What an outstanding post.
Great analysis, except that’s it twaddle. Liberals favor individual freedom when it comes to gay marriage or smoking pot, while conservatives favor the needs of the community in those cases. Both sides want individual freedom in the case of abortion, but disagree on what constitutes an individual. Both sides want to do what’s best for the community the case of abortion, but disagree on what exactly is best for the community. Both sides are willing to give up a certain amount of financial freedom to fund national defense and education, although they generally disagree somewhat on the percentages. Nothing is a simple binary, as much as TV and the internet keep insisting otherwise.
The world is made up of two kinds of people, those who believe there are two kinds of people…
There is another division, in whether you have a unilateral or multicultural outlook. On the right-hand side of the political spectrum, the view is heavily skewed towards “one correct viewpoint”, with all others being misguided; the notion that different viewpoints or cultures can be of equal value is not popular. FoxNews is targetted squarely at this group.
On the left, however, both camps exist in full force; there are the left-wing progressives who also feel that their point of view is the only correct one, and media outlets such as MSNBC and (the soon to be late) Air America tend to cater for such folk. But there are also the “other viewpoints can be equally valid” crowd who prefer to hear a wide variety of viewpoints rather than only those tailored to their personal preferences; these are your typical NPR listeners.
The multiculturalists tend to dislike the partisans of either ilk for their perceived closemindedness, and the partisans tend to consider the multiculturalists wishy-washy and bereft of principle. It’s a tough gap to bridge.
Great post Sam. In theory, I agree with you: most of the major battles of the 20th century, the ones fought with guns and the ones fought with words, come from the split of Rousseau and Locke, of statism and freedom. Yet in the US at least, the whole thing’s been shook up 'til no one knows what’s up and down. Both major parties show the influence of Locke and Rousseau.
The left champions social freedoms: the civil rights movement, gay marriage, abortion rights, and responsible drug use. Yet they are against freedom in the economic sphere, as they support high taxes, regulatory schemes, and protectionism. They know how to spend your money better than you do, and will spend it with their social goals in mind. They want to see everyone treated fairly. And to make things interesting, they’re against gun rights as well.
As is wont to appear in a two party system, the right in the US is the inverse. They fight against gay marriage, abortion rights, and drug use, while they support fewer taxes and regulations. They know how you should live your private life better than you do, and try to stake a moral superiority on that. They want to see everyone living piously. And they’re pro gun.
Sadly, both parties will gladly join forces to curb your freedom when it’s popular, such as anti-smoking measures.
Neither party really makes sense; there is no coherent structure to their planks. In one breath they can praise freedom of __________ and condemn the choice to ___________.
It’s enough to make a fan of Locke weep.
Disclaimer: These are broad generalizations, and shouldn’t be taken to describe all people, yadda yadda yadda.
Unregulated, predatory capitalism and consumerism separates the exploiters from the exploited.
The divide, as I see it is between, personal morality and business. Once we made the disconnect, it’s okay to screw people over in business, we created a divide that cannot be mended.
Power will always rest with those who profit, they will always use that power to exploit, in the name of pursuit of profit.
Predatory Capitalism, as long as it’s lining your pockets, you don’t much care. What’s been happening on Wall St over the last year is a shining example. And honestly, as long as Joe Average’s pension fund starts to climb again, he doesn’t care that it’s doing so on the back of 10 yr old’s working 15hr days for Nike, in the third world.
That’s the disconnect that creates the divide, in my opinion.
You snipped the part where I admitted I hadn’t done the reasearch to phrase the claim exactly. And, I should have phrased it so that the hyper-filibuster era began in the Demo-majority session before Obama.
Nevertheless, Filibuster - Wikipedia has a good historical summary (traditional filibusters really did involve high moral purpose, as in the Jimmy Stewart movie) and useful graph as well as comments like
Another indication might be found at http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2009/end_the_gops_filibuster_folly_13988 :
Excellent post, Sam and I mostly agree with it. But (of course there is a ‘but’)…
The political compass makes a good case for a second dimension. The traditional split is left/right to represent your views on economic freedom versus egalitarianism. The political compass adds up/down to represent your views on personal freedom versus authoritarianism.
In my social circle, nearly everyone I know falls solidly below the line. Most are liberals (lower-left) with a few libertarians (lower-right). but when you look at the political establishment in the US almost everyone is above the line.
I am solidly lower left. When I look at the republicans, I see a party that opposes my economic views but - worse! - wants to control my life. I hate that.
I’ll hazard a guess, Sam, that you are lower right. I’ll also guess that when you look at the Democrats, you see a party that opposes your economic views but - worse! - wants to control your life. I bet you hate that.
The point is, people in the US (and I know you are in Canada, but go with me) are under-represented in politics. When a candidate of ‘down’ - like Ron Paul - appears, he gets wild support simply because he is such a rare bird.
When people talk about ‘bridging the gap’ they usually think of centrists (somewhere top-centre on the compass). I think a candidate of ‘down’ would be much more compelling. Ron Paul was ‘down/right’. A ‘down/centre’ party could be tremendously successful. I would certainly vote for them.
The liberaltarian project (liberals holding hands with libertarians) started by the Cato people hasn’t made much headway but I find their ideas very compelling.
Exactly right. IMO, politics in the US is nonsense – the notion of dual political axes (social, economic) is nonsense – government control in the social axis inevitably spills into the economic axis, and vice-versa. To answer OP’s question, there is no fundamental divide between liberals and conservatives, at least in the US; both parties love big government, and are only opposed to the government on individual issues only when the other party is more vocal about advocating control. There’s no consistency to either party.
Hilarious
Pretty ironic too, but then it IS Der Trihs. 
