# Is conservatism more in touch with human nature than liberalism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352 "2017-12-02T17:21:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/41 "2017-12-03T22:10:40Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > Their reverence for military service, which appears to soar far above their reverence for, ya know, Christ, does not reflect rising above human nature (again, a meaningless term) but a glorification of hierarchy and institutionalized group male violence (see: American football). One could argue that the glorification of male self-sacrifice to protect the tribe is a commonly inculcated feature of aggressive cultures. That doesn’t make it “natural” even though it might be. > > One could also argue that since young males are inherently violent, it’s best to send them off to be glorious cannon fodder for America’s never ending wars, instead of letting them stay here to destroy stuff. In which case, your case for conservative practicality might stand. What of the women who serve? Are they irrelevant in your analysis? ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/42 "2017-12-04T00:34:04Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 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. If it’s _many_ and not _all_, then it’s not a matter of the nature of humans, or all humans (and certainly all and not just many heterosexuals) would feel that way. Nor do I think a revulsion toward homosexuality is a "natural"reaction by heterosexuals. Attitudes toward homosexuality are learned cultural behaviors. Ancient Greeks certainly didn’t view it with revulsion. Take a look at the Spartans. So again, we’re back to what you mean by “human nature.” ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/43 "2017-12-04T00:45:50Z")
Politicians appeal to human nature to get what they want. Some will appeal to the better nature of people, others to the their worst inclinations. Which one do you think is easier to do? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/44 "2017-12-04T01:24:32Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Since each major party is a weird coalition the ideology of each party isn’t simple to describe. I consider the elites of each party and each major religion as people who have successfully exploited a niche for power. How sincere they are? I have no clue. Super convenient how your model describes conservatives as winners (“Those who can compete”) and liberals as losers (“those who can’t compete”), innit? I mean, I’m sure that has nothing to do with your own orientation. Playing your game, I think it’s pretty clear that those who know how to function in a society via cooperative work toward a common goal seek systems that reward that. Those who can’t figure out how to work together seek systems that reward that. This is fun! Not really. Really it’s foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/45 "2017-12-04T01:40:32Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > What of the women who serve? Are they irrelevant in your analysis? I never said I myself would argue that. Just that it’s an argument. Personally, I think once you start describing qualities human can display and calling them “natural” you’ve got one foot in the ditch of fascism. Once you get more complex than “wanting to stay alive” you’re speculating. ---
**Author:** ![Covfefe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Covfefe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covfefe)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/46 "2017-12-04T02:02:31Z")
Human nature is manipulative. In practice: Conservatives unfairly downplay how manipulative certain classes and groups are. (common examples: military advisors, CEOs, the wealthy, think tanks, police) Liberals unfairly downplay how manipulative certain classes and groups are. (common examples: ethnic minorities, Islam, the poor, union heads, government bureaucracy) ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/47 "2017-12-04T03:41:45Z")
If human nature is seen as good, ideologies claim to represent it. If human nature is seen as bad, ideologies claim to rise above it. Lefties tend to focus on human cooperation, whether it’s Kropotkin’s [_Mutual Aid_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution) or Marx describing hunter-gather societies as practicing [primitive communism.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism) They generally decry capitalism as going against human nature, because humans evolved to live in communal arrangements instead of living as atomized individuals alienated from their labor. They often point to this backwardness as a cause of mental illness, anti-social behavior, and unhealthy coping behaviors such as drug addiction. > [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > It’s probably an unpopular view around here, but I think conservatives have their own way of rising above human nature. Most notably, I believe that is displayed by their reverence for military service. Ignoring the idea that organized violence is somehow against human nature, there are many counter-examples both large and small: The Red Army, Viet Cong, YPG, the Zapatistas, and the anarchists in Spain. > [@wolfpup](#): > > On immigration, the _ **facts** _ tell us that, properly managed, immigration contributes both to economic growth and to cultural enrichment. You’re confusing facts with morality, and this is a good example because “cultural enrichment” is a [fascist meme.](https://www.google.com/search?q=cultural+enrichment+meme&client=firefox-b-1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigxam9re_XAhXD4IMKHeecBHEQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=762) If you review some of these jokes you’ll see that the disagreement isn’t over GPD growth or importing new types of food. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/48 "2017-12-04T03:59:25Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > You’re confusing facts with morality, and this is a good example because “cultural enrichment” is a [fascist meme.](https://www.google.com/search?q=cultural+enrichment+meme&client=firefox-b-1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigxam9re_XAhXD4IMKHeecBHEQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=762) I thought it was supposed to be a bleeding-heart liberal meme? Or are you trying to be ironic? In any case, tell that to the Koch founded libertarian/conservative [Cato Institute](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/immigrants-have-enriched-american-culture-enhanced-our-influence-world). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/49 "2017-12-04T13:31:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > “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 :). Many posts later, and I’m even more convinced that this is the operative definition in this thread. **Velocity** , I think this thread is so ill-defined that it **necessarily** is going to devolve into petty partisan bickering over specific side issues. I’m not seeing much value in the OP, but if you do see a value in it, may I suggest a post in which you define, and cite your sources for your definition of, human nature, and provide specific well-sourced traits of human nature? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/50 "2017-12-04T15:15:50Z")
Capitalism is not so much an expression of human nature as a better, more efficient recognition of what motivates people. > [@Adam Smith](#): > > It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. Maybe we should always act out of altruism, but we don’t, at least not as consistently as we act in our own perceived self-interest. Liberalism acts on what people should be like; conservativism more on what people really are. Of course, it is also human nature to look down on others, or up to them, and the free exchange of value works with equals. Handouts are for inferiors, and tribute is what you pay to superiors, so capitalism works less well in those circumstances. And TANSTAAFL, so both sides tend to forget the aspect of human nature that wants a free lunch, just in different ways. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/51 "2017-12-04T15:19:08Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Didn’t conservatism just become a movement of opposition to dems, liberals, progressives etc. and no other operative ability or desire to do like anything at all. In a word, no. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/52 "2017-12-04T16:57:09Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > In a word, no. That needs a cite. Not that I don’t trust you, but… ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352/53 "2017-12-04T16:59:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Capitalism is not so much an expression of human nature as a better, more efficient recognition of what motivates people. Maybe we should always act out of altruism, but we don’t, at least not as consistently as we act in our own perceived self-interest. Liberalism acts on what people should be like; conservativism more on what people really are. > > Of course, it is also human nature to look down on others, or up to them, and the free exchange of value works with equals. Handouts are for inferiors, and tribute is what you pay to superiors, so capitalism works less well in those circumstances. > > And TANSTAAFL, so both sides tend to forget the aspect of human nature that wants a free lunch, just in different ways. > > Regards, > Shodan I like the people whose free lunch costs $10, not democracy itself. YMMV. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-conservatism-more-in-touch-with-human-nature-than-liberalism/803352.md?page=2)