# does this explain the whole conservative/ liberal ideological divide? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236 "2009-03-12T18:29:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [March 12, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/21 "2009-03-12T21:57:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Between federal income tax, state income tax, city income taxes (in some instances), capital gains and dividend taxes, SS tax, Medicare tax, gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, car registration taxes, hotel room taxes, unemployment taxes paid for you on your behalf by your employer, special levies for school districts, airline ticket taxes, it’s damn near 50% for practically every wage-earner in the United States. More for those in higher tax brackets. Practically every wage earner in the United States is paying state income taxes and city income taxes and car registration taxes and hotel room taxes and airline ticket taxes? ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/22 "2009-03-12T22:20:02Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Show me numbers, please. Here’s the first thing I found by Googling for 20 seconds. It’s not the source of my number. I searched for something after you asked. This is from the Cato Institute, so take it as such. You’re free to challenge whatever numbers you see fit. I’m reading this for the first time, as you are. About mid-way down the page it pegs the total government contribution from a $60,000 wage-earner in Kansas at 36%. I haven’t dug into all of their numbers, but as a former employer myself, I would say that feels about right. Feel free to pick apart their analysis. I have no pride of ownership. But that number doesn’t even get into the person’s - Property taxes - Sales taxes, probably in the 5% range on $20+k worth of spending each year - Gasoline taxes and car registration taxes - Other special use taxes (school bond levies, airline tickets, hotels) You would need 14% more on the $60,000 to hit the 50% mark. That’s $8400 more per year in taxation from all of the above buckets. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/23 "2009-03-12T22:56:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Bush immediately comes to mind. Really? I know that a lot of people have a visceral hatred for Bush, and I’m not a Bush fan myself, but this is just silly. Even amongst the Bush haters I’ve met in my life, most were willing to admit that he probably genuinely thought he was doing good, but was wrong, and was probably incompetent, but wasn’t wasn’t evil and selfish. > [@](#): > > The vast majority of them, in general. Little people commit crimes ? Stomp on them. Rich guy commits a crime ? Let it slide, or slap his wrist. You have homosexual urges ? You’re a monster. They have homosexual urges ? No big deal. You use drugs ? You’re evil. They use drugs ? It was a youthful indiscretion ( in their 40s ) ! There’s hypocrites like this everywhere in the political spectrum, and I can come up with plenty of exagerations on the other side like “You have a big carbon footprint? You’re destroying the Earth. We have a big carbon footprint? It’s outdone by the work we do to reduce other peoples footprints.” or “You lie to the American people? You deceiver. We lie to the face of the American people? It wasn’t your business anyway.” Do I really believe any of that? No, not in the slightest, but I can certainly use a few extreme examples of Democrats to paint the same picture you are of Republicans. Can we, even for just a moment, pretend that it’s possible that there’s good people on both sides of the political spectrum, that are genuinely trying to do what they think is the right thing to do, and the reason that they disagree is because of a fundamental philosophical difference? You know, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, since I don’t associate with either major party, but I find it tiresome when I see one side endlessly attack the other as evil, power-hungry, and selfish, when it really just comes down to a fundamental difference in philosophy that leads to opposing viewpoints that are irreconcileable with the other one. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/24 "2009-03-12T22:59:46Z")
Jonathan Haidt has done some interesting research on the difference between conservatives and liberals - and why conservatives can understand liberals but liberals can not understand conservative. His homepage: [http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/](http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/) His Civil Politics page: [http://www.civilpolitics.org/](http://www.civilpolitics.org/) From one of his papers: > [@](#): > > We present theoretical and empirical reasons for > believing that there are five psychological systems that provide the foundations > for the worlds many moralities. The five foundations are psychological preparations > for detecting and reacting emotionally to issues related to harm/care, > fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. > Political liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two > foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of political > conservatives, who generally rely upon all five foundations. