Doper poll: what makes us take the sides we do?

[Stoid]

(The topic is intrinsically debatable, so it is here.)

As many of you are very aware, some months back I made some assertions about the nature of conservative philosophy. I’m not going to reiterate what they were here, but I bring them up as introduction to the question I am sincerely pondering and I seek your answers to.

What makes a liberal a liberal and a conservative a conservative?

I’m not asking for a recitation of the positions held by each, we can all do that with a fair degree of accuracy.

No, what I’ve been thinking about is the fact that if a person believes, for instance, that welfare is a good thing in some form or another, there is a high degree of probability that they will also have a fairly strong interest and concern about environmental protection. It’s also a good bet that such a person is a pretty strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose, inheiritance taxes, some kind of affirmative action, equal rights for homosexuals, less emphasis on military spending, etc.

By the same token, a person who is for lots of military spending is probably down on welfare and abortion and inheritance tax and up on drilling for oil in Alaska, logging in the Pacific Northwest, and big fat tax cuts.

My point is this: what is the underlying thread that ties disparate ideas together? Of course there are people who are a conservative on issue A and liberal on issue B, but this board is a fair example of the predictability of most people’s positions based on just a few. But why is this? What makes wanting to save the whales like wanting to preserve abortion like not wanting vouchers and not wanting more military spending? What is it about wanting to abolish the inheritance tax that is like wanting to spend more on the military that is like being agsainst abortion that is like being against welfare that is like being unconcerned about environmental destruction in pursuit of resources?

Please don’t pick apart my examples…I trust that my fellow dopers are plenty smart enough to get my point without necessarily agreeing with my examples.

This all relates to my infamous thoughts about conservative in that I put forth my ideas about what does make a conservative. Many, probably most of you jumped all over me about my opinions on the subject, so I’m asking for yours. What is the underlying philosophy that ties the disparate issues together for each of the two sides? Why is someone who is a "tree-hugger" more than likely also an abortion supporter and a gun-control advocate? How are these attitudes related? Ditto conservative attitudes.

Having stated what I’m looking for several times, I now stand back and look forward to your answers. I hope you will each offer your opinions about both sides of the aisle.

stoid

[Stratocaster]

I know you didn't ask for a recitation of positions, but here's a few that might make a point:

I'm pro-life, pro-affirmative action, against the death penalty, pro-school voucher, for gay rights and if you forced me to pick a side right this second, I'd probably be against the estate tax.

Not sure what political position this places me in. If I were to summarize the thread that runs through my philosophy it is:

1. We are all obliged to protect and nurture each other, particularly the weakest, the most injured or most innocent among us. That obligation may be, but is not necessarily, a legal one. It is always an ethical obligation.

2. Personal rights--the right to live, the right to own property, the right to choose one's own destiny through one's will and effort--are largely inviolable to the extent they don't infringe upon someone else's "higher" rights (e.g., your right to live trumps might "right" to drive drunk). This is a tougher one to be consistent on (and is more subject to exceptions, perhaps).

[RTFirefly]

Good question, Stoid. And I'd agree with Bob Cos that, very often, things don't line up so nicely.

For instance, I'm a liberal on most issues, but I'm very much a conservative with respect to protecting children from what I perceive as unhealthy media influences of various sorts, and my stance on abortion pisses off both sides.

I was 'green' on environmental issues back when I was still a Republican. At that point, I was a conservative on most economic issues, a liberal on social issues - IOW, tending towards libertarian - but figured that the natural world needed protecting, and only an entity on the scale of the Federal government could do that job effectively. I doubt I thought about it that specifically 25 years ago, but if I had, I think I would have concluded all along that environmental protection was more essential than property rights. So there's always been some distance between me and true-blue libertarians.

Still, 20 years or so ago, Pat Buchanan and Tom Braden had a radio show in DC where they'd debate the issues. I usually sided with Buchanan. How I got from there to here is probably a longer story than anyone here wants to be bored with. :)

[IzzyR]

I would be very surprised if liberals were not, on average, more emotional than conservatives.

[David B]

More emotional as in less rational, or as in caring more for other people?

[Sterra]

I would think it breaks down on a geographic level. Liberals in big citys and republicans in more rural areas.

[SuaSponte]

I would say that the common theme of my political beliefs is that persons or governments should not be allowed to take actions that unreasonably harm others.

I've often taken the liberal side of arguments here, and have even occasionally self-identified myself as a liberal, but I'm not a liberal in the current definition of the term. I'm really a classical liberal.
I am a rabid (modern) liberal on social issues because what people do in their own lives doesn't affect others, and is therefore none of our concern.
OTOH, I am a rabid free-marketeer and capitalist. The three areas where I would disagree with my conversative comrades are workplace safety, product safety, and environmental issues. The first two because they harm others, and it is unreasonable to do so in these contexts to make a few more bucks. The third because it harms others and, because they are hidden costs, only society as a whole (through government) can act on them.

[Morrison's Lament]

Here is my position, unpopular as it may be. I am studying sociology and psychology at the moment, so maybe I'll post back when I get my masters ;)

We all have certain issues that are of paramount importance to our being. What I mean by this is that there are certain things on which most people will not compromise, I believe this is the basis for their choice of political and social position.

However, many things are confusing to us as laymen, and other things we simply don't have any informational basis to form an oppinion on. When we find a group that will accept our fundamental views of life and truth, such matters are not important anymore. In other words, we settle for the (party)/(social ideals) that we find most compatible with our fundamental views and settle for their views on the issues that are less important to us. This is the basis for the two party system, as much as it is the basis for democratic political structure as a whole.

My essay on the subject is pending a grade, I hope it at least passes on the boards, if not at the University ;)

--- G. Raven

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by IzzyR
I would be very surprised if liberals were not, on average, more emotional than conservatives.
On economics, you may be right. On social issues, I think you are dead wrong. What rational effect does a woman 1,000 miles away having an abortion have on a conservative? How does a teenage girl being a Wiccan rationally affect the life of anyone else? Ditto homosexuality, etc.?

Hell, a good chunk of my social liberalism is born of apathy. You're gay? I don't care. And I will fight for my right to not care. :D

Sua

[Sofa King]

I think there is a rather simple answer for at least part of your question, at least in America.

With but two parties, when one desires to best represent him/herself, one must choose one major party or the other (Nader fans, take note).

I'm all about abortion, civil rights, taxing the wealthy in proportion to their increased power and freedom, and tree-hugging. That means I had better be a liberal.

However, I'm also all about a strong military, private gun-ownership, paying off the deficit, and a large space program. Those positions are slightly less important than the abovementioned, so I have to sort of sit back and hope for the best on those. Why? Because if I were to support the party that best supports those issues, I'd be desperately searching for RU-486 on the Internet, watching corporate America return to an all white male cast, and laughing at six-legged frogs and yellow rain. That's just how it is, or rather, how I perceive it to be.

Some politicians have become aware of the difficult choices Americans must make within the two-party system, and have used it to their advantage. One of the most ingenious strategies employed by Our Greatest President, Bill Clinton, was co-opting many of the planks of the moderate section of the Republican Party, while remaining (relatively) firm on the issues most important to me.

