Doper poll: what makes us take the sides we do?

I think a lot of it has to do with priorities, actually, as opposed to some motif in the issues themselves. I would classify liberals as prioritizing individual experience over the conservative’s group ideal.

I also feel that they are prioritize freedom differently. Liberals seem to lean toward sacrifices for the greater good while conservatives tend to be a bit more greedy, each side seeing them as being champions of freedom and equality (that is, equalize opportunity, means, or available resources[sub]possession[/sub]).

What I find so amusing is how those two things contradict each other, which is why people hold simultaneous

We have a pretty one-party state, otherwise. Our politicians seem to agree on the abstract principles (freedom, security, etc), not on what those principles imply or how we best uphold them.

liberal and conservative views, and yet would consider themselves one way or the other (except for the weak moderates who are afraid to take sides. You always order dinner last, too? ;))

as a liberal (who is sympathetic to the theory of libertarianism) I think that both sides are very emotional. They just experience different emotions.

Liberal emotions tend to be all gooey and weepy and conservative emotions tend to be flinty and pissed off.

I think it’s funny the way conservatives accuse liberals of being “emotional” as though emotion were a *bad * thing, and more importantly, as though “emotion” equals gooey, weepy, girly emotions. There are many varieties of emotion, as we all know when we stop to think about it for five seconds. Anger, frustration, rage, irritation, disgust…all these are emotions, too.

I do not think it is a division between the wussy liberals singing “Feelings” to each other while the Vulcans running the Republican party make important decisions for the world.

Perhaps the division and distribution of these emotions is not really always so clear, and I’m just reacting to the Clinton years, of Clinton himself being all gooey while his enemies on the right were permanently pissed.

Just thought I’d point that out, tho.

stoid

I think ‘emotions’ are a red herring here. I’ve known plenty of emotional conservatives, and plenty of flinty-eyed liberals.

The primary difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives believe that the state exists to protect the rights of individuals, while liberals believe that the state should be an active force in changing the direction of society. When liberals see something bad going on in the country, they turn to the state as the solution, or at least as part of it. Conservatives believe that people should be left to manage their own affairs, and that we don’t have the right to force them into a societal mold that the majority has decided is the ‘correct’ one.

Furthermore, conservatives justify their position by claiming that the government doesn’t work very well, and that big government is dangerous and a threat to liberty. They can drag out statistics all day showing the failures of government - the trillions spent on the war on poverty, which seem to have been completely wasted. The hundreds of billions spent on the war on drugs, to no apparent effect. OSHA has spent more money than the entire Apollo space program, without making a dent in workplace safety.

Then they would point out that allowing government, along with its guns and soldiers, into our domestic lives is a dangerous slippery slope that has led to oppression in the past over and over again.

Finally, the more philosophical of the conservatives would point to the large body of classical works in philosophy, economics, history, and other social sciences which support their assertions.

Liberals do much the same thing, on the opposite side of the fence. They have their own collection of writers that support their side, they have their own collection of horror stories about the failure of the market, and they see no reason why an enlightened populace can’t use its own government to help cure the ills of society. They have their own successes to hold up as examples of how good, activist government can be a powerful force for change.

There - that’s the non-inflammatory, even-handed explanation for each position.

I grew up in a very poor neighborhood, surrounded by welfare families. My mother was a single parent, raising two boys on her own. Most of her friends were welfare mothers.

This experience taught me a couple of things. First, my mother’s friends were very angry. The cheques they got from the government were never enough, they were entitled, it wasn’t fair, etc. I also heard lots of claims of how a single mother with two children simply can’t make it without help.

Well, my mother was proof that this wasn’t the case. She didn’t have much of an education, but she worked in a grocery store as a clerk, and worked hard. She made less than the welfare moms were getting. But you know what? Our conversations around the dinner table weren’t about the unfairness of life and the cheapness of government. Instead, they were about opportunities, working hard, the chance of promotion, etc.

This set an example in my life, and I was never in danger of becoming a second-generation welfare recipient. But what about those kids whose only role models had given up and expected everything to be given to them because life wasn’t fair?

Anyway, over time my mom did indeed get promoted, and eventually wound up managing that little grocery store. And she saved her money and we eventually bought a little house and moved out of the area. Eventually, she sold that house and used the equity to buy a little store of her own, which she runs by herself and is very happy. And she never took a dime of government assistance.