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/25 "2009-03-12T23:20:42Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > You know, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, since I don’t associate with either major party, but I find it tiresome when I see one side endlessly attack the other as evil, power-hungry, and selfish, when it really just comes down to a fundamental difference in philosophy that leads to opposing viewpoints that are irreconcileable with the other one. You’re not going to get anywhre on this one. Der Trihs pretty much always does this. What’s rather funny is that all the posts up to here are still wrong, even the ones trying to be “fair”. Mostly, board liberals simply don’t get us on the other side of the fence. And there are a lot of us in many different categories. The major ones tend to fall into the PaleoCons, NeoCons, Religious Right, and Libertarians. I like to think of them as follows: PaleoCons are traditionalist, and actually have the most theory on their side, but tend not to argue much. NeoCons are actually liberals of the old idealist school, and are pretty unreliable for the Right in general. Religious Right is vastly not-radical crazies, but that’s how they tend to get portrayed. Over the long run they are the probably the most moderate of any group. Libertarians like to stand around and tell other people how to get votes, but they don’t actually vote, donate, or work to get candidates into office. Laziness and self-interest is their enemy. Actually breaking it down into viewpoints and so forth takes a long time. For the most part, however, the major difference between Right and Left is simply a matter of _fairness_. The two sides have radically different long-term concepts of what America should be. They fundamentally don’t see the world in the same way. Now, that way tends to center on what individuals are and should be. On the Right, the emphasis is on fair rules. The rules must be equitable, and although people will win or lose by them off and on, they ultimately don’t care about the individual outcomes so much that the rules are unbiased. They must be good rules, sure, but don’t need to ensure somebody wins. The Left tends to go with the idea that society is “unfair” and can/should be forced to be fair in the outcome. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/26 "2009-03-12T23:27:59Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Now, that way tends to center on what individuals are and should be. On the Right, the emphasis is on fair rules. The rules must be equitable, and although people will win or lose by them off and on, they ultimately don’t care about the individual outcomes so much that the rules are unbiased. They must be good rules, sure, but don’t need to ensure somebody wins. The Left tends to go with the idea that society is “unfair” and can/should be forced to be fair in the outcome. That’s a nice summary. But I don’t understand the Right/Left distinction. Actually, I get the Left distinction. But maybe not the Right. Isn’t that closer to small-government, libertarian philosophy than ‘conservatism’? At least, conservatism the way I am labeling it. Make up some basic rules to protect people’s rights, enforce them equally, and then let people pursue whatever they want to pursue. That’s it. Am I misinterpreting what you said? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/27 "2009-03-12T23:46:21Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > conservatives believe in personal moral responsibility [Axis of Weasels: The Men Who Ruined the Economy](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/photofeatures/2009/03/villains-of-the-economic-crisis.php?img=1) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/28 "2009-03-13T00:00:45Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > That said, I would tend to agree that the well understood definition (though much more blurred these days than, say, ten years ago) was that, what we refer to as liberals tended to believe in social freedom and fiscal regulation and conservatives tended to believe the opposite. How you want to explain it though, really depends upon your perspective. > From a fiscal perspective, I think my point is a lot more clear. Fiscal conservatives believe they’re in the best place to make the decisions for their money, they believe they’re entitled to it since they earned it, and look at fiscal liberals as people who think they can make better decisions than them about how they should spend their money. Meanwhile, Fiscal liberals think the best way to improve the quality of life is to improve the socioeconomic position of everyone, that it’s the obligation of the wealthy to improve society and help out the poor and that conservatives are selfish and socially irresponsible. I’d say many fiscal conservatives claim to want to improve the quality of life of everyone (or all deserving ones) also. The problem is not intent, it is that the policies don’t work very well. And I don’t think liberals like fiscal regulation per se - only that required to achieve other goals. The major goal is to equalize opportunity to a certain extent. Both sides recognize to some extent that people have different capabilities. Liberals wish to ensure that those not as competent as others get a fair break and protection for financial predators. I think many conservatives consider people who are taken advantage of stupid or immoral, and tend to assume that their problem stems primarily from greed or something similar. Both positions have down sides - the liberal one might be over protective, and try to reduce risk taking which is necessary, while the conservative one leads to things like the subprime mess. There also might be a bit of inward/outward dichotomy. A conservative says regulation is unnecessary, since he can read a contract just fine (which is no doubt true.) A liberal may be able to read that contract just as well, but can imagine a person who cannot, and wants the laws to be targeted to support that person, not him or herself. