# Areas of agreement between conservatives and liberals **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435 "2014-12-05T19:09:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/61 "2014-12-08T01:01:36Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Yes I’m sure a Nobel-Prize winning economist at Princeton is just a “panty-sniffer” while “liberals” to you are spineless Broderite Moderate Heroes who think everything would be kumbaya as long as the two parties would just _compromise_-compromise meaning of course implementing savage austerity cuts and gutting Social Security in exchange for an Assault Weapons Ban and shutting up about gay marriage. Oh boy. You projected, in one fell swoop, every conservative stereotype on me, without any indication I hold any of these views. Manichaean much? ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/62 "2014-12-08T01:10:56Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Your characterization of his views is wrong and fundamentally ignorant. Your choice to foist your fundamental ignorance upon others while framing it with"ideological panty-sniffers" is Manichean. I know Krugman’s views. He’s a Keynesian, which is fine with me. What is not fine with me is reading a new article in the New York Times every week that tirelessly argues for increased stimulus spending, as we were racking up trillion-dollar deficits. He got his $800 billion stimulus, and the results were mixed, at best. He treaded the path toward blind ideology as the trumpeter of “more spending, more spending, more spending!!” For what it’s worth, I hold the same contempt for Krugman’s fiscally dangerous love of government stimulus as I do for any fiscal conservative who thinks the budget should be balanced overnight. What was needed–and still is needed–is a balanced approach that tackles the structural drivers of our debt while finding new revenues from the only members of our society whose wealth is growing, namely the wealthy. I prefer raising capital gains rates over income, but either way more money is needed to sustain our social safety net. I tread nowhere toward ideology with this reasoned assessment, and yes, I am calling for compromise. Call me crazy. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/63 "2014-12-08T01:15:30Z")
[QUOTE=Stringbean] I know Krugman’s views. He’s a Keynesian, which is fine with me. What is not fine with me is reading a new article in the New York Times every week that tirelessly argues for increased stimulus spending, as we were racking up trillion-dollar deficits. He got his $800 billion stimulus, and the results were mixed, at best. He treaded the path toward blind ideology as the trumpeter of “more spending, more spending, more spending!!” [/QUOTE] As Hentor will undoubtedly point out, and to be fair, Krugman argued that the stimulus was far short of what was needed, and that the stimulus we got was insufficient to do the job. The analogy I guess would be if someone told you they needed a thousand gallons of water to put out the fire on your house, but they were only given 100 gallons to do the job…and then blamed because your house burned down. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/64 "2014-12-08T01:28:08Z")
We all have our fantasies. Marking an unprecedented stimulus package as wildly insufficient is not going to sway many. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/65 "2014-12-08T01:30:51Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > We all have our fantasies. Marking an unprecedented stimulus package as wildly insufficient is not going to sway many. But saying ‘He got his $800 billion stimulus, and the results were mixed, at best’ is a bit disingenuous when you know that it wasn’t what he was asking for wrt the results we did get. Whether you think the stimulus was a waste is something that can be addressed in another way than saying he got what he was asking for when, well, he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/66 "2014-12-08T05:13:17Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > I know Krugman’s views. He’s a Keynesian, which is fine with me. What is not fine with me is reading a new article in the New York Times every week that tirelessly argues for increased stimulus spending, as we were racking up trillion-dollar deficits. He got his $800 billion stimulus, and the results were mixed, at best. He treaded the path toward blind ideology as the trumpeter of “more spending, more spending, more spending!!” Bullshit. He made it very clear that the stimulus was not enough, and then proceeded to offer us the reasons _why_ he believed that was so. And here’s the important part: _He was right_. The stimulus _was_ too small. The cash flow _was_ cut off too fast. Same mistake as in the 30s. > [@Stringbean](#): > > We all have our fantasies. Marking an unprecedented stimulus package as wildly insufficient is not going to sway many. But, again, he predicted it pretty accurately, and his economic models are pretty much on-point. > [@Stringbean](#): > > Both liberals and conservatives agree the federal government is spending too much money. LOL ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/67 "2014-12-08T05:27:26Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > How about this, then. Can you think of a hypothetical policy which is meant to reduce the abortion rate, which would not be opposed by at least a significant minority of liberals? > [@septimus](#): > > 😕 Morning-after pills. Sex education. Availability of contraceptives. All of these abortion-avoiders are opposed by the right, not the left. Legalizing same-sex marriages. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/68 "2014-12-08T13:11:52Z")