(Nyaah, nyaah! I now have an eight-year warhorse to unfairly elevate to greatness, too! How do you like that, 'Pubs?)

By the way, I'm not a particularly emotional person.

[David B]

SuaSponte said:
What rational effect does a woman 1,000 miles away having an abortion have on a conservative? Remember that most (all) anti-abortion folks feel that way because they believe a human life is taken. So I would say that there is indeed a "rational effect" for knowing that a murder is taking place with the state's consent, whether it's next-door or 1000 miles away.

I'm not agreeing with this viewpoint, mind you, I'm just noting that it can have a rational basis.

Other than that, I'm not going to comment further on Izzy's post until he answers the question I already asked (and it's only been a few minutes since I posted it).

[frolix8]

I think it revolves around your concept of "family". If you think that the whole country, maybe even the whole world, is your family then you adopt a set of beliefs based on that. Most familys take care of their own, even when the person being cared for doesn't "deserve" it. You expect your father to be concerned about your well being and to enforce rules to ensure it. I submit that this is the modern liberal viewpoint, the government plays the role of parents and we are all children.

The other side thinks that only those who are deemed family by the individual are family, others are outsiders who have none of the family rights. Dealing with outsiders is much different from dealing with family, so this viewpoint leads to behavior that is often considered uncaring or cruel by those who adopt the "world is my family" view. People with the "outsiders" view are likely to view the other side as being somewhat naive and idealistic, with ideals that don't work well in the "real world".

[Scylla]

To me the difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is mostly pragmatic.

I was very liberal in College (liberal girlfriend.) Once I had to fend for myself in the real world I learned there's a hell of a difference between theory and practice. Things were being done the way they were done for a reason, and an outsider lacks the insight to judge or change the system. The turning point was in 1993 when the entire office rotated into 3 day seminars on sexual harassment education. These people knew nothing and they were wasting my time to falsely satisfy the corporate conscious. It'll make a conservative out of anybody.

I also realized this is what my father was talking about. He was a Recon Marine and served two terms in Vietnam, one as a forward observer and one as a sniper while my mother and young me lived at our Grandparents apartment in the Bronx. I recall how hurt and angry he was by the Hanoi Jane thing, and the lack of support and outright contempt our own soldiers were treated with in their own country for doing their duty by those who lacked the responsibility but enjoyed the benefits.

My grandfather was Chief of Narcotics for NYC at the time, and again his position and real world experience was held in contempt by those had theory, but no practice.

I despise the well-intentioned but ignorant intruder who has no respect for pragmatic existence, so I'm a Conservative.

Oddly, I think the face of liberalism is changing. It's recognizing its weaknesses and becoming more in tune with real world dynamics, and pragmatism.

I usually favor the underlyibg theory of liberal ideas, but think their execution sucks.

The pragmatic liberals of today have a lot in common with the compassionate Conservative, and if Barry Goldwater were still around I'm sure they'd be on the same team.

The real battle is between moderates and extremists (of all ilks)

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by David B
SuaSponte said:
What rational effect does a woman 1,000 miles away having an abortion have on a conservative? Remember that most (all) anti-abortion folks feel that way because they believe a human life is taken. So I would say that there is indeed a "rational effect" for knowing that a murder is taking place with the state's consent, whether it's next-door or 1000 miles away.
Fair enough point, Mr. B.. I withdraw that portion of my post.

Sua

[Hazel]

I think our upbringing is a factor. A lot of people seem to stay with the philosphy in which they were raised; others reject it (usually at some point in their teens or twenties) and do a complete about-face.

One question I'd ask is, if you are in one of these two situations -- your stands on the issues are either almost identical to those of your parents, or are exactly opposite to those of your parents -- are you really thinking for yourself at all? Or have you just accepted (or rejected), with very little thought or analysis, a "package" of opinions?

I started out in life as a complete liberal. My parents were liberals, and I accepted the package. The package included some ideas I really agreed with, and some I'd never thought about at all, just accepted unquestioningly. I still accept some of the liberal package; to me, the liberal positions will always seem normal and familiar. While conservative positions tend to seem to me to be mean-spirited, narrow-minded, and other bad things.

I'm not really a liberal any longer. I've been corrupted by exposure to libertarian ideas. Now, if I listed my positions, to someone who knew nothing of libertarianism, they'd sound like a really weird combination: some liberal stands, some conservative -- and some completely nutty.

[jshore]

I agree with Hazel that your family background can be a pretty big influence. As I described myself (in the third person) in the biographical sketch in my thesis:


Growing up in the Washington, D.C. area (not "inside the beltway," but close), he was politically-aware at an early age. After a brief period of rebellion when he was 4 and "pro-war", Joel adopted his parents' progressive ideals...


(I should hasten to add, however, that while my parents and I more-or-less agree on most major political issues, we always agree that much on which we see as the most important.)

I also think one's political views can be shaped by reaction, to things going on around you. Scylla cited one example that occurred in his job. For me, I think my last 5 years in the corporate world have made me even more outspoken in my liberal beliefs in reaction to what I see in the corporate workd...I jokingly say that if I stay there much longer, I'll become a complete socialist. You'll also notice that many immigrants from the Soviet Union are extremely conservative because they have seen what the excesses of a socialistic society can bring. Likewise, I have wondered whether my parents' own political views were influenced by the Nazis killing many of our relatives. The fact (well, my perception) that the mainland Chinese seem to be overrepresented amongst those physics grad students who have gone to Wall Street may be a manifestation of a similar phenomenon.

It is interesting to see people arguing that idealism sometimes leads one toward the liberal end of the spectrum while some hard-headed practicality pulls when back toward the conservative end. I understand where they are coming from (and, perhaps, if I went to work in government and saw how ineffective and bureaucratic that could be, I would be moving to the Right rather than the Left).

But, in many ways, I find the libertarian viewpoint to be the ultimate in a sort of naive view of the way the world actually works. In fact, from my own personal point-of-view, I see the appeal of a libertarian "maximum individual freedom" principle as perhaps the most simple and elegant axiom from which to build a political philosophy. The problem is that I think it just doesn't work for shit in the economic realm!

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

I think the decision to have whatever political views is ultimately very complex in a compounded way. We are born into a contest in America, and no matter how free we think we really are, the basic rules are always up for grabs. Many see a direct bonus is even less rules (usually they already have succeeded), and many see a need for more fairness in the rules. Regardless of rules, there are absolutes to consider: If we are born on third base, we try to steal home in desperation to score. If we are batting at the plate, we try to hit a home run, but many strike out. If we are languishing on first, we anxiously hope we are not forced out at second and take risks accordingly. Many never get even get to the plate. Note: I never watch baseball and I don't know what the hell I'm even trying to say, except that maybe that most success is arbitrary or based on dedication to greed, and to further reward this type of success with political power pretty much defines fool in my book.

[Stoid]

I'm rather disappointed in the lack of concrete addressing of my OP... most (with a couple of exceptions, notably Bob Cosof what's being said has slipped into

1) What a conservative/liberal believes/supports
and
2) Why I became a conservative/liberal (= I agree with them)
and
3) How I am neither because it depends on the issue.