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/29 "2009-03-13T00:04:43Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > deciding what a label on a bottle of beer or cereal box should look like I’m going to assume your talking generally about the US here, and in the US, the government does have certain labeling requirements (such as nutritional and ingredient information for food). The purpose of these types of labeling requirements is to promote economic efficiency. It’s an attempt to correct an [information assymetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry) problem. Some of the other things you mention (such as wages - I’m assuming that’s a comment about minimum wage laws) also concern different economic efficiency problems. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/30 "2009-03-13T00:15:13Z")
I agree, but our opponents, **BrightNShiny** , aren’t about the efficacy of the market, but its fine moral standing, which is present even in pathalogical cases like monopolies and externalities. Democracy is so unfair. Much better if I get more votes by having more money. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/31 "2009-03-13T00:33:32Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Bush immediately comes to mind. And specifically what rules does (or did) Bush demand people follow which he does not (or did not) follow himself? And how exactly does (or did) Bush avoid contributing to society? And what exactly did Bush do or say which makes you think that he wants others to parrot his views? Thanks!! ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/32 "2009-03-13T00:50:28Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I agree, but our opponents, **BrightNShiny** , aren’t about the efficacy of the market, but its fine moral standing, which is present even in pathalogical cases like monopolies and externalities. Democracy is so unfair. Much better if I get more votes by having more money. I constantly see conservatives talk about efficiency, but at the same time rail against regulations designed to promote economic efficiency. I suppose they have some different view of what is efficient and what isn’t, but I can’t figure out what that is. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/33 "2009-03-13T00:54:37Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Jonathan Haidt has done some interesting research on the difference between conservatives and liberals - and why conservatives can understand liberals but liberals can not understand conservative. I am almost finished with this and I’d like to thank you for the reference. I am nowhere near finished digesting it, but there’s something in it that incites me. Not that I disagree with anything presented (though one has to wonder about internet polls being used as data), but rather that a particular parenthetical got me going: > [@](#): > > Liberals might perhaps examine their instinctive distrust of institutions and > authorities, and the way that this distrust motivate their own social cognition. I can never figure where conservatives figure liberals lie. Do they hate institutions, or want to create them to boss everyone around? Or are liberals just hypocrites that like academic institutions but despise others? Except for government… argh, the whole thing just doesn’t make sense. Anyway, thanks for the reference. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/34 "2009-03-13T00:57:23Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And specifically what rules does (or did) Bush demand people follow which he does not (or did not) follow himself? Of the top of my head I can say that he wanted people that invade other countries to hang from a noose… ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/35 "2009-03-13T01:12:02Z")
I recently ran across an interesting perspective on the liberals/conservatives thing in William Poundstone’s book [Prisoner’s Dilemma](http://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Dilemma-William-Poundstone/dp/038541580X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236906075&sr=1-1). He says that, in terms of the [Prisoner’s Dilemma](http://taumoda.com/web/PD/library/prisoner2.html) situation from game theory, liberals are those who tend to adopt a “cooperator” strategy, while conservatives take the “defector” strategy. [QUOTE=William Poundstone] Arguably, the prisoner’s dilemma is behind much political debate. Conservatives and liberals don’t really want such different things. Liberals don’t enjoy paying taxes, and conservatives don’t like seeing the homeless encamped in railroad stations. Why then do reasonable people differ so widely in their politics? As the term is most commonly used in U.S, politics, a liberal is a “cooperator”: someone willing to put himself at risk for exploitation in order to increase the common good. Liberals favor paying taxes that go to help the homeless in the expectation that the homeless will not fritter away such aid but will use it to get on their feet. A liberal may favor cutting back in defense expenditures in the hope that other countries will do the same. By cooperating, a liberal expects to create a society with fewer homeless, or fewer missiles–something that everybody wants, but which will not come about through anyone’s unilateral