A few years ago I went back to that old neighborhood. And you know what? Most of the people I knew there as a child are still there. Their children probably live there as well (I personally knew a couple who did). I came to the conclusion that government handouts may sometimes be necessary, but they carry a tremendous baggage - a soul-deadening belief that you are helpless, that there are forces beyond your control running your life. It creates a permanent underclass of sad, angry people. It is something to be avoided at all cost.

That experience made me skeptical of government, and I started paying much closer attention. And I found that for every ‘good’ government program, there were ten that were poorly planned, or pork-barrel projects to get someone elected, or flat-out counter-productive. These formative years were spent watching governments flirt with wage and price controls (which ALWAYS backfired, and many of us knew they would and couldn’t understand how the politicians couldn’t figure that out).

We watched governments impose sky-high tariffs coupled with freight subsidies for ‘good’ industries, in an attempt to control the direction and production of the economy. With disastrous consequences.

We watched marginal tax rates reach 70%, while the gap between the rich and poor continued to increase. We watched the government loosen the money supply in an attempt to buy prosperity, which resulted in high inflation as classical economists had been saying it would for a long time. We watched as society started to fracture and ‘malaise’ set in, as the current governments told people that the rich were at fault, it wasn’t their fault that they were poor, tough times were ahead, and that the only answer was to tax the rich even more and give to the rest of the people because they weren’t capable of making it on their own without the benevolent government helping them. We were told we were too stupid to figure out which products to buy, which drugs were safe, which jobs were unsafe, which cars to buy (foreign cars had high tariffs on them to ‘encourage’ us to buy the ‘right’ kind of cars), etc. Government became our mommy and daddy, and the people suffered as a result.

Finally, as I was becoming an adult the ‘conservative revolution’ happened. Reagan was elected in the States, Mulroney in Canada, and Thatcher in Britain. And I never saw such an outpouring of hatred and anger from the left. But all three countries made a miraculous turn-around in fortunes. Reagan more than the others brought back a sense of optimism and self-reliance that filtered back through the populace. He told us that government was the problem, not the answer. He told us to look at ourselves first if we wanted our lives to be better, rather than trying to hitch a ride on the back of government. He gave us back our self-esteem and a sense of purpose.

Now that I’m almost 40, my beliefs have tempered a bit. I no longer see government as a necessary evil, but as a positive presence in our lives as long as it is kept somewhat in check. I’ve made lots of liberal friends, and I discovered early on that not all liberals are motivated by fear and anger at life, as were the people of my youth.

But I still deeply believe that the best organizing force in our lives is the free market, and that government generally screws things up when it involves itself in the affairs of the market. And while I believe that we are wealthy enough that people shouldn’t starve in our streets or go without basic medical care, I still believe that government charity comes with a very high spiritual pricetag and should be avoided if at all possible.

But while some of my beliefs have tempered, others have grown stronger. I’ve watched the ‘war on drugs’ turn into a frontal assault on our civil liberties, with unreasonable searches, racial profiling, civil forfeiture of assets even without charges being laid, etc. Millions of non-violent drug offenders locked up in overflowing jails. I consider these people to be political prisoners. Here in Canada, I watched our welfare programs expand to the point where they almost bankrupted the country, and yet things got worse. There were just as many poor as before, many of them were now on permanent assistance, and far from making them happier it seemed to make them angrier to the extent that people the Maritimes were resorting to riots and violence to get more from the government trough.

Sam,

I would question whether conservatives see the government as protecting the rights of individuals, which is what attracts many people to progressive liberalism, from the very beginning. In my experience, conservatives usually protect the rights of individuals in relation to their investment, as in the right of a farmer to drain a swamp, or the right of a factory owner to fire employees who unionize. This protection is not individual rights, but status or privilege rights.

I wonder where “anti-government” fits into the conservative mind-set. I have noticed that many populist commentators have savaged the government in recent memory (even Rush Limbaugh claimed that the military was the only thing that worked in the government, which is odd, because their productivity can’t be measured because they don’t produce, they offer socialized healthcare, they plan their tools to be destroyed, and have been know to pay $10 per paperclip on some projects). Anyway, I wonder if “anti-government” critics (US) is just a smokescreen for racist and misogynistic religious hate-mongers (like it is where I live in Southern Utah) who are basically violently angry that the rights of minorities and women are now enforced under the law.

