There are too many issues to be included or fully discussed, but ISTM one of the issues liberalism is constantly fighting an uphill slog on is that liberalism is not as much in touch with human nature as conservatism is.
Take the death penalty, for instance. Much of the support for the death penalty, IMHO, stems from a gut-level desire to see murderers get what they deserve in visceral fashion - in fact, some even consider lethal injection too ‘humane’ (one only needs to read some comment sections on Internet crime-story articles to see a list of…suggestions on how to execute people). In fact, it goes beyond capital punishment; most support for tough, harsh punishment stems from conservatism or human nature, often blended together. Liberal approaches to crime - such as rehabilitation or treatment, or reduced sentences, or life sentences instead of death - are seen by many as too “wussy” and don’t deliver enough “punishment-satisfaction.”
Yes, many countries have abolished capital punishment, and many oppose the death penalty - but that was only after millennia of capital punishment, and even then many of those countries still show movies or have fiction literature in which bad guys get killed - showing that there is indeed a human desire for killing bad guys, still present.
There are many other issues as well - on immigration, I think it is often human nature to want “Fewer people in this country who are not of my kind, or at least, slow down their immigration trickle.” I think it is also human nature to not want to share - sharing does not come naturally to many people (that’s why Communism usually fails,) and it is natural to look out for self-interest above community interests. Even if people support things like universal health care, they tend to support it because “It means affordable health care for me” as their primary foremost motive, rather than “It means affordable healthcare for other people” (a secondary motive).
This doesn’t mean that liberalism can’t win - in fact, liberalism usually does win - but it does mean that liberalism often has to work harder for votes, since liberalism tends to conflict with human nature more than conservatism.
Anyway - I argue that conservatism jibes more with human nature than liberalism does…what do you think?
So if I just ignore all the places where liberal values dominate politics then I can come away with the notion that conservatism is somehow more in touch with human nature than liberalism. Nevermind the fact that both worldviews are created by humans so must reflect human nature.
I agree conservatism tends to cede to human nature as opposed to liberalism that recognizes human nature and tries to rise above it.
Take racism for example. I’ve had this conversation with conservative coworkers who will boast that everyone is naturally a little racist and so use this fact to support their stances on immigration. I know that we are all a little racist, it’s human nature, but I also know it’s not right to act on that and that we do have the ability, as a society, to rise above this and make broad policy that doesn’t cede to our instincts but tries to create a more fair and just system for everyone, regardless of race.
It is human nature for powerful central governments to demand more and more from the people they govern to fund its goals, conservative seek to rise above this trend they recognize and keep the central government from taking too many resources from the individual in the form of say, taxes.
You say human nature, but you seem to be talking more about human emotion. Yes, many people have a visceral desire to make criminals suffer; but if such an approach were really in touch with human nature, wouldn’t it, you know, work?
Plenty of people want things that don’t solve a greater problem. Short-term vs. long-term. A gang’s response to a killing may be a revenge killing. That’s a recipe for a never-ending feud.
“In touch with human nature” has no meaning for evaluating what governments need to do. It may mean someone who you want to govern you, but it might mean someone who you need to prevent from being in power at all.
A sick person needs help. Do you want that sick person to receive help?
A child is hungry. Do you want that child to be fed?
The water is poisoned. Do you want the water to be clean?
A wealthy man has everything he wants, while the impoverished family near him lacks a roof over their head. Should the wealthy man have to share?
Human nature for many people would probably be - “Depends on if I have the *feels *- is this a sick person I care about, or know, or in some way relate to?” Many will help out sick friends, but not some poor man in Bangladesh whom they’ve never met.
See above.
3rd-party people may say, “Yes, compel him to share.” * But the wealthy person’s own human nature may say, “I don’t want to share.”
*
Personally I prefer a nice authoritarian situation, where the leader knows human nature very well, and knows how to put the boot in so that I can see what human nature looks like when other humans are in pain.
The rich don’t have a different human nature. So their choice of greed over generosity is acquired. Altruism is a trait that has an evolutionary value. Greed was not always advantageous.
Notice how you have to change the question in order to get the answer you want. Human nature, I believe, answers the question simply.
See above.
Fortunately, that’s not how public policy works. Human nature says, “Yes, compel him to share.” The “I don’t want to share” is a rational response for some wealthy people, but there are a lot fewer of them than there are of the rest of us.
It’s one of the great magic tricks of conservatism that it distorts human nature such that poor people identify more with the wealthy person than with the poor person.
(bolding mine) Do you have examples of this? I know of one, but it’s debatable whether or not it’s true altruism. Some celibate bug or bird that builds a nest for a more suitable bug/bird to mate in.
Let’s say that “cooperation” is an advantageous trait thoughout prehistory and later. Not wanting to give an alm isn’t a measure of nature.
People in nature are not rich (I think Hobbes may have said something about it) So I can’t see the habits of rich people as natural. In fact you got rich because you weren’t in nature at all. It’s money spent by others on your project that you retain. Without others you aren’t rich. The others are the 99 %.
“Human nature” is “a vague term that conforms mostly to my own inclinations, which are natural, unlike those highly artificial inclinations of my political opponents.” At least, that’s the definition that I think is most relevant to this thread :).
I would say it’s part of human nature for some people to be gay or trans, yet conservatism has opposed LGBT rights. It’s human nature for a woman to want to abort her pregnancy in certain circumstances, yet conservatism has opposed legal abortion. Historically, conservatives have opposed birth control and pornography. The war on drugs also seems to go against human nature.
Tribalism is human nature, but many conservatives like to argue that liberals are more tribalist than they are, just in different ways.
For clarification, I’m not saying conservatism jibes more with human nature than liberalism on *every *issue; I’d agree that drugs, abortion and porn are instances where human nature is more liberal than conservatives.
But I think that LGBT is an exception. Yes, it’s human nature for LGBT people to be LGBT. But it is also human nature for many heterosexuals to oppose and punish homosexuality. Many heterosexuals have a natural “ewww” reaction to homosexuality, and it is often human nature to punish those who are outliers or contrary to the majority group.
I think conservatives tend to take a more cynical view of human nature, while liberals hold an idealistic view.
Conservatives are less likely to favor social welfare programs because their minds reflexively flash on all the lazy, ne’er-do-wells with their grubby hands out. Liberals are more likely to favor social welfare programs because they think of all the unfairly disadvantaged, down-on-their luck types that would benefit from them. Conservatives think the lazy ne’er-do-wells make up the majority of the poor, while liberals think they are an insignificant minority.
I don’t agree with the premise of the OP, and it would seem to me that conservatives should also find it objectionable. Most conservative Americans tend to pride themselves on their Christian faith. Well, Christians aren’t supposed to make appeals to “human nature”. The foundation of Christianity is that human nature is inherently evil. Giving in to the fears and impulses of “nature” is what animals do. People are supposed to be better than animals.