Conservatives vs. Liberals

[Kirby]

I read this great article in my Utne Reader:

www.utne.com/Politics/Liberals-Arent-Un-American-Conservatives-Arent-Ignorant.aspx

It is an analysis of the work of Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist examining the different concepts of morality, especially between liberals and conservatives in America.

Some quotes that stood out to me:

Haidt doesn’t want religious fundamentalists dictating public policy to ensure it lines up with their specific moral code. Even if you perceive purity as a major-league issue, it doesn’t have to be on steroids. But he argues it is important that liberals recognize the strength that impulse retains with cultural conservatives and respect it rather than dismissing it as primitive.

“I see liberalism and conservatism as opposing principles that work well when in balance,” he says, noting that authority needs to be both upheld (as conservatives insist) and challenged (as liberals maintain). “It’s a basic design principle: You get better responsiveness if you have two systems pushing against each other. As individuals, we are very bad at finding the flaws in our own arguments. We all have a distorted perception of reality.”

“Liberals tend to have a very optimistic view of human nature,” Haidt says. “They tend to be uncomfortable about punishment—of their own children, of criminals, anyone. I do believe that if liberals ran the whole world, it would fall apart. But if conservatives ran the whole world, it would be so restrictive and uncreative that it would be rather unpleasant, too.”

The concept of authority resonates so weakly in liberals that “it makes it difficult for liberal organizations to function,” Haidt says. On the other hand, he notes, the Republicans’ tendency to blindly follow their leader proved disastrous over the past eight years.

Haidt notes that the environmental movement was started by liberals, who were presumably driven by the harm/care impulse. Conservative evangelical Christians are increasingly taking up the cause, though, propelled by the urge to respect authority. “They’re driven by the idea that God gave man dominion over the earth, and keeping the planet healthy is our sacred responsibility,” he says. “If we simply rape, pillage, destroy, and consume, we’re abusing the power given to us by God.

“The climate crisis and the economic crisis are interesting, because neither has a human enemy. These are not crises that turn us against an out-group, so they’re not really designed to bring us together, but they can be used for that. I hope and think we are ready, demographically and historically, for a less polarized era.”

That will require peeling off some bumper stickers. Contrary to the assertion adhered onto Volvos, dissent and patriotism are very different impulses. Haidt persuasively argues that both are essential to a healthy democracy, and the interplay between them—when kept within respectful bounds—is a source of
vitality and strength. “Morality,” he insists, “is a team sport.”

I'd really like to hear what some of you think, especially Robin.

[Josh]

I agree that our country has benefitted by the pendulum swing of conservative and liberal, even though the polarization bothers me and I wish our politics could be more nuanced.

Interesting comments on Christian and the environment.

That will require peeling off some bumper stickers. Contrary to the assertion adhered onto Volvos, dissent and patriotism are very different impulses. Haidt persuasively argues that both are essential to a healthy democracy, and the interplay between them—when kept within respectful bounds—is a source ofvitality and strength. “Morality,” he insists, “is a team sport.”

Just a thought on this. It almost seems like he's undermining his own thesis here (of course I'm not reading the whole thing, but...)
In order for these opposing but balancing forces to work together for our good can we really set "bounds" for them?

[krhagan19]

I enjoy the fact that my country has has clearly chosen the most liberal president in History by a rather large margin so far as Presidential elections are decided. The question of "Who would Jesus Torture" is not irrelevant, for we have a Godly president who would not torture anyone. It is my sincerest belief that if anyone in the 21st century thus far is going to hell based on their merit, it is George Walker Bush. I would rather stand beside Saddam Hussein in heaven, and George W. Bush.

[Josh]

I would rather stand beside Saddam Hussein in heaven, and George W. Bush.

Whoever you stand by in heaven, you'll be happy, especially having seen in the Judgment the full reality of our own sin.

[matty]

I'm just intrigued do you have a Labour party in america or does the two-party system simply refer to Conservative and Liberal and do the parties represent the same principals and values that british parties represent?

[Josh]

Well, our two dominant parties are "Republican" and "Democrat".

In most regards, generally, Republicans tend to be considered conservative and Democrats liberal, but it depends on the specific issue and politician.

