You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Randaly comments on Open thread, July 29-August 4, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: David_Gerard 29 July 2013 10:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (381)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Randaly 30 July 2013 09:44:42PM *  1 point [-]

At least in the US since the 60's, another way to divide conservatives has been in the party's three big issues: economic classical liberalism, social conservatism, and foreign-policy neo-conservatism. The moderate, short-term goals of these groups are sometimes in alignment, but their desired end-states look very different:

  • Neo-conservatives want a big military and an aggressive foreign policy, whereas classical liberals hate war and want to shrink the military, along with the rest of the government; and religious conservatives (generally- the prevalence of the other groups has lead to abnormalities in the most famous preachers) hate war and love peace.

  • Religious conservatives are generally fine with the welfare state and regulations, and support restrictive social laws; whereas classical liberals hate all of the above.

  • Classical liberals want to shrink (or drown) the government, which both of the other groups oppose for various reasons: some to most religious conservatives like environmentalism and the idea of a safety net, and neoconservatives love the military.

There's also a distinction between traditional politicians who support negotiation, moderation, and compromise, and the Tea Party-backed groups who don't.