political alignments as emotional aversions

[Sisyphus]

I realize it's kind of a rule of thumb that any attempt to associate political positions with personality types will almost certainly devolve into a stupid flame war. However, it's still quite tempting, given the high correlations of agreement in seemingly unrelated issues, making terms like "liberal" and "conservative" very nearly meaningful in describing the general outlooks of a great many people. Usually such terms are overused and oversimplified, but there still seems to be some truth behind them.

 

That said, I promise I do NOT have any kind of agenda here. This is something which occured to me just now, and is still quite poorly formed in my mind. The idea here is to define and explain various groups by what they're not, which seems novel and possibly useful in understanding one another.

 

I'm not saying that all positions are determined emotionally. It is possible to have reasonable discussion and debate, and change minds, and make pragmatic decisions. But it does seem like the foundation of political beliefs, the "starting point" of debate, is quite emotional, indeed. Anyway, this whole idea arose while pondering what liberals in modern America, a group I think I understand reasonably well, are all about. I'll start with a rambling analysis of that group in those terms, and maybe expand it later...

 

Liberals, in large part, are motivated by a deep-seated emotional aversion to anything reminding them of "fascism." Fascists are strong nationalists and statists, equating morality with service to this nation. They are flag-wavers. They are absolutists and utter dogmatists, with extreme and inflexible positions. The state becomes a religion, which may or may not include a more traditional "religion" in its dogma. They dominate other nations because they can and with no moral qualms, militarily or otherwise. They cherish exclusiveness in their codes of behavior: the mother culture is superior, foreigners have no value, superiors must be obeyed in all things. They are anti-intellectual, because intellectuals spread ideas which don't fit into their cosmology.

 

To a liberal, all of this embodies pure evil. A liberal is NOT necessarily the "opposite" of a fascist, merely the reaction to one. Sometimes the reactionary nature of liberalism is self-defeating, and they end up sharing some characteristics with the things they hate. The more self-aware liberals are, the less this happens.

 

What this means, practically:

 

Liberals abhor the cult of the state. They embrace cosmopolitanism and humanism, and make no moral distinctions between people of their country and of another. Sometimes, in reaction to those who do seem to make such distinctions, they will go overly far and actually seem to favor foreigners over their own countrymen. This often combines with...

 

Liberals hate dominators and exploiters of the weak. As such, they are inherently more sympathetic to "underdogs" of all sorts. The poor in class struggles, the traditionally disenfranchised in race relations, lifestyles suppressed by "traditional values," weaker nations in conflict with stronger nations. They are wary of dominant forces merely because they are dominant. Sometimes, when taken too far, this can result in artificial dominance of other groups (affirmative action) and heavy-handed, self-defeating "oppression of oppression" in censorship of "hate-speech" and the like.

 

They hate militarism, and are profoundly cynical about any offensive military action, especially those that remind them of other, more nefarious conflicts. (Hence, they're horrified by Guantanamo Bay, which is, after all, basically a concentration camp.) This often combines with the previous two traits, in obvious ways, with resulting attitudes which those who don't understand them mistake for "traitorous." Indeed, when unchecked, it can closely resemble treasonous attitudes.

 

They hate absolutism and dogmatism. It always makes a liberal uneasy to hear things like "they're wrong and we're right." They are pluralists and relativists. This manifests in lots of ways. They always look for shades of gray and alternative points of view, and can exaggerate the "devil's advocate" point of view in response to those who only seem to see one side of an issue. They hate blanket statements. They constantly stress analogies between their situation and others (other nations, other cultures, other religions), drawing similiarities and highlighting hypocrisies. They're terrified of "theocracy," and will often show hostility towards the dominant religion and more so towards those who would make universal decisions based on it. Nothing annoys them more than hearing George Bush talk about "evildoers." Of course, constantly seeing the other guy's point of view leaves one with very little resolve, and prone to passivity.

 

Finally, they value intellectualism over other virtues, like courage or hard work. They want their leaders to be highly intelligent and versed in a variety of different ideas. They tend to value a liberal education over specialized training, and look down their noses at mere financial success. Obviously, this explains more of the contempt for GWB...

[Haezed]

Liberals, in large part, are motivated by a deep-seated emotional aversion to anything reminding them of "fascism."

 

OMG, I'm a liberal. That's me!

 

Liberals abhor the cult of the state.

 

Me again.

 

They embrace cosmopolitanism and humanism, and make no moral distinctions between people of their country and of another.

 

That is SO me!

 

Liberals hate dominators and exploiters of the weak.

