Take your pick. If you prefer to live in the past you will probably call yourself a conservative. If you live in the future you may call yourself a liberal. The past is static, the future is dynamic. The past is concretized history while the future is yet to be experienced. Conservatism can be an encumbrance. Liberalism can be liberating. Conservatism often represents the idea, “we never did it that way before.” Liberalism usually represents discovery and implementation. I find it exciting and rewarding to live with the future in mind and with those of like thinking who prefer to leave the shackles of the past behind. It is liberating and generally free of prejudice. Within the liberal camp prejudices are not welcome, though tolerated, as they are based on past observations. One resists change to remain comfortable with the familiar, a typical conservative reaction. Breaking out of one’s mindset is hard to do if seeking comfort and idealism based on past experience and concretized knowledge. If one is liberal then one is progressive. If one is conservative then one is a preservationist.
Definitions from dictionary.com:
lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
Adjective
Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Noun
A person of liberal views.
Synonyms
generous – bounteous – lavish – bountiful – free
con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
About Ed Anderson
I am "non-religious", not an atheist as some suppose, since after reading what I have written many wonder if I believe in "God", I just don't have a name for the concept, "God", nor do I have an origination story or theological mystery tour to stretch your faith. (I have no proof of what I believe and I wonder if my belief in "God" is supportable as I have increasing doubts.) I just can't accept an inflexible point of view that says, "I know what you need, and I know what you should know and here it is, you can have it too." Religionists present yet another obstacle to finding "truth" as they claim to have succeeded exclusively in finding it.
Having been a part of the religious scene for years it is clear to me how easily duped we are to believe in something we have no proof of, has caused an abundance of divisions, and "territorialized" people into believers and non-believers.
Furthermore, my belief in "God" equates to the larger perspective which includes an awareness of "God" in everything. I speculate at times whether or not consciousness is "God" So, my belief in "God" does not necessarily match up to the Christian/Judaeo tradition of a being existing somewhere in the beyond or in one's "heart". If there is a "God" he/she/it could be anywhere and in anything.
Though I believe in God, it is not a belief in the God of Scripture. Too many “holes” in Scripture to satisfy my inquiring mind. It may indeed point me in the right direction but I find it not only unreliable but full of plagiaristic thought and re-writing of some of history’s interesting solutions. I much prefer to trust the minds of men and women who conjecture on the basis of what we now know of our universe than those men and women who trust the minds of ancient spiritual guides who, in turn, contributed to a book allegedly “inspired” by God. It is all unprovable, either side of this argument, but I prefer to invest most of my thinking in current ideas rather than those that show little support in logic. Do I hear an "Amen"?
View all posts by Ed Anderson
Thoughts on Thoughts 
Leave a Reply