I confess: I don't understand the other side

[smiling_bandit]

@howye

You know I wrote most of a post to respond to your arguments specifcally, but I have deleted it. You are right, this is not the proper place to argue the specifics of these issues. But, I will say this, I was hoping for a helpful response. What I got was an attack and a twisting of what I said. For instance, I said a religious basis for the defintion of marriage is not valid. If the government defines what marriage is based solely on religous principles, of any faith, that is establishing a religion. You twisted my statement to be an attack on christianity, stating that your values meant nothing while I gave value to any “half-wit philosphy” I challenge you to tell me where I said that. I give no value to any relgion to tell me how I live my life.

Where, specifically, did I say it was or should be founded on a religion’s principles? Under your theory, I should be in favor of allowing murder and rape because my objection to them is not utilitarianism but religious morals. Most of your countrymen are religious. Deal with it. We’re not going to make you come to church, but if you think we’re not going to press the government to respect our principles, then you are making a big mistake. We have o less right to it than you.

Your post is great example of what I do not understand about conservatives. You are so sure of yourself, so arrogant. Your post drips with the belief that I did not consider everything you mention, that I could not possibly understand. It is this attitude I see in so many conservatives. Its not that I am wrong and you are right, its that you really trully beleive that you alone can understand the full complexity of the situation. Combined with the belief that conservatives, and christians, are some sort of under seige minority in this country.

That might be because you didn’t consider almost anything I said. Frankly, we are under attack; every day, with loud voice, privelage comes in with blatant voice and tells me over all the airways that I’m worthles, stupid, arrogant, evil, monstrous, and deluded. Because I vote Republican, mostly, I am condemned as insane or maladjusted by psychologists who replaced their principles with politics. Half this board declared war on Sarah Palin. And if they cannot win the argument they will drown it out with insults and hatred. I am told on a daily basis by Der Trihs, Diogenes, and gonzomax that I am somewhat lower than the spawn of Satan, and that I am secretly planning to help establish Hitler reborn in the unholy Christian American Empire of Torture and Bad Stuff.

Y’know what? I don’t much care. I don’t have to care about your opinions. I will understand them so as to fight you more effectively. And that’s it. I don’t respect your side, because your side does not respect me.

ETA - The second paragraph is not meant as a personal attack to you, Smiling Bandit. It is an explanation of what I do not understand about conservatives.

Please, of course it was meant as an attack. I don’t really care, because my self-worth is not founded on your opinion.

Likewise, the left wing has rarely understood that the right in America is not conservative. No one, except maybe Pat Buchanon (who has zero influence and never seriously any), is trying to go back to some mythical Golden Age. We do object to leftist mythmaking, like the claptrap idea that the 50’s were some worthless hide-bound decade of boring idiot conservatives scheming to keep the blacks down and enforce social conformity. Or that Che Guevara was anything other than evil.

And of course, who were those racists in the 50’s? Yeah… Democrats. And yeah, they did join up with us. And we made them abandon their racism, and punish them by hounding them from office if they slipped up. But Democrats can still get away with blatant race baiting (Cynthia McKinney) and face zero censure.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@howye

But of course The Good Old Days did not really exist. Many point to the 1950’s as a golder era in the United States. But in hindsight it was a time of witch hunts and oppresion of the civil rights movement. I have to ask is that the society conservatives wish to return to? Life was good if you were male, straight, white, protestant, and middle class or higher; but the picture outside of that is not as rosy colored.

I sometimes wonder whether conservatives tend to be those who, because of personal experience, natural disposition, or whatever, tend to see the part of the glass that’s half full when they look at the past, while liberals see the part of the past’s glass that’s half empty.
Anyway, I think the explanation for why conservatives oppose gay marriage, for example, runs along the lines of “Men never used to marry other men, and women never used to marry other women. That’s not the way the world has always worked. If we change that now, it may lead to the Breakdown of Society[sup]TM[/sup].”

[Huerta88]

@howye

But of course The Good Old Days did not really exist. Many point to the 1950’s as a golder era in the United States. But in hindsight it was a time of witch hunts

No witch hunts. Witches didn’t exist in Salem. Communist infiltrators dedicated to betraying the U.S. to a hostile expansionist foreign power did exist in the '50s. Just about everyone hounded for being a communist spy or fellow traveller turned out to be just what they were alleged to be.