Again, let me try to redirect:

What is the similarity of thought/belief/philosophy that ties attitudes about such extremely different issues together under one label? It is a given that not every Democrat/Green agrees with every Democrat/Green position, and ditto for Republican/libertarians, however, people generally tend to agree with MOST of one or the other.

In fact, let me go ahead and take it back to my dreaded Republican post: my (evil, I've been trashed thoroughly [and inaccurately, but that's beside the point] for it already, it's just an example, folks) point was this: A person starts out in life as an adult and has no idea what party they are. So they examine their belief systems and attitudes. They realize that when they think about political systems, laws, and regulations, the question they most often find themselves asking themselves is "How is this going to affect me personally?" When they look around at the different political parties and what they stand for, I maintain (still) that the party that asks that same question is the Republican or the LIbertarian party.

I repeat all this ONLY to demonstrate what I am getting at. If I am wrong, great...what I am asking you tell me is what you feel is the CORRECT answer to this question.

One of the reasons I believe this is because here and IRL I find conservatives most often use first-person pronouns when discussing their political positions, while liberals use third-person. Hardcore rightys I talk to are always amazed at how I could be against tax cuts...as a top 5-percenter (closing in on 1 percenter, cool beans!), I am going to really enjoy the benefits of such a thing. They look at me like I'm nuts when i tell them that what is good for ME is not my first consideration when I think about politics.

So, I'm really not looking for a fight, folks, I'm honestly seeking ALTERNATIVE explanations since most everyone finds mine so unacceptable, while it seems irrefutably obvious to me. (BTW: IRL, when I discuss this with rightys, including my father, he has no problem with my assessment. He isn't offended by it because he thinks it is correct, it's just that he doesn't see anything inherently wrong with it.) And I'd really like to hear it about both sides.

Well? Have I made myself clearer about what I'm seeking here? Anyone care to give it a shot?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
I don't know what the hell I'm even trying to say
:D

I think your "absolutes" are bunk. To take as anecdotal evidence: My siblings and I started on what you would probably consider third base (dad's a doctor and has done pretty well). My oldest brother and I are shooting for second base - he's in academia and I hope to follow him. My older brother is trying for home plate - he's an MBA. My older sister is content to stay at third - she's also a doc. My younger sister moved all the way back to first - she's a paralegal with a capital punishment defense organization. My youngest brother turned down home plate (a position as a trader with Goldman Sachs), and decided to bat over (he's started his own company).
Politically, except for my younger sister (the little pinko :p), our political leanings don't match up with our economic status or goals.

Sua

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Stoid
No, what I’ve been thinking about is the fact that if a person believes, for instance, that welfare is a good thing in some form or another, there is a high degree of probability that they will also have a fairly strong interest and concern about environmental protection. It’s also a good bet that such a person is a pretty strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose, inheiritance taxes, some kind of affirmative action, equal rights for homosexuals, less emphasis on military spending, etc.

By the same token, a person who is for lots of military spending is probably down on welfare and abortion and inheritance tax and up on drilling for oil in Alaska, logging in the Pacific Northwest, and big fat tax cuts.

My point is this: what is the underlying thread that ties disparate ideas together?
Don't get pissy that people aren't answering your question, Stoid. The reason no one is, is because there isn't a logical underlying thread, at least as how these ideologies have developed in the US.

The liberal who supports welfare, environmental protection, affirmative action, etc., believes that the government's role and obligation is to intervene. This is inconsistent with the belief that the government has no role in the personal choices (abortion, homosexuality, etc.) people make.

Conversely, the conservative who believes in limited government is being inconsistent when they believe that the government should intervene in social issues.

The political beliefs of most Americans is a grab bag of positions on disparate issues, and the two major parties are primarily alliances of convenience rather than ideologically driven movements.

Sua

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Sua,

I had completely different bases in mind, you're all on the same base to me.

[Guinastasia]

I wouldn't catagorize all ex-Soviets as conservative. I know a few who consider themselves liberal intellegentsia sp?), who voted for Clinton and for Gore, and look up more to Kchrushev and Gorbachev, rather than Marx, Lenin and Stalin.

As for me, I know most of you would say I'm a liberal. Fucked if I know why. I guess just most of how I FEEL about certain things goes into it. There are a few things I don't feel so great about, like affirmative action (I think it's too much of a bandaid fix, and often hurts more than it helps).

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

I think the outline you presented in the OP properly sketched a liberal as someone interested in group measurement and achievement, and a conservative generally being someone more interested in personal achievement and measurement. To me, this is why conservatism is not inconsistent with religious interests, the latter often emphasizing self-interest at its core. This is also why most progressives seek government involvement on group interests, such as environmentalism and healthcare and might explain why most conservatives seek government involvement on a personal level (which to me is an illogical extension of personal issues). What concerns me most is a suspicion I have that a few people might feel more secure with their slight wealth if dire poverty is visible to them to make their personal ahcievement measurement have greater meaning. I have no other explanation for attacks on government safety-net programs (like food stamps) that cost relatively very little, budgetwise, but mean everything to so many people. (These anti-welfare attacks were recently initiated under the guise of a new morality by Newt Gingrich, who came from a wealthy district in Georgia which depended on federal defense contracts to prosper).

[MysterEcks]

Stoid said:

A person starts out in life as an adult and has no idea what party they are.

I completely disagree--I had political opinions unrelated to those of my parents before I was 10 years old. Those opinions guaranteed that I would never be a liberal, and probably not a Democrat though my parents were registered Democrats. Granted that my views have evolved over the years, but the basis was in place long before I was old enough to vote.

Let's see, my personal stances are:

*Against infringing on the right to bear arms.

*In favor of a strong military.

*In favor of capital punishment.

*In favor of tax cuts.

*In favor of school vouchers.

*Generally opposed to government interference in the private lives of the people. (As opposed to liberals who wish to inflict their notions of propriety on everyone else.)

which sounds like I'm a conservative. But I'm also:

*In favor of gay rights, including the right to marry.

*Opposed to attempts to infringe on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

*Opposed to attempts to inject religion into government.

*Generally opposed to government interference in the private lives of the people. (As opposed to conservatives who wish to inflict their notions of propriety on everyone else.) (This would include all laws designed to regulate the sex lives of consenting adults, and virtually all drug laws.)

which make me sound pretty liberal. (Actually, for the area I live in, it makes me a flaming communist.)

So this leaves me where, exactly? I'm not a liberal, but I'm also not a conservative. I'm a social libertarian, but I can't be considered a "large-L" Libertarian. Nor can I really be considered a moderate--I believe strongly in my opinions--except in the sense that my views would probably average out somewhere in the center of the spectrum.

My solution? I'm a registered Republican (in Pennsylvania you have to register R or D to vote in the primaries) who voted for Bush because I saw him as the lesser evil compared to Gore, and who would have voted for Browne if there had been any chance he could win anything. I split my tickets as I see fit--this past election, out of eight separate votes, I voted for four Republicans, two Democrats, and two Libertarians.