Some people here want to believe that there are emotional differences between conservatives and liberals. Liberals get characterized as caring, perhaps a bit mushy, lovable types, while conservatives are tough, harsh, etc.

I think this is completely bogus. I don’t think a political philosophy attracts people of a certain emotional type. Rather, people of all emotional types can be found throughout both philosophies, but their emotions will change the way they express it.

A warm, caring liberal might turn out to be a Jimmy Carter. On the other hand, an intolerant, angry liberal might turn out to be a class warrior like Louis Farrakhan, or a strident Politically-correct type like Maxine Waters, or our own Stoidela. On the other hand, an intolerant, angry conservative might wind up being a religious-right zealot or an angry conservative like Bob Dornan. A warm, caring conservative might turn out to be someone like Ronald Reagan, or my Grandparents who never had a bad word to say about anyone, were always ready to lend a helping hand to anyone who needed it, but distrusted government deeply and had no use for modern liberals who defined charity by how much of other people’s money they could re-direct at their own causes.

Sam,

By “redirecting people’s money at their own causes,” you exclude military spending from this? How convenient. What about Reagan’s cutting taxes, raising spending, and borrowing from the future? (Clinton spent 19.5 GDP, while Reagan spent 23%, according to Newsweek). You also implied that the gap between rich and poor declined under Reagan, do you really believe this?

And concerning all this talk about political emotions. I am utterly confused. Who said that liberals “feel” more for people, injustice is more a function of logic than emotion, and who said conservatives have any logic? They merely feign this if they lack that famous backwoodsy charm. They are almost all primarily directed by passions and emotion, although perhaps more insecure and afraid of the public. I see most lower middle-class Republicans as the insecure bully’s backslapper, who easily blames the victim and flatters the victimizer, they sure don’t want to be confused with the rest of the world. Damn wannabe’s, they make them all look toady.

I would like to offer Mr. Bunnyhart as exhibit “A” for the liberal who happens to also be consumed with hatred and intolerance. In his case, he directs it at we evil conservatives, who are all a bunch of bullies and thugs.

I don’t know about that. Consider the business as an individual. It is treated as such legally so it should not be that much of a stretch. Now, consider that this individual’s friends all got together one day and decided they wanted him to “treat them better” by giving them more food when they stopped over, or whatever you feel comfortable with. At this point, the individual has every right in the world to stop this friendship, no questions asked, for any reason declared or undeclared. The business, or more specifically the businessman, has not this recourse. I would not call the ability to pick and choose relationships a “privilege,” would you?[/hijack]

Oh, and stoid?

Does that make you a conservative? You just set up a stereotype, then accused others of using it.
Er…?

Sam Stone, in your post about the differences between liberals and conservatives, you said of conservatives, “Conservatives believe that people should be left to manage their own affairs, and that we don’t have the right to force them into a societal mold that the majority has decided is the ‘correct’ one.”

Do any conservatives actually say this? Granted, they want govt to butt out of many economic matters, but they don’t seem to have any wish at all that govt stop trying to legislate morality. If anything, they’re more in favor of govt regulating people’s morality then are liberals.

You continued, “Furthermore, conservatives justify their position by claiming that the government doesn’t work very well, and that big government is dangerous and a threat to liberty. They can drag out statistics all day showing the failures of government - the trillions spent on the war on poverty, which seem to have been completely wasted. The hundreds of billions spent on the war on drugs, to no apparent effect. OSHA has spent more money than the entire Apollo space program, without making a dent in workplace safety. Then they would point out that allowing government, along with its guns and soldiers, into our domestic lives is a dangerous slippery slope that has led to oppression in the past over and over again.”

These seem to me to be things that libertarians say, not conservatives. It’s the libertarians that want to end the war on drugs. It’s the libertarians who would shut down many govt agencies, probably including OSHA.

The only things conservatives seem to want to get rid of are welfare, affirmative action, and other social programs that attempt to help the impoverished and disadvantaged.