Just today one of the Rosenbergs’ accomplices reversed sixty years of lies and confirmed that, yep, he and they were big old traitors (he didn’t have the guts to put it that way).

No witch hunt because the hunted were what they were alleged to be, and were dangerous.

[fessie]

I think Conservatives believe in Daddy. That’s their big thing.

He could be God, or the President, or the CEO, doesn’t matter. The main point is that some guy is in charge, has the answers, can be trusted, and will keep ne’er do wells in line.

So since The Dude has the answers, it’s up to everyone else to conform and follow the rules.

Then we’ll all be just fine.

[Huerta88]

Conservatives get caricatured a lot of different ways. One is as scheming evil mustache-twirlers. Another is as haters. Yet another is as naive optimists who romanticize the past.

Let me tackle that last one. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I think most conservatives can readily see the problems of the past. I think though that their solution is that you dance with the one that brung you – you do what has worked (is perceived to have worked) in the past.

Three conservative-ish maxims may give you some insight into the mindset.

Don’t just do something – stand there!
When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.
Human nature has no history.

There’s a deep-seated suspicion of change for change’s sake.

Because better the devil you know . . . .
Because they can enumerate any number of Big Change Ideas over the past 150 years that worked out horribly.
Because the nuclear family worked out well (or well, from their perspective) for several millennia, and there’s no pressing reason to assume that the social structure built around the nuclear family, for instance, would be changed for the better by creating a different model.

George Soros has made a lot of money with exotic currency speculation and short-term trades.

Warren Buffett has made a lot of money with a philosophy reflected in his statements that his favorite holding period for stocks is “forever,” that he doesn’t buy any business he can’t understand, and that individuals would probably be best off if they made no more than a dozen significant stock purchases/sales in their lifetimes.

I do not think either gentlemen would consider the other to be some alien creature or to be un-understandable, despite their diametrically opposed investment philosophies.

[foolsguinea]

@Quartz

They have the right to hold their opinions, just as you have a right to hold yours. You need to start by respecting that right, and by and large, the impression I have is that the Republicans seem to be a lot better at respecting that right than the Democrats.

This is the impression you get on the other side of the ocean? Obviously, our projection of our national character is defective. Please come here & see America, not “Blue-State” coastal America, but the electorally blessed & politically key Heartland, for yourself.

Assuming a broadly inclusive franchise, those who find their views in a minority (the right in some parts of the American coastal states, the left in much of the interior) have two choices: They can become accomodating, which is what Quartz describes; or they can become frustratedly, furiously, militant, like our friend Der Trihs.

Those in a majority can simply be tolerant. One tolerates mosquitoes, or the sound of a dripping faucet. One can claim to be magnanimous when one has all the power. But they still have the power.

People who have a majority & are intolerant anyway, are jerks. And I don’t know any leftist dominant-culture jerks, but I live in the Heartland. I’ve heard of some righty dominant-culture jerks in the South, though.

Which reminds me; it’s not being in the majority that’s key; it’s being dominant. And sometimes a minority is dominant, & have to terrorize the majority to win (as in Reconstruction 130 years ago).

[foolsguinea]

Note: I said “jerks” because I felt “fascists” was technically inaccurate, & I backed off from using “dicks” as there might be some people named Dick, and…

When I say, “righty dominant-culture jerks in the South,” I’m thinking of a long, broad range, from the KKK to that high-school principal who banned interracial couples at dances. We have a few throughout the rest of the country as well. Snippy leftists seem benign by comparison; or is Lenin even now dispossessing the capitalists in the UK?

[rivulus]

@smiling bandit

The government got into the marriage game way back when. Maybe it should be changed and maybe it shouldn’t be. But I have as much right to define the institution as you or anyone else. If two gays go out and have their own private ceremony, there’s not much I can do about, is there? I’m not saying they can’t screw, but I don’t believe the government ought or has any interest in recognizing it (which is not the case for marriage). In any case, your viewpoint would also suggest that our legal system entirely ought to be scrapped and rebuilt, taken to its logical conclusion.