As for why I have the opinions I do...it's the same as everybody else here--I've decided they are the ones that make sense.

They realize that when they think about political systems, laws, and regulations, the question they most often find themselves asking themselves is "How is this going to affect me personally?" When they look around at the different political parties and what they stand for, I maintain (still) that the party that asks that same question is the Republican or the LIbertarian party.

and

They look at me like I'm nuts when i tell them that what is good for ME is not my first consideration when I think about politics.

Nice "see, I and the wonderful Democrats are better than those evil Republicans!" contrast. When they issue a Saint Stoid medal, maybe I'll get one for my medicine cabinet--it'd make a fine emetic.

In the meantime, perhaps you can explain to me why I'm pro-gay rights though I'm not gay, pro-choice on abortion though I can't very well have an abortion, and anti-drug laws though I don't do drugs.

[IzzyR]

David BMore emotional as in less rational, or as in caring more for other people?I'm not sure if it's either, though the first is closer. It seems (from my conservative vantage point) that on many (though not all) issues, the liberal position is that which focuses on the immediate gratification, while the conservative one is that which focuses on the more abstract larger impact. E.g. welfare, where the liberal might focus on the individual who is suffering and can be relieved, while the conservative would focus on the more indirect ramifications of having a policy that did not punish the lazy and reward the diligent. Same for environmentalism, where the liberal might focus on the pollution of the atmosphere, and the conservative on the more complex cost-benefit calculation of economic impact of a proposed regulation vs. the benefit to be had. There are probably other examples of this as well, and I've been struck by this many times over the years, but these are examples that spring to mind.

I'm aware that it's not as cut and dried as I've presented it - there are many conservatives who might be focused on "those lazy welfare cheats" etc. But I believe it is true of much of the difference between conservative and liberal thought.

Also, SuaSponte's point about the difference between "morality" issues and other issues is very well taken. In the specific example of abortion, my feeling (again, reflecting my own vantage point) is that the driver behind the pro-abortion movement is a combination of feminism and the sexual revolution - outlawing abortion would put a damper on both of these.

It's difficult to find any one underlying basis for the entire "conservative" or "liberal" philosophy - there are too many disparate issues, and indeed - for this very reason - too many people whose set of beliefs cannot be fit into any particular slot. But I do think there's enough in my theory to make my position, in the manner that I presented it, true.

[Homebrew]

I think whether you tend liberal or conservative has much to do with how you see an individual's role in society.

If you tend to follow a more conservative tack, it often is linked to the religious idea that God created the Earth and then gave man dominion over the world. You see the world as made up of individuals each responsible for themselves and answerable, ultimately, only for how they survived.

Since you are responsible only for yourself, it doesn't matter that drilling oil in Alaska could decimate wildlife there. Since you're not responsible for the poor, it easy to say that they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - without your help and despite obstacles.

If you tend toward a more liberal bent, you often hold the idea that the Earth, and all life on it, are intimately linked. You believe that the actions you take affect others and therefore you are responsible for yourself and the effects of your actions.

The "web of life" view leads to more Green positions and the more liberal ideas that support a social safety net, and trickle up economics.

[El Zagna]

I remamber reading an article many many years ago by Thomas Szas (I think) in which he argued that a maternalistic/paternalistic thread carries through the liberal/conservative philosophies. Liberals saw government as a mother figure, conservatives saw it as a father figure.

So liberals would be more nurturing, forgiving, tolerant, etc. while conservatives would be more focused on success, ambition, personal responsibility, etc.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

I think the maternal-paternal phenomenon also has layering. Perhaps maternal-liberalism can be directly explained by women being socialized or expected to care directly for infants and the elderly, hence more liberal on social issues by immediate necessity, not necessarily instinct. However, the male instinct may be an issue for conservatism, if we assume that males follow a genetic tradition of eliminating the competition. I have personally noticed, for instance, that environmentalism tends to be masculine in tone, and I think environmentalism is completely misunderstood by conservatives, who seem to react to the issue in an emasculated way towards it (overly-domesticated or "wimpy").

[ITR champion]

Some fascinating discussions here. I think the basic answer in that in modern-day America, there is no common thread that runs through liberalism or conservatism because as has been pointed out several times, both include a central contradiction about the role of government.

It's interesting to think that economic debate as we know it is relatively new. It only began when Adam Smith defined the system that Western society was using, and then Karl Marx offered an alternative to that system. Because of the way that the debate started, all of the economic conservatives were in one camp, and all of the economic liberals were in another, and both groups had a clearly stated set of principles. It might well have been otherwise, if other economists and philosophers had been able to reach wider audiences at different points throughout history.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Stoid
(The topic is intrinsically debatable, so it is here.)

As many of you are very aware, some months back I made some assertions about the nature of conservative philosophy. I’m not going to reiterate what they were here, but I bring them up as introduction to the question I am sincerely pondering and I seek your answers to.

What makes a liberal a liberal and a conservative a conservative?


That's not really a valid question since liberals and conservatives are just the opposite side of the same coin. Conservatives go on about individual rights while at the same time crushing them when they get the chance. Liberals go on and on about diversity but it only applies to things that they like.


What is the underlying philosophy that ties the disparate issues together for each of the two sides? Why is someone who is a "tree-hugger" more than likely also an abortion supporter and a gun-control advocate? How are these attitudes related? Ditto conservative attitudes.


Perhaps tree huggers and gun control advocates dislike and don't trust other human beings? Tree huggers are more interested in protecting planet earth then in protecting human beings. Gun control advocates don't think that individuals are responsible enough to be trusted with firearms. Simplification, sure, but what else can you expect from this thread?



Having stated what I’m looking for several times, I now stand back and look forward to your answers. I hope you will each offer your opinions about both sides of the aisle.

stoid




I think it is bad form to start a thread in great debates without stating your own beliefs in the opening post. But that's just my opinion.

Marc

[Freedom]

I see the conservative/libertarian mindset as similiar to teaching a man to fish, and the liberal mindset as feeding him for a day.

As a conservative/libertarian type, I take a little offense to the suggestion that I choose a position on an issue by the sole standard of what benefits me the most.

I don't ask myself, "What is best for me?" I do ask: What gives me the right to make this decision for someone else?

I see the liberal mindset as just making excuses to set an agenda. Citing concern for the children and the world's downtrodden look like nothing more than trite excuses to "get your way.," and force it onto the rest of the country without any rational debate.

[pldennison]

Originally posted by IzzyR
It seems (from my conservative vantage point) that on many (though not all) issues, the liberal position is that which focuses on the immediate gratification, while the conservative one is that which focuses on the more abstract larger impact. E.g. welfare, where the liberal might focus on the individual who is suffering and can be relieved, while the conservative would focus on the more indirect ramifications of having a policy that did not punish the lazy and reward the diligent. Same for environmentalism, where the liberal might focus on the pollution of the atmosphere, and the conservative on the more complex cost-benefit calculation of economic impact of a proposed regulation vs. the benefit to be had . . .I'm aware that it's not as cut and dried as I've presented it - there are many conservatives who might be focused on "those lazy welfare cheats" etc. But I believe it is true of much of the difference between conservative and liberal thought.


