Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Liberal vs Conservative, which are you Buddhist?
I am interested in how Buddhism can improve our society as well as my own spirituality. Here are questions.
[1] What do you define "liberal" and "conservatvie"?
[2] Are you liberal, or conservative, according to your own definition?
[3] How do you justify your view on "liberal vs conservative" based on Buddhism?
Hope your opinions. Thanks.
[1] What do you define "liberal" and "conservatvie"?
[2] Are you liberal, or conservative, according to your own definition?
[3] How do you justify your view on "liberal vs conservative" based on Buddhism?
Hope your opinions. Thanks.
0
Comments
I certainly can't speak for all Buddhists but I don't really expect any political parties, whether they call themselves liberal or conservative or whatever, to make the world a better place. This is because there seems to be a large tendency to promise one thing and deliver another. Whether or not it was their intention not to deliver from the start or whether things just didn't work out the way they had hoped, I am not sure, but this is how it appears to me.
Obviously some governments are much better than others when it comes to respecting the needs and rights of its people, but I doubt we will ever see a perfect or ideal government in this lifetime.
How is this view remotely related to Buddhism? The world is unsatisfactory. Even if we were to establish some kind of utopian society where everyone coexisted peacefully, it wouldn't last forever. Like all things, eventually it would decline and the same old social and political problems that have repeated themselves throughout history would resurface under a new banner. Plus we'd still have aging, sickness and death even with the best possible government. Maybe I am just cynical though.
What are your views?
With Metta,
Guy
[1]Liberal - free, unfettered and relaxed
Conservative - straight-laced, occasionally anally retentive and somewhat fixed.
[2]I'm definitely a liberal in tastes and can be conservative in principles. But it's all a moveable feast....
[3] It's fairly self explanatory.
conservative = seeking to conserve the status quo
2. Conservative liberal. My prime conservative motive is the conservation of the natural environment and curbing human population growth.
3. The Buddha was a radical. Today, society needs radical change.
Cheers, Thomas
I belong to the left-wing in Denmark, more accurately the Red/Green Party (I'm not a member, but I vote for them. I'm not a member because I don't want to be in a position where I have to defend a possible bad idea they get. I like my independence).
The left-wing, especially the Social-Democrats by cooperating with the Workers Unions, have been the driving factor in establishing today's welfare society.
I do not think it doesn't matter what kind of society you live in, good or bad, because it will eventually crumble. Again, not everybody share a Buddhist view on the world, and though the Buddhist through realizing impermanence may be able to withstand more torment than you average fellow, this same average fellow will lack that insight. That does not mean that said person does not deserve a happy, fulfilling life where he can experience a healthy, secure existence. We are all responsible for establishing and maintaining a society where people are free, secure, respected and healthy. This applies to nature including animals to the extent possible - agriculture and the raising of animals for food is necessary, both making parts of nature suffer. Even though every human being could potentially be vegetarian, we would need to make animals into food for domestic animals (cats i.e., who cannot live properly without certain amino acids only found in meat).
Two sides of the same coin.
[2] Are you liberal, or conservative, according to your own definition?
Neither. I'm a Panarchist, structurally a Holarchist, and economically in favor of a resource based economy. I'm against the monetary system, the army, the Illuminati hierarchy, and all other systems of control .
[3] How do you justify your view on "liberal vs conservative" based on Buddhism?
Well, as someone previously mentioned, Buddha was a radical. He was against the Indian caste government and his ideals seem to indicate that he's completely anti-authority.
.
Hi, Guy. My motivation for this thread is that I have noticed that there is a relation beween individual's linberal/conservative tendency and what he/she likes. Examples,
[1] Esperantists are likely to be more "liberal" than average.
[2] Christians are generaly more "conservative" than the others.
[3] "Liberal" people are likely to speak more logicaly than average. Conservatives like to cite authorities in debates.
The above [1]-[3] are from my observations. My notion of "liberal" and "conservative" are rather vague, but I like to define things as,
[1]
liberal = open minded of new experieces
conservative = like clinging to one's circumstances.
[2]
I think I am liberal.
[3]
This is the point. I expected I would find more liberal people among Buddhists, because Buddha teached the emptiness of the world, that is against conservative attitude toward the traditions: Everything is always changing, nothing is eternal. Buddhism seems to require more open mindedness of changes and new experiences.
I think sometimes goverments plicies can go against Buddhism. It seems very possible of Buddhist ideal of "not wanting, least wanting" to be victimized for economic purposes. That is where I think Buddhism can be related to some political streams. My view.
Thanks.
Edit: Sorry for editing my post repeatedly. Suddenly I got confused which prepostion "to" or "of" is appropriate to the context...
1) I generally use the normal work-a-day definitions
2) Neither - I take each issue or question on it's own individual merits rather than from an ideological standpoint
3) I don't
I personally find them meaningless and the ideologies that they describe are in my opinion destructive and divisive.
I choose neither.
Buddhism is not a political ideology. A Buddhist can be right or left of center no problem, but if you are at the extreme end of either pole you have lost your bearings.
This is true. Often times people make an assumption that Buddhists are politically liberal, and it may be true that most are but we all know what they say about assumptions.
Well, your opinions will generally form around some kind of philosophical standpoint. It has to, if you're to avoid getting into some serious performative inconsistency. This philosophical base will have a political idea attached.
As humans and consumers we cannot be "neutral". Even when buying the simplest groceries we make political choices - Fair trade or exploitation of workers, organic or suffering to nature, "made in China" or support of national workers etc.
