I’m sorry for posting late to this thread, but this topic is important to me. I love how two people from the same time and culture can be so different in their thinking.
Something struck me in the OP:
This view is vary contrary to a conservative like myself. So much so that it barely fits into my range of valid opinions which others might have.
To rephrase it the quote: others have come to different conclusions on a topic, and since other people’s righteousness is equivalent to ours, we should doubt our own conclusions until some compromise on the topic has been reached.
This affects environmental topics like the Kyoto treaty, which conservatives deride as being a costly solution to a problem which hasn’t affected anyone yet.
Conservatives also don’t want to give up a lifetime of grilled t-bones on the chance that a protein based virus is building up in their brains.
And as for Iraq, we want to end Saddam’s dangerous regime thinking there’s a large chance he’s been responsible for terrible things in the past, and against the small chance that France’s method of weapons inspections and resolutions will accomplish real change.
Someone once said that when good people do nothing then evil wins. But I think you gotta believe in the rightness of your cause.
Well, I think (b) follows analytically in much the same way as convincing you to drive to the store is also convincing you to put your hands on the steering wheel, though I think the latter is a rather non-standard interpretation, and this is my sort of knee-jerk response to “taking a stand on water flouridation” because “the CDC says so and I trust them”. The reasonable stand is where it is, and though we may derive some conclusions about it, imagine the discussion one might have if person A deferred judgment to the CDC and person B had an opinion on water flouridation outright based on some (good or bad) evidence. This discussion involves two people that are actually talking passed each other, because where they have actually taken a reasonable (i.e.- one they can support) stand is different.
Exactly. And of course there are degrees of taking-a-stand, whereas in a casual conversation you might be inclined to talk me into supporting flouridation, should the argument reach a certain level you would most likely fall back on the CDC instead.
The reason I bring this up isn’t to be nitpicky (even if it is), but it sort of irritates me that there is an equivocation of taking a stand on water flouridation (for example) and taking a stand on authorities we trust in matters of water flouridation. I think such a distinction is not only clear, but necessary and important to a reasonable position.
Perhaps, but what interests me is that a level of articulation is gained merely by having hashed out the discussion before. If someone approached you today on this topic on the street, it isn’t like you’re really making an off-the-cuff remark. I think in the case of war protesters (and the sceptic in me sees a bit of selective broadcasting in the US) we find people who never had to defend their view, only give me-toos to friends, or getting me-toos from friends.
A lack of critical review in opinion is devestating to maintaining a stand of any kind.
Kill it. I think it could result in a dangerous hijack for little gain.
That’s not really a fair summary of my quotation. My point was not that we should be paralyzed when faced with someone with equal righteousness. Rather, I was pointing out that a great deal of the stands taken by liberals or conservatives can be explained in terms of liberal understanding of their own capacity to be wrong ( best example is multiculturalism and various issues about personal freedoms that don’t come at the expense of others), and a conservative tendancy to decide they are right and push ahead (supressing lifestyles, going to war, economic theories that lack evidence of success, etc)
You should read the second post I made on this particular topic above. On the issues you mentioned, liberal wariness and conservative righteousness completely explain the positions.
The Enviornment
On the enviornment, we have a great deal of scientific data that there will be adverse ramifications for our lives as a result of pollution. It isn’t certain that this harm will occur, but we know that the harm will be something invasive and natural. Contrarily, we know that by restricting our emissions, we will incur some initial economic problems.
Faced with a choice between losing some money now and the high risk of future harm, someone who doesn’t know what is really going to happen will probably err on the side of human health- this is exactly what liberals do. It takes someone who is RIGHTEOUS about the fact that this future harm will NOT happen, or CERTAIN that economic harm is more important than health problems to work against emissions standards.
The same logic works on the meat example; we know that not eating meat causes no harm to a person in this day and age. We know that eating meat certainly causes some problems, and may cause more. So the same positions hold.
(This all assumes that, all things being equal, people would rather have their health than some cash. I’d rather not argue this point here)
This ALSO falls into the rubric of conservative certainty. Your description of the situation isn’t exactly correct. We weigh the effect of an aggressive action against a sovereign state against the effect of continuing containment of the nation. There is an unquantified chance is that Iraq will, as a nation, cause real damage to United States interests.