Moving on to your next post, I agree that the effects of welfare can be unfortunate. But if the alternative is for mothers and children to stave in the streests, I guess welfare is the lesser evil. In theory, I think we could greatly reduce the need for welfare – if we completely redesigned society. Not much chance of that happening.

Sam,

I distinctly implied that emotional insecurity drives the aggressive conservative movement, not logic. I also implied that most conservatives are not the bully, but the toad-eating wannabe. I think that any conservative movement that attempts to legislate morality and private acts totally makes toast out of your claims that liberals want to irrationally control people. Furthermore, I think that anyone who tries to ameliorate injustices is heroic, and anyone who focuses their political spit on legislating morality is deeply scarred emotionally and maybe traumatized by neglect or abuse.

As usual, I have another criticism: Republicanism has nothing whatsoever to do with ethics (public morals), unless you think letting people go without medicine is made up for by praying in public schools. So, that’s what I mean by being illogical and instead emotional.

Well, by that standard ‘liberals’ are just as illogical, since they claim to stand for equality and freedom, yet they support government intrusion into our lives in many other ways. And I haven’t noticed the DNC jump on the drug legalization bandwagon, have you?

You’re right in that I shouldn’t be speaking for all ‘conservatives’, if we are going to define ‘conservative’ as ‘mainstream Republican’.

If you want to start comparing conservatives and liberals as embodied by the Republican and Democratic parties, then both sides are hypocrites. But they share far more similarities than differences. It’s kind of a myth that there is a big difference between Republicans and Democrats - both parties are generally statist and support 95% of what government does. They only differ in the last 5%, and sometimes not even then. And sometimes, their positions flip-flop and they adopt each other’s policies for strategic gain, as they are doing now with Bush’s tax plan.

Remember, I’m not speaking about any specific political parties. I’m not even American. The conservative/liberal split exists in Canada, Britain, and indeed pretty much every other democracy.

The topic of the miraculous turnaround that our country had under Reagan has already been disected in many other threads, so I won’t go into it here. However, I feel that this portion of the post is entirely lacking in logic. If any president this century brought back a sense of “optimism and self-reliance”, I would have to think of FDR. Needless to say, he was among the biggest proponents of big government ever.

I also take issue with this “outporing of hatred and anger” from the left. (We all know that the left doesn’t consist of individuals, it just acts as a unit, of course.) Probably the thing that made many liberals upset about Reagan is that he put style ahead of substance, that he always made people believe in him even when he was screwing up and/or breaking the law, and that he always got away with it. After all, there was an extremely hostile reaction from many conservatives when Bill Clinton showed that he could play the same game better than even Reagan could.

Actually, you are drawing conclusions based on very narrow evidence. I was extremely upset about the election, and that’s when I got my current rep. But as a matter of fact, I’m a classic case of being a gooey, weepy liberal. I was even so during the election. IRL, I wasn’t screaming about what was happening, I was crying.

And the emotions that come up for me when I think about the issues that mean the most to me are sorrow, grief, fear…all kinda weepy.

Furthermore, I am not “politically correct” at all, if you pay attention. I am a feminist that sells porn. I am perfectly horrified by the sort of politcally correct crap going on in universtieis, where any reference to the fact of racial difference, for instance, can be called “hate speech”. I get pretty upset with my fellow liberals at the way they can trivialize really important issues like sexual harassment and rape by assigning the labels to any less-than-pleasant gender interaction.

The topics which are closest to my heart are environmental protection and animal rights. But I don’t sacrifice my good sense. For instance, you will not find a bigger whale-lover than me. I’m just flat out ga-ga over all sea mammals. But some years back, when 3 gray whales got trapped in the ice, I was thoroughly disgusted at the amount of money that was spent saving them. It was over $1 million to save THREE whales. That money would have been better spent saving ALL whales. People fell apart because they could see the suffering of those particular whales, so they cared. I care more about the whole species, thank you much. (I was very, very sad over those whales, however, even though i viewed it as a perfectly Darwin moment…they weren’t smart enough to get the hell outta dodge before the sea froze, so they got deleted from the gene pool.)

I’m really very misperceived around here, based on my admittedly strident, even hysterical distress over the election. But on a day to day basis, I’m a pretty chilled out person, even on topics of great import to me. And on those topics, when they don’t go my way, I more often weep than rage.

stoid