-XT
Lakoff has a chapter in his book, Moral Politics, where he describes the phenomenon of characterizing your opponents views by a stereotype. It easy and lazy and helps you score points in an argument but rarely moves the discussion forward.
It’s not exactly a straw man view - because there are certainly people on the left who want the government to control everything (but most don’t) and there are certainly people on the right who are selfish and greedy (but most aren’t). I think it is disingenuous and harmful to assume that they are. I prefer to listen to my opponents strongest arguments and tackle those.
I think this behavior has contributed to the breakdown in civility in the last ten years and has caused the left/right gap to increase.
FWIW That was Obama’s attraction for me - he seemed to want to break out of the cycle of “democrats support the terrorists”/“republicans don’t like brown people”. That he hasn’t been able to actually achieve that has been my biggest disappointment. I still think he might, but I am not holding my breath.
Last post before I am off to work…
There have been a few candidates for a ‘litmus test’ to tell liberal from conservative. Here’s mine:
Whether you think the growth of massive, powerful corporations is good for society or rather, whether we need to do something about it.
I fear Big Government, but I fear Big Walmart/Big Goldman/Big Exxon/Big Pharma even more.
All the Conservatives that I know are just as disturbed by the Supreme Court ruling as Liberals.
Well, that’s rather different from ‘the 40 Republicans in the last year have attempted more filibusters than all other countries for all recorded history combined’, doncha think?
Regards,
Shodan
So, you put a quote from me in the same proximity to Gonzo and Der spewing hate and lunacy about the Right, as if the statements were approximately on the same level?
Leaving that aside, did you miss the part where I, at least, said that I was painting with a very broad brush, or the other part where I said that there are myriad factions in the broad categories we call ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, and that no all (or in some cases even most) of the people who self identify with those categories believe any given assertion?
-XT
That was a wonderful summary Sam. I challenge you, though, to tell me that either of the major parties in the US falls into either camp. It’s easy enough to find examples of Lockean thought in the Democrats, and just as easy to find Rousseau in the Republicans. For a follower of either philosopher, voting for either party is going to involve some nose holding.
Part of the reason for this is that, I believe, we are going through one of those periods where the major parties change roles. It’s not the first time that has happened, it won’t be the last. It will, very likely, leave things in an even messier state than they currently are.
On preview, the brushes used to talk about politics in the US are broad indeed. But they have to be, there are only two parties to choose from, so all discussion invariably break down to which party better represents what view point. It doesn’t really matter how nuanced a given individual’s point of view is when the choice is either/or.
There is no fundamental split. “Liberal” and “conservative” encompass so many different views of reality, so many different reactions to those views, that any attempt to focus upon one difference is doomed to miss the point. Sure, you can point to big differences, ones that you can create two opposing views that each group with respectively agree with. But you’ll find members of the “wrong” group on each side, too, and not an insigificant amount. There simply is no one issue or one point on which you can declare the primal reason for the split, because there is no split. There are many.
I think the motivation for seeking the “one reason” is behind the point that we simply don’t like to be wrong, but also that we like to put importance and worth into our views. We like to think that our opinions are sound, and have depth of acceptability. If the reason why people disagree with us is a simple, or several simple, differences in how we see things, then that’s great, because it means we get to sit in our excellence and gloat. They’re very wrong, but they have a vast difference in how they see the world, so that’s ok - seperating people with a vast gulf of disagreement means we get to say that their way of looking at the world, which happens to be wrong, does not contaminate ours. That not just the results of their opinions are seperate from our own, but the unpleasant root of their beliefs, likewise, isn’t intermingled with our own. It allows us to keep not just our opinions pure of being shared with wrong others, but the very basis of those opinions.
It’s just another way of asserting one’s supremacy and clarity of ideals. We don’t like to be reminded that, oftentimes, we can be arguing with people who see the world very differently one day, yet standing side by side with them another. Because if they can be right, occasionally, we can be wrong. And if people who see the world so differently can agree with us, then it reminds us of how our own views may well provide a slanted or inaccurate view of reality. The vast gulf is a comforting idea, but there’s no truth in it.
Can the gap be bridged on an individual basis? Of course. Very few of us are strictly liberal/conservative on all issues. Most of us can agree across party lines on most issues.
Where the big divide comes is in the official party setup. It has currently reached a state (not unique historically, but not always the case) where identity is more important than actual policy position. In popular political speech the words “liberal” and “conservative” have taken on pejorative meanings for many. This has a lot to do with the two party system we have. Conservative and liberal become catch all phrases with no distinctions and no compromise allowed. If you are gay and pro gun , or pro-conservation and anti-abortion you are not really represented by either national party. The national party as an entity is more concerned with winning than the actual positions. That makes the other party the enemy, not just someone with a different veiw point.
There is not a total equality in this. Dems by the nature of their party or more likely to look for compromise on issues that may cross party lines, but they cannot compromise on some things at all.
Most conservatives and liberals will agree that the top marginal tax rate should be somewhere less than 50% and more than 20%. But when one side wants to move it up 2% to restore it previous levels, the other side responds as if it where a move to enslave the wealthy.
Your statement made the same kind of error as theirs even if it wasn’t on the same level. Your statement was courteous and lacked their virulence and bile but it had the same air of mis-characterization.
ETA: I apologize if I gave the impression that you are in the same category. That was not my intention.
Seems like the “why” has been covered. I would like to say, though, that we should NOT be working to bridge the gap. I am already frustrated by the lack of choice in a two party system. If we eliminate the differences, we will have a one party system. For the same reason, I am not sure what I think about “bipartisianship”. Obviously, some compromise needs to be reached to get anything done, but if everything is bipartisian, we might as well just have one party…which is pretty much how it is in practice anyway.