By acting aggresively, we stir up alot of change, alter the situation drastically; it could get better, or it could get alot worse. What we do know is that, for certain, our aggression is looked upon with loathing by nearly everyone in the world. Faced with a decision like that, its pretty clear than someone who doesn’t feel confident asserting their own worldview as correct would choose the less obviously disdavantageous alterative.
I completely disagree. I don’t think stubborness in righteousness is a trait of conservatism. Those who get things done on either side of the aisle must have strong beliefs to be motivated.
Also two of the examples you give as acting … well… conservatively (in the sense of not charging into things) are viewed as quite the opposite by …ugh… conservatives. (This terminology has got to go.)
In the case of global warming, conservatives think taking economic action on the scale of Kyoto is drastic. They wonder if in fact there’s another agenda behind this action against the US’s economy. Of course no one wants the devastation predicted by the radical environmentalists… so conservatives agree that the environment should be monitored and action should be taken WHEN bad things start to happen. So far humans are increasing at an ever-increasing rate. A high risk of future harm as you say can be a lie or a mistake, and a VERY big one. The steps needed to implement what the environmentalists want is an absolute certainty.
The meat-eating example is the other case of rashness. While meat is a food rich in energy and should be eaten in moderation for a healthy diet, there ain’t no way I’m gonna stop eating cheeseburgers once in a while for fear of prions. The average age of death seems to be increasing more and more even with all the
“bad things” people eat… the authorities I listen to on nutrition seem to agree that a lack of exercise, smoking, and alcohol are far more dangerous than any diet. Makes sense to me, since humans evolved eating meat once in a while, not being vegetarians, couch potatoes, smokers, or drinkers.
Iraq is a liberal use of force. No disagreement there. I predict the outcome will be something few people expect… it’s safe to say that since the future usually turns out that way.
We conservatives also think people on the left hold stubbornly to economic systems that we think are obvious failures too, like larger government control over the economy in the form of increased socialism and state-run industries. The conservative notion of trickle-down economics is pretty silly, but the idea of “a rising tide lifts all boats” seems to hold true.
-k
—It’s unfortunate, and I think that’s why liberals are leaving the Democratic party for the Greens.—
To the sound of conservative laughter. Though maybe they shouldn’t laugh: after the Democrats lose their lunatic fringe, they might be better able to stage a comeback.
IMHO this is a typical flaw of liberalism – i.e., supporting massive, costly programs which do not work. This sort of problem is even more clear when one looks at various programs that have become sacred cows, even though they are not achieving their goals and arguably may be doing more harm than good, e.g. (unreformed) welfare, bilingual education, and unfettered tort liability suits.
It’s interesting that George Bush is the first President with an MBA degree. I don’t know how well he did in his courses at Harvard Business School, but chances are he came out with a strong focus on what actually works. In principle, liberals should be equally concerned about effectiveness. Howver, by and large, they’re not IMHO.
You have taken the exact Conservative stance I described. In your mind, the benefits of environmentalism as somehow “not as certain” as the detriments. You ignore scientific evidence that pollution causes problems, probably use economic discounting when accounting for future harm, and decide that if a policy causes a sure loss of a dollar, then it isn’t worth taking the measure to avoid serious risk. Why? Because without feeling that you are absolutely right, you refuse to act. Of course there is some chance that the enviornment may improve on it’s own. But the evidence doesn’t lead a reasonable person to believe that. (I’ll save the specifics for a thread dealing with that. Suffice to say, there’s as much evidence for Creationism as there is for denying global warming, and they’re usually spit out by the same individuals.)
This is another straw man that I havn’t addressed because it wasn’t the focus of my discussion. But as long as you’re on the topic…
You have no basis for saying these programs “do not work”. It is true that living in a place where we have these services is DIFFERENT from a world in which the government only shows up now and then to bomb something, but that doesn’t make it bad.
