Getting formalities out of the way - yes, extremes on either end are not a good way to run a functional society and there are plenty of demonstrated examples of scary ideas from both camps, but…
Is it fair to say that conservative ideals (and ideas) stand a much greater chance of perpetuation and long term survival in a predominantly liberal society than the other way around?
Yes.
In a liberal worldview, even the most odious ideas will be allowed some time to make it point, in compliance with the liberal idea of tolerance. To a liberal, the way you fight bad ideas is with good ideas.
In a conservative worldview, any idea you disagree with should be censored/banned/prohibited, in the name of “protecting” the citizenry (children are an especially useful excuse for this). To a conservative, the way you fight bad ideas is to not let people hear them.
I think that conservatism is more durable, since as a person becomes mature, wisdom, experience. and property ownership moves him or her to conservatism. Since maturity lasts longer than immaturity, conservatism has an edge that way. Liberals have an edge of being more noisy and visible that way.
I disagree that conservatives have a “shut people up” monopoly. Liberals threaten with protesting, union thugs, lawyers, McCain-Feingold, Fairness Doctrine, etc.
_
_
Yes. The conservative idea (meme) has more successful replication strategy than the liberal meme. The conservative meme predisposes its host to seek out rigidly structured ideology - i.e. religion. The meme further reinforces itself by insulating the host from acceptance of competing memes (or ideologies). The liberal meme predisposes the host to be open to competing ideologies, thus short-circuiting its own replication process due to the fact that some of its host will be exposed to conservative memes which will replace the liberal ones and insulate the host from accepting others.
I read a book somewhere that noted that Conservatism, of the religous variety, is cyclycal in nature, and tends to have popular support every 30 years or so. 1920 big morality push, and we got prohibition. Communist thread, big morality push and a new pledge in the 50’s. Excess of the 60’s, morality push and drug prohibition in the 70’s. Just like clockwork 2000, it’s gays and porn. Makes me wonder what’s going to happen 30 years from now.
Liberalism is more durable on a long time scale. With enough progression, each generation will shift slightly from the generation before it. What was once unacceptable becomes acceptable, then normal. Only cataclysmic social changes, like, say, the Civil War or WWI/Depression/WWII press the reset button on conservative beliefs.
It may take time, but society evolves. Conservatism slowly slides along with it, kicking and screaming. Keep in mind that what is “conservative” today was unthinkable 50 years ago.
BTW, I don’t see how the term “liberal elitism” plays in this thread, other than being a random potshot… When you find your mind going down that trail, remember: We aren’t elite. We’re right.
Could someone explain to me why liberalism is equated with elitism? I just remember seeing the 90% Democratic vote in Washington DC and wonder. Seems like African Americans and the urban poor can be counted on to vote liberal, and they are not part of the “elite” as it is used in this thread.
Even worse, based on their policies it’s the Republican Party that acts in an elitist manner, Death Tax, hello. However, I believe it’s from the “We know what’s best for you…” attitude that I agree some Democrats do seem to ooze.
Property ownership I will grant you. Once you have yours it’s not necessarily in your interest to make sure others have an opportunity to get theirs. Especially since their future wealth may currently belong to you. But for the rest, have you any evidence to support your claim that wisdom leads one to conservatism?
It could be statements like this:
Zagadka might be joking but there are plenty of Liberals who feel that way.
Read through the board. How many posts are there refering to people in the Bush states as uneducated or brainwashed hicks? How many posts trying to make a connection between lower intelligence and voting Republican?
Liberals are accused of “elitism” because their leadership tend to take an ivory tower “we know what’s best for everyone” position. People who don’t agree with the liberal view are uneducated, misinformed or simple.
The liberal Democrats generate a great deal of support with minorities and poor because they tend to reap the most benefits from liberal programs.
Conservatism is longer lasting because liberalism is about redistributing wealth and providing handouts. Not surprisingly, liberals tend to be people who don’t really own much or feel pangs of guilt about what they own - urban poor, college students, guilty rich people. I would postulate that as you acumulate wealth or property, you lose some of your liberalism in and replace it with a desire to keep what you worked for.
Excepting the “liberal” insertion, this is such a truism, that with it in, it is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and if you think it is ironic that I say so in this thread, then you’re probably not even paying attention.