Historically, Republicans have emphasized states rights, restrictions on the federal government, traditional values, and a more laissez faire attitude toward capitalism. Some of these values have shifted in recent years, though (especially the first two)

Democrats tend toward socialist solutions to societal problems, governmental intervention/ control/ oversight in economic affairs, and tend to promote more liberal perspectives on values.

What are the general characteristics of your Labor, Liberal, and Tory parties?

[Alex]

Structurally the US is effectively broken out into a two party system. There are occasionally minor parties who achieve enough clout to be considered third parties, but rarely does it last for more than a couple election cycles. The Green party has been influential lately but they have a relatively specific agenda.

Rather than third parties, the swing in elections is usually based on people who drift in their opinions or affiliations; either from persuasion or more commonly by deciding around the current top issues (abortion, unemployment, environment, national defense), or opinions on character. Generally they're considered a force of moderation between the two shifting poles of the primary parties. In the US they're referred to as "mainstream", "undecideds", "non-affiliated", and in more aggressive rhetoric "flip-floppers".

[robin]

I did not see this thread earlier, though I have been a little pre-occupied. From what I gather I believe that I agree with the premise of the article, though I would dispute some specific points.

Having opposing views does seem to allow for a balanced society. In my opinion there is nothing more sacred to our existence than freedom, and specifically freedom of thought, and speech. So long as liberals and conservative come together on this point we have hope as a society. Sadly I see liberals wanting to restrict this basic freedom more that conservatives.

Here is a point that I find perplexing, and causes me to question the objectiveness of the author.

He says "On the other hand, he notes, the Republicans’ tendency to blindly follow their leader proved disastrous over the past eight years."

This is contrary to all evidence. Lets compare and contrast Obama and Bush. As President Bush abandoned his conservative principles that he ran on, and as the wars turned for the worse his support started to erode across the board, including among those conservatives who voted for him. For the final 2-3 years of his Presidency, his approval ratings were around 30% or lower, and among his own party his numbers we dismal. Conservative did not blindly follow Bush, and the numbers are evidence of that. Bush found support among conservative where we agreed with him (abortion, stem sell research,tax policy, strong national defense) and opposition where we disagreed (fiscal discipline, and growth of government). I don't see how any of this can be characterized as blind following.

Conversely, lets look at Obama, and the same would go for Clinton. Liberals have been willing to overlook (blindly) Obama's failings and lies. As the country gets to know this President more and more we see that perhaps we made a mistake, and did not consider the Character and background of the man we elected. Though he was elected with 53% of the vote (which is not overwhelming or a landslide) his approval rating we in the 70's early on. We, as a country, wanted to believe that he was not the radical that many of us considered him to be, and that he would lead us into a new era of political discourse. However, as time has went on, and we have had a chance to see the man in action his approval has taken a nose dive due to his exposed world view, and now when compared to other presidents at this point in their tenure he is only more popular than Carter (and that doesn't say much). Yet among liberals his numbers remain very high. At which point will we see democrats abandon the radical socialist, that is Obama, and follow suit with their conservative counter parts who abandoned Bush?

[Kirby]

Good points, Robin.

The author shows his bias. However, I think there is a difference between disagreement and submission to authority. This article is largely generalizing stereotypes of liberals and conservatives, but I would agree that conservatives are more likely to remain quiet (even if they disagree) than liberals that would organize and demonstrate.

This is changing, though. It is the conservatives that seem to making more noise now (Tea Parties etc.)

At which point will we see democrats abandon the radical socialist, that is Obama, and follow suit with their conservative counter parts who abandoned Bush?

I think that when Obama's major policies (Health Care being a big one) are enacted and he either succeeds or fails, we will see a lot of jumping ship, finger pointing, "I told you so" and the like.

Haidt's point is that we can move away from abandoning our leaders just because we disagree with what they are doing, and rather seek to understand why they are doing what they are doing. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, you can see that Obama, Bush, and whoever else only seek to provide for the next generation, help those that need it, and make a better life for all Americans. The difference is in their moral understanding, which differs indeed.

[robin]

Haidt's point is that we can move away from abandoning our leaders just because we disagree with what they are doing, and rather seek to understand why they are doing what they are doing. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, you can see that Obama, Bush, and whoever else only seek to provide for the next generation, help those that need it, and make a better life for all Americans. The difference is in their moral understanding, which differs indeed.

