Ha ha ha.
If only.
But of course the recent crop of “conservatives” has been anything but.
What do you respond with? Line after line of how conservatives are under attack. Give me a break. Conservative commentators dominate cable news, while boradcast news runs around trying to get ratings from anybody. There are entire cable channels devoted to chrisitian preachers.
I do understand this thinking - if you play the victim card over and over and loudly enough, you make it true, you can make people scared and defensive. I was not trying to attack you personally. I don’t know you personally. I bet if I did I could find something to criticize. But as with many on the extreme ends of the spectrum, you took any disagreement as a personal affront. Get over your self.
Once again, you miss my point on marriage. My objection is the use of religion. If your arguments against same-sex marriage were anything but religious, then they would have validity. But you are not arguing from “utilitarianism” are you? It is the wish of the conservatives to impose their religous views on everybody. Come on, argue the complications same-sex marriage will bring. I agree they exist, but I also believe they can be overcome. At one time our schools were segragated, changing that took an effort. Desegragting marriage will arguably take less effort. But the religous argument is all you got, and that is what scary. Conservatives love to tell us how the love this country and the ideals it was built on, but when it comes to actually practicing freedom they come up short.
You’re not located in the USA, are you?
Not now (or for the past 8 years), but I’ve lived there for significant periods. I do take the point that I’m talking about more ‘classical’ conservatives than the neo-cons. Even so, I’d say that the Reagan mindset still gets more than lip-service.
ETA: Can’t misspell Ronnie’s name
Oddly enough, I both agree and disagree fundamentally with this post. It’s important to recognize that not only are there liberals and conservatives, but people who place social or economic values above the other. I think a lot of talking past each other occurs because people neglect the latter distinction in favor of the former.
Where I disagree is when you say reasonable people can disagree on the social but the economic is a foregone conclusion. I think people can disagree reasonably on the best way for government to, well, tax and spend, but it continues to baffle and amaze me that folks still think denying people civil rights and imposing moral values on others is acceptable.
I’m pretty conservative. . . and I don’t understand any of that either. Those issues are not the underpinnings of conservatism to me. But, I think abortion rights are very safe and far from being overturned. And state-legitimized gay marriage seems like an overblown issue. Two gay people can decide they’re married, have a ceremony and do anything they want. Why does it need to be “legal”?
For me the main issues are:
Nationalism Vs Globalism
More Redistribution of Wealth Vs Less Redistribution of Wealth
Higher Taxes / Bigger Government Vs Lower Taxes / Smaller Government
(Sadly, most conservatives have forgotten about this one.)
But, like I said, you’re right. The Rebulicans suck on those issues you listed.
How do you not impose moral values on others, from a government standpoint? The only way to avoid that is anarchy. Whenever you have a law that mandates or forbids something, you’re imposing a moral value. If you pass a law against murder, you’re saying that murder is an inappropriate behavior and shouldn’t be allowed.
Imposing moral values isn’t just acceptable; it’s neccesary. The debate is over which moral values should be imposed.
Fair enough. I’ll elaborate by noting that traditionally, conservatives emphasize personal responsibility and individual rights. Long as you’re not harming anyone, you do what you want. That’s why you tend to see things like lax seatbelt and helmet laws in conservative states, because if you decide to go without proper safety, that’s your business and would only harm yourself.
The bafflement comes in when you get to the values that seek to stop moral decay in society. That gay couple is harming nobody, but it’s weird and strange, so they need to stop. Science is favored in schools over God’s word, so force creationism to be taught in science class instead of reserving it for Sunday school, seminary, or religious education classes, which parents can choose to enroll their kids in. That’s the stuff I don’t get and can’t see how anyone can rationally support it as healthy for a society.
I’d rather light a candle than curse the darkness.
If you would like to understand conservative ideas about economics read:
The Use of Knowledge in Societyhttp://www.econlib.org/Library/Essays/hykKnw1.html FA Hayek
The Seen and the Unseen http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html#Chapter%201 Fredric Bastiat
Are Europeans Lazy? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005800 Edward Prescott
Capitalism and Freedom http://www.ditext.com/friedman/title.html Milton Friedman.
