what is the psychology of conservatives and liberals?

[DiscoBiscuit]

So you're saying that don't want to post here simply because they are criticizing beliefs you hold? Don't you think that's a little extreme to disregard the site in its entirety because you feel your beliefs are being unjustly criticized?

They are not just my beliefs buddy. I work in conservative politics at a 501(c)(4) called The American Action Network (its part think tank, part issue advocacy group). This is what I do for a living. To come on a site I frequent and constantly see threads like this filled parroted talking points from the talking heads sucks.

I come here to let my hair down and chill. That's kind of hard to do, when what you do and work for is picked apart and described in the most heinous of terms at every turn.

I have no problem with fair and honest debate, but all the accusations here go one way, and focus on only the most extreme of conservative politicians (of whom none hold major office). It's tiring and disappointing, especially from a site that is usually so intellectually rigorous.

 

[Hazashin]

They are not just my beliefs buddy. I work in conservative politics at a 501(c)(4) called The American Action Network (its part think tank, part issue advocacy group). This is what I do for a living. To come on a site I frequent and constantly see threads like this filled parroted talking points from the talking heads sucks.

I come here to let my hair down and chill. That's kind of hard to do, when what you do and work for is picked apart and described in the most heinous of terms at every turn.

I have no problem with fair and honest debate, but all the accusations here go one way, and focus on only the most extreme of conservative politicians (of whom none hold major office). It's tiring and disappointing, especially from a site that is usually so intellectually rigorous.

I sympathize with how you feel about this issue, but I fail to understand why you feel like you shouldn't post here anymore. And I don't see how having a job in that field makes it any different. Whatever floats your boat, man, but I encourage you to stay for non-political reasons (though perhaps we can have civil debate, even though I am much less knowledgeable of politics and have much less life experience than you lol).

Also, I'm curious, why are you a conservative?

 

[Thalassa]

I come here to let my hair down and chill. That's kind of hard to do, when what you do and work for is picked apart and described in the most heinous of terms at every turn.

If you come here to chill out, I recommend staying away from the political threads...or anything terribly serious that involves current events or people's religious beliefs.

but all the accusations here go one way.

No, this is not true at all. There are plenty of conservatives in this site, though they frequently take the form of anarcho-capitalist or some other right wing libertarians, and they're just as full of ire for what they don't like as anyone else.

I'd also like to throw in here that I actually made a thoughtful post in this thread about how I can see the point of view of libertarians and Republicans and how they may view themselves as doing the most ethical thing, disputing the OP.

I also am likely to complain about extreme ridiculous liberals as I am about extreme ridiculous conservatives.

However, I think The Man is dangerous, and he just as easily takes the form of a free market capitalist as he does a government official, and I'm not about to withhold that opinion for you or anyone else, as I consider it a serious cause that involves the lives of many very real people.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

why are you a conservative?

Why is the sky blue?

I just am. Economic and individual freedom make sense to me. My father is owns (what some would call) a small business.

Socially I couldn't give a fuck (as long as it doesn't cost the tax payer money).

The beating heart of this country's strength is it's financial system (as the crisis has shown us). Politically, we need to create an environment for that system, and our economy to thrive if we are to continue to enjoy our quality of life.

P.S. outside of our discussion on IQ re: political belief, I wasn't really talking about you marm.

 

[Hazashin]

Why is the sky blue?

I just am. Economic and individual freedom make sense to me. My father is owns (what some would call) a small business.

Socially I couldn't give a fuck (as long as it doesn't cost the tax payer money).

The beating heart of this country's strength is it's financial system (as the crisis has shown us). Politically, we need to create an environment for that system, and our economy to thrive if we are to continue to enjoy our quality of life.

P.S. outside of our discussion on IQ re: political belief, I wasn't really talking about you marm.

I very much believe in individual freedom, too, but in order for there to be individual freedom, everyone must be seen as socially equal. Conservatism is, in its very nature, unequal in that people in the higher class are simply seen as better than the commoners. It's not nearly direct in today's world, but that's the principle that conservatism stands on.

 

[Jonny]

I very much believe in individual freedom, too, but in order for there to be individual freedom, everyone must be seen as socially equal. Conservatism is, in its very nature, unequal in that people in the higher class are simply seen as better than the commoners. It's not nearly direct in today's world, but that's the principle that conservatism stands on.

Are there ever conditions which would warrant inequality in your eyes? Is a child equal to a serial killer? Should they be treated the same? What about someone with Down's Syndrome and a Doctor?

 

[Thalassa]

I very much believe in individual freedom, too, but in order for there to be individual freedom, everyone must be seen as socially equal. Conservatism is, in its very nature, unequal in that people in the higher class are simply seen as better than the commoners. It's not nearly direct in today's world, but that's the principle that conservatism stands on.

