On the assumption that most people who think about politics and support one side or the other are generally honest in their beliefs, I’d like to explore why so many people differ so strongly. I think, for most folks, it comes down to a fundamental difference in the underlying assumptions of a particular issue. I am pretty liberal/progressive so I likely have some bias that I will try and overcome for this discussion.
For example – economic issues and poverty: very broadly, I believe that most liberals believe that most folks do not want to do nothing (i.e. sit on their butts all day and watch TV) – that most folks actually want to do something with their lives, and would prefer to work an okay job with okay pay (above-poverty level) and benefits than do nothing and receive bare-sustainment level government support. Therefore, I think most liberals believe that most people are poor not by choice, but by circumstance. I believe that most conservatives believe that this is false – most poor people are not disciplined enough, not talented enough, or not hard-working enough (or a combination) to succeed to the level of not being poor anymore, and would prefer bare-sustainment (poverty level) government support than working for lower-middle-class pay, and are poor mostly by choice rather than circumstance.
What are some of the other differing assumptions that underlie opposing positions? I welcome and want the input of conservatives (including correcting anything they think I’m wrong about with regard to their assumptions), and I don’t mean this to be a liberal-bashing or conservative-bashing thread in any way whatsoever.
I understand there are also differences in philosophies – for example, on the same issue of economics and poverty, I believe (and I think most liberals believe) that no one who is willing to work should be in poverty, and that it is the responsibility of society and government to ensure that no one who is willing to work lives in poverty.
Actually I think it is the other way around. Liberals think that poor people are not disciplined or hard-working enough to become not-poor, and need to be subsidized into the middle class.
Not exactly. Conservatives often believe that chronic, long-term poverty is the result of poor choices. Not that they choose to be poor - that they choose to drop out of school, acquire a criminal record, have children out of wedlock, and those choices lead to a greater incidence of poverty.
Liberals often argue that these choices are not choices - that the poor had no choice but to have uncontracepted sex, because they couldn’t afford condoms and/or the men they date wouldn’t use condoms, or they couldn’t be expected to abide by the laws, or they couldn’t graduate from high school, etc. See this thread for a discussion of some of this thinking.
I think a lot of it is the assumption of where the locus of responsibility lies - with the individual, or with the rest of society. Throw in a good big dose of excluded middle and accusations of heartlessness for anyone who resists any increase in any social program, effective or not, and you have most of the discussion on the topic on the SDMB.
You hear on this MB how the government is “subsidizing” employers by providing things like food stamps for people making MW. I’m sure you’ve encountered this argument more than a few times here. No?
I’ve always been pretty conservative on economic issues (very liberal on social issues), but in the past 20 years or so my views have softened so I favor a good social safety net.
BUT in the past three-ish years, I’ve realized that there really are people who want to do nothing but sit on their butts all day and watch TV, and have the government pay them for it. That’s because I’ve seen my two nieces do exactly that. They come from an upper middle class background, although a dysfunctional family, got pregnant as teenagers, had the babies, are collecting welfare, and doing as little as possible, including leaving the kids with their mother while they go out partying all the time. This is a frustrating situation, and I realize the girls didn’t have proper directions set in their upbringing and that’s not their fault. But the government handouts are enabling them to continue to live this dysfunctional lifestyle.
As for the OP, one of my assumptions is that government assistance is significantly more than “bare-sustainment level”. I think poor people are provided a bit too good and too comfortable of a living on the dole.
Another difference of perspective is (trying hard to not frame it in a conservative context) the desired size and role of government. Conservatives generally want a limited government that does relatively little (fight crime, protect our borders, maybe build some roads and parks) while liberals want a government that’s more active in addressing societal ills (fight hate speech / discrimination, redistribute wealth / do more to help poor, fight climate change, etc)
Many perspectives and decisions are based on an Us -versus- Them model. We want Us (our immediate family) to prosper but don’t care about Them (e.g. other species).
One of the big differences between the Left and the Right is how inclusive our “Us” is. Liberals extend their Us (group of people whose interests they support) to include all Americans, or even all humans. Conservatives are more likely to restrict their Us to people more tightly affiliated with themselves, e.g. same locale, same religion or same ethnic group.
This isn’t the case with me or the liberals I know.
Fair enough. Thanks for this.
I don’t think this accurately characterizes the liberal position either. At least, my position is (very broadly) that almost no one will make zero mistakes growing up and getting started in life, and that society is tilted such that a poor person (and especially poor people in various disadvantaged categories) who isn’t enormously naturally talented (~ top .001% or so) must make zero or near-zero mistakes in life to have even the slightest chance at escaping poverty, while almost everyone else can make multiple mistakes while still having little chance of dipping into long-term poverty. And, in my opinion, society should be structured (with government rules and regulations, if necessary), such that someone born into poverty can make a roughly ‘average’ number of mistakes in life and still have a decent chance of escaping long-term poverty.
What is funny is that both sides can talk about “education” but neither side can suggest mandatory accounting in the schools. Shakespeare is so much more useful.
My class had to compare “Romeo and Juliet” to “West Side Story”. That was so difficult! :smack: The science fiction I selected to read onmy own was more useful. I don’t even know if my high school had an accounting course at the time. No teacher ever mentioned it. Is “education” designed to keep things unequal?
Are “conservative” and “liberal” just different subgroups that are both wrong and keep each other from really thinking? :rolleyes:
I’ve noticed a tendency of liberals to conflate what ought to be with what actually is.
And over the past few decades, liberal and conservative assumptions are blending together.
In the past, liberals tended to assume that human nature is good, but I’ve found that to be less and less the attitude. They assume that the people they dislike will be bad - the 1%, the corporatists, the Wall Street bankers, the polluters, etc.
Conservatives tend to assume that people are naturally selfish and tend to perceive things such as terrorism, WMD proliferation, etc., as…threats.
Both liberals and conservatives assume that society would convert to their views, if only society “came to its senses.”
Conservatives tend to assume things will get worse if nothing is done.
Both liberals and conservatives assume that society’s “silent majority” shares their views.
Are you talking about poor people in general, or the chronically poor?
Cite. 56% escaping poverty after a year or less is quite different from saying only the top 0.001% have any chance.
If one is poor, and that person
[ul][li]Graduates from high school[/li][li]Gets married and stays married[/li][li]Does not have children until they can support those children without government subsidies[/li][li]Gets a job - almost any job - and stick to it for at least a year, and don’t quit until you have a better job[/ul]after five years, on average, they will no longer be poor. And to conservatives, or at least to this conservative, none of these things are unreasonable expectations. To me, this is what adults do. [/li] Sometimes being poor is beyond your control. But not always. And most people manage to not be poor, and it’s not because they made zero mistakes. I’ve been poor, and I’ve made mistakes. Now, I’m not poor.
I think a lot of conservatives are in my boat. I managed it. Those who say “I can’t manage that” tend to lead me to ask “Why not?” And if, as in the linked thread, one of the responses is “my boyfriend won’t fuck me if I insist on him wearing a condom” my heart does not melt with sympathy for your situation. IYSWIM.
I consider unprotected sex, drug use (along with traffic violations, skipping school, vandalism, pranks, etc.) and some poor performance in school “average” mistakes that are extremely common. These mistakes seem to result in far worse outcomes, on average, for poor folks than for wealthier folks.
At the risk of splitting hairs or nit-picking of definitions, I believe simply trying to compare left vs right (liberal vs. conservative, per OP), lacks dimension.
It’s a more nuanced issue than that and I often try to think of it in terms of at least a quadrant (two dimensions), best illustrated with a quick google, i.e.: political compass, or, L vs. C: false dichotomy.