effort. Conservatives are often “defectors” in that they seek to guarantee themselves the best outcome possible on their efforts alone. Taxes may be squandered, so the safest course is to let people keep as much of their income as possible and decide individually how best to spend it. Enemy nations may exploit a unilateral arms freeze to gain the upper hand. Conservative political positions avoid the “sucker payoffs” of welfare cheats and arms treaty violators. [/QUOTE] So, by this perspective, conservatives may not be the ones who believe in personal moral responsibility, but they want to avoid being taken advantage of by others who lack such moral responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/36 "2009-03-13T01:13:55Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Of the top of my head I can say that he wanted people that invade other countries to hang from a noose… Could you give me the specifics of that? For example, the UK apparently participated in the recent invasion of Afghanistan. Somehow I doubt that Bush wanted any British soldiers or leaders to be hanged. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/37 "2009-03-13T01:29:46Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I’m going to assume your talking generally about the US here, and in the US, the government does have certain labeling requirements (such as nutritional and ingredient information for food). The purpose of these types of labeling requirements is to promote economic efficiency. It’s an attempt to correct an [information assymetry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry) problem. Some of the other things you mention (such as wages - I’m assuming that’s a comment about minimum wage laws) also concern different economic efficiency problems. Oh. Right. Government officials decide what goes on, and doesn’t go on, beer bottle labels so they can keep the hum of commerce flowing. Thank God for that regulation. Business would grind to a halt without it. Here’s a little example from our friends up north… > **[LCBO: Let’s Censor Bunnies, OK?](https://beerbeatsbites.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/lcbo-lets-censor-bunnies-ok/)** > > Like most government-run liquor boards, Ontario’s LCBO has their fair share of rules and regulations that producers and agents have to follow in order to get their products into the system. S… ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/38 "2009-03-13T01:39:17Z")
Information asymmetry is a real problem. Bunnies on bottles of beer is not. I’m sure this superfluous regulation is costing Canada millions by all the out of work folk who just couldn’t manage to get by without putting pictures of bunnies on beer bottles. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/39 "2009-03-13T01:41:31Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Oh. Right. Government officials decide what goes on, and doesn’t go on, beer bottle labels so they can keep the hum of commerce flowing. Thank God for that regulation. Business would grind to a halt without it. I didn’t say “business would grind to a halt.” I said the regulation is designed to correct an [economic efficiency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency) problem. On top of that, you post a link to a Canadian regulation when I was talking about the US, and that particular regulation has nothing to do with economic efficiency. So, to sum up: you (1) make a complete non-sequitir about business grinding to a halt, and (2) rather than discuss the actual regulation I was discussing post a cite to a regulation that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. It’s clear from your non-sequitir that you lack a basic understanding of capitalist economic theory. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2009, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/40 "2009-03-13T01:50:28Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I didn’t say “business would grind to a halt.” I said the regulation is designed to correct an [economic efficiency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency) problem. > > On top of that, you post a link to a Canadian regulation when I was talking about the US, and that particular regulation has nothing to do with economic efficiency. > > So, to sum up: you (1) make a complete non-sequitir about business grinding to a halt, and (2) rather than discuss the actual regulation I was discussing post a cite to a regulation that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. > > It’s clear from your non-sequitir that you lack a basic understanding of capitalist economic theory. Really? OK, then. Ball is in your court. I posted the Canadian link because I tried to divine from your post that you somehow thought the US was a special case in this regard. Obviously, that was wrong. Accept my apologies. So please educate me. I’m all ears. I would love to gain a basic understanding of capitalist economic theory. That sounds exciting. I don’t see a specific regulation you were discussing. I see a Wikipedia reference to information asymmetry. But feel free to rattle off a list of regulations that you think promote economic efficiency. Do me a favor and avoid the strawmen that many other posters use on this Board, which is to call laws that prevent the use of force or fraud, ‘regulations’. I am defining ‘regulation’ as the prevention of a voluntary transaction between two parties from taking place, backed by force of government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236.md?page=3)