That's why I included a link to the definition of success.

But as a society, as a practical matter, we do know what success is.  Some people may lament what the consensus of success is but to deny that there is a general consensus in our society would be naive.

In my experience, one person's success is rarely detrimental to other people's success.  If someone is charging too much for coal, then a competitor will come in and undercut them.

It's hard to be successful in ruthless exploitation unless you're a monopoly on a resource or service which is very unusual.

Like I said, as a society we have a general consensus on what success is. When you talk to normal people, i.e. people not like us, in a casual adult gathering people can use the word "successful" and everyone has the same general idea even if some of the particulars are different.

My inlaws are horribly liberal, to the extent that they make John Kerry look Conservative! But they are all from academia.. My father inlaw is a Professor, his wife owned her own large scale child care company, and now teaches. Both extremely successful and wealthy. So I would find it pretty hard to say that *ALL* liberals are less successful than conservatives. But in a general sense, I think you are right.

I've met more successful conservatives, than I have liberals. I've been conservative my entire life, and I think for the last 15 years i've been extremely successful. My dad was conservative, and he was a millionaire, and fully successful in all terms of the word. 4 of my friends are die-hard liberals, and they are relatively unsuccessful.. 2 of them have made $10 an hour for the last 5 years, and show no signs of improvement. The other 2 are factory workers, and have been liberal for life.

So i'd almost say, the conserative ideal, puts one into a more goal oriented frame of mind - or would that be stretching it? Of course, this is barring Academic type people, but they aren't generally the norm outside of academia.

I agree that, within American society as a whole, it is possible to reach a consensus about the definition of success. Webster's defines consensus as "general agreement" (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=consensus) but then goes on to equate it with unanimity. In a society as diverse as ours, I don't think we will see unanimity on any meaningful issues ever again, if we ever did.

There are many societies, however, where success and morality don't even mix. A successful marriage is one that produces many children. A successful carreer is one in which you can provide for your family's health and material well-being. Look at Asian cultures where there is a very strong sense of "we're in this together", yet there is a very strong drive to out score and out perform the competition.

I see these terms of having more political meaning than anything else. These meanings include (a) do you like your government big or small? and ( with which group of stereotypes are you more comfortable being grouped? Of course there is more than one kind of conservative and more than one kind of liberal, so this is a false dichotomy, just like all dichotomies.

Perhaps the answers to our questions about success have more to do with the historical period in which we live than anything else. If we can agree with the stereotypes for a moment, self-made successes are more likely to be conservatives, and second generation successes are more likely to be "compassionate" liberals, saddled with the guilt of benefiting from something they feel they didn't earn. Isn't that a lot like where America finds itself now? For most of the 20th century, America was a self-made success. Now we find ourselves with an increasingly indirect economy, outsourcing our production, and confronted by the threat of depending on foreign resources. We're like a country of second generation successes who are smart enough to realize we need to be much more like our predecessors or get left behind.

hmmmmm.... but to be in business you have to take risks.



Ok, ok I know what your saying.

The call-word of conservatism is "be your own man". The call-word of liberalism is "we're in this together".

Liberalism as defined by Merriam-Webster

1) the quality or state of being liberal
2) a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
3) a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
4) a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

Seems to me that liberalism by definition better represents "being your own man". Seems an aweful lot of conservatives confuse liberalism with socialism or communism.

In any case if you truly believe that the value of self-reliance leads to success you would more likely be a strong advocate of the libertarian party.

Independent1 - liberal and conservative in US politics bears little resemblance to their dictionary definitions.

Brad, from what I can see you've defined success (as you say, your view of success) as being something that is more easily gained by people who have conservative values - those who put themselves and their close families first ahead of "everyone". I hardly think it's a surprise that the objectives of someone with conservative ideals are more easily met by people with those ideals, because that is what you're aiming for in the first place! As you say, it's a chicken or egg question - which comes first, the definition of success or the people who aim for that definition of it?

I would not be impressed if the more "successful" people in your view happen to be conservative. I would expect that to be the case. I would argue that it is whether people are successful in their own eyes that is more important - because they have defined what success is for themselves, and therefore success becomes a question of "did you fulfil your goals in life, or not?"

Independent1 - liberal and conservative in US politics bears little resemblance to their dictionary definitions

Of course they don't but my point is conservativism in US politics today has no more to do with "being your own man" than liberalism.
Maybe the growing population of Independents are actually the the ones who carry the value of "being their own man"?