 

I hate those guys too!

 

They hate militarism, and are profoundly cynical about any offensive military action, especially those that remind them of other, more nefarious conflicts.

 

I hate when we have to go to war. More me. I'm really close on this one.

 

They hate absolutism and dogmatism.

 

Me again!

 

Finally, they value intellectualism over other virtues, like courage or hard work.

 

Oh, thank god. For a minute I thought I was a liberal. It is more important to me that a leader be principled with a steely eyed view of the world as it actually is than what he wishes it were in his intellectual dreamscape.

[Dak]

pretty astute summary, imo.

 

the only thing i'm not sure i agree with is the intelectual bit. i don't think liberals value intelectualism over other traits, but they do seem to tend to value it more than other political groupings tend to.

[Sisyphus]

I think I'd better repeat that I really don't want this to devolve into juvenile flaming. If you think something is inaccurate, explain why. If you think it's offensive, explain why, calmly. There's no need to antagonize. And if you think somebody else isn't following those guidelines, just don't feed the troll. I'd like to see if we can be mature about something which might be touchy.

 

ANYWAY. That's an account of emotional liberalism as aversion to fascism, in particular. There are other types, of course. Traditional conservatism seems more to be an aversion to... what? Anarchy? Moral uncertainty? Not belonging to something? I admit I don't understand it as well. Libertarianism is something else again. Aversion to... being forced to belong to something?

 

Maybe this will go somewhere and maybe it won't.

 

i don't think liberals value intelectualism over other traits, but they do seem to tend to value it more than other political groupings tend to.

 

Perhaps you're right. But why is that? Could it be that liberals want to push pluralism and ambiguity, which requires more intellectualism, and thus are prone to the "intellectual elitism" they're constantly accused of? In contrast, conservatives just want a particular thing pushed (and hence people don't have to think about it), and libertarians resent anything being pushed. Or something.

[Haezed]

I think I'd better repeat that I really don't want this to devolve into juvenile flaming. If you think something is inaccurate, explain why. If you think it's offensive, explain why, calmly. There's no need to antagonize. And if you think somebody else isn't following those guidelines, just don't feed the troll. I'd like to see if we can be mature about something which might be touchy.

 

If you are directing that to me, I was half serious and half poking fun. I'm sorry if you perceived this as trolling.

 

I admit it was hard to get too far past a sentence which contends "...liberals, in large part, are motivated by a deep-seated emotional aversion to anything reminding them of 'fascism.'" I could seriously discuss a thesis that liberals are more adverse to authority, but fascism, one of the greatest evils of the last century? Let's start from the premise that we are all just as adverse anything that has a reasonable relationship to fascism.

 

FWIW, conservatives view liberals as authoritarians who want to control our daily lives by using our own money as a carrot and a stick.

 

Let's try another sentence: "Liberals hate dominators and exploiters of the weak."

 

Why, then, are liberals not lauding GWB for digging Saddam out of his hole? Iraq may or may not work but this administration derailed a tyranical government and turned the tables on the dominators (Sunni) in favor of the weak (Shia). Liberals are not really happy about this.

 

Conservatives hate governments that make people weak by feeding a sense of entitlement.

 

They hate militarism, and are profoundly cynical about any offensive military action, especially those that remind them of other, more nefarious conflicts. (Hence, they're horrified by Guantanamo Bay, which is, after all, basically a concentration camp.)

 

I agree with the first half of the first sentence. The paranthetical is needlessly provocative so I'll ignore it in an attempt to meet you on the high road of discourse.

 

They hate absolutism and dogmatism. It always makes a liberal uneasy to hear things like "they're wrong and we're right."

 

I see a lot of group think from liberals and deference to conventional wisdom. They absolutely cannot entertain the possible notion that good might come out of Gulf War II. My sense is that liberals generally think they are absolutely right and GWB is absolutely wrong with very little grey to be had.

 

Finally, they value intellectualism over other virtues, like courage or hard work.

 

This seems to contradict the previous premise. According the the previous contentions liberals should seek a balance here and recognize that all of these values have their own proper place in a leader. I certainly do not think conservatives demand less intelligence of their leaders.

[Pangloss]

Is it really that hard to find anything nice to say about conservative philosophy/ideology? Really? If so that's a sign of the times, not a reflection on the value of conservatism. A sign that people aren't paying attention, and they're finding it easier to sink further into standing memes of ideology rather than wake up and smell the coffee.

