# The conservative/liberal spectrum

Discussing politics is a relatively new concept across the lens of history. Up to just under 300 years ago, political discussions among most people were either small talk about royalty or highly personal discussions about what [decision](people-decisions.md) to make in light of recent political events.

When a [large group](groups-large.md) permits us to vote, we must make [decisions](people-decisions.md) between political parties. If we must choose representatives, we're a degree removed from the decision-making process, so we must use [philosophical](philosophy.md) standards to judge those representatives.

Broadly, we have a simple decision across a spectrum: "conserve" things we're [familiar](habits.md) with, or "liberally" try things we've not [seen](image.md) before (or "progressing" towards a [new trend](trends.md)). Thus, beyond our [desires](purpose.md), our [personalities](personality.md) heavily define our politics.

When people are [young](maturity.md), they tend to have no basis for the old way of things. All they know is what they've experienced in their relatively short lives and what they've [learned](understanding.md) from their [culture](people-culture.md). Since society is flawed, and they [imagine](imagination.md) it [can be better](politics-perfectsociety.md), they tend to embrace *any* [social changes](trends.md), since they have [hope](trust.md) in what they haven't seen.

As people [age](maturity.md), they tend to discover that there's nothing really "[new](image.md)". At the same time, they often have amassed [power](power.md) over the old and familiar system. Thus, beyond the [inherent risks](safety.md) to any [large-scale changes](trends.md), they have more to lose and tend to vote more conservatively.

APPLICATION: Younger people are typically easier to [convince](influence.md) than older people. Thus, [storytellers](stories-storytellers.md) who discuss real-life events have plenty of social incentives to gravitate toward liberal reasoning. It's generally a higher [social risk](socialrisk.md) to appeal to conservative thoughts because older people are more resistant to change, and [having children](people-family.md) removes any gray area for parents about political [fashions](trends.md) that affect their children.

Conservatives tend to vote for civilization and liberals for equality, but this isn't precisely true:

- At the farthest extremes, a conservative will *always* enforce [rules](people-rules.md) complying with a [moral](morality.md) standard (thereby implementing [religion](religion.md)), and a liberal will *always* lean to [leftist](politics-leftism.md) ideals (thereby implementing secularism). However, they both have more in common than they may [appear](image.md) because they are severely implementing [order](understanding-certainty.md). This makes the spectrum more of a "horseshoe" than a line.
- Most normal people have a case-by-case [inner conflict](conflicts-inner.md) tied to their [beliefs](understanding-certainty.md). Those beliefs come from [religious views](religion.md), definitions of [humanity](humanity.md), how we should [empower](power.md) the weakest in society, and many other [philosophical](philosophy.md) elements.

APPLICATION: By nature, conservatives will be somewhat antagonistic agaomst overly used [technology](technology.md), and liberals against overly applied [virtue](morality.md).

While liberalism can embrace anything [trendy](trends.md), conservatives can also embrace anything [trendy](trends.md) from the past. They're both adopting those trends through what they [imagine](imagination.md):

- Conservatives are using the [stories](stories-storytellers.md) of the past (i.e., "history") to define the best way to run society. They must make accommodations for [changing](trends.md) [cultures](people-culture.md) and [technology](technology.md), or they will make [bad decisions](mgmt-badsystems.md).
- Liberals are using expectations of present [actions](results.md) onto the future to define the best way to run society. They must make accommodations for what they're [unable](understanding-certainty.md) to [know](understanding.md), or they will make [bad decisions](mgmt-badsystems.md).

## Undefined

They're both partly wrong. History never *precisely* repeats itself, but every expectation of what may happen in a complex system (e.g., a nation) isn't very accurate either.

APPLICATION: Some issues are *not* aligned on the political spectrum:

- The development of [technology](technology.md) makes unintelligent people less necessary, and society currently doesn't have jobs for anyone with an IQ of 85 or lower. Conservatives claim they need fewer barriers to the job market, and liberals believe they can get job training for anything whatsoever, and they're both wrong.
- Government [debt](money-2_debt.md) is an [economic](economics.md) risk, but a conservative nation will gladly spend more on its military, while a liberal nation will spend more on social welfare programs. There is usually limited discussion on how to frame taxes that minimize pain to the public, since that would require cutting back on military or social welfare programs, which are government forms of [power](power.md).