I strongly suspect that, like a moth to flame, this Conservative leaps to the economic cost of a policy as the ultimate barometer of how “bad” a policy is. Welfare is bad because it increases taxes. Tort litigation is bad because it costs industry money, and in theory, results in higher costs for goods and services.
The alternate conclusion to this Conservative dollar-paranoia is that the world changes. The government originally implemented these “liberal” policies not because they went to vote on an ether bender- they did it as a responce to socail need. In particular, tort law is so rampant in America because judges realized the fact that formalist law was simply not doing justice, and began to implment realist ideas. (If you enjoy reading histoy, read about the rise of legal realism. Very telling.)
Today, the government continues these policies because they are necessary. For instance, tort litigation- I assume your gripe is with the massive “monster torts” that hit industries like the tobacco one recently. Corporations have grown to a level of eminance, multinationalism, and power never rivaled ever in the history of mankind. The old arguements for lazziez-faire economic ideas simply ceased to function once corporations became powerful enough to manipulate the market, to coerce people, and to insulate themsleves from any customer redress. Given the fact that the American legal system runs on dollars, without modern tort law, these corporations would have no socail responsibility at all. Allowing these tort claims puts a dollar amount on socail harm- the only language a corporation speaks.
Once again, you focus on the dollar as if that were the only way the the value of something is measured. Living in a world where there is a price tag attatched to everything is very comforting- you are able to serve your Conservative need to be right because you can easily look at the disparate costs and choose the cheaper alternative. But, of course, socail policy is not a marketplace. As much as law-and-economics folk try (true economists know the folly of this approach) to put dollar amounts on lives or diseases or issues, they will never square the accounting book of reality. Liberals realize that the world is full of apples and oranges- risks, benefits, problems, alternate solutions. They know that not every decision can be made with defineteness, and so they must be approached with trepidation.
We seem to be not communicating very well, Maximum C. Let me try to clarify my last post by responding to your points.
I didn’t mean to address “environmentalism” in general. I’m a supporter of environmentalism. I belong to 3 or 4 environmentalist organizations. I was specifically addressing the Kyoto agreement as an alleged remedy for global warming.
On the contrary, I specifically agreed with you that, “We have a great deal of scientific data that there will be adverse ramifications for our lives as a result of pollution.”
Huh?
I do support environmental measures that are quite costly, which I believe do work. E.g., population congrol. Setting aside and protecting park land. Moving toward greater use of nuclear power, in orderto reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This statement has some truth, although it’s distorted. I would be more choosy about what actions to support. I wouldn’t support programs unless they could actually solve the problems.
I don’t think the environment will improve on its own. We fully agree.
I don’t believe in creationism. I don’t even believe in God. Global warming is a multi-faceted issue. [ol][li]I definitely believe the planet is warming. []I think human activity probably is a significant cause of the planet’s warming.[]I don’t think Kyoto can solve the problem.[/ol][/li][quote]
You have no basis for saying these programs “do not work”.
[/quote]
I cited a source that Kyoto doesn’t work. I could cite a great many sources that bilingual education was counter-productive. Many former supporters in have noticed improvements in Hispanic students since it was banned in California. Similarly, welfare reform has been far more successful than its liberal opponents predicted.
May I respectfully suggest that you respond to what I posted, rather than what you “strongly suspect.”
I didn’t say welfare was bad. I said unreformed welfare was bad.
In theory?!? Do you actually doubt that costs are passed on to customers? Have you talked to an obstetrician lately? How much economics have you studied?
I have read some of this. I agree that this was the purpose. Former California Chief Justice Roger J. Traynor, e.g., was a leader. He sought not only justice but efficiency in the spreading of the cost of accidents.
I have many concerns, including mass torts.
Where to start.[list][li]Many corporations who pay for these torts are small. Some of these firms are poorer than a single, successful plaintiff’s attorney. []I haven’t recommended doing away with tort liability law.[]There are many other ways to maintain social responsibility, such as millions of pages of state and federal regulations, business reputation, workers compensation law. [/li][quote]
Allowing these tort claims puts a dollar amount on socail harm- the only language a corporation speaks.
Once again, you focus on the dollar as if that were the only way the the value of something is measured.
[/quote]
Actually, you are the one who broght dollars into this debate. Are you projecting?
