- My side has all the answers, the other side is totally and completely wrong about everything.
8A. Oh, and did I mention they are evil as well as being wrong?
How, pray tell, are lower taxes bad for the stock market?
A number of comments have been made about how liberals and conservatives differ only with respect to the means with which commonly agreed ends are achieved. I think, however, that this can be used to illustrate my earlier point that it’s usually more than that, and usually comes down to basic values that are used to determine how conflicting goals and priorities are resolved, and that liberals and conservatives have quite different ideals of the kind of society they would like to live in.
The idea of wanting health care to be less expensive is a great example of this. Sure, both sides no doubt want everything to be less expensive, and everybody to be happy. But such obvious truisms don’t define a political ideology. When you actually start looking at the real options in health care, you find that the most effective way to make health care cheaper – probably the only way – is to make it universal, and to have most people, if not everyone, participate in a community-rated model in which all participants pay the same and all get the same services.
So now the question of health care costs has become a question of making choices according to fundamental values and beliefs. Do you want a health care system whose main priority is to give individuals the choice of what services they want and how much they are willing to pay, which is governed by the free market, and which is pretty much guaranteed to be much more expensive? Or do you want one that demonstrably reduces costs very significantly, but that is based on a community model of common costs and services and in which the government plays a significant role (even if that role is just regulatory)?
This thread isn’t to discuss health care so I just throw that out as example of how basic and value-based the underlying decisions are once you get past the obvious truisms.
It’s the same with the global warming example. It isn’t about solar power vs. nuclear, and that’s not even a political issue – it’s a business and technology issue, and the right answer is probably “both” to the maximum extent feasible. Nor is it even about how much we “trust” science; with the exception of a few morons, most of the anti-science campaign from the right is deliberate mendacity. The real political issue is about how much we are willing to invest, not just to curb emissions out of existing technologies, but to transform our whole energy infrastructure, and how quickly we are willing to do it. And that comes down to how much we value our immediate economic growth compared to how much we value our long-term future and our environment. Again, though to many of us the answer is obvious, these are basic value judgments.
I think both sides agree that:
- Fewer abortions are a desirable thing
- inner city schools are doing the job they need to do
I can’t resist … 
Which side accepts the established conclusions of science about climate change, and which side mostly claims that climate science is anti-business bullshit?
Oh, and did I mention that one side persistently lies about the science, and that certain Congressmen from that side have even threatened climate scientists to try to silence them? And that most (not all) people smart enough to be political leaders are smart enough to know that they’re lying about it? 
On the other side of that coin, I am (mostly) liberal, and I agree that nuclear energy is probably the most practical green energy.
I think you’ll find a lot of contention among both statements. Many liberals would oppose any type of policy that was meant to reduce the abortion rate, and wouldn’t agree with number 1. Also, you’ll find a lot of people on both sides who say inner city schools are part of, or even most of, the problem, and would dismantle the whole thing to build something that bears almost no resemblance to an inner city school education.
I have to add here that powerful groups have turned the global warming issue into a partisan one when that was not the case.
One of the big items that conservatives miss thanks to misinformation is that when more than 95% of scientists and experts agree that this issue is happening due to human emissions and that we have to control them, it means that almost all scientists that happen to be conservative are also in agreement; but FOX and others are making sure that that agreement of the scientists, both liberal and conservative, is not noticed by many on the right.
Reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place? I’ve NEVER met a liberal (and damn few conservatives) who were opposed to this.
Really? Any type of policy? So you know liberals whose basic motto is “the health of a society is measured by how many abortions it has – the more the better”? Seriously? On what planet is this?
The only thing that actual liberals object to are underhanded attempts to circumvent Roe v. Wade via slimeball legislation that forces women, for example, to watch ultrasounds of their unwanted baby as a kind of psychological warfare to make them change their minds, or any of the other meddling with the most basic personal rights that nutcase legislators like to throw in their way. No sane person thinks that an abortion is a happy thing, it’s just the least bad outcome of a bad situation. The more that they can be prevented from being necessary in the first place, the better.
And now this:
Liberals and conservatives blasting the Grand Jury decision to not indict the Daniel Pantaleo, who killed Eric Garner – for entirely different reasons, of course.
