The tea party are uber conservatives, they want to go back to the ‘real’ america before any progressivism came about, back to the 1910s.
Of course when they realize it means no social security or medicare for them, they will change their minds. But radicalism in defense of conservatism is still arguably conservatism.
So who are the shepherds?
I disagree - I’d say instead that (at their best) liberals truly believe all people should be treated equally, and are not impressed by self-styled “lions” or “lambs”.
Back in post #15 I said
Yup-Just like I said.
The more extreme ones, yes. But plenty of liberals feel that the bad stuff comes not from people breaking the laws, but from the system encouraging or even forcing execs to push until things collapse.
Hurting people, sure. But notice how worse things got when the rules got relaxed. Most businessmen don’t break the rules. They just stretch them.
I think this gets to the heart of it but doesn’t cover everything. For a more complete explanation, you need to refer to Jonathon Haidt: there are five ‘moral senses’ (analogous to the usual five senses) that explain all of what we consider moral thinking. Conservatives use all 5 but liberals over-emphasize one (harm/care) and dismiss two of the senses (disgust/purity and respect for authority) entirely. Haidt’s ‘sense of fairness’ was originally associated with liberals’ desire to ensure a level playing field until the conservatives pointed out that they care about fairness too but just have a different conception of it. Fairness for a conservative is about getting what you deserve whether that’s punishment for a bad thing or reward for a good thing.
George Lakoff gave a good account of this idea of fairness in moral politics (Moral Politics - Wikipedia ). All moral thinking is grounded in metaphors. Liberals choose metaphors based on a nurturing family (care, support, nurturing, etc) while conservatives choose metaphors based on a strict father figure (respect, discipline, character) and accounting (redemption, pay-back, debt).
I think Haidt accounts for the differences very well but Lakoff’s explanation accounts for them with fewer ideas and wins by Occam’s Scorecard.
Addressing a couple of posts upthread that seem to miss the point of the question…
Czarcasm perhaps misses the point deliberately because he knows very well that other countries and other periods in history use the word ‘liberal’ to mean something very different from what it means in contemporary America. I think that’s unfortunate but it is what it is.
Glee’s mistake is more egregious.
Cameron supports those things because they have been demonstrated to work in his country. He wants to conserve what works. Conservatives in the UK circa 1944 opposed them as do conservatives in the USA circa 2013 because they represent(ed) change with possibly unintended consequences.
At this point in US history though, Liberal and Conservative are just teams that you can root for or boo and flags that you can wave without thinking about what they mean or even knowing that they have meaning at all.
Samuel L Jackson
ho ho
Conservatives tend to argue for personal responsibility whether or not that is applicable. Liberals know that some circumstances are out of your control. To expand on this, a teacher once used this example (or maybe I read it on the internet):
A man’s out walking and he trips over a spot on the road. To the conservative, its the man’s fault. He’s been watching that road all day and nobody else tripped, so the guy must be a klutz. To the liberal, its the road’s fault. He’s been walking all day and he only tripped over that spot, so the road’s defective.
I disagree; a conservative is someone who wants to preserve things that aren’t of value. They want to preserve institutions and practices that harm others, to prevent the victims from tearing the things that are hurting them down. People across the political spectrum want to preserve the things that are of actual value; the conservatives are the ones that want to preserve things that should be destroyed. Wherever there is something stupid or evil, you’ll probably find conservatives working to protect it.
And I, in turn, disagree with you. I don’t think conservatives or liberals are knowingly doing things they believe are wrong just for the sake of being evil. Both sides are doing what they think is the right thing.
No; conservatives throughout history have done wrong things because they are evil people. I see no reason to care that they think that they are doing the right thing; that’s no consolation to the people being oppressed, exploited or slaughtered. Did it do any good for the blacks who were lynched during Jim Crow that their murderers thought they were in the right?
Der Trihs, this post is unhelpful in the extreme and both hurts and stifles whatever debate may be possible. I appreciate that your political feelings are strong - many people’s are - but spouting hatred and such with a broad brush accomplishes nothing. Make a better, more reasoned, argument or avoid Great Debates entirely.
