What you describe sounds very similar to Nietzsche’s theories on Master–Slave Morality. As I understand it, the theory goes something like this:
Master Morality - Rejects more abstract notions of “right” and “wrong” in favor of placing value on things that produce positive results - more money, more power, stronger military, self defense, America first. Almost a sort of “might makes right”.
Sound familiar?
It is through amassing strength that the “master” defines what “morality” is for everyone else.
Slave Morality - Is subject to the will of the “master”. Operating from a position of weakness, the “slave” seeks to undermine and subvert the values of the “master” and reframe them as “vices”. More money = greed. More power = corruption, America first = fascism.
Also familiar.
In the context of our current political climate, Republicans have positioned themselves as the “strong” party while the Democrats represent the collective will of America’s “oppressed”. So to Republicans, it kind feels like they are doing everything right - working hard so they can amass wealth and capital, supporting America and it’s institutions, so on and so forth - while the Democrats keep harping on them, calling them stupid, greedy, racist hicks.
Where it gets more complex is that the system doesn’t appear to be working, or at least it’s not sustainable for people who aren’t millionaires. Jobs continue to move out of rural factories and towns. Megacorporations like Walmart and Amazon tend to drive small businesses out of business. Health care is a mess. Climate change will continue to become an issue. So what happen is that faced with this contradiction, your typical middle-class Republican looses their mind. Rather than see Democrats as offering policies that will ultimately benefit the middle class, they see them as hostile rivals in league with foreign interests and anti-American ideologies.
But is that the only source of disagreement between you, and is that their only policy disagreement with Democrats? I suspect not. I suspect there is much more to it than a fundamental disagreement on abortion rights and whether they feel insulted by some social justice warrior terminology. I suspect they have not thought deeply about what those terms mean with respect to society and I suspect if they thought more deeply about them, they might just find themselves agreeing rather than simply feeling offended.
In the case of abortion, I think that we libs have allowed the conservatives to frame the issue to our detriment. They say “pro-life” and “pro-abortion”. That presents a binary choice that is incorrect.
When someone engages me on abortion as a political issue, I tell them that, if you are truly anti-abortion, the your only choice is to vote for Democrats. Draconian laws do not prevent abortions. (Isn’t that the same argument that conservatives make about gun control laws?) The only effective way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That means comprehensive, accurate, affordable health care. Only one of the two major parties advocates those policies and it isn’t the “pro-life” crowd.
I agree that there are other issues but I don’t want to get bogged down in the details. It’s just an example of a position that is not hateful/racist that would lead someone to vote for Trump.
I strongly disagree that they have not thought this through, any less than Dopers who look at the hardcore Trumpists and extrapolate. If you’ll pardon me, that’s an excuse to brush off their position and is the opposite of “trying to see the other side”. It is possible to have an opposing opinion that is well considered.
I agree with much of your post but strongly disagree here. At the risk of causing you to roll your eyes, both sides do it. The vocal right calls pro-choice “murderers” and the vocal left calls pro-life “misogynists” who just want to control a womb. Both sides are trying to frame the issue in a way that makes them look like heroes and the other side into monsters.
An anti-abortion position is one that is by definition not well considered. It’s a position that says they have a right to impose their will on someone else based on a world view that person does not share. This is quite separate and apart from any extrapolation they might make about the fact that all Democrats are SJW scolds involved in identity politics.
I think that framing is a key point in many political issues and that we Democrats are absolutely terrible at it.
The thing is, we know that access to reproductive health care that is honest and affordable is the path to reducing abortions. However, a great many Republicans oppose both abortion and accurate reproductive health care and education. So, their agenda cannot be about actually reducing the number of abortions. So, if that isn’t the agenda, what is it?
The vast majority of conservative voters vote and believe the way they do because they’ve been lied to. This has been going on for a while - “trickle-down economics” was a lie intended to fool financially prudent conservatives into giving more money to people who don’t need it and won’t feed it back into the economy in an effective way. However thanks to the media and information bubbles that have been formed conservatives are now being fed lies about pretty much everything with very little restraint.
So no, most conservatives don’t think that liberals are good people who are helping too many non-thems. They think that liberals are literally evil and doing things with the deliberate goal of destroying the economy, the country, society, and their specific families. It’s not that other people will be helped; it’s that they will be harmed.
Gay marriage is opposed because the think it’s an attack on marriage in general.
Gun regulations are opposed because they think it’s part of a plan to make them defenseless and weak.
Universal health care is opposed because they think it’s an attempt to take their money and health care.
Supporting minorities is opposed because they think that the plan is let the minorities take over and then crush the whites.
Republican, conservative, and russian propaganda has been working nonstop for years to convince people that liberals are literally monsters. That’s the other side here.
<sigh> This is wrong. If one takes the axiomatic position that life begins at conception then pro-life is a well considered conclusion. It is a conclusion that–while I disagree with it–I can’t say is wrong because there is no accepted answer to when life begins. There never will be.