I wouldn’t call it “green” myself (also mostly liberal) but certainly far better than coal, etc. I do support continued investment into renewables, but also cleaner/safer nuclear. It’s just better for meeting large-scale needs at the moment than the other forms of energy. However, I would actually say that nuclear is often the boogieman that’s widely disfavored across the political spectrum (from regular people, rather than specialists or even politicians), with conservatives preferring drilling/fracking/coal mining and liberals preferring solar/wind. NIMBYism might be the biggest factor in rejection for all.
Agreed.
I think there is agreement on 99% of American policy and law. The remaining 1% constitutes our hot button issues that we talk about, and even these reach agreement over long stretches of time. Consider the following:
Slavery
women’s rights
property rights
separation of power
due process
First Amendment rights
heroin
trial by jury
etc.
Most of the above is boring precisely because there is political consensus, thus no attention or emotion warranted anymore.
Really? I thought inner-city schools were being attacked all the time as being failed schools or not doing anywhere near well enough.
:smack:
“NOT”. "2. inner city schools are NOT doing the job they need to do.
I forgot one little word, what’s the big deal? :smack::smack:
As I just clarified about the schools, I think all would agree that they are NOT doing the job they need to do. As far as abortion, I do think all sides would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions (and in unwanted pregnancies). But there is no doubt that there is great disagreement on what should or should not be done to get there. But they do agree on the goal, I’d say.
I think there is a fundamental values difference between liberals and conservatives, that is mostly centered on the individualism/collectivism line. For example, take the mythical working man (or woman) who does something like clean up bathrooms or cashiering in a retail place. I, being a progressive, think that person deserves to make enough money to live on. They are working a full time job, contributing to society, etc., their job should pay them a living wage. Collectively, we as a society value one another, even those with relatively low skills, and try to ensure that we can all live in conditions that let us have enough to eat, medical care, shelter and clothing. Some may get more of the good things in life than others, but everybody deserves a minimum standard of well-being.
Conservatives feel that the working poor only deserve a CHANCE at earning a living wage. The job’s wages should be determined by the employer’s willingness to pay wages in the free market, and if the employee can’t survive on that much, they should train to get more lucrative skills and find another job. If they stick with the low wage job they must, at some level, find it meets their needs. Society does not owe anyone a living wage. We are all individually responsible for attaining the level of well-being we find acceptable, and if we can’t or won’t, it’s our individual fault and we need to suffer the consequences.
The big exception here would be abortion, where liberals favor individual freedom and decision making, and conservatives favor collective decisions be made for the individual, and actually against individual objections. In fact, on social issues generally the individualism/collectivist breakdown breaks down. Social conservatives generally advocate collectivist decisions: don’t allow gay individuals to decide whether or not they will marry, force them to remain single. Don’t allow individuals to choose whether or not they will create/view pornography, prevent them from doing so. It is an interesting bifurcation: conservatives tend to be individualists on economic issues and collectivists on social issues. And vice versa.
Of course, as a practical matter, on economic issues, when you get to the federal level, policy makers tend to do whatever the big money guys that contribute the most to them tell them to do, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Which explains why there are maybe half a dozen actual progressives in existence at the federal level.
Err, you do realize that the common line among congressional republicans is that global warming is a hoax, right?
Same here. That’s just crazy talk. Nobody, that I know at least, liberal or conservative, wants a high abortion rate. Ideally, it’s fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions.
Similarly, I don’t really think of nuclear power as being a big liberal issue, either. It’s probably true that those opposed to nuclear power are most likely to be liberal, but the vast majority of liberals I know are supportive of nuclear power, given the current options and state of technology.
Me either 
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
Oh, and did I mention that one side persistently lies about the science, and that certain Congressmen from that side have even threatened climate scientists to try to silence them? And that most (not all) people smart enough to be political leaders are smart enough to know that they’re lying about it?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I thought you meant like about nuclear energy when you started to say lying about science. Yeah, I know. But thank you for illustrating my point for me so well…appreciate that.
Rather than point out all of the flawed conclusion Democrats come to by starting with a premise and then working back I’ll just point out that not all conservatives do this (or even all Republicans), and, again, you are basically making my point for me. Of course, one could point out that not all conservatives or liberals think the other side is wrong or evil all the time either, and mostly I was saying that tongue in cheek, but it’s funny that you reacted exactly as my own strawman said. And so quickly, too.