It's funny that you say this, Izzy. Not because it isn't a well-reasoned position -- it is -- but because on another message board not too long ago, RTFirefly said exactly the opposite. That is, when you see a person attempting to apply reason, logic and fairness to an issue, and calmly considering all approaches, they're probably a liberal; whereas when you see a person worked up into righteous indignation and appealing to emotion, they're probably a conservative.

Interesting how each side views the other as emotional rather than rational, I guess. It just made me laugh because it was nearly the same thing said, with the political positions reversed.

[RickJay]

I think we're trying to define something along a one-dimensional scale than really has at least two dimensions. Or three.

For one thing, I think there is a distinction to be made between the disparity between liberals and conservatives and the disparity between liberal and conservative partisans. A liberal or conservative partisan (someone committed to a political party, not a guerrilla) is going to be inclined towards agreement with a party line. With all due respect to anyone who belongs to a party, I get the sense that belonging to a political party frequently involved assuming a position of "my party is right and yours is wrong, and the politicians who represent my party are patriots and the ones in your party are evil fascists/communists." This requires a lot of rationalization and at least grudging acceptance of a fairly homogenous list of positions. If I'm absolutely bound, bent and determined to support the Democrats because I like their position on Issues A, B, and C, I might convince myself, or at least grit my teeth and bear, Positions D and E. And many people will enthusiastically support EVERY position the party holds because, well, that's their party, go team!

So it is for partisans. NON-partisans - people who will vote for anyone depending on the situation and issues - might have substantially more flexibility. (I have to admit to a level of bias here; I'm a devoted agnostic in terms of faith with any one party, and the extent to which people will support their own party and demonize others, even on this message board, amazes and horrifies me.) Being free of a party line to toe might give someone the flexibility to be both liberal and conservative. I know it's true for me, and int's true for most people I know, that my range of opinions defies the liberal-conservative classification system.

pldennison makes an outstanding point when he states that we've got conservatives claiming they're rational and liberals are emotional, while liberals claims THEY'RE rational and conservatives are emotional. The truth, IMHO, is that they're both emotional, and the "we're rational, you're irrational" stuff is essentially equivalent to "Yankees rule/suck - Mets suck/rule!"

So what we might have here is not that a substantial number of people buy into a shopping list of conservative or liberal beliefs, but that an influential and visible minority of people (e.g. politicians and their lackeys) are rah-rah football-fan types supporters of "My Team," while the majority doesn't really believe in a right-left world and votes according to a dizzying array of personal beliefs, opportunities, and sheer whimsy.

[IzzyR]

pldennison

It appears that we are not discussing the exact same issue - my point concerns the underlying reason for adopting a particular position, and RTFirefly, the tactics used in defending it to others. But I do agree that our positions seem to be mutually exclusive - either liberals are more or less emotional. Of course, I'm right. :D

What I would note about the RTFirefly argument is that there is a inherent natural tendency for anyone participating in or watching a debate to feel that he or his side is getting the better of it, and that the other side is being irrational and obfuscatory. So his observation may merely be an extension of that phenomenon. (By coincidence, at this time RTFirefly has a Pit thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=60305) going, in which one of his main complaints about a conservative poster is that he is "repeatedly resurrecting arguments that have long since been refuted". Of course, they have "long since been refuted" in the mind of RTFirefly, not in any objective sense).

RickJay

Do you acknowledge that there is some inherent correlation between the various issues that define conservatives and liberals? Is there any reason, in your view, for the fact that there seems to be some degree of correlation between people's views on these various issues? You seem to be dismissing the entire phenomenon to some sort of happenstance - not a tenable position, IMHO.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Originally posted by Freedom
I see the conservative/libertarian mindset as similiar to teaching a man to fish, and the liberal mindset as feeding him for a day.



This idea was spread to me in church, via Mormon Sunday School manuals I heard from growing up in ultra-conservatism, over and over and over (note allusion to Christ, "I'll make you fishers of men...". The fish story, it's called. I have yet to meet an ultra-conservative who can get past this mental block. Nevermind that most "liberal" policies are solidly pro-education and preventive healthcare. Now if we could just get those idiots who write those church manuals to teach everybody about creel limits, and how to throw the little ones back.

[matt_mcl]

I choose most of my political positions piecemeal, by individual consideration as the issue arises, but I suppose there must be some underlying thread to help me make that decision. Let's see.

I suppose my political positions boil down to the idea of citizenship and social justice. I think citizenship is useful for something other than being protected in order to drown or swim on your own. The fact is that there are social inequities and disparities in our society that are larger than we are. When we band together as citizens it is to attack problems that are larger than we are, rather than abandoning one another to our respective fates.

30 million heads are better than one when it comes to solving problems. Since everyone is an individual with their own strengths and weaknesses, when citizens work together they tend to do better work than each single person working independently. Medicare is more efficient at ensuring that the sick (and the healthy) have access to medical care than a host of private systems. Society is more than the sum of its parts. To that end, when a citizen is in trouble, it is the job of society to help them.

There's a hard-nosed aspect to this, too. Let's take an example I've been thinking about recently. A society in which, for example, children are provided with free early childhood development and care, will benefit from this care. It's not just a matter of a handout, but rather an investment in the future. Children with better childhoods will be less of a strain on the health system, the education system, the welfare system, and the justice system. They'll tend to be more productive citizens with fewer social problems, and in general live longer and healthier lives.

The fact is that, things being equal, some children will simply not have the benefits they ought to. Rather than dealing with only the crises as they result from this (malnutrition, poor health, unemployment, crime), it's preferable both from a fiscal and an ethical standpoint to provide for it in advance.

The society has every right to decide that it's preferable to deal with problems at their source than at their ends. True social justice combines this with the ethical duty to help thy neighbour.

I would rather pay my taxes and live in a society with fed citizens than starving ones, healthy citizens than sick ones, well-educated citizens than stupid ones, whatever the ideological position one might take as to whether so-and-so deserves aid or not.

That's why I'm a social democrat.

[matt_mcl]

I should also suggest that a fairly good chunk of my left-wingness comes from my Canadian heritage. As Saul suggests in Reflections of a Siamese Twin, the confluence of cultures, the cruel and vast terrain, and the abandonment by our colonial metropoles, combined to make a Canadian society which is more solidaritous (is that a word?) than the US, born out of libertarian revolt.

Many moons ago, I posted this:

Americans fought a bloody war against the British Crown for their independence. They currently have a system of government in which some 80% of the population do not bother to vote. Americans are in general disinclined to trust any government; to consider government a thing separate from the people; and to seek to curtail its power at every opportunity. They are more private.

