Has it ever occured to you guys that the distinction between 'liberal' and 'conservative' is so artificial and parties tend to try to differentiate themselves by labelling someone one of the above, when in fact, the differences between parties is often so small. The two dimensional political spectrum is really outdated to a time when parties fought over conflicting ideologies (notably 19th century until the end of the cold war). Nowadays, main parties agree on ideologies but just disagree on how to do things in a practical manner.
If one makes an empirical list, being objective, of all the things both parties are for and against, i bet you that the for column will be maybe 5 times bigger than the against column.
That is the political reality of globalisation...political parties must all be pro-multinationals (and pro-business in general) because they are too big to be against (out of the top 100 economic entities 51 are multinationals and 49 are countries).
One must also understand that 'conservative' parties borrow 'liberal' ideas just as much vice versa. That is constant throughout the world and to make generalisations that someone is a 'true conservative' is like saying someone is really 'white'.
If one makes an empirical list, being objective, of all the things both parties are for and against, i bet you that the for column will be maybe 5 times bigger than the against column.
That is the political reality of globalisation...political parties must all be pro-multinationals (and pro-business in general) because they are too big to be against (out of the top 100 economic entities 51 are multinationals and 49 are countries).
One must also understand that 'conservative' parties borrow 'liberal' ideas just as much vice versa. That is constant throughout the world and to make generalisations that someone is a 'true conservative' is like saying someone is really 'white'.
