The things that each side fears losing (on a given political issue)

Great Debates
1

There is an aphorism that people are motivated far more by fear of loss, than desire for gain. So I wanted to ask what each side fears losing (whether the fear is rational or not is irrelevant; just wanted to ask what each side feels they stand to lose.)

IMHO, a lot of what is at stake for conservatives falls under the category of “peace of mind.” On the abortion issue, for instance, pro-lifers technically aren’t directly affected by any abortion laws - no U.S. government (at least, for now) is going to impose forced abortions on anyone, unlike China. What is at stake for pro-lifers is “peace of mind” - if one considers abortion to be murder, then it would be a cause of considerable distress to know that a million abortions are happening every year in America. Whereas pro-choicers could actually be ***tangibly ***affected, in the sense that a woman who is pregnant and wants an abortion might be unable to get one due to abortion laws.

The same also applies for same-sex marriage: Nobody is going to force heterosexuals to marry someone of the same gender, but homosexuals could be prevented, by anti-SSM laws, from marrying someone of the same gender.

(“Peace of mind” isn’t trivial, though. If one knows that there is genocide going on in Africa, that technically doesn’t affect anyone in America tangibly, yet the mental distress caused by that fact ought to carry considerable weight.)

On some other issues, though, conservatives also stand to lose something tangible. On the issue of guns, conservatives are somewhat likelier to own guns than liberals, so anti-gun legislation could tangibly affect conservatives more than liberals.

On affirmative action, it is a zero-sum situation to some extent: Both sides are trying to get “more of my kind” into the Ivy Leagues, at the expense of “the other side’s kind.”

On climate change, both sides stand to lose, since climate change affects the whole planet.

On taxes, there’s not much difference - there are plenty of rich and poor liberals and conservatives alike, and the overlap is extreme. It is difficult to write up a federal tax law in such a way that it exclusively harms only conservatives or liberals.

On voter ID, some people without ID could be prevented from voting, so they fear losing voting rights. As for those who support voter ID, they would fear cheating shenanigans that would corrupt the election - so what they fear is losing electoral power at the ballot box. (Or someone could claim they fear minorities voting, but that is also the same fear - a loss of electoral power at the ballot box.)

On speech, one side fears that hate speech could be allowed to spread and poison people’s minds, the other side fears that free speech will be taken away, or that it will be unfairly permitted for one side and not another.

2

Oh ok.

3

While I do not endorse it personally, my understanding of the ultra-religious (traditional) Christian view is that God will punish those individuals and societies which condone such unholy practices as He has done with Sodom and Gomorrah. That fear may seem to us intangible or even misplaced, but I assure you that for some people on the pro-life side it is quite “real”.

ETA: Same for homosexuality.

~Max

4

If we are talking about stereotypes, in my experience plenty of conservatives support the second amendment because they interpret it to protect an individual right to carry arms, and they strongly object to the government stepping on individual rights. I feel like there is a large number of conservatives who don’t really own guns but fall on the “conservative” side of that issue, for that reason.

~Max

5

I support affirmative action, but not to get more of my kind (white males) into the Ivy Leagues. In fact, quite the opposite.

6

My read of affirmative action is totally different. I read this issue, at it’s heart, as being a dispute over 1) whether some groups are on average as qualified as others, and 2) whether a school should discriminate in admissions to achieve diversity.

~Max

7

The anti-same-sex marriage claims are:

  1. That same sex marriage will lead to people marrying children, dogs, whatever.
  2. That same sex marriage will lead to more homosexuals having children, and gay parenting is child abuse.
  3. That the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman, so same sex marriage isn’t even possible.

When I first referred to “my sister and her wife,” to these people, I was informed that “Your sister can’t have a wife.” So I now say “My sister and her legally wedded wife.”

They have also informed me that the children my SIL had and my sister adopted are not my nieces. Stupid, hateful people.

8

I never understood this one. Single parents can be parents, so unless “they” are against referring to one’s sibling’s adopted daughter as a niece, I don’t see valid grounds for an objection. Even if the sister wasn’t homosexual or in relationship at all, she could still have an adopted child, which would be your niece.

I mean, what do they have against adopted kids? Esther, Moses, and Jesus were all adopted!