Yes it is. It also perpetuates a lie that everyone will be financially well off if they work hard...and there is some truth to that, but really some of the hardest jobs are actually very low paid, and even a middle class person can lose their job, their savings, be diagnosed with cancer, their business can fail...no social safety net at all is really absurd, in my opinion. It also means that the children of the wealthy and middle class are automatically favored because they can afford more extensive education, et al. I was very fortunate that though my family was working class, my grandfather made enough money and took enough interest in learning to put me in music and dance classes, and to educate me and buy me tons of books outside of school.

I'm a pretty moderate liberal, too, at least in the sense that I do believe in personal responsibility and I don't think pacifism is very smart, and yes I can see the benefit of regular people keeping *some* guns (though not as many as they have now). I even applaud Bill Clinton for reforming the welfare system.

I am no hardcore pinko, but I could even be identified to some extent as an Eco Socialist, apparently, which is not quite the same as being a socialist in the terms that most people think of. I tend to like the governments in places like Northern Europe, and Norway stands out to me as one that is particularly awesome.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

everyone must be seen as socially equal. Conservatism is, in its very nature, unequal in that people in the higher class are simply seen as better than the commoners. It's not nearly direct in today's world, but that's the principle that conservatism stands on.

 

[Hazashin]

What is it?

 

[Hazashin]

Are there ever conditions which would warrant inequality in your eyes? Is a child equal to a serial killer? Should they be treated the same? What about someone with Down's Syndrome and a Doctor?

That's a faulty analogy. In the first case, the serial killer has forfeited his rights by denying them to someone else, so he's at the mercy of the law system. In the second example, you're dealing with comparing a highly functioning individual with someone mentally handicapped. The two aren't equal in ability, but they both deserve the same rights because they are both human beings, and all humans have a right to basic human dignity, regardless of mental ability or the position they come from in society. However, if they violate the social contract, as the serial killer has done, he will have to forfeit a certain degree of his rights.

Does that make sense?

 

[Jonny]

I don't believe there is anything faulty about what I wrote, I was simply trying to pinpoint exactly what you mean by equality. We have both explicit (the law) and implicit (mores) social contracts at work in our society. It is my contention that the serial killer is essentially at the mercy of his genetics and upbringing, and despite being cognizant of the nature of his crimes, he still cannot help himself. There is an absolute absence of true equality in our society, and when we try to construct any system which seeks to act upon one individual while not acting upon another (regardless of criteria) we are establishing an unequal system. By your logic, a law whereby sodomy was made illegal, so long as every individual who practiced sodomy faced the same punishment, would be considered a fair law. However, just as serial killers are more driven to murder, male homosexuals are more driven to commit sodomy and are therefore more susceptible to suffering the consequences of said law. This is essentially unfair.

You seem to be in support of a legal system which is at its heart unfair, but opposed to a moral system on the basis that it is unfair. Productive, intelligent, rich, powerful people are seen as better because by many standards they are better. They are better at imparting their wills upon the environment, getting things done, and affecting society in ways which might be better for everyone (including the less intelligent, less productive, poor people). Just like with laws: You do X, you receive punishment Y; this social system provides positive and negative consequences when certain criteria are met: You achieve success, you are treated better. And, just as with laws, some people are more naturally equipped to 'meet' certain criteria.

Does this make sense?

 

[Hazashin]

I don't believe there is anything faulty about what I wrote, I was simply trying to pinpoint exactly what you mean by equality. We have both explicit (the law) and implicit (mores) social contracts at work in our society. It is my contention that the serial killer is essentially at the mercy of his genetics and upbringing, and despite being cognizant of the nature of his crimes, he still cannot help himself. There is an absolute absence of true equality in our society, and when we try to construct any system which seeks to act upon one individual while not acting upon another (regardless of criteria) we are establishing an unequal system. By your logic, a law whereby sodomy was made illegal, so long as every individual who practiced sodomy faced the same punishment, would be considered a fair law. However, just as serial killers are more driven to murder, male homosexuals are more driven to commit sodomy and are therefore more susceptible to suffering the consequences of said law. This is essentially unfair.

You seem to be in support of a legal system which is at its heart unfair, but opposed to a moral system on the basis that it is unfair. Productive, intelligent, rich, powerful people are seen as better because by many standards they are better. They are better at imparting their wills upon the environment, getting things done, and affecting society in ways which might be better for everyone (including the less intelligent, less productive, poor people). Just like with laws: You do X, you receive punishment Y; this social system provides positive and negative consequences when certain criteria are met: You achieve success, you are treated better. And, just as with laws, some people are more naturally equipped to 'meet' certain criteria.

Does this make sense?

Ah, so you're a believer in absolute determinism. Alright, so if a person is biologically predetermined to a set of features and qualities that are likely to result in his success, why is it fair to reward them to the detriment of someone who committed no crime but to lose the genetic lottery?

For the record, the verdict is still out on the determinism vs. free will debate, with various fields of science coming to different conclusions, so it wouldn't make sense to structure a society on an unverifiable idea but rather the pragmatic approach would be to perfect the systems that we already use.

 

[Eric B]

I've always resented these T/F distinctions because at the very heart of any quality analysis is a clear understanding of the desires of the involved parties. It would be abhorrently foolish to press forward in the name of efficiency without a clear understanding of what the absolute goals of the actions were, and it would be equally foolish to attempt to achieve a particular set of desires without spending time logically analyzing the situation. Your post is a grotesque oversimplification. Cutting spending, increasing taxes, providing welfare, balancing the budget, et cetera, are all good only insofar as they facilitate a state which most closely resembles the ideal (which itself must be derived from an analysis of the aggregate desires of the populace). Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of our society, each is perhaps an ideal at one time or another, but none should be blindly touted as an absolutely superior method.

Well,
I did cover in there that behind the T judgment was F, and behind the F was T.
I was in a bit of a rush, and would have liked to expound upon that better (like your points), but I thought everyone would get the gist of it.

 

[Sniffles]

...so it wouldn't make sense to structure a society on an unverifiable idea but rather the pragmatic approach would be to perfect the systems that we already use.

How very conservative of you to say.

 

[Hazashin]

How very conservative of you to say.

What, liberals can't be pragmatic? It just doesn't make sense to redesign society based on shoddy evidence, at best.

 

[Sniffles]

What, liberals can't be pragmatic? It just doesn't make sense to redesign society based on shoddy evidence, at best.

Conservatives are skeptical of any attempts to redesign society's basic structures - since those structures and whatnot are based upon the experience of countless previous generations("Democracy of the dead" as GK Chesterton called it). An old saying goes that it's better to deal with the devil you know than with the devil you don't know. This doesn't rule out prudential reform when needed, in fact it's the key to the long-term conservation of a society(conservativism is about conserving after all).

So congrats, you're on your way to becoming a Burkean.

 

[Hazashin]

Conservatives are skeptical of any attempts to redesign society's basic structures - since those structures and whatnot are based upon the experience of countless previous generations("Democracy of the dead" as GK Chesterton called it). An old saying goes that it's better to deal with the devil you know than with the devil you don't know. This doesn't rule out prudential reform when needed, in fact it's the key to the long-term conservation of a society(conservativism is about conserving after all).

So congrats, you're on your way to becoming a Burkean.

Uh, no. I'm not skeptical of general reform -- in fact, I embrace sweeping changes to society; however, this specific instance is a reform for the worse -- if you recall, Fascists were for societal reformation, and no one would call them liberal. It's the nature of the reform that matters.

 

[jcloudz]

I don't believe there is anything faulty about what I wrote, I was simply trying to pinpoint exactly what you mean by equality. We have both explicit (the law) and implicit (mores) social contracts at work in our society. It is my contention that the serial killer is essentially at the mercy of his genetics and upbringing, and despite being cognizant of the nature of his crimes, he still cannot help himself. There is an absolute absence of true equality in our society, and when we try to construct any system which seeks to act upon one individual while not acting upon another (regardless of criteria) we are establishing an unequal system. By your logic, a law whereby sodomy was made illegal, so long as every individual who practiced sodomy faced the same punishment, would be considered a fair law. However, just as serial killers are more driven to murder, male homosexuals are more driven to commit sodomy and are therefore more susceptible to suffering the consequences of said law. This is essentially unfair.

You seem to be in support of a legal system which is at its heart unfair, but opposed to a moral system on the basis that it is unfair. Productive, intelligent, rich, powerful people are seen as better because by many standards they are better. They are better at imparting their wills upon the environment, getting things done, and affecting society in ways which might be better for everyone (including the less intelligent, less productive, poor people). Just like with laws: You do X, you receive punishment Y; this social system provides positive and negative consequences when certain criteria are met: You achieve success, you are treated better. And, just as with laws, some people are more naturally equipped to 'meet' certain criteria.

Does this make sense?

consider yourself "typed"



carry on

 

[Sniffles]

Uh, no. I'm not skeptical of general reform -- in fact, I embrace sweeping changes to society; however, this specific instance is a reform for the worse -- if you recall, Fascists were for societal reformation, and no one would call them liberal. It's the nature of the reform that matters.

You were saying?

So now you're for sweeping changes to society, after you just said that's not really a good idea. But then you say what matters is the nature of the reform. This again is a conservative concept, one well articulated by John Henry Newman - who noted the strong difference between responsible and irresponsible changes to society. Not all forms of change are equal the conservative would insist, and you the self-proclaimed liberal seems to agree. Reform by definition is about "returning to form", just like radical in its original meaning is about "returning to roots".

 

[Hazashin]

You were saying?

So now you're for sweeping changes to society, after you just said that's not really a good idea. But then you say what matters is the nature of the reform. This again is a conservative concept, one well articulated by John Henry Newman - who noted the strong difference between responsible and irresponsible changes to society. Not all forms of change are equal the conservative would insist, and you the self-proclaimed liberal seems to agree. Reform by definition is about "returning to form", just like radical in its original meaning is about "returning to roots".

There's reform to accomplish liberal goals and there's also reform to accomplish conservative goals; the act of reform itself is neutral.