On this I certainly agree. I don't see Obama as maniacal, and evil, as many on the left see Bush. Rather I see him as simply misguided in his approach to accomplish what may be his genuinely good motivations. I think we can all agree that social justice is desired on both side, but then we must define our terms, and debate on the best way to accomplish our desired outcome.

[robin]

for we have a Godly president who would not torture anyone.

krhagan19,
What would you say if you were to find out that Obama has continued to Bush policy of handing over terrorists to third party nations (Egypt) in order to extract information?

Also do Godly people support and fight for infanticide as Obama does?

When one speaks of "blindly following" a leader it appears that you may fit the mold perfectly.

Robin

[yeshuafreak]

right now we are under hamiltons curse: a democratic instead of republican view (of jeferson and all the other founding fathers) view of government.

read the book "hamiltons curse"- its really good.

[Margot]

Pretty interesting discussion! I can appreciate most all the points you are making, guys.

[krhagan19]

ahh Matty we do not have any part so insolvent as "New Labour." To call the labour party Labour now is an absurdity. It would be saying that the present corporate loving, neoconservatives who run the Republican Party in the USA are the legit successors to Lincoln. Yet even they, cannot truthfully be described as being as ineffective as Gordon Brown's machine. I am not fan of the monarchy, but your Queen should REALLY to the UK and favor and disolve parliament and call a general election ASAP!

[rbbailey]

The problem with arguing that one side or the other is blindly following their ever-so-imperfect leaders is that the voter is always caught in a catch-22. It isn't something the average voter can help.

Being a Conservative, who in the world could I realistically vote for between Bush, Gore, Kerry, and Obama and McCain? Should we abstain our vote? Should we vote for a non-existent third party?

I would say the same goes for the Liberal. In fact, as disappointed in Bush as I was, my neighbor, a mid-60's Christian black man who voted for Obama, had the signs and bumper stickers and t-shirts, is now very out-spoken against Obama.

We cannot forget the origin of who we are. Conservatives come from all walks of life, but the main thing that makes a Conservative a Conservative in this climate is that they want to Conserve the Constitution; a sovereign nation and culture, and a balanced approach to personal vs. corporate vs. government power/freedom.

A true Liberal would have nothing to do with big government, universal health care, or high taxes; he/she would hold fast to the etymology of the label: Liberty.

In their more pure and honest forms, the two are very much about the same things. In that base form, the difference comes down to Idealism vs. Realism. The Liberal is more Idealistic about upholding his or her beliefs. The Conservative holds to Realism to uphold many of those same beliefs. For instance, a Liberal will interpret the Constitution to fit his or her Ideal while the Conservative will look at the Constitution for what is there or what is not there, written on the page. They may both be attempting to accomplish the same thing, and even in the same way.

My biggest beef with Liberals these days is the same beef I have with Conservatives -- they have departed from their original systems of beliefs. I think if we could all learn to understand the Constitution from the same standpoint, we may be able to argue about the right things: The Declaration of Independence is the thesis statement for the Constitution. Without it, the Constitution cannot be understood. It cannot be read in and Idealistic or Realistic way without first understanding the mindset of the men who wrote it.

The Realistic Conservative needs to enter the Constitution through the Idealistic thesis of the Declaration of Independence and grasp the letter of the law as well as the intention and spirit of the law. In the mean time, the Idealistic Liberal needs to learn to view the Constitution as being written in the context of the recent history of the lives of the men who wrote it -- it was not written in a vacuum, and therefore it cannot be interpreted as if specific circumstances, reasonings, and real cause and effect relationships did not, and won't again occur.

I do not believe Obama looks at the Constitution through the lens of the Declaration of Independence. I believe he has a skewed view of the difference between fairness and equality.

I think he is representative of what is wrong with Liberalism; and in contrast, Bush was exactly what is wrong with Conservatism. Both of them have a sickness that is manifest in the same ways: politics, money, power, legacy, short-sightedness, and a belief in the idea that it's the Constitution or the ideas that founded this country that are not working, when in fact, it is the con-men and selfish among us who are ruining the country.

[krhagan19]

The Democratic party is the party of no ideas, and the republican party is the party of bad ideas.
Lewis Black