The first three can be read pretty quickly, the last is long and in depth.
While I agree that bigotry has a role, many conservatives merely view the concept of “marriage” through an idealist, and historical lense- That it is for life, is meant to start a family, and is meant to reinforce the bond between a man and a woman.
Anything other than this is foreign, and somewhat incomprehensible. I think this is understandable.
Personally, I think we should just jettison government-issued marriage licenses altogether, and give everyone (heterosexual and homosexual couples) “civil union certificates” instead. Leave “marriage” to whatever additional private ceremony you wish to undertake, but leave the government out of that part.
The City Journal is a good resource for people seeking to understand conservatives
Conservative Crime Policy-http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_what_weve_learned.html
Family Values -http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html
Affirmative Action-http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_who_should_get.html
Gay Marriage http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_gay_marriage.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_redefining_marriage.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_sndgs04.html
If there are any issue I have left out. Let me know and I will try to find some article about those.
I’ve been quietly lurking since things became free again, and can’t take it anymore.
To the OP: Your categories are unforgiveably sloppy, but I imagine it’s because you’re applying an “us-them” mentality where you perceive yourself as being composed of one group: Conservatives. Conservatives aren’t one homogenous group any more than liberals are. Some take it even further, such as Der Trihs, who not only falsely tar all conservatives as identical, but use it as justification for personal bigotry and hatred.
First off, you need to realize that the US is not a homogenous country. A conservative from New England or the West Coast is not the same creature as a conservative from the deep South.
What are some of the basic distinctions?
Well, in conservativism as a whole, you have fiscal conservatives- a category that even fits many Democrats and self-professed liberals. Fiscal conservatives don’t believe in wasting money, and consequently are leery of impetuous or in perpetua spending of money on a problem. If a the cost of a solution isn’t acceptable, then on balance the problem isn’t as important as it looked in a vaccuum.
Ultimately, money is a finite quantity. Fiscal conservatives have varying degrees of awareness to paranoia about this.
There are social conservatives, who do actively dislike other groups.
More common are reactive conservatives, that due to the dogmatic rhetoric encouraged in this country when agitating for anything, literally feel attacked and are taking a reflexive stance.
There’s plenty of other stripes, as mentioned above in the thread.
That’s all preface to my point: Where are you from?
I’m from the Northwest. I was raised in Oregon, and Oregon’s always been an extremely progressive state. So progressive, in fact, that liberalism is the establishment, and many conservatives- and more importantly many Republicans- are anti-liberal for the same reasons, locally, that many liberals are anti-Bush (ie, things are crap and it’s their fault)!
So, tell me, what’s your context? Midwesterner? Great Lakes? I will lay money that comparing your place of origin to your education location will tell your story. I find most take their local dominant paradigm- with all its issues, and tar the “metagroups” the same way. Grew up in the ultra-religious fundy flyover regions? Why, all Republicans are morality-legislating bible-thumping abortion-doctor-killing homosexual-hating fundamentalists! Grew up in an urban coastal region? Why, all liberals are morality-legislating Buddhist-atheist PETA-loving logger-maiming voluntary-human-extinction-party weathercocks.
So, tell me, what’s your context, and when were you “enlightened,” and when did that enlightenment make your superior than all those who drank the kool-aid?
I didn’t see anyone mention this article, yet. What Makes People Vote Republican, By Jonathan Haidt. He appears to be a liberal psychologist honestly trying to understand the liberal/conservative points of view. His breakthrough in understanding came when he says:
And there was this I found from a NYT blog by Judith Warner:
Read the article and you get the idea I have had for a while. Liberals are shooting themselves in the foot by not trying harder to understand conservatives as people. My suggestion is to stop thinking about it so hard, open your mind, and try spending time with a few conservatives. They really don’t bite.
Post 3. I also mention the fiscal-social thing in the same post.