You are seriously deluded if you think that a homosexual relationship amounts only to “screwing” with the same person for a period of time, while living together and maybe picking out paint colors. Others have pointed out the weakness of your argument that marriage is solely for the purpose of creating and supporting the welfare of children. I won’t even bother dealing with that particular fallacy in this post. Rather, let me address the idea that gay people bond together simply and only because of sexual attraction. Simply to screw, as you so delightfully put it. Pair bonding is a complicated thing in humans. Clearly, sex is part of what brings people together as couples. For some people a big part. For others, much less.

There are other reasons to be with someone: deep and abiding love, mutual support, common interests, financial stability, and so on. I would argue that society has an interest in supporting these sorts of stable, long-term bonds between people, regardless of gender. It’s not just about bearing and raising children in an insular family setting. Society is bigger than that. The impact of how people relate to each other is bigger than that. Conservative folks go on about the horrible, selfish “me” generation destroying society and family values. Ironically, the desire for gay marriage runs directly counter to that. Yet is it shunned out of gross ignorance about the reasons that homosexuals want to marry – ignorance that is fostered by knee-jerk reactions to the “ick” factor.

On a personal note, I can’t help but notice the irony that my relationship is reduced to “screwing” by those ignorant of my cough lifestyle. I’m trying to remember the last time I had sex with my partner. What with the new baby, and the sleepless nights, and keeping up the house, and working hard at my job to meet crazy deadlines, and walking the dogs, and cleaning the litter box, and trying to get the back yard landscaped, and being the room mom at daycare, and volunteering for the neighborhood association, and keeping in touch with family, and occasionally having dinner with friends, and god where has the time gone?

[Orr_G]

In an effort to fight my own ignorance, I have read this entire thread, carefully and with an open mind. It hasn’t helped very much.

And, to preemptively rebut: no, it isn’t. My reading comprehension skills have received high marks throughout my educational career. None of the arguments here (on any side) are more complex than plenty of things I understand perfectly well. It may be that a few nuggets of good information were washed out by subsequent rhetoric, but there can’t have been many.

I did learn that the “MSM”, when it’s liberally biased, is the entertainment industry (and I can agree that this industry tends to promote certain liberal ideas in our culture), and that the “MSM”, when it’s biased the other way, is mostly talk radio, television news and at least arguably printed news. However, the news media (and this I already knew), has pretty much become just sensationalistic infotainment oriented towards the bottom line.

That’s something, but I was hoping for more from this place than equivocation.

I admit ignorance, and that my sources for political news and views are primarily this board and Comedy Central. I am, at least as much as the OP, lacking in my understanding of the “other” side. If this thread isn’t helping me to understand, where can I go for a reasonable discussion of the topic?

[Weirddave]

@glee

This level of ignorance and hatred is certainly not matched by left-wingers.

Have ya met Der Trihs?

[petew83]

I would recommend ‘Moral Politics’. That will give u a good cognitive science foundation in the Liberal/Conservative mindsets. From there u will probably still be very frustrated by the other side’s ‘insanity’, but will at least have some understanding of where that insanity stems from.

[Orr_G]

@petew83

I would recommend ‘Moral Politics’. That will give u a good cognitive science foundation in the Liberal/Conservative mindsets. From there u will probably still be very frustrated by the other side’s ‘insanity’, but will at least have some understanding of where that insanity stems from.

That looks like something I can really sink my teeth into, thank you. It’s on my Amazon wish list now.

Can anyone suggest a conservative counterpoint to Lakoff?

[Weirddave]

I don’t think the OP is going to get anywhere with his inquiry unless s/he is willing to recognize that there is a big difference between social conservatism and the rest of it (economic, international relations) and likewise between liberal economics and the rest of it (social, international relations). If we look at these three distinct categories of issues, and recognize that each one has a conservative POV and a liberal POV, and then examine each category to see how liberal or conservative ideology applies to each one, THEN we might get somewhere. No one political philosophy is 100% right WRT any one of the issues (although it’s damn close in economics), but it’s important to recognize that someone might identify themselves as “conservative” because they feel very strongly in favor of conservative economic policies and are indifferent or even favor some liberal social ideals; attacking such a person on the issue of gay marriage or abortion is pointless as it’s not their big issue, they’ll shrug it off as irrelevant. Another individual might believe passionately about gay rights and thus call themselves a “liberal”, pointing out tho them the foolishness of taxation as a vehicle for wealth redistribution is a waste of time because while they might be willing to listen, and might even agree, such an argument is not directed to their most important beliefs and the core “them” that they identify as who they are. Keeping that in mind, as a general rule, social conservatives and liberal economists are idiots (although each do make a very few valid points). International relations is pretty much a philosophical split, I personally tend to lean towards the “conservative” side in international relations (there’s a sub split there between the interventionists and the isolationists, I drift towards the former), but I recognize the validity of the liberal position and tend to think the “right” answer is in a melding of the two.