Firstly, that when we think we are right, it generally means we think others are wrong. That is simply a consequence of the binary nature of truth. At best truth has three states, which are true, false, and undetermined. At best. But generally, once one has resigned oneself to correctness, it quite surely means other people are at the very least misinformed, classical causes of which are being simple or uneducated, though other less pleasant possibilites can present themselves.
Secondly, “know what’s best for everyone” is part and parcel of national politics. We’re deciding law here, not making suggestions. The contrary of “knowing what’s best for everyone” is still “knowing what’s best for everyone”. You do not get to escape that very real dichotomy: either a suggested law is best for everyone, or not passing that law is best for everyone. Again, we may attempt to hedge our bets by being undecided, but there is no way to have an undecided law: it either passes, or doesn’t, and so the facts of the matter side with one camp or the other, regardless of any inherent correctness.
Finally, the very thought of telling liberals what’s wrong with them is that they point out what’s best for everyone has the rather implicit judgment that what’s best for them is not doing that, creating some bizarre circular hypocrisy that can only be mustered in threads like this.
It is, though, more simple than that. So long as we survive, we will change, and so long as there is change, there is resistance to change, which is, definitionally, conservativism.
Reminds me of a coworker. He told my friend, “See, now that you own a house, you’re going to become a conservative.” Must have known what was best for him.
Of course, so far, he’s been wrong.
You are positing a false dichotomy, because the words “liberal” and “conservative” both have several very different, but related, meanings.
Liberal elite: keep the lower classes in line, because they’re too stupid for their own good. Make them happy by telling them you’re working for their freedom.
Conservative elite: keep the lower classes in line, because they’re too lazy for their own good. Make them happy by telling them you’re working for their prosperity.
Hell, no.
The liberal MO is as follows: if you can’t beat them honestly, do whatever you have to do shut them up. Keep Nader off the ballot. Fire a few rounds into a Republican campaign HQ. Set up “free speech zones” on college campuses. Villify anyone who is deemed a threat. Label certain ideas as “hateful” or “hate speech.”
Conservatives don’t care if people are liberal as long as they don’t try to force others to be. Liberals don’t care if people are conservatives as long as they sit down, shut the fuck up and do as they’re told, because they are fundamentally too stupid to know any better than to be conservative to begin with.
Of course, when the Republicans declare that the metric for what is and isn’t acceptable is based on the Bible, that’s different. :rolleyes:
Of course, when the Republicans declare that you can’t attend a Bush-Cheney campaign rally if you’re wearing an unapproved T-shirt, that’s okay . :rolleyes:
Oh, you have GOT to be kidding me. It was the Republicans who kicked people out of presidential appearances for wearing t-shirts that said “Protect Our Civil Liberties” on them, or wearing Kerry shirts under button-down shirts, even had them jailed in some instances. It was the Republicans who made event attendees sign loyalty oaths. The Secret Service was sued for segregating protesters from tax-funded public appearances which any American is entitled to attend. So much for conservatives not trying to shut people up who disagree with them, not caring if people are liberal, and not forcing their ideas on others. If you’re going to make these claims, please try to be credible.
Nice selective memory you have there.
I guess you’ve forgotten all about Sophia Parlock.
Personally, I haven’t found that to be true. I seem to be getting more liberal as I get older. Having children moved me even further to the left.
In my youth I found it easy to be hard and selfish. I didn’t feel like the weak or the poor deserved any help, and I voted Republican as a result.
Now in my middle age I’m a lot more forgiving of the failures of others. Some folks are dealt a poor hand in life and deserve a leg up. Some folk screw up badly and deserve a second chance. I don’t mind paying higher taxes if it means that poor kids get decent educations and everyone gets the opportunity to go to the doctor if they’re sick.
We live in a mean age. Kindness is seen as a vice, and greed as a virtue. But the wheel will turn … .
Seems you have forgotten all about the Bush team’s suppression of any dissenting opinions in all public appearances, even ones where it’s not legal to do so, even to the point of misusing the Secret Service. Bush & Co. cannot tolerate and will not listen to the voice of opposition, neither from individual citizens, the media, or the international community. That does not mean that all conservatives are like that, of course, but this crew is the current conservative leadership, so I don’t think you have a leg to stand on when claiming that liberals quash free speech but conservatives don’t.