I don’t think there is any point in trying continue to argue the details of abortion further; that’s not the goal in this discussion.
This. And it went into overdrive with the election of Obama. To many on the right, he was the LITERAL Antichrist. Pure evil. Because he was.
You don’t negotiate with pure evil. You don’t compromise with pure evil. And in the minds of many on the right, who have absorbed the propaganda, that is what they think they are dealing with.
Hillary was the Antichrist. She was pure evil. Now Biden is the AntiChrist. He is pure evil.
I also think it goes with a fallacy in that they think that ONE of the two parties must be on their side because…well…there are two parties, and, therefore, the other must be the enemy. They don’t realize that NEITHER party is really on their side.
Much like people will agree with the phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Those of you that have played Eve Online and gotten into null sec politics see that as male bovine manure because the enemy of my enemy is still likely to be my enemy.
Or, in the words of great philosophers…Inspite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage. They think they have power and a voice but they really don’t.
But that is still not getting at how to reach them. If they see Republicans as ‘The Master’ and Strong and Dems as ‘The Slaves’ and weak then they like being seen as strong. The way is to break that illusion. How? I have no idea.
Begbert, I don’t think I was very clear. I was channeling my younger self, who leaned Right for a time. I don’t think I am qualified to speak to others, only speculate and I wanted something ‘concrete’. That being me as my younger self.
So, personally, I thought of Liberals as basically good intentioned but misguided people who had no problem hurting me to address larger injustices. I didn’t hate them…I just wanted them…restrained. In hind sight this is probably why I was able to reverse course and Dive Left with a vengence. Having two daughters helped as well.
There’s clearly a continuum. You were at the level of ‘not too indoctrinated’…but you can see the direction you were being pulled. It’s not just that you were being passed over while the benefits were being handed out, but this was also hurting you - either for reasons of cost, competition, or zero sum.
At at a basic level that makes sense. (Particularly if you’re a little short of information and/or empathy, as we often are in our youth.)
That’s easy… the thinking goes that abortions are the result of lax morals, and that family planning/contraception also contributes to the same lax morals. So their answer is basically that if you’re not married, you shouldn’t be getting it on.
In this case, the Right seems to be living in a theoretical world; everyone knows that lots of people have always got it on before/outside of marriage, and that there are really two pragmatic solutions- contraception or abortion. But admitting that would require the Right to admit and accept that people screw around outside of marriage, and they believe that’s condoning it. Same with condoms and AIDS prevention in the gay community. Or gay marriage for that matter.
It’s an inability for them to prioritize or rationalize the pragmatic solution over the way they think the world should be, because they’re afraid that the pragmatic solution sends a message of acceptance.
Having spent much time talking about abortion with family/etc…as someone who used to swing more Right but have ALWAYS been Pro-Choice (which pissed many off), I am convinced many pro-lifers don’t give a damned about babies or life or whatever. They want to control sex. People other than me shouldn’t be having sex unless they are in a committed, legal marriage AND self sufficient etc etc. SIngle people shouldn’t be having sex. Poor people shouldn’t be having sex. And so on.
When I would point out to them that people are people and they WILL be having sex or, HEAVEN FORBID, bring up that because a woman or man is making poor wages (which is what, over half the jobs in this country?) is not going to stop them from wanting a family…they would go ballistic and triple down on ‘they shouldn’t have sex’. I even got a couple guys to admit something on the lines of ‘Well, they wouldn’t have sex WITH ME so they shouldn’t have it at all and if they do then they have to live with being a single mother’.
I am convinced for may Pro-Lifers, it is about control of sex and poor people and the punishment of people that refuse to submit to that control. Pro-Lifers, IME seem VERY concerned with other peoples’ sex lives.
To tie this back into the thread…these people are going to be VERY hard to reach for Dems.
The thinking is that if people didn’t act immoral and screw, then there would be no need for abortions or contraception. But since they do, then they need to protect the unborn at all costs.
It’s not illogical, but it’s not pragmatic either.
This isn’t an accurate picture of the situation either, because if they wanted to protect the unborn at all costs they would accept the reality that sex happens and enthusiastically promote pre-conception contraception as a countermeasure. They don’t do this, because saving babies is not the priority. The priorities are, in order:
Prevent casual/unmarried sex.
Prevent the use of contraceptions when such sex occurs anyway.
Prevent the use of abortion to stop the ‘babies’ from getting ‘killed’.
And the preferred outcomes are, correspondingly (from most preferred to least):
Nobody has sex out of marriage. No unwanted babies, yay!
People who do have sex get saddled with babies they don’t want, with the babies being punishment for their sin. Yay!
People have sex without consequence. Boo!
People have sex without consequence. (Oh, and a baby died.) Even more boo!