If you knew me better, you would realize how little this description applies to me.
This is the exact opposite of the way I see it. Where is the trepidation of those who want Kyoto implmented, instead of dealing with global warming in a more effective fashion? Where was Lyndon Johnson’s trepidation when he spent a trillion dollars on the great society? Where was FDR’s trepidation, when he created a bunch of novel government agencies?
I’m confused, december. On the one hand, you adjust the halo over your head and claim that dollars are not your motivation for action, and then you turn around and admit that economicss are exactly your motivation against the tort problem. You attack on Kyoto, seeing the treaty as something that unfairly restricts US business while allowing foriegn businesses to pollute without repute, is based on exactly the same concern. (This idea is extended to show it wont work, but this assumes that Kyoto would preclude other arrangements when in reality it would lead to more of them.)
I will do some digging to figure out exactly what the non-monetary arguments against your issues are, since you have failed to provide me with any. I’ll post again addressing them later.
I thought I had done so. The argument against Kyoto is that at best it will do little to reduce global warming. The argument against bilingual education is that it harms Hispanic students’ education, rather than enhance it.
A key difference between our positions is your statement, “…this assumes that Kyoto would preclude other arrangements when in reality it would lead to more of them.” This is not “reality”; it’s your opinion.
I think there are situations where it’s valuable to get into action, even when that action does little good. However, I don’t see Kyoto as that sort of situation. I think US participation in Kyoto would discourage other, more effective, approaches, because it would create the false impression that it was solving the problem of global warming. Also, it’s so expensive, there would be less willingness to simultaneously spend money on alternative approaches.
I don’t want to be critical, but I have a sense that you may not really believe in the laws of economics and that your criticism of conservatives is that they do believe in the laws of economics.
December, your views don’t strike me as particularly representative of conservatives, who place as much emphasis on religion as on economics/anti-government. Perhaps I’ve got my own conservaive straw-man going, but I see a strong tendancy to dismiss environmentalism altogether, partly to diss ideological rivals (i.e. “wackos”), partly out of economic self-interest, and partly because it’s contrary to the Biblical world-view. Some conservatives (fringe perhaps) believe the environment isn’t a concers because these are the “end times”.
Interesting. This is my #1 beef with conservatives, their War on Family Planning (I avoid using the term “population control” because it sounds too radical). But it isn’t costly, just not religiously correct.
Well I think december is a pretty good representative of the moderate conservative.
I think the liberals have a big problem which should be remedied for their own sake: they accuse conservatives of wanting to end all forms of public assistance, allow corporations to ruin the environment, return the United States to Jim Crow laws, etc.
It is often never assumed that conservatives are concerned about the same issues that liberals think about. But they are, and have come to different conclusions on how to solve problems and who to believe when looking for truth.
Conservatives have had to explain themselves and withstand the name-calling for so long that they seem to have naturally formed more reasoned arguments, IMHO. If liberals keep responding with “the reason you’re wrong is obvious” and “you’re wrong because you’re a <fill-in-the-blank>” the average voter (who doesn’t like to pay attention long) will lean to the right again.
Except, Kempis, that that isn’t how liberal arguments function. From my experience, it is always the CONSERVATIVES talking down to the liberals as “anti american” or “anti god” or “anti life” or whatever. The conservatives do the talking down and the “obvious” arguments.
If you want a humorous example of this, check out this week’s “Point-Counterpoint” in The Onion.
In my experience it’s always the liberals that are making the stupid and illogical arguments. In my experience it’s always the liberals who are wrong and talk down and act all huffy.
Yeah, there’s some confirmational bias going on when remembering arguments with the other political bent.
As for that Onion article, it’s supposed to be a humorous example of someone on the left providing reasoned arguments while the right just says “nuh-uh”.
Unless you’re a conservative, who views the list of concerns by the lefty consisting of all unsubstantiated imaginations. None of his concerns are backed up by an example. The righty could’ve given the examples of the invasion of very-Islamic Afghanistan as not galvanizing the Arabs, and the success stories of Germany and Japan having forced democracies. That wouldn’t be funny though.