Canadians were essentially abandoned by their colonial masters, our country dismissed as a few acres of snow. We evolved our own system of government from what was left to us by two distant and uncaring parents. From the refusal to follow Lord Durham's report through Prime Minister Laurier through Tommy Douglas, the CCF, and the birth of medicare, we fought for governments that would provide for the people. Canadians prefer in general to force the governments to give them what they want; rather than to curtail government intervention in their affairs, they wish to force government to intervene in their affairs the way they want it to. They are more public.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by IzzyR

RickJay

Do you acknowledge that there is some inherent correlation between the various issues that define conservatives and liberals? Is there any reason, in your view, for the fact that there seems to be some degree of correlation between people's views on these various issues? You seem to be dismissing the entire phenomenon to some sort of happenstance - not a tenable position, IMHO.

No, it isn't happenstance. I'll go on a limb, however, and state that I completely disagree that there is a common "liberal" thread of values and a common "conservative" set of values. The assumption in Stoid's post is that there's a common reason for holding "liberal" (Read: Democratic Party) values, or "conservative" (read: GOP) values. Unless you're actually the kid of a staunch GOP/Dem member, I don't buy it; in fact, I'm not sure we could all agree on what constitutes the grocery list of "liberal" and "conservative" values.

There are, however, many factors that could cause a correlation of positions. (Sorry for the alliteration.) Religion would be an obvious one; being a fundamentalist Christian would seem to strongly push one into certain political positions, although those positions are not universally what I'd call conservative. Living in urban or rural settings has an obvious impact on political beliefs, though again those beliefs don't abide by easy definitions; a lot of rural GOP voters seem to have no trouble with agricultral subsidies, for example.

A matt_mcl points out, there are substantial differences in political opinions between Canadians and Americans; what Canadian conservatives believe in is vastly different from what American conservatives believe in, simply because we have a different history. Clearly, in that case, national identity and history have more to do with beliefs thana simplistic liberal/conservative scale, even on similar issues. I'm a conservative, I guess, but I'm sure matt_mcl and I will agree on many things that I would disagree with a U.S. conservative on. Similarly, Matt and I will disagree on other things not because of the liberal/conservative difference, but because Matt lives in Quebec and I live in Ontario.

Similarly, you can find regional differences between U.S. states and regions in terms of the specific sort of political beliefs that are embraced.

So are there common thread behind political beliefs? Absolutely. Are those threads "liberal" and "conservative"? I don't buy that at all. Unfortunately, political debate in our countries is too often simplified to that dichotomy.

[IzzyR]

RickJay

I have failed to understand your last post. Try this example.

Do you agree that someone who is a strong believer in laws to protect the environment is more likely[/b] to also be a supporter of an HMO "Patient's Bill of Rights", than is someone who is not as strong of an environmentalist? (To emphasize: not that [i]everyone is either pro or con on both issues, but that there is some correlation). These are issues that are not obviously related, and if one accepts that there will be some correlation, then there is apparently some factor which tends to push people in the same direction on both issues. The question in this OP is what those underlying reasons or themes might be. If you do not accept that there is a correlation, than you can dismiss the OP entirely, but I do not find that believable, as mentioned. If you do accept it, there is room for a discussion on what causes people to tend to adopt values that fall on one part of our spectrum.

[Guinastasia]

I'm afraid I have to take issue with the statement that people who are "tree huggers" care more about trees than people.

It is precisely BECAUSE we care about people that we care so much about the environment, because the state of the environment has an effect on people.

As for the rest, I'm really NOT very good with abstracts, unfortunately. I'll bail out.

[erislover]

I think a lot of it has to do with priorities, actually, as opposed to some motif in the issues themselves. I would classify liberals as prioritizing individual experience over the conservative's group ideal.

I also feel that they are prioritize freedom differently. Liberals seem to lean toward sacrifices for the greater good while conservatives tend to be a bit more greedy, each side seeing them as being champions of freedom and equality (that is, equalize opportunity, means, or available resourcespossession).

What I find so amusing is how those two things contradict each other, which is why people hold simultaneous

We have a pretty one-party state, otherwise. Our politicians seem to agree on the abstract principles (freedom, security, etc), not on what those principles imply or how we best uphold them.

[erislover]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
What I find so amusing is how those two things contradict each other, which is why people hold simultaneous...
liberal and conservative views, and yet would consider themselves one way or the other (except for the weak moderates who are afraid to take sides. You always order dinner last, too? ;))

[Stoid]

as a liberal (who is sympathetic to the theory of libertarianism) I think that both sides are very emotional. They just experience different emotions.

Liberal emotions tend to be all gooey and weepy and conservative emotions tend to be flinty and pissed off.

I think it's funny the way conservatives accuse liberals of being "emotional" as though emotion were a bad thing, and more importantly, as though "emotion" equals gooey, weepy, girly emotions. There are many varieties of emotion, as we all know when we stop to think about it for five seconds. Anger, frustration, rage, irritation, disgust...all these are emotions, too.

I do not think it is a division between the wussy liberals singing "Feelings" to each other while the Vulcans running the Republican party make important decisions for the world.

Perhaps the division and distribution of these emotions is not really always so clear, and I'm just reacting to the Clinton years, of Clinton himself being all gooey while his enemies on the right were permanently pissed.

Just thought I'd point that out, tho.

stoid

[Sam Stone]

I think 'emotions' are a red herring here. I've known plenty of emotional conservatives, and plenty of flinty-eyed liberals.

The primary difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives believe that the state exists to protect the rights of individuals, while liberals believe that the state should be an active force in changing the direction of society. When liberals see something bad going on in the country, they turn to the state as the solution, or at least as part of it. Conservatives believe that people should be left to manage their own affairs, and that we don't have the right to force them into a societal mold that the majority has decided is the 'correct' one.

Furthermore, conservatives justify their position by claiming that the government doesn't work very well, and that big government is dangerous and a threat to liberty. They can drag out statistics all day showing the failures of government - the trillions spent on the war on poverty, which seem to have been completely wasted. The hundreds of billions spent on the war on drugs, to no apparent effect. OSHA has spent more money than the entire Apollo space program, without making a dent in workplace safety.

Then they would point out that allowing government, along with its guns and soldiers, into our domestic lives is a dangerous slippery slope that has led to oppression in the past over and over again.

Finally, the more philosophical of the conservatives would point to the large body of classical works in philosophy, economics, history, and other social sciences which support their assertions.

Liberals do much the same thing, on the opposite side of the fence. They have their own collection of writers that support their side, they have their own collection of horror stories about the failure of the market, and they see no reason why an enlightened populace can't use its own government to help cure the ills of society. They have their own successes to hold up as examples of how good, activist government can be a powerful force for change.

There - that's the non-inflammatory, even-handed explanation for each position.

[Sam Stone]

I grew up in a very poor neighborhood, surrounded by welfare families. My mother was a single parent, raising two boys on her own. Most of her friends were welfare mothers.

This experience taught me a couple of things. First, my mother's friends were very angry. The cheques they got from the government were never enough, they were entitled, it wasn't fair, etc. I also heard lots of claims of how a single mother with two children simply can't make it without help.

Well, my mother was proof that this wasn't the case. She didn't have much of an education, but she worked in a grocery store as a clerk, and worked hard. She made less than the welfare moms were getting. But you know what? Our conversations around the dinner table weren't about the unfairness of life and the cheapness of government. Instead, they were about opportunities, working hard, the chance of promotion, etc.