Conservative and liberal are difficult to define because they're responses to [trends](trends.md), which means they move as the trends move. If something was once a certain way 400 years ago, it's a conservative or liberal idea depending on whether anyone remembers it, and this creates a much smaller "window" inside the larger spectrum of extreme political values called the Overton Window.

- At one time, in the 1880s, it was a conservative thought in the USA to want complete isolationism from the rest of the nations, and a progressive thought to want the government to get involved with [economic](economics.md) and [military](people-conflicts-war.md) arrangements.
- However, in the 1950s, it was a conservative thought to be anti-[communist](politics-leftism.md) and enhance the military, and a liberal thought to increase economic partnerships with communist countries.

Political power often requires bending public opinion, so "conservative" and "liberal" are often hijacked for other [purposes](purpose.md). Sometimes, *conservatives* are looking for new things and liberals are trying to restore an old social order, but [feelings](mind-feelings.md) run so strongly that the definition and meaning of the words everyone uses is very difficult to separate out.

APPLICATION: To live [the good life](goodlife.md), we must only consider politics to the degree we have control over political decisions. To the average person, it extends only to the people we can [vote](groups-large.md) for. In a free society, we must let everyone else [learn](understanding.md) and [decide](people-decisions.md) for themselves.

When the group isn't "liberal" or "conservative" enough and the group can't settle their [conflicts](people-conflicts-war.md), they tend to fork off into separate groups and redefine their [purposes](purpose.md). In the USA as of ~2021, for example, "liberal" floats near [leftism](politics-leftism.md) while "conservative" can broadly sit either near "libertarianism" or conventional "conservatism", depending on how much [influence](influence.md) people believe the government ought to have.

APPLICATION: The image of politically extreme [zealots](trust.md) is more [dramatic](mind-feelings.md) than the average person's honest views, so most [large-scale media](stories-storytellers.md) likes to promote those people. 90% of the people of any given party do *not* believe that way, and it's often [bigotry](image.md) to [believe](understanding-certainty.md) they do. Ironically, the "horseshoe effect" means extreme political values curve back toward the same pathway to totalitarianism.

APPLICATION: Political debates become fiercely heated from [philosophical](philosophy.md) differences in how we [believe](understanding-certainty.md) people can become [evil](morality-evil.md). Conservatives tend to [believe](understanding-certainty.md) evil is bad [choices](people-decisions.md) that lead to [circumstances](results.md), while liberals tend to [believe](understanding-certainty.md) evil is [circumstances](results.md) that lead to bad [choices](people-decisions.md).

Most of this contention comes through a series of inter-related conflicts:

- An intergroup conflict about nuances regarding who should lead.
- Conflicts inside the group about the correct [image](image.md) to portray, which reflects the [values](values.md) the majority finds most [important](purpose.md).
- Conflicts between groups, with the declared leader advancing the necessary [image](image.md) forward to let the public make their [decision](people-decisions.md).

## Defining

Political spectra are difficult to define, but free societies create a few constants.

All [political conflicts](people-conflicts-war.md) are driven by philosophically irreconcilable opinions on who should have power. This comes from where they believe society's chronic issues come from:

- Conservatives believe in preserving civilization by suppressing [savage urges](mind-feelings.md), which requires consistently taking from anyone who crosses [boundaries](people-boundaries.md).
- Progressives believe [society's leadership](groups-large.md) has many [moral oppressions](morality.md) they must [fix and atone for](politics-leftism.md), which requires consistently taking from anyone with more [power](power.md) and giving to those with less.

However, both conservatives and liberals run the risk of abusing their power, meaning that too far in either spectrum becomes an oppressive, [unjust](morality-justice.md) society with punitive [rules](rules-methods.md) ("horseshoe effect").