If you accept all of that, then it’s just a short step to realizing that pigeonholing anyone into a rigid definition of “L” or “C”, and then dismissing their political beliefs as “uncomprehendable” is folly. There are a lot of things thrown under the umbrella of “conservatism” that are damn stupid. There are a lot of good ideas there too. The same is true for the liberal side. Limiting the debate to “conservative” and “liberal” is pointless, because both of the terms are so broad that ANY discussion of the differences breaks down into little pockets of people yelling at each other about their own hot button issues that cause them to self identify as “L” or “C”, without regards to the hot button issues that cause their opponents to self identify as the other, and doing so polarizes the debate entirely so that neither side realizes that hey, there are a lot of issues that they can compromise and agree on.

[Starving_Artist]

@Orr_G

In an effort to fight my own ignorance, I have read this entire thread, carefully and with an open mind. It hasn’t helped very much.

There’s a signature line if I ever heard one.

[Little_Plastic_Ninja]

Because everyone was on the edge of their seats wondering what I think about all this. Warning, it’s past three in the morning, I’m insomniac, this will be long.

I’m a Christian against putting any kind of Christianity into law. Crazy, I know. I don’t think abortion is a mortal sin or anything, but I don’t plan to have one. I’m not really for raising children in one’s own religion, either, without giving them the option to learn about and choose their own (I’d actually be in favor of religion classes in school, taught purely as a philosophy class and prominently including atheism as one among many religion-based belief systems). The road to illumination has many paths, and even if I think I’m on the right one, it is not up to me to choose that for anyone else. I think there’s a belief among some religious folk that making abortion illegal, banning gay marriage, and making divorces harder to get will somehow make people better. That rather than break the law they will merrily go along the Proper Path.

But it doesn’t work like that. Girls told not to have sex till marriage have sex. Stable families have crazy kids. Men fall in love with men and women with women. Sometimes people make choices. Sometimes people make bad choices.

Sometimes people make bad choices. And they need to face up to those. I was once very very liberal on public welfare: nobody, I said, should ever be hungry or homeless or sick. Government money should go to pay for that. But when I grew up and met some of the people stuck in that mire, I wanted to tear my hair out. There’s people who decided to quit high school and go work in the factories, but now that the factories are moving overseas they’re jobless and angry and want to be taken care of. They made foolish choices and now they’re coming to regret them.

The conservative, pragmatic part of my brain thinks “And there’s no reason I should have to pay for them, either. I’ve made mistakes, but I’ve coped with them. I pay my debts, I work hard full time, I studied in college, I deserve what I got. Maybe they deserve what they’ve got. Why should I subsidize people who refuse to work?” And I think that’s true.

The liberal, mooshy part of me says “But there for the grace of God go I. I have a freaking ENGLISH degree and my parents are upper middle class and can help me out with money. When my contract job found out I had to go for surgery, they dropped me from the job the day before I was going to the hospital and I am STILL paying for the bills that the chintzy-ass insurance didn’t cover. And the friend who had no insurance at all who had the slipped disc? When he was sent to the hospital, he lay screaming on a gurney in the hallway for six hours before seeing a doctor. The nurses wouldn’t even help him get to the bathroom, all because he had no insurance and they were sure they’d never see a dime from the guy making minimum wage at the video store. And as much as you can blame asshole parents who work under the radar, spend the money on cigarettes, and use food stamps to feed the kids, where are the better options? How can they really reach them? Should their kids suffer because of their bad choices?” And I think all that is true, too.

But people need to be allowed to make bad choices. That’s part of the freedom we have. Part and parcel with the freedom to succeed is the freedom to fail. Making failure illegal, making the “wrong choices” illegal, does not help. Saying a person doesn’t deserve help does not make them vanish.