This set an example in my life, and I was never in danger of becoming a second-generation welfare recipient. But what about those kids whose only role models had given up and expected everything to be given to them because life wasn't fair?

Anyway, over time my mom did indeed get promoted, and eventually wound up managing that little grocery store. And she saved her money and we eventually bought a little house and moved out of the area. Eventually, she sold that house and used the equity to buy a little store of her own, which she runs by herself and is very happy. And she never took a dime of government assistance.

A few years ago I went back to that old neighborhood. And you know what? Most of the people I knew there as a child are still there. Their children probably live there as well (I personally knew a couple who did). I came to the conclusion that government handouts may sometimes be necessary, but they carry a tremendous baggage - a soul-deadening belief that you are helpless, that there are forces beyond your control running your life. It creates a permanent underclass of sad, angry people. It is something to be avoided at all cost.

That experience made me skeptical of government, and I started paying much closer attention. And I found that for every 'good' government program, there were ten that were poorly planned, or pork-barrel projects to get someone elected, or flat-out counter-productive. These formative years were spent watching governments flirt with wage and price controls (which ALWAYS backfired, and many of us knew they would and couldn't understand how the politicians couldn't figure that out).

We watched governments impose sky-high tariffs coupled with freight subsidies for 'good' industries, in an attempt to control the direction and production of the economy. With disastrous consequences.

We watched marginal tax rates reach 70%, while the gap between the rich and poor continued to increase. We watched the government loosen the money supply in an attempt to buy prosperity, which resulted in high inflation as classical economists had been saying it would for a long time. We watched as society started to fracture and 'malaise' set in, as the current governments told people that the rich were at fault, it wasn't their fault that they were poor, tough times were ahead, and that the only answer was to tax the rich even more and give to the rest of the people because they weren't capable of making it on their own without the benevolent government helping them. We were told we were too stupid to figure out which products to buy, which drugs were safe, which jobs were unsafe, which cars to buy (foreign cars had high tariffs on them to 'encourage' us to buy the 'right' kind of cars), etc. Government became our mommy and daddy, and the people suffered as a result.

Finally, as I was becoming an adult the 'conservative revolution' happened. Reagan was elected in the States, Mulroney in Canada, and Thatcher in Britain. And I never saw such an outpouring of hatred and anger from the left. But all three countries made a miraculous turn-around in fortunes. Reagan more than the others brought back a sense of optimism and self-reliance that filtered back through the populace. He told us that government was the problem, not the answer. He told us to look at ourselves first if we wanted our lives to be better, rather than trying to hitch a ride on the back of government. He gave us back our self-esteem and a sense of purpose.

Now that I'm almost 40, my beliefs have tempered a bit. I no longer see government as a necessary evil, but as a positive presence in our lives as long as it is kept somewhat in check. I've made lots of liberal friends, and I discovered early on that not all liberals are motivated by fear and anger at life, as were the people of my youth.

But I still deeply believe that the best organizing force in our lives is the free market, and that government generally screws things up when it involves itself in the affairs of the market. And while I believe that we are wealthy enough that people shouldn't starve in our streets or go without basic medical care, I still believe that government charity comes with a very high spiritual pricetag and should be avoided if at all possible.

But while some of my beliefs have tempered, others have grown stronger. I've watched the 'war on drugs' turn into a frontal assault on our civil liberties, with unreasonable searches, racial profiling, civil forfeiture of assets even without charges being laid, etc. Millions of non-violent drug offenders locked up in overflowing jails. I consider these people to be political prisoners. Here in Canada, I watched our welfare programs expand to the point where they almost bankrupted the country, and yet things got worse. There were just as many poor as before, many of them were now on permanent assistance, and far from making them happier it seemed to make them angrier to the extent that people the Maritimes were resorting to riots and violence to get more from the government trough.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Sam,

I would question whether conservatives see the government as protecting the rights of individuals, which is what attracts many people to progressive liberalism, from the very beginning. In my experience, conservatives usually protect the rights of individuals in relation to their investment, as in the right of a farmer to drain a swamp, or the right of a factory owner to fire employees who unionize. This protection is not individual rights, but status or privilege rights.

...

I wonder where "anti-government" fits into the conservative mind-set. I have noticed that many populist commentators have savaged the government in recent memory (even Rush Limbaugh claimed that the military was the only thing that worked in the government, which is odd, because their productivity can't be measured because they don't produce, they offer socialized healthcare, they plan their tools to be destroyed, and have been know to pay $10 per paperclip on some projects). Anyway, I wonder if "anti-government" critics (US) is just a smokescreen for racist and misogynistic religious hate-mongers (like it is where I live in Southern Utah) who are basically violently angry that the rights of minorities and women are now enforced under the law.

[Sam Stone]

Some people here want to believe that there are emotional differences between conservatives and liberals. Liberals get characterized as caring, perhaps a bit mushy, lovable types, while conservatives are tough, harsh, etc.

I think this is completely bogus. I don't think a political philosophy attracts people of a certain emotional type. Rather, people of all emotional types can be found throughout both philosophies, but their emotions will change the way they express it.

A warm, caring liberal might turn out to be a Jimmy Carter. On the other hand, an intolerant, angry liberal might turn out to be a class warrior like Louis Farrakhan, or a strident Politically-correct type like Maxine Waters, or our own Stoidela. On the other hand, an intolerant, angry conservative might wind up being a religious-right zealot or an angry conservative like Bob Dornan. A warm, caring conservative might turn out to be someone like Ronald Reagan, or my Grandparents who never had a bad word to say about anyone, were always ready to lend a helping hand to anyone who needed it, but distrusted government deeply and had no use for modern liberals who defined charity by how much of other people's money they could re-direct at their own causes.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Sam,

By "redirecting people's money at their own causes," you exclude military spending from this? How convenient. What about Reagan's cutting taxes, raising spending, and borrowing from the future? (Clinton spent 19.5 GDP, while Reagan spent 23%, according to Newsweek). You also implied that the gap between rich and poor declined under Reagan, do you really believe this?

...

And concerning all this talk about political emotions. I am utterly confused. Who said that liberals "feel" more for people, injustice is more a function of logic than emotion, and who said conservatives have any logic? They merely feign this if they lack that famous backwoodsy charm. They are almost all primarily directed by passions and emotion, although perhaps more insecure and afraid of the public. I see most lower middle-class Republicans as the insecure bully's backslapper, who easily blames the victim and flatters the victimizer, they sure don't want to be confused with the rest of the world. Damn wannabe's, they make them all look toady.

[Sam Stone]

I would like to offer Mr. Bunnyhart as exhibit "A" for the liberal who happens to also be consumed with hatred and intolerance. In his case, he directs it at we evil conservatives, who are all a bunch of bullies and thugs.

[erislover]

Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt
I would question whether conservatives see the government as protecting the rights of individuals, which is what attracts many people to progressive liberalism, from the very beginning. In my experience, conservatives usually protect the rights of individuals in relation to their investment, as in the right of a farmer to drain a swamp, or the right of a factory owner to fire employees who unionize. This protection is not individual rights, but status or privilege rights.