Conservatives believe in natural law:

- [Humanity](humanity.md) has inherent [value](values-quality.md), but must experience [consequences](results.md) for their [decisions](people-decisions.md). This makes the death penalty acceptable and abortion bad.
- Individual [morality](morality.md) is irrespective of what an individual [interprets](image.md). Thus, the [laws](people-rules.md) and sentencing should still stand even with a tragic [story](stories.md) behind a [bad decision](people-decisions.md).
- Each person is at least partly responsible for the [consequences](results.md) they've brought upon themselves. Others can extend [grace](people-love.md), but it's not a [requirement](people-rules.md).

Progressives believe natural law is relative, nonexistent, or doesn't matter:

- Humanity only has [value](values-quality.md) according to others' [purposes](purpose.md), and the State is the highest [authority](people-decisions.md) over all [consequences](results.md). This makes abortion acceptable and the death penalty bad.
- Individual [morality](morality.md), aggregated, is group morality. Thus, [laws](people-rules.md) should flow from individual [perceptions](image.md), and sentencing should judge [intent](purpose.md) more than [consequences](results.md).
- [Reality](reality.md) is too [uncertain](trust.md) for everyone's consequences to be [just](morality-justice.md). It's the duty of the State to intervene to [make things right](politics-leftism.md).

APPLICATION: [Gender](gender.md) roles can easily fit into both conservative and liberal molds.

- On the conservative side, females prefer its [safety](safety.md) and makes prefer its conquest of the [unknown](unknown.md) via historical precedent.
- For liberals, females prefer the heightened aspirations for [agreeableness](people-conflicts.md), and males can conquer the unknown through novelty.

Further, in the midst of the two poles, other value systems diverge from the spectrum by emphasizing individuals' freedom:

- Liberals believe everyone should be free to do as they please, with the government serving as the provider or enforcer of those freedoms. They'll often believe in solving it by making government bureaus or oversight committees.
- Libertarians believe everyone should be free to do as they please, so *any* redistribution of power would impede others' freedoms. They'll frequently believe in solving it with deregulation.

One of the most complicated problems about any of this political discussion comes in how people frequently want their [freedoms](people-boundaries.md), but tend to evade the [responsibilities](meaning.md) required to maintain them. This pattern creates a cycling trend ("Tytler's Civilization Cycle") that leaves people in various states of [slavery](slavery.md) and freedom.

APPLICATION: If everyone were given complete freedom, but also complete responsibility to maintain those freedoms, only high-conscientiousness [personalities](personality.md) would want it. Everyone else is willing to give up at least some of their freedoms for [security](safety.md), which guarantees a perpetual risk of a [tyrant](morality-evil.md) taking advantage of them.

This becomes even *more* complicated because many political parties can adapt and change as a group. "Conservative" groups may adopt [new trends](trends.md), and "liberal" groups may try to maintain their political establishment.

It also doesn't matter in another sense, since it's all built around [trust](trust.md) In a way, everyone is a unique flavor of political values:

- At the largest-scale level, they're often libertarian unless they're a globalist. Most people don't want other nations' activities influencing their personal lives.
- At the state level, they're often conservative or liberal, context-depending.
- At the local level, they may swap from their state affiliation.
- At the [family](family.md) and [friends](people-friends.md) level, they're often a type of low-level socialist (since they value them enough to sacrifice for the collective good).


Finally, human politics have a nasty, irreconcilable paradox that transcends *any* political solution:

1. Completely abolishing public property would guarantee [tyranny](power.md) to the degree that someone could defeat the [unknown](unknown.md) and force others to use their services.
2. Removing all private property would not only remove tyranny, but also any sense of [responsibility](meaning.md) ("tragedy of the commons").
3. Even if the [unknown](unknown.md) persists indefinitely, the absence of [love](people-love.md) means people will constantly forbid others who desperately need something, sometimes to the point of death.
4. The solution for tyrannical power abuse is to destroy it before it takes over everything.
5. One of the most just places to destroy tyranny is when power transfers from one [generation](people-family.md) to the next (i.e., inheritance and inheritance tax).
6. However, since parents [love](people-love.md) their children more than society, they will find ways to secretly transfer that power to their children, even if the children were given *complete* equality of situation (e.g., all receive the same [education](education.md) and starting income).
7. Punishing any parents will mean the entrusted children will conspire to destroy the social system, since they're not getting what they want and have the reckless [power of youth and time](maturity.md) to exact their revenge.