Legislating morality, too, is a failing proposition. I actually do understand the belief behind it, partly: I know someone who once looked rather desperately into my eyes and explained that without his faith in God, he’d be breaking all sorts of laws and doing terrible things because he had no fear of divine retribution. I suspect that many people realize this fault in character and believe that fear of government and fear of God can be interchanged.

I suppose I’m a Texas Democrat: against most gun control, for social programs being run smarter and better, generally against the government trying to alter human nature.

…Does that mean I’m a Republican? SHIT. :eek:

[FriarTed]

@fessie

I think Conservatives believe in Daddy. That’s their big thing.

He could be God, or the President, or the CEO, doesn’t matter. The main point is that some guy is in charge, has the answers, can be trusted, and will keep ne’er do wells in line.

So since The Dude has the answers, it’s up to everyone else to conform and follow the rules.

Then we’ll all be just fine.

Yeah, we Conservatives really loved The Dude when he was FDR or Carter or Clinton.

Now, that does have a basis in reality. “Dads” are seen as stricter and requiring more responsibility of their kids, while “Moms” are seen as more lenient, nurturing and forgiving of their kids. So conversely if you could say Conservatives believe in Daddy, then it follows that Liberals believe in Mommy. The ones in charge have the resources and the responsibility to comfort and coddle and take care of you, even if you screw up, and shouldn’t require any responsibility or better behavior of you, not like harsh Daddy. If you goof around & spill your ice cream, then your siblings who didn’t spill theirs should have to give some of theirs to you. It’s not fair, but it’s nice.

I’m definitely Righty & I actually like that analogy, but damn, I see where it breaks down real fast!

[Der_Trihs]

@Magiver

It’s illegal to torture people in the United States so you are moving the bar of interrogation techniques to fit your opinion. IMO some of the techniques may be pushing the line but I also feel that way about the techniques used by Japanese police. When all is said and done the POW’s at Gitmo will leave in good physical condition having been properly taken care of.

Except the ones who are dead, or insane, or crippled, or even just permanently traumatized. And torture is is NOT “being properly taken care of”.

@Magiver

And if by separate but equal you are referring to homosexual unions then again you are moving the definition of marriage to fit your opinion. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. We discriminate against polygamy and same sex unions because we as a society find these relationships abnormal.

No, it’s because we are a nation dominated by bigotry. Opposition to the marriage of homosexuals is and has always been nothing other than pure, unmitigated bigotry.

@Magiver

Most of the institution of marriage can be contractually bound with the exception of insurance coverage.

And are you offering to pay for the lawyers to files all those hundreds of separate legal actions ? Of course not; the whole point of refusing them marriage is to make sure that they never get more than a second rate version, if that. It’s no different than segregation was.

[Happy_Booker_1]

I think that conservatives, regardless of their country, buy into the Reagan-ism that government doesn’t solve problems, it is the problem. Liberals view the government as having unique access to a set of tools that can solve some problems.

As a result, conservatives in power tend to work to ‘starve the beast,’ that is, cut the government off from the resources that it would use to intervene in a problem. As a result, the government’s intervention is at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. That non-performance reinforces the conservatives’ view of the government as part of the problem not part of the solution. Liberals, on the other hand see the failure as a result of a lack of commitment to solving the problem.

I view the problems that we face as being sufficiently complex and pressing that throwing away any toolset that will help us solve them is foolish. I’d line up firmly in the liberal camp.

[BrainGlutton]

I think I understand modern American conservatives pretty well; I’ve put a lot of effort into studying their history, composition and beliefs. If you would do the same, see:

Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge

The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America, by Godfrey Hodgson

Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, by Rick Perlstein

Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, by Rick Perlstein

Up From Conservatism: Why the Right Is Wrong for America, by Michael Lind (fascinating first-person account by a National Review editor who apostasized)

[Weirddave]

@BrainGlutton

I think I understand modern American conservatives pretty well; I’ve put a lot of effort into studying their history, composition and beliefs. If you would do the same, see:

Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge

The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America, by Godfrey Hodgson

Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, by Rick Perlstein

Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, by Rick Perlstein

Up From Conservatism: Why the Right Is Wrong for America, by Michael Lind (fascinating first-person account by a National Review editor who apostasized)

No BG, you don’t understand conservatives at all. You are well read in propaganda of how far lefties want to believe that conservatives think, but understand us? You don’t even come close.