ETA: Samuel, too

~Max

9

Oh, please. Ultra-conservatives are all for adoption until the word “gay” is put in front of it. Then it’s “child abuse” because “every child needs a mother and a father.” According to some of them, if a lesbian gets pregnant by rape she should be forced to have the rapist’s child, then forced to give it up because same sex parenting is child abuse.

It’s not about adopted kids, it’s about gay parenting being (so called) “child abuse.”

10

Maybe I should rephrase it then: “More of the kind of people I want” to be in the Ivy Leagues, at the expense of “the kind of people I want less of” in the Ivy Leagues.

So someone who supports AA, despite being white, may think, “We need more blacks and Hispanics in Harvard and fewer ____ or ____.”

11

On second thought, I misread your post. If your sister-in-law birthed the children I can understand why they might say your sister could not adopt them (except in the legal sense I suppose).

I don’t agree with it but I can somewhat understand the argument.

~Max

12

That is the conclusion, not the argument.

If you are literally interested in what each side fears losing on a given political issue, that question is trivially answered: each side fears losing the questions underlying the issue.

If the question is, “should there be affirmative action in universities?” then one side will fear the “no” answer and the other side will fear the “yes” answer.

What do you want to debate, Velocity?

~Max

13

What is adoption but a legal term? My sister legally adopted the children, but that’s not enough to make them my nieces?

ETA: I refer to the children her first partner had as my nieces, though my sister could not legally adopt them at the time. Een after her partner died and she became a single [del]mother[/del] caretaking child abuser.

SHEESH!

14

And I am against affirmative action, but also not to get more of my kind (white males) into the Ivy Leagues. Because discrimination based on race is wrong, even if it is against whites and Asians.

So I guess it is sort of a “peace of mind” thing.

Regards,
Shodan

15

I don’t think I buy this. A conservative man might worry that a woman he has impregnated will abort his potential child. A conservative person might worry that their daughter might abort their potential grandchild. Those are real tangible losses to actual conservatives.

You can see this directly in some of the specific things that are fought over, like parental notification before a minor receives an abortion.

In general, I’m also not sure that the phrase “peace of mind” accurately covers the value of equal protection and a sense of justice. People who live under a corrupt or unjust system lose something tangible even if they aren’t direct victims.

16

And on climate change, the sides disagree on what they stand to lose. One side thinks we will all suffer if the polar ice caps melt, etc. The other side thinks, at least I think, that the risk is more that we will throttle back our economy, spend a bunch of money on alternative energy, and then find out that the alternative energy doesn’t scale up and the Chinese haven’t scaled back on their fossil fuels and our efforts have been wasted.

I agree with this.

Conservatives are against abortion (for example) for the same reason that liberals are against voter ID or police shootings of black people. Not that they expect necessarily that they will get shot or be denied the right to vote, but because of a concern for justice. If you think that an unborn fetus is a separate human life, it doesn’t have to be your child or grandchild to trigger your concern, just like it doesn’t have to be someone you know personally who gets shot by the cops.

Justice is justice. We disagree on the details, but in theory, that’s what we both want.

Regards,
Shodan

17

Not that they didn’t try.

18

If you think that a woman should have the freedom to exercise control over her own body, it doesn’t have to be your daughter or granddaughter to trigger your concern.

In theory…

19

Power and control.

20

I think conservatives fear losing security and relative status. The cosnervative movement is made up of people that society deems more valuable than others (men, whites, christians, native born americans). They’re seeing America become more egalitarian and they are losing their relative status and sense of privilege, as well as their group and social identity. I think conservatives also fear being treated the same way they’ve treated others. If gays started taking away christians rights to marry, if Muslims passed laws denying religious freedom to christians, if women passed laws limiting reproductive freedoms of men, if black cops brutalized and terrorized white people constantly, etc.

Plus because conservatives notice threats more strongly than the left, they feel the left doesn’t take threats like street crime, terrorism, dangerous nations, etc. seriously enough.

For the left we fear losing democracy, equality, the social safety net, and a sustainable society. Conservatives want to undermine democracy to create an unequal white ethnostate with a reduced social safety net and out of control plutocrats. Plus we worry about the world our grandkids will inherit due to resource depletion and climate change.