1- I agree that both sides would like to reduce the number of abortions. I’m in the “want abortions to be safe, legal, and rare” camp. I’d like to do it by universal free contraception. While I can see where conservatives who are pro-life are coming from, I fail to see the opposition some have to contraception. 2- To a point, both sides want to see unemployment drop. I think 0% is an unrealistic goal, though both sides pay lip service to it. 3- Both sides pay lip service to a balanced budget. One side would get their by gutting the safety net, the other side would make modest adjustments in taxes. 4- Both sides would like to reduce the crime rate. 5- I think both sides recognize that fossil fuels are not the future of energy. I don’t believe either side objects to solar or wind energy. 6- Both sides condemn terrorism. Unfortunately, what divides seems to dwarf what unites us. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/69 "2014-12-08T15:24:37Z")
That sex criminals are not evil people, but either coerced by the victim or in need of psychological help. ---
**Author:** ![Renee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/renee/32/287_2.png) [@Renee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/70 "2014-12-08T16:19:02Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > That sex criminals are not evil people, but either coerced by the victim or in need of psychological help. Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/71 "2014-12-08T17:23:59Z")
Here’s an issue that I think conservatives and liberals can agree on: The militarization of the police through the ‘gifting’ of hardware from the military is a really, really bad idea. There is no reason whatsoever for a small town police force to have armored personnel carriers and heavy machine guns. Not only is this a very bad thing for police/community relations, but it leads to shows of force like we saw in Ferguson which actually inflamed tensions. Not only that, but it’s clear that the yahoos on the force were not properly trained in the use of that equipment. Hell, the marines in Iraq were told to get out of their armored vehicles and patrol on foot because it was recognized that policing requires engaging the population. To see police officers in America riding around in armored vehicles is very disturbing. I have yet to meet anyone on the right or left who thinks this is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/72 "2014-12-08T17:29:51Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Here’s an issue that I think conservatives and liberals can agree on: > > The militarization of the police through the ‘gifting’ of hardware from the military is a really, really bad idea. There is no reason whatsoever for a small town police force to have armored personnel carriers and heavy machine guns. > > Not only is this a very bad thing for police/community relations, but it leads to shows of force like we saw in Ferguson which actually inflamed tensions. Not only that, but it’s clear that the yahoos on the force were not properly trained in the use of that equipment. > > Hell, the marines in Iraq were told to get out of their armored vehicles and patrol on foot because it was recognized that policing requires engaging the population. To see police officers in America riding around in armored vehicles is very disturbing. > > I have yet to meet anyone on the right or left who thinks this is a good idea. I agree with you on the issue. I would like to agree with your assessment on the feelings of people in general on the topic. To be honest, I would have guessed a majority of conservatives in the US would like that sort of thing, though. I would be happy to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/73 "2014-12-08T17:34:28Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Here’s an issue that I think conservatives and liberals can agree on: > > The militarization of the police through the ‘gifting’ of hardware from the military is a really, really bad idea. There is no reason whatsoever for a small town police force to have armored personnel carriers and heavy machine guns. > > Not only is this a very bad thing for police/community relations, but it leads to shows of force like we saw in Ferguson which actually inflamed tensions. Not only that, but it’s clear that the yahoos on the force were not properly trained in the use of that equipment. > > Hell, the marines in Iraq were told to get out of their armored vehicles and patrol on foot because it was recognized that policing requires engaging the population. To see police officers in America riding around in armored vehicles is very disturbing. > > I have yet to meet anyone on the right or left who thinks this is a good idea. There are certainly some conservaties who agree with you- Rand Paul is the most prominent. But in many other cases, people’s attitudes toward the militarization of the police depends largely on whose ox is being gored. Many Conservatives howled when more than 100 heavily armed federal agents burst into a private home to take Elian Gonzalez into custody; liberals generally yawned, or thought Elian’s relatives had it coming. Simialrly, many conservatives remain outraged by the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents; liberals generally yawned, or thought that David Koresh and the Weavers deserved what they got. On the other hand, most law and order conservatives show little of the same compassion for the minority victims of overarmed, overzealous cops. Those victims are mourned almost exclusively on the Left. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/74 "2014-12-08T17:35:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think both conservatives and liberals support the ideal of individual freedom. They just differ on what means they feel best achieve that ideal. [No, they also differ on the definition of it – though that does also imply a difference as to means.](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/PoliticalIdeologies) > [@](#): > > The other great split is between classical [libertarian] liberalism and left-liberalism. The split between classical liberalism and left-liberalism (also known as social liberalism) is arguably due to different concepts of rights. To the classical liberals, rights are _nullifications of the power of the State_ (i.e. the ability to legitimately initiate the use of force), meaning no individual or groups thereof can use force, fraud or threats thereof to stop any other individual from performing a specific action. For instance, if you have the right to free speech, this means that no individual or institution can start or threaten the use of force or fraud against you in order to stop you from speaking in a specific way (provided, of course, said speech constituted neither fraud nor coercion). > > To social liberals, rights are seen as _entitlements to the ability to perform specific actions._ For instance, if you have the right to education, this means that other people (or groups thereof) must act in order to provide you an education if you cannot provide it yourself. > > So, to classical liberals, rights are things _others cannot use force to stop you from doing,_ and to social liberals, rights are things that _others are forced to enable you to do._ Isaiah Berlin referred to the former as “negative liberty” and the latter as “positive liberty.” > > Classical liberalism argues that economic activities should be treated the same way that all other liberties are (or, further, that a meaningful distinction between economic and non-economic liberties cannot be made). Thus, economically speaking, any activity that does not involve force, fraud, or threats thereof (i.e. coercion) is just as much a right as free speech. As such, classical liberals are generally skeptical and/or hostile to government intervention in economic matters. This stance is also known as laissez-faire free market economics (which some people call “Capitalism,” although that term has other definitions depending on who you ask). > Social liberalism argues that negative liberty is an insufficient condition for full human freedom. Social liberals in general do accept a significant level of negative liberty is indeed a necessary component of human freedom, but they argue a certain level of positive liberty is required as well. The typical rationale that social liberals give for this position is that the proper objects of positive liberty (according to social liberalism) will not be available to everyone in the absence of positive liberties to these objects. Whilst the proper objects of positive liberty have been debated by social liberals, they are usually justified as being necessary for “human flourishing” and “human development.” > > Note that this division is one of _means_ rather than ends. Both classical and social liberals believe that the kinds of things which social liberals consider proper objects of positive liberty are good things! The division is over _how they should be provided;_ social liberals argue that the State should provide them and classical liberals argue the State should not (there are several rationales for this position; such as the State being too incompetent to do it, or that empowering the State is inherently dangerous for further liberties, and/or that it is immoral to sacrifice negative liberties for the sake of positive ones). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/75 "2014-12-08T17:37:22Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Here’s an issue that I think conservatives and liberals can agree on: > > The militarization of the police through the ‘gifting’ of hardware from the military is a really, really bad idea. There is no reason whatsoever for a small town police force to have armored personnel carriers and heavy machine guns. If conservatives and liberals agree that shouldn’t happen, why does it happen? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/76 "2014-12-08T17:41:30Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > One reason for opposition is that many people consider the morning-after pill to be a form of abortion, if fertilization has already taken place. Yes, many conservatives are essentially saying that cells are human beings. SINGLE CELLS!!! How they can manage it with a straight face is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/77 "2014-12-08T18:57:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If conservatives and liberals agree that shouldn’t happen, why does it happen? Because the police like it? Hey, free stuff. Cool military stuff! Because it seems more ‘efficient’ to re-purpose military hardware than to just destroy it? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/78 "2014-12-08T19:02:51Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Because the police like it? Hey, free stuff. Cool military stuff! > > Because it seems more ‘efficient’ to re-purpose military hardware than to just destroy it? Independent of the larger issue, both of these bits of thought resonate with me! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/79 "2014-12-08T19:10:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > To be precise most claim that they do not know anything and deny that humans are responsible in large part. > > [Meet the Republicans in Congress who don't believe climate change is real | Climate science scepticism and denial | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/17/climate-change-denial-scepticism-republicans-congress) You might want to try reading your own site. That’s not what it says. It supports neither your own claim nor the one **BPC** made that you offered it in support of. **Budget Cadet Player** , ball’s in your court. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435/80 "2014-12-08T19:12:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If conservatives and liberals agree that shouldn’t happen, why does it happen? Probably because it hasn’t been a major issue. The majority might oppose the concept in general but they aren’t very vocal in their opposition. Meanwhile the minority that support the program are vocal in their support. There are other examples where a dedicated minority gets its way over a tepid majority. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/areas-of-agreement-between-conservatives-and-liberals/706435.md?page=5)