No warning issued but further examples will earn them.
I think both mindsets truly want to help people (a few exceptions of course)
Conservatives—distrust a government program to help people because the inefficiencies in government will naturally help many who don’t/shouldn’t get it and miss many who need it. Private charities and personal giving are the best way to do this because individuals can direct the funds to those groups and people who are showing results in helping people become self-sufficient.
Liberals—government programs are better because they are based upon strict guidelines unaffected by private prejudices. If left in private hands, some would only give money to churchgoers, for example. Some private individuals will take advantage and have a poor person working like a slave around their house for their “donation.” Some might live in an area that charitable organizations skip over for whatever reason. Better to let the central planners make it better.
Why does conservatism get this special treatment? People condemn other people for everything from racism or communism to liberalism to feminism all the time; it’s only when it comes to conservatism that condemning people for their politics becomes taboo.
Bending over backwards to pretend that conservatives are reasonable, well meaning people is a major factor in how bad off America has gotten. Over and over again the Democrats and Obama and liberals & moderates of all sorts insist on pretending that conservatives mean well, and surely they can be talked into a compromise…and again and again the conservatives take everything they’ve been offered, give nothing in return and do everything they can to cause harm. Just how bad does conservatism have to get before it becomes OK to condemn it?
It is not “special treatment” to refrain from making ill-considered, broad brush claims that condemn entire groups of people simply for holding different beliefs and are clearly not accurate except in the unsupported opinion of extreme partisans of opposite beliefs.
Probably already been said, and this has nothing to do with the usual traditional definitions, but in the US at the moment:
A liberal wants to make sure nobody goes without adequate food and shelter and medical care, and he’s willing to let some people game the system if that’s what it takes to ensure it.
A conservative wants to make sure that nobody games the system, and he’s willing to see truly needy people go without basic necessities to ensure it.
Edit: actually, that’s more a definition of Democrats and Republicans than liberals and conservatives, but I’ll let it stand for discussion’s sake.
jtgain:
It’s good to see a conservative chiming into this thread. I wonder what you think of Haidt’s views on political psychology discussed above.
It’s interesting to me that the main difference between liberals and conservatives you see is their respective views on government aid, when so much of the difference is over social policy, environmental policy, foreign policy, etc. Does your view explain why conservatives (generally speaking) would want to intervene in Iraq, or don’t want to create carbon markets, or want to prevent women from having abortions? Maybe it does in some way that’s not obvious to me, but I think it actually just describes a relatively small sliver of the political divide.
I also think you do not fairly characterize the liberal view on aid. The view is not principally that private giving is bad because it might be religious or might require something of the recipients, and that liberals believe in the power of central planners. That sounds like a description of the Soviets rather than most liberals. Generally speaking, liberals believe in government aid because they do not believe that private aid would fill the vacuum in its absence, in large part because government aid programs were themselves filling a private aid vacuum when created. Most American liberals, at least, generally prefer free markets over central planning, but believe that government can act to prevent market failures and make markets freer through regulation.
::: meh :::
(Some) conservatives/Republicans have no problem with people gaming the system as long as they are doing it from a position of wealth.
(Some) liberals/Democrats are willing to see some people deprived of necessities as long as those people are first identified as “wealthy.”
In addition, your description leaves out enormous areas of disagreement. Both sides are willing to impose laws to make sure that some people do not use their freedoms “unwisely,” (with each side picking different freedoms with different judgments regarding what is “wise”).
I doubt that aphorisms or apothegms are all that useful in attempting to reach a genuine understanding (and I strongly suspect that a large number of posters in this thread are not interested in actually increasing understanding as opposed to scoring points for “their side”).
In case it’s not obvious, the same applies to other issues.
A Dem is willing to have a tiny percentage of fraudulent votes cast in order to ensure that nobody eligible to vote is denied. A Dem is willing to let a small percentage of guilty people walk to ensure that nobody is falsely imprisoned.
A Rep is willing to have some eligible voters denied to ensure that no fraudulent votes are cast, and is willing to “risk” innocent people being convicted if it means fewer guilty people walk.
And obviously, these are generalizations, with many individual exceptions.