I’m Swedish, have never claimed to be “enlightened” and have never claimed to be superior to people partaking in the imbibing of certain beverages.
So, your view of American conservatives is informed by?
Who said anything about American?
That seemed imbedded in the cultural conversation- conservative does have different meanings depending on region.
The question remains: What has informed your opinion of conservatives? Have you talked to them, or only pulled one aside that you know is conservative and suffered confirmation bias?
Liberal-conservative differences exist only as broad strokes, when you start talking about where the line is.
Take abortion. I seem to recall that having come up as a position you do not understand the conservative viewpoint on. It is hard for me to not think that disingenuous, but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and move forward.
Do you know what the difference is between a “fetus” in the ninth month and a baby is? About eight lateral inches, depending on the size of the baby and the woman.
Do you, or do you not, consider that killing a baby would be murder? If you do not, I hate to be the one to have to inform you, but I must regretfully notify you that you are the fringe whackjob, given typical Western morality. That’s allright, in its own way, of course, if you don’t act on it- I have a friend who embraces that position, that value to society must be demonstrated, instead of merely awarded. It can be philosophically consistent. Strange, though.
I’ll assume you said “of course killing a newborn baby would be wrong!”
Allright, well, we’ve established that there is no difference, aside from location, with a ninth month fetus. In fact, to abort fetuses that late, inducing labor is required, and the fetus is terminated in the birth canal, and on occassion they are late and have to try and “save” what they were just trying to “terminate.”
So, the end of a pregnancy should be a clearly understood position on the other side, even for most hardline pro-choice individuals.
This means somewhere between her sack of blood and gunk and his ooze, and that ninth month, a line is crossed.
Since human development isn’t hardline consistent (one baby might be viable at 6 months and 2 days, another at 7 months and five), we can’t make a hard distinction without admitting that some potential terminations are definitively completely viable, and theoretically then identical to newborns except in location.
Now, the general conservative outlook is that you are entitled to society’s protection unless you have forfeited it. Hence, any potential baby lost- defining baby as a viable fetus if labor began/was induced- is an unacceptable moral compromise. It is, in fact, identical to the hardline liberal idea regarding the death penalty and the execution of innocents. To the conservative, the executee has had the opportunity for self-defense and self-exoneration, and has failed- and even most supporters of the death penalty would probably back more stringent requirements for when it’s an option, as long as it’s done, because those who commit what are socially labelled “the blackest crimes” have forfeited their rights to protection from any particular society (ie, they are no longer protected under the social contract, so their “rights” are a non-issue unless society decides to re-bestow). However, the viable fetus- identical to a baby but for location- they have had no such opportunity.
So, they draw a hardline where it is inarguable that no viable fetuses will be terminated- conception.
A corrolary is the mother’s right vis-a-vis her body. In the case of voluntary sex, most conservatives would probably agree that the right was already exercised.
In the case of involuntary sex, most conservatives- in my experience- are open to discussion (it does become nuanced), but do realize, despite all the screaming by those like Der Trihs, the overwhelming majority of abortions are not for rape or incest, even by the most exaggerated figure. To a conservative, this minority might qualify for an exception, but certainly not a blanket approval of all those abortions for voluntary intercourse. Personal responsibility and all that.
Seriously, you’re spending a lot of typing retreading steps already taken in the thread. I said in post 14 that legally we need to pick a point and if a movement calling for the legalization of killing newborns should arise, we’ll deal with that issue then. I’d also like to refer you back to post 3, when I like to think I made clear that I was talking about certain conservative opinions, not painting groups of people with a brush of any size.
And I addressed much of that in my post.
What are these particular opinions you are seeing?
And you are, by limiting them to conservative opinions, implying a single opinion that is conservative. There’s as much of a range as there is with anything.
And this is not meant as a personal attack either. With your tenure here you surely must realize the the liberal faction employs the exact same attitudes, arrogance, and smugness that you are attempting to pin exclusively upon conservatives. Right?