 

A few years ago, during the runup to the 2000 election, I stumbled into a social situation in which a female friend of ours who was (and still is) rabidly anti-Bush was at the same party as, well, me. I was swinging Republican again at the time, and had decided to vote for Bush, and when she heard this she went ballistic, arms, legs, everything swinging (she wore no bra, obviously, so there was a lot of stuff swinging). (I can say that because they really are good friends, and she'd have said it even sooner, so please don't get me wrong!) She's always like that too, when you talk to her. Goes to war protest rallies, listens to Air American, all that jazz. It's her... thing. "Hippie", we call her.

 

But after some time had passed I asked her about a completely different political subject -- something having to do with some local news event, as I dimly recall. The practical upshot of it was that she came down on a very CONSERVATIVE side of that particular issue, which involved children and school bus safety or some such. This continued over time, and, in short, any time an issue came up involving children, she would consistently come down on the conservative side of that issue.

 

The point being not that she was a closet conservative, but that she had some values that were consistent with conservatives in many areas. She didn't LIKE it, but she was conservative -- at least on those issues.

 

I belive that she accurately reflects the majority of the country in that respect. My signature says it best. People are not all one thing. They like to think they are, but in reality they just never are.

 

Too bad they vote like they are. 80% of 'em, anyway.

[Sisyphus]

Let's start from the premise that we are all just as adverse anything that has a reasonable relationship to fascism.

 

All adverse? Perhaps, if "fascism" is to be equated with, you know, Hitler and stuff. But just as adverse? I really don't think so. Or, more accurately, I think liberals are much more concerned about becoming like fascists, while conservatives have less aversion to certain similiarities.

 

Why, then, are liberals not lauding GWB for digging Saddam out of his hole?

 

A fair question. The best answer I can offer is that there are several other factors at work, such as the perception of GW2 as arrogant, poorly planned, and framed in "axis of evil" terms, predictably resulting in many years of chaos. It has nothing to do with any love for Saddam, trust me.

 

The paranthetical is needlessly provocative so I'll ignore it in an attempt to meet you on the high road of discourse.

 

It wasn't meant to be. It is a concentration camp. That it's taken so provocatively demonstrates my point: such things have a deeply ingrained association with fascism. Liberals see the similarities and have much more of an instinctive revulsion to them than conservatives. We use euphamisms like "internment camp" (and "regime change," and any number of others) for precisely that reason.

 

I see a lot of group think from liberals and deference to conventional wisdom. They absolutely cannot entertain the possible notion that good might come out of Gulf War II. My sense is that liberals generally think they are absolutely right and GWB is absolutely wrong with very little grey to be had.

 

An example of self-defeating principles, on par with "wiping out" oppression using oppressive means. It is seen as unambiguously bad because it denies room for ambiguity...

 

This seems to contradict the previous premise. According the the previous contentions liberals should seek a balance here and recognize that all of these values have their own proper place in a leader.

 

Of course they have their proper place, I'm just talking about relative emphasis.

 

I certainly do not think conservatives demand less intelligence of their leaders.

 

I think they do. Or at least, they care a lot less. But perhaps a less controversial statement would be that liberals want a more educated leader, in the classical sense. For example, something like familiarity with high culture.

[Pangloss]

So... conservatives like their leaders stupid...

 

liberals like their followers stupid (and dependent)....

 

is that basically it?

[Sisyphus]

Is it really that hard to find anything nice to say about conservative philosophy/ideology? Really?

 

Why do you say that? This could be retitled, "When liberals act irrationally, these are some of the reasons why."

 

My signature says it best. People are not all one thing. They like to think they are, but in reality they just never are.

 

Too bad they vote like they are. 80% of 'em, anyway.

 

Too true. I said in the first post that the labels are usually overused and oversimplified. But there is a correllation between viewpoints that make it at least somewhat meaningful to talk about as an archetype. A vague archetype. At the very least, as you say, these labels reflect how many people see themselves, which is itself significant to talk about.

[Pangloss]

Well you were focused on liberals, and I couldn't tell if that was because you were speaking out of experience or out of preference. Doesn't matter, really, I just wondered if nobody was going to be able to make a similar conservative template.

 

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of irrationality, though. You may well have a point there, but I think it's also a reflection on people's motivations and preferences.

[foodchain]

political parties typically use issues to gain voters, such as the past democrat and republican parties are not the same as they are today and so on. Personally I pencil in independent for the most part, but even in that you get into the brutal reality of partisan politics, or what I like to refer to as the planet of the apes in general.

