look at all the tons of unneeded regulation, the bloating red tape, blah blah blah', and yes, that IS true, but note that no party has a monopoly on this, both parties over the last few centuries have greatly contributed to the bloating regulations, etc.,etc, etc. The fact that government is inefficient, bloated, etc., is not a principle, really, that anyone favors. In truth, it's just the practically inescapable and natural result of being big, and being a government. It's a tendency that all governments share, regardless of ideology, and that fact side steps the principles contained in this OP, so they are not real arguments against the points being raised herein, okay? That's an argument about competence of management, not ideology and principles.

So, let's confine the debate in this thread to the essential idea offered in the opening paragraph. I'm talking basic principles here. Okay? Thank you.

Now then,

Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual rights and freedoms, economic freedom, and the safeguarding of civil liberties. Both Republicans and Democrats (I'm using these terms interchangeably with conservative & liberal, respectively), in their rhetoric and policy preferences, often appeal to these principles, albeit with different emphases and interpretations. For instance, Republicans might stress economic freedom and individual responsibility, advocating for lower taxes and less government regulation as a means to promote individual initiative and a free market. Democrats, on the other hand, while also valuing individual rights, might place a greater emphasis on social justice and the role of government in ensuring equality of opportunity, leading to support for programs that address social inequalities and provide a safety net for the vulnerable.

The divergence between the two parties becomes more pronounced when examining the evolution of their concerns and interests. Republicans often champion a conservative approach, seeking to preserve traditional values and institutions, and viewing change with caution. This perspective is rooted in a classical liberal skepticism of rapid social change and a belief in the importance of stability and order. Democrats, conversely, have increasingly embraced progressive ideals, pushing for reforms that aim to address historical injustices and inequalities. This evolution reflects a broader interpretation of classical liberalism's emphasis on liberty and equality, extending these principles to advocate for systemic changes that promote social and economic justice for all individuals.

This bifurcation in American politics does not negate the common ancestry of the two parties in classical liberalism; rather, it illustrates how a shared philosophical foundation can give rise to diverse political movements. The dynamic interplay between preserving individual freedoms and addressing collective societal challenges is at the heart of the political discourse, driving the ongoing evolution of both parties.

And so, the shared heritage of classical liberalism in the Republican and Democratic parties is a testament to the enduring influence of these ideas on American political thought. Yet, the divergent paths taken by each party underscore the complexity of applying these principles to the governance of a diverse and changing society. As both parties navigate the future, the tension between individual liberty and collective responsibility will continue to shape their policies and political strategies. Understanding this shared lineage and the points of divergence offers a richer perspective on the political landscape, highlighting the nuanced ways in which classical liberalism continues to influence contemporary debates on the direction of the United States.

Like it or not, we're brothers and sisters, and isn't it about time we quit shouting, insulting, and start getting along? Yeah, I know, easier said than done.

 

Cain and Abel also had the same parents, not sure what the point is here.

 

Progressives promote Totalitarianism which Liberalism arose to confront.

 

Drivel.

 

You only perceive one color - blue.

 

Classical liberalism favors the broadest scope of individual rights and responsibility with the confines of an orderly society. Back in the day your point MAY have been valid but that has long withered and died. Today's "liberals" are more correctly termed "progressives"; believing that more rigid societal norms, sacrificing individuality for the benefit of "society". I've seen nothing that broadens individual and the expense of government authority.

 

Government authority, and you are voting for Trump?

Give me a break.

https://youtube.com/shorts/LrBI8NAwiMM?si=jceyLFT03P8LvSdN

 

You only perceive one color, blue. That's just a fact.

 

Trolling is not welcome on my threads.

Please find either a real argument or take your troll elsewhere.

 

Immaterial. Nice try.

Meh.

 

I think that classical liberalism only developed to the fullest in the late '19th century. By that time social liberalism had also developed. Today's conservatives are descended from classical liberalism, while today's liberals are descended from its sibling social liberalism via progressivism, New Deal liberalism to today's version which also adopts social democrat aspects.

While I think that today's conservatives and liberals bifurcate from liberalism further back, I agree that they are both under similar pressures and have evolve somewhat in parallel to accept a growing, more complex government to cope with a growing, more complex socioeconomic system. The governance required now compared with 150 years ago is driven by the difference between a much smaller population with 50% farmer and the rest working in industry and our much larger, denser population with the majority working in service occupations of great diversity. A general store of 1874 had far fewer SKUs than a Walmart. The goods were produced by much smaller manufacturers, and likely much more locally. Similar comparisons can be made in many different areas between then and now.

I've read an interesting economic theory that increasing complexity is essential to ensuring full employment. As productivity increases and the workforce grows, greater differentiation in jobs is the only way to employ more people. For example, expanding medical services employment by increasing the number of doctors and nurses isn't enough -- you have to create a multitude of specialized medical occupations. That applies to both the private and public sectors.

 

I don't think the term "classical liberalism" is the actual parent of the American left and right. I think the actual parent is just simply liberalism, which derived from the Enlightenment. That realized fully in the American Revolution. That was liberalism, or classical liberalism as we would call it today. The left sprang not from the American Revolution, but the French Revolution. It was utopian, felt that man was infinitely malleable, and were, as Lenin later said, perfectly willing to break as many eggs as needed to achieve their utopia. The French Revolution was ultimately a failure, but it won the hearts and minds (mostly the hearts) of the intellectual class who were much more enamored of that version of liberalism than the more down to earth American Revolution. So from that of course it had a fully formed ideology when Marx wrote Das Kapital, and that has been the Origin story of the modern left. From that sprung the multiple versions of socialism, and communism. So that's who the modern American Progressive comes from.