Neither can live without the other. They are a pair of distorted mirrors facing each other in a void. Remove one and no image remains on the other.
There are many nations on the planet where nearly everyone is what would be called “liberal” in the US, and they’re all quite prosperous. There are also nations on the planet where nearly everyone is what would be called “conservative” in the US, and they tend to be considerably less pleasant than the US, and in fact many of them are held up by US conservatives themselves as examples of the Worst Possible Places.
Without liberals, Conservatopia would probably face a worse healthcare system, school-to-prison pipeline, lack of social net, and more polluted environment.
Without conservatives, Liberaltopia would probably face strong national-security attacks, high crime, lack of free speech, and a high national debt.
It really depends on the specifics of the country. A country like Israel, for instance, cannot afford to adopt a liberal approach towards national defense, although it is the most politically liberal country in the Middle East.
You’d just end up with new political divisions.
“Conservatopia” would not stay universally conservative for a week. Soon you’d have schisms between different kinds of conservatives.
From whom?
You mean, like, Scandinavian levels of crime?
Are Scandinavians very muzzled, then?
To whom?
ISTM it depends on which type of folk. If it’s Scandinavian liberals, the country would be fine, but if Evergreen State College type, no.
Crime: Imagine this, but on a national level.
As for national defense: The UK, Belgium, France, etc. are all more liberal than the US, but have been attacked by Islamic terrorists. And it also depends on geography - who are your neighbors? Again, Israel is the most liberal country in the Middle East, and has faced threats since its very inception.
That’s just silly.
The reason things went all weird at Evergreen State College is because it’s a college and the people there are basically children. They go off crazy on small issues because that’s what happens at colleges. When I went to university, as we call it here, people were just as passionate about stuff, and just as prone to dipping into silliness; I knew people who were really, really, REALLY sincere that woman should be spelled “womyn” and women should be spelled “wimmin” and anything else was a crime against humanity. But you know what? They grew up, and now kids on campuses blat about other things; the womyn/wimmin thing is kind of yesterday now. Their heart’s in the right place, but they’re immature. It’s normal. You are confusing “liberal” with “kid.”
I’d go with the conservatives. My impression is that my side would have a higher number of useful professionals for rebuilding society. Here are a couple of lists:
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/
http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bias-of-each-profession-2014-11
Without the systemic inequalities that are the very anathema of liberalism,
there’d be no “this” in the first place.
Did you miss the OP’s “new world, from scratch” condition?
This question is hard to answer without just saying ‘of course people who agree with me would do better’.
But in general, big cities are where most of the cultural, artistic, economic and scientific development occurs and they are almost always liberal. Even in the South if you look at maps of election results you’ll see seas of deep red with a few blue specks. Those blue specks are the large cities.
Hillary only won about 500 counties, while Trump won 2500. However those 500 won by Hillary make up 2/3 of the US economy. I think Los Angeles County alone, which Hillary won, has more economic output than the smallest 500 Trump counties combined.
However conservatives would be better at survivslism. If society truly collapsed they’d do better at camping, hunting, fishing, rebuilding, etc. But if society maintained its technological infrastructure the liberal areas would do better because the liberals areas have more human capital.
Basically, conservatives would do better at first but as society progresses into middle income status (like where India is) the liberals ones would pull ahead.
I’m not seeing a clear bias for “useful” to either side, there. For instance, liberals have the midwives and the carpenters. And apparently, according to your first cite, the engineers, in opposition to what other people have said in this thread.
I don’t think there’s much room for insurance salesmen in Libertopia, anyway…
I think this is biased by the pastimes that current Americans prefer - Maker culture skews liberal, for instance. So does the hippy permaculture Whole Earth Catalog crowd. Conservatives are better at doing the hunting. fishing etc in an industrialized culture with modern tools. I don’t think that necessarily makes them better at actual from-bare-bones survivalism.
All the flint knappers I know are academics, scientists, and strongly liberal.
If you look down the list from Verdant Labs, you see the top 10 most Republican occupation groups are:
- fossil fuels
- farming & forestry
- surgical pracice
- insurance
- construction
- dentistry
- home management
- transportation
- entrepreneurial
- sales
A lot of those seem pretty damn useful in building a new society from scratch. Admittedly, my thinking is that the most useful ones are the farmers, ranchers, loggers, etc from #2. But contrast that list with the Democrat side:
- social & environment
- film & stage prod.
- editorial
- libraries
- mental health
- academia
- art management
- writing
- performing arts
- research
I see a lot of occupation groups that I’d characterize as “don’t want to get their hands dirty” and “probably wouldn’t be much use in growing corn or fixing broken down vehicles”. Sure, once a society gets on its feet and is consistently feeding itself, some nice libraries and performing arts could provide some cultural enrichment, but it’s got to survive those first few winters before that’s going to be an issue.
Fossil fuels? Really, from scratch? I don’t think they mean coal miners?
Modern surgery? In what operating theatre? With what drugs? Ditto dentistry?
Transportation? We’re not talking cart drivers here, so what are they driving?
Insurance? Entrepeneurs? Sales? Are you serious?
So, these farmers - know how to get the harvest in without their John Deeres, do they? These loggers - used to felling trees without chainsaws?
Please, tell that to the next gaffer, greensman or stagehand you see…
I don’t see “mechanic” on the Conservative side, and I already dealt with the notion that modern farmers will just excel at subsistence corn growing…
Like I said, the people I know who grow their *own *food, keep chickens etc. are all hippies. Sure, their day job may be “academic”, or “psychologist” or even “actor”, but it would be a *giant *category mistake to equate job with skillset.
Liberals love militarism, American hegmony, and the MIC, like Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Obama, or both Clintons. Like Obama said, they’re only against dumb wars, whatever that means.
And the people I know who grow their own feed and keep chickens are conservatives. I grew up in a conservative household in suburban Utah. We raised our own chickens (for years we had about a dozen Rhode Island Red hens), had various fruit trees, and maintained our own modest vegetable garden. So did quite a few of my neighbors (maybe 10-20%). Since I moved out, my dad has started to get into beekeeping. Admittedly, this may be more of a Mormon thing than a conservative thing.
I think it’s a safe bet that they know a shitload more about growing corn and felling trees than your average stagehand or writer. Yes, they’d lose a lot of efficiency without modern equipment, but they’d retain a base of knowledge on the subjects of growing food and felling trees that is vastly superior to librarians and whatever-the-appropriate-title-is-for-people-who-manage-art-galleries.
With no animals to hunt but each other, the conservatives are doomed. The vegetarians know how to grow sustainably, though.
n/m