Historically speaking, did civilization thrive and prosper more under the liberal left or the conservative right?

I like it when retards like you come to an anonimous image board and like to imagine they're part of some clique when nobody really gives a shit about you. Seriously. "us"? Who the fuck are you? Fuck off. I'm me. You're nobody. Don't cling to me you pathetic little bitch.

>this is what SJWs actually believe

USA needed both, had the liberals been in charge from the beginning USA would never have expanded, but instead would have stayed huddled up on the east coast likely becoming a puppet of Britain or some other European nation until the natives finally had a population explosion and they turned into a western hemisphere Rhodesia or something.

At the same time without them holding the more belligerent half of the USA back it would have kept going on the SPQR style conquer and enslave all the way through to Patagonia long after that sort of thing became of social faux pas internationally.

Liberal and left as well as conservative and right are not the same things.
Also, what's liberal and what's conservative has somewhat changed over time.
Generally the recipe that works the best is not really one sided it's freedom and rights + rule of law/legal state + strong institutions.
It basically means authoritarian government, be it left, right, center, whatever, generally don't produce long term results, and can at best lead to short term improvement.

The liberal left is in power. Every single capitalist in America is annoying bleeding heart liberal.

>did civilization thrive and prosper through relative terms?

Yes it did

Neither politics nor civilizations are football games and it's something much more complex than that thankfully.

>Every single capitalist in America is annoying bleeding heart liberal.

Prove it.

Also, nations are prisoners of their geography. So there's that element.

"We" are people who actually fucking understand history and the humanities, you pleb.

Now fuck off back to your hugbox.

>The liberal left is in power in the US

Howling. 90% of democrats are about as right wing as most conservative European parties

I didn't say politicians. I said capitalists.

The people who have most of the money aren't right-wing.

Warren Buffett literally panders to people who want to raise taxes on the rich all the time.

>capitalism
>left

The "liberal elite" is a fallacy you've concocted from a tiny minority of the rich.

The US is an overwhelmingly right wing culture and society.

b-b-but my home room teacher was a feminist...

>was
>Implying he's left highschool

>The "liberal elite" is a fallacy you've concocted from a tiny minority of the rich.

Yeah, a tiny minority of obscenely rich.

2000 people in the world own 7.67 trillion dollars, and most of these people are bourgeois liberal Americans.

A TINY MINORITY of the obscenely wealthy.

Say this out loud a few times over until you realise how you're being a moron.

>He thinks the liberal middle class are the same as the hyper wealthy

this is why americans need to be banned from Veeky Forums.

Also anyone who isn't a student or doesn't have a degree.

>liberal
A term that originally meant the desire for wanting less state intervention in civil and economic matters. In most of Europe, it keeps that meaning, while in the US the word for that would be Libertarian, and both post-Clinton Democrats and non-Trump Republicans support free market (liberal) policies.

>conservative
A term that originally meant non-liberal and thus "right wing", which was linked to mercantilistic economic policies such as protectionism and maintenance of traditional social values. The original conservatism is extinct for the most part. Protectionism went to Workers' Parties, which don't really exist in the US. Traditional social values remained the core of conservative parties, but these also adopted liberal economic policies.

>left
A term that means "change".

>right
A term that means "status quo". Synonymous with conservative.

But in reality, parties that follow "philosophies" tend to do badly. Actual political parties usually follow a completely different thing: demographics.

In the US, the Republican Party is considered "Right Wing Conservative" Party, but in effect they are the "rural party" since Ronald Reagan, who crafted their winning formula to get those voters since his election after calculating that rural voters were discontent with the Democrats. Thus the Republican policies are:
Christian in civil liberties: Because rural voters are always more religious than city people.
Liberal in economy: Partly to cash-in on communist fears, but also because the liberal economic model has invariably shown to be good for commodity exports (the thing produced in rural areas).
Interventionist in foreign relationships: To cash-in on communist fears, which were linked to the worker syndicates that used to be part of the Democrat demographic before Bill Clinton.

Depends on what you mean by thrive and prosper and what you mean by left and right.

Let's take America in the 60's and 70's. They did progress economically, but in some issues they worsened morally. Drug use, promiscuity and plenty of other issues became much worse in that era and their effects are seeing even today. The generation that grew up in that era have much worse negative outcomes in a bunch of issues.

Also, left and right, liberal and conservative are different in different countries.

What usually leads to economic growth is gains in technology.

Historically speaking, empires have fallen shortly after they adopted liberal ideals.
Every.
Single.
Time.

/pol/ here. This fag isn't one of us. He's some dumbass who wandered here from Reddit who hasn't lurked nearly enough and should not be posting. Pay him no mind. Soon he will realize that 4chans boards actually ARE a community of people who have similar mindsets and regardless of our debauchery it IS possible to have open ended discussions over differences in opinion so long as one is willing to listen to the other party. Lurk moar kid, and tell your friends to do the same.

>that image
>actually, unironically believing that late Empire was somehow "liberal"