 

Anymore I will vote for someone that says no to war in Iraq and is pro green technology/standards really. Is not so much for supporting either the consumer or the industry in a bias, or more on equilibrium there. Taxes are a touchy issue to most people for a varying degree of reasons, but I don’t support abolishing such, even while I pay them. For the most part I end up supporting democrats in most voting for president type situations being no other party can break the two evils system. Its mostly corrupted by the politics and partisan nature of it all, most politicians that try to bridge this gap end up dying typically, such as Christopher Shays® is a good republican but works with democrats to much, just like democrats that work with republicans, they get sort of disowned, and really should make a third party system more real, but even that is heavy with failure due to how voting has patterned out really. Plus the American voter is to enthralled in the partisan nature of it all anymore to realize the level of hypocrisy and corruption that exists anymore in the system and wont vote to change this.

 

In reality I think government in general went wrong when people stopped caring that we live in a democracy, the voting base is typically small overall compared to the populous, and typically most people that vote don’t vote to the full extent of knowledge possible anymore for a particular person, I mean just look at bush jr.'s last election run, all he did was talk about terrorism and dying in every city and then said vote for me or this nightmare I just manufactured will come true, that and I will cut taxes, and boom he won on that, he was probably more successful at using the terror supplied by the terrorists then they were actually, that’s not really objective politics really, but then again that word is like acid to a politician really, they just want to hear about there team winning, and that’s what generates politics anymore. I mean the republican party capitalized by selling the ability for the church to have a higher role in government, and now look, we have the democrats doing it, to win votes really, not do anything objective, simply gain power. I mean just look at who is running for the dems, that guy from Chicago that might as well be a priest, and what’s his stance on Iraq, it’s a smokescreen that really says nothing save the war is really now just a battle for one city, but yes its going all peachy over there, the wars now just for one city really. Then Hillary, she has the name, some fame from her position, but what else is she saying really? They watch each other really in some partisan sniper mode just waiting to capitalize, and it’s the same with bush, I mean support the troops, he uses that the same way Hitler would really.

 

I just come to face it that our political structure in America is nothing more then a partisan pornography movie anymore, and that’s all its going to be I think on a more permanent basis, which on itself is not ever going to work simply because change would have never occurred in the first place if everyone was happy with some platform but don’t let the politicians figure that one out, I mean after all its just a democracy right?

 

What’s really needed is a strong push by a third party to break this up, to ground the politics back on earth rather then up in the clouds. I mean in the past eight years America has just gone to shambles domestically and internationally, and what do we have to show for it, a low approval rating with no body really doing anything save saying I will do better, but nothing much past that save the same rants on the old issues with not much in regards to something better.

 

On the republican side you have some gold plated Jesus the ceo aka the warlord and destroyer of the environment to vote for. As for dems, well they really are just a pathetic lump of pond scum anymore that will say anything to win a vote really, and then turn around to not do much anything because the platform does not have to deal with banning assault rifles(like that would help) or finding some new reason to tax you even more, heck both parties practically hand America to Mexico anymore because they don’t want to look un pc. it’s a horrid reality but who is going to change it if not the voters?

[PhDP]

I'm not saying that all positions are determined emotionally. It is possible to have reasonable discussion and debate, and change minds, and make pragmatic decisions. But it does seem like the foundation of political beliefs, the "starting point" of debate, is quite emotional, indeed. Anyway, this whole idea arose while pondering what liberals in modern America, a group I think I understand reasonably well, are all about. I'll start with a rambling analysis of that group in those terms, and maybe expand it later...

 

I think the aversion of fascism by liberals is caused by a general emotional aversion of inequalities, it might even be the core of the left, if such thing exists.

 

But this is such a complicated subject, so many studies were able to establish clear correlations and links between personality traits and politics, but what makes the core of each political ideologies is still not well understood. While it's well known that genetics and different worldviews are setting the left and the right apart, nobody really knows why there's such a strong link between different issues like abortion and redistribution of wealth. From what I know, I would tend to believe the left is mainly driven by an aversion to inequality, while conservatives are driven by their aversion of uncertainty. One interesting aspect of this subject is that, despite the complexity and diversity of human behaviours, we can still predict with a high degree of confidence how someone will vote with very few information about his personality and habits. I think the aversion of fascism by liberals is caused by a general emotional aversion of inequalities, it might even be the core of the left, if such thing exists.