I don't know about that. Consider the business as an individual. It is treated as such legally so it should not be that much of a stretch. Now, consider that this individual's friends all got together one day and decided they wanted him to "treat them better" by giving them more food when they stopped over, or whatever you feel comfortable with. At this point, the individual has every right in the world to stop this friendship, no questions asked, for any reason declared or undeclared. The business, or more specifically the businessman, has not this recourse. I would not call the ability to pick and choose relationships a "privilege," would you?[/hijack]

Oh, and stoid?
Liberal emotions tend to be all gooey and weepy and conservative emotions tend to be flinty and pissed off.

I think it's funny the way conservatives accuse liberals of being "emotional" as though emotion were a bad thing, and more importantly, as though "emotion" equals gooey, weepy, girly emotions.
Does that make you a conservative? You just set up a stereotype, then accused others of using it.
Er...?

[Hazel]

Sam Stone, in your post about the differences between liberals and conservatives, you said of conservatives, "Conservatives believe that people should be left to manage their own affairs, and that we don't have the right to force them into a societal mold that the majority has decided is the 'correct' one."

Do any conservatives actually say this? Granted, they want govt to butt out of many economic matters, but they don't seem to have any wish at all that govt stop trying to legislate morality. If anything, they're more in favor of govt regulating people's morality then are liberals.

You continued, "Furthermore, conservatives justify their position by claiming that the government doesn't work very well, and that big government is dangerous and a threat to liberty. They can drag out statistics all day showing the failures of government - the trillions spent on the war on poverty, which seem to have been completely wasted. The hundreds of billions spent on the war on drugs, to no apparent effect. OSHA has spent more money than the entire Apollo space program, without making a dent in workplace safety. Then they would point out that allowing government, along with its guns and soldiers, into our domestic lives is a dangerous slippery slope that has led to oppression in the past over and over again."

These seem to me to be things that libertarians say, not conservatives. It's the libertarians that want to end the war on drugs. It's the libertarians who would shut down many govt agencies, probably including OSHA.

The only things conservatives seem to want to get rid of are welfare, affirmative action, and other social programs that attempt to help the impoverished and disadvantaged.

Moving on to your next post, I agree that the effects of welfare can be unfortunate. But if the alternative is for mothers and children to stave in the streests, I guess welfare is the lesser evil. In theory, I think we could greatly reduce the need for welfare -- if we completely redesigned society. Not much chance of that happening.

[Brian Bunnyhurt]

Sam,

I distinctly implied that emotional insecurity drives the aggressive conservative movement, not logic. I also implied that most conservatives are not the bully, but the toad-eating wannabe. I think that any conservative movement that attempts to legislate morality and private acts totally makes toast out of your claims that liberals want to irrationally control people. Furthermore, I think that anyone who tries to ameliorate injustices is heroic, and anyone who focuses their political spit on legislating morality is deeply scarred emotionally and maybe traumatized by neglect or abuse.

As usual, I have another criticism: Republicanism has nothing whatsoever to do with ethics (public morals), unless you think letting people go without medicine is made up for by praying in public schools. So, that's what I mean by being illogical and instead emotional.

[Sam Stone]

Well, by that standard 'liberals' are just as illogical, since they claim to stand for equality and freedom, yet they support government intrusion into our lives in many other ways. And I haven't noticed the DNC jump on the drug legalization bandwagon, have you?

You're right in that I shouldn't be speaking for all 'conservatives', if we are going to define 'conservative' as 'mainstream Republican'.

If you want to start comparing conservatives and liberals as embodied by the Republican and Democratic parties, then both sides are hypocrites. But they share far more similarities than differences. It's kind of a myth that there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats - both parties are generally statist and support 95% of what government does. They only differ in the last 5%, and sometimes not even then. And sometimes, their positions flip-flop and they adopt each other's policies for strategic gain, as they are doing now with Bush's tax plan.

Remember, I'm not speaking about any specific political parties. I'm not even American. The conservative/liberal split exists in Canada, Britain, and indeed pretty much every other democracy.

[ITR champion]

Originally posted by Sam Stone


Finally, as I was becoming an adult the 'conservative revolution' happened. Reagan was elected in the States, Mulroney in Canada, and Thatcher in Britain. And I never saw such an outpouring of hatred and anger from the left. But all three countries made a miraculous turn-around in fortunes. Reagan more than the others brought back a sense of optimism and self-reliance that filtered back through the populace. He told us that government was the problem, not the answer. He told us to look at ourselves first if we wanted our lives to be better, rather than trying to hitch a ride on the back of government. He gave us back our self-esteem and a sense of purpose.



The topic of the miraculous turnaround that our country had under Reagan has already been disected in many other threads, so I won't go into it here. However, I feel that this portion of the post is entirely lacking in logic. If any president this century brought back a sense of "optimism and self-reliance", I would have to think of FDR. Needless to say, he was among the biggest proponents of big government ever.

I also take issue with this "outporing of hatred and anger" from the left. (We all know that the left doesn't consist of individuals, it just acts as a unit, of course.) Probably the thing that made many liberals upset about Reagan is that he put style ahead of substance, that he always made people believe in him even when he was screwing up and/or breaking the law, and that he always got away with it. After all, there was an extremely hostile reaction from many conservatives when Bill Clinton showed that he could play the same game better than even Reagan could.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
strident Politically-correct type like Maxine Waters, or our own Stoidela.



Actually, you are drawing conclusions based on very narrow evidence. I was extremely upset about the election, and that's when I got my current rep. But as a matter of fact, I'm a classic case of being a gooey, weepy liberal. I was even so during the election. IRL, I wasn't screaming about what was happening, I was crying.

And the emotions that come up for me when I think about the issues that mean the most to me are sorrow, grief, fear...all kinda weepy.

Furthermore, I am not "politically correct" at all, if you pay attention. I am a feminist that sells porn. I am perfectly horrified by the sort of politcally correct crap going on in universtieis, where any reference to the fact of racial difference, for instance, can be called "hate speech". I get pretty upset with my fellow liberals at the way they can trivialize really important issues like sexual harassment and rape by assigning the labels to any less-than-pleasant gender interaction.

The topics which are closest to my heart are environmental protection and animal rights. But I don't sacrifice my good sense. For instance, you will not find a bigger whale-lover than me. I'm just flat out ga-ga over all sea mammals. But some years back, when 3 gray whales got trapped in the ice, I was thoroughly disgusted at the amount of money that was spent saving them. It was over $1 million to save THREE whales. That money would have been better spent saving ALL whales. People fell apart because they could see the suffering of those particular whales, so they cared. I care more about the whole species, thank you much. (I was very, very sad over those whales, however, even though i viewed it as a perfectly Darwin moment...they weren't smart enough to get the hell outta dodge before the sea froze, so they got deleted from the gene pool.)

I'm really very misperceived around here, based on my admittedly strident, even hysterical distress over the election. But on a day to day basis, I'm a pretty chilled out person, even on topics of great import to me. And on those topics, when they don't go my way, I more often weep than rage.

stoid