Even growing your own food in your garden is a political choice - it's a sign of primitivism, possibly anarcho-primitivism.
If we say we support no political party, but buy products from, say, Procter&Gamble, we support a company who refuses not to use animals in product testing and tries to fight NGO's trying to better the life of animals. Thereby we support both capitalism, big industry, conservative parties (who cooperate with the industry) and we help fight green parties (who work for the betterment of nature and humans), animal welfare organizations and worker rights.
Unlike Buddhism, Liberals try to end suffering/dissatisfaction by use of the state. It's a never-ending battle against the unfairness of reality.
It is not to no avail. While we cannot save the world for everyone, we can at least try. We can make more equal societies where minorities aren't suffering from racism, where workers are paid a salary to live of, where free time is for everyone, where anyone can go to a hospital without thinking about the price, where crime is a rarity and where everyone has food, clothes and a place to live..
THAT is compassion - to care about each other and the world.. Not to hide behind some abstract idea of impermanence and dhukka (true as it might be).
I would respectfully disagree with that. So-called "Christians" who identify themselves with the evangelical side of things tend to be so (note I used quotes around the word Christian). Many other Christians of different sects are quite liberal in their views by American standards. Look at many who took part in the anti-war movement during Vietnam and the civil rights struggle.
I used quotes above because in my experience a large percentage of those who self-identify as evangelicals are anything but Christian in their views and beliefs. They haven't read the same bible I have, and they surely don't practice the ways taught by Jesus, unless you count the stuff in Levticus about stoning people to death (wasn't there a commandment about that?).
I agree with the post above about Obama. Like most politicians, he promised a lot, and hasn't delivered much of it. I'm about as far left as it's possible to be, so I guess I'll always be disappointed in politics. He could do a lot of things by fiat, but he hasn't because he's afraid of losing power. And it's all about power and money. And money and power. It's not about doing what's right.
Mtns
However I am willing to let bygones be bygones sir.
Trans. Holarchy, as in AQAL and Spiral Dynamics, if that is what you are talking about, is an intersting model for politics etc. IMO. I been giving you a hard time, but if you want to talk about that via PM sometime (minus the conspiracy woopsy woo) lets do it.:)
I consider myself neither. Or both. Which is more or less the same.
So you're the one... I've been looking for you for a long time! I have "the present" I have to deliver to you.
With warmth,
Matt
Interesting enough, the use of these term in the U.S. is a bit different than how they're normally used abroad. For example, liberalism is defined as a political-economic system "emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" (Merriam Webster). Nevertheless, here in the U.S., this is closer to the position of so-called "conservative" parties such as the Republicans and Libertarians. So, for the sake of convenience, I generally tend to define liberal as "left-leaning" and conservative as right-leaning."
Yes in the sense that I'm left-leaning, but I'm quite far to the left, so I generally consider myself a democratic socialists (e.g., Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, Howard Zinn, etc.) more than I do a liberal.
My political-economic views were actually influenced a great deal by my Buddhist beliefs and practices. Before I became interested in Buddhism, I had no political-economic views to speak of—I was completely uninterested in political economy whatsoever. After years of studying and practicing Buddhism, however, I began to take more of an interest. This was partially due to cultivating compassion.
It became clear to me that the world was imperfect, that there is and always has been suffering in the world. I also realized, of course, that it can't be "fixed," but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to do what we can to make things better.
Buddhism itself is compatible with pretty much any political-economic system (e.g., see Are Capitalism and Buddhism incompatible?), but the way Buddhism has affected me has lead me to adopt more socialist-leaning views. As Einstein put it, "the real purpose of socialism is... to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development" (Why Socialism?), and I have a hard time not getting involved when I see what I perceive to be people being preyed upon by greed, hatred and delusion.
I don't think that a socialist system of production — a system in which collectively owned and democratically controlled production is based on need rather than profit — will solve all of the world's problems, but I do think it has the potential to help limit the economic and societal conditions that foster things like greed and violence, as well as to give a stronger voice to local populations in areas such as economic planning and its potential environment and social impacts, the utilization of local natural resources and/or the distribution of wealth associated with those resources, etc.
I'm also more left-leaning because the left, at least here in the U.S., is pro-equal rights, and not only fights for things like the rights of minorities and victims of discrimination (e.g., LGBTQ), women's reproductive rights, universal healthcare, etc., but fights against things like aggressive U.S. imperialism, the bullshit "War on Drugs," etc. That's not to say that people on the right don't also fight for or against these things as well, but more often than not, they're on the opposite side of where I stand.
Well said.
From a strictly American standpoint...
1) Liberals generally believe in more centralized government. They believe that government exists to provide services (welfare/housing/etc) to those less privileged and resdistribute wealth from one class to another. Government involvement/intervention in the economy is favored over the free market.
Conservatives by and large believe in a smaller government whose primary function is maintaining law and order, as well as national defense. They generally oppose intervention in the economy and favor the free market as well as lower taxes.
I would not say that either side of the spectrum is more militaristic or interventionist on the world stage. While the Right is today associated with interventionism, historically it has been liberal administrations that preside over foreign wars in the past century. (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam)
2) I am a conservative. (Classical Liberal)
3) Not just Buddhism, but most religions demand an individual morality from its adherents. Jesus and the Buddha preached that charity and compassion is a must for individuals. But they did not seriously lecture on the particularities of government and its functions. I don't think in that sense that religions can be categorized politically, except for perhaps Islam which is by nature political in a way that others are not.