 

But this is such a complicated subject, so many studies were able to establish clear correlations and links between personality traits and politics, but what makes the core of each political ideologies is still not well understood. While it's well known that genetics and different worldviews are setting the left and the right apart, nobody really knows why there's such a strong link between different issues like abortion and redistribution of wealth. From what I know, I would tend to believe the left is mainly driven by an aversion to inequality, while conservatives are driven by their aversion of uncertainty. One interesting facets of political psychology is that, despite the complexity and diversity of human behaviours, we can still predict with a high degree of confidence how someone will vote with very few information about his personality and habits.

[Dak]

Perhaps you're right. But why is that? Could it be that liberals want to push pluralism and ambiguity, which requires more intellectualism, and thus are prone to the "intellectual elitism" they're constantly accused of? In contrast, conservatives just want a particular thing pushed (and hence people don't have to think about it), and libertarians resent anything being pushed. Or something.

 

I'd guess (and it's a complete guess) that the kind of thinking that liberals generally hate -- 'they're different, so what they're doing shoudln't be allowed' -- is percieved as a result of being too stupid to see that different people are different, and that that's ok.

 

hmm... maybe it's like this: if an individual doesn't bother thinking, theres a chance that he'll end up being racist, homophobic, or bigoted in some other way, simply due to lack of understanding. so, if our societies don't promote intelectualism, could that be percieved as 'not bothering thinking', and risking that we'll be a bigoted society simply through lack of thought/understanding?

[ParanoiA]

I belive that she accurately reflects the majority of the country in that respect. My signature says it best. People are not all one thing. They like to think they are, but in reality they just never are.

 

There's a ton of dynamics that come out of that POV, and I agree with it 100%.

 

When I listen to Rush, I roll my eyes everytime he starts sentences with "liberals...". In my mind, I change it to Liberalism. Because, the ideology itself can be discerned by observing the major players, but no single player embodies all of liberalism - for precisely the reason you mention.

 

I'm sure I do the same thing, although I don't mean it. Liberalism and conservatism, as ideologies, can be simplified, generalized and so forth without too much inaccuracy, imo. It's when you start assuming all these ideological attributes to individuals that you run into trouble.

 

I would love to put together a similar template for libertarianism, but there are still elements I don't understand and large chunks I just all out don't agree with - particularly free trade internationaly in exchange for strong military.

 

 

Hence, they're horrified by Guantanamo Bay, which is, after all, basically a concentration camp.

 

The more I chew on this issue, the more I tend to agree. At first I just figured it as part of the war. But, I'm losing the passion behind calling it a war. It clearly isn't a traditional war - not even close. I guess I'm getting liberalized on this one...

 

PNAC doesn't help either...

[Haezed]

All adverse? Perhaps, if "fascism" is to be equated with, you know, Hitler and stuff. But just as adverse? I really don't think so. Or, more accurately, I think liberals are much more concerned about becoming like fascists, while conservatives have less aversion to certain similiarities.

 

I'm not going to argue with you if you are contending that liberals are emotionally adverse to the point of irrationality in this regard. I've never made this assumption but I can't really speak for liberals.

 

A fair question. The best answer I can offer is that there are several other factors at work, such as the perception of GW2 as arrogant, poorly planned, and framed in "axis of evil" terms, predictably resulting in many years of chaos. It has nothing to do with any love for Saddam, trust me.

 

I see more emotional aversion to GWB than to Saddam.

 

It wasn't meant to be. It is a concentration camp. That it's taken so provocatively demonstrates my point: such things have a deeply ingrained association with fascism. Liberals see the similarities and have much more of an instinctive revulsion to them than conservatives. We use euphamisms like "internment camp" (and "regime change," and any number of others) for precisely that reason.

 

Google informs me that the phrase started in the Boer war but, of course, it's real meaning derives from WWII. The analogy breaks down beyond all reason at this point.

 

An example of self-defeating principles, on par with "wiping out" oppression using oppressive means. It is seen as unambiguously bad because it denies room for ambiguity...

 

If liberalism reflexively saw grey, they would understand the case for war was not dependent solely on the existence of WMDs.

 

 

I think they do. Or at least, they care a lot less. But perhaps a less controversial statement would be that liberals want a more educated leader, in the classical sense. For example, something like familiarity with high culture.

 

Kerry did even worse than Bush at Yale, with 4 Ds in his Freshman year.

 

I agree that Clinton was a brainiac but George Sr. was Phi Betta Kappa at Yale. (Of course, we have GWB because of GHB.) He certainly was one of the elites familiar with high culture. The only reference I could find re Dukakis is that the got a D in physics,, a subject in which Carter must have excelled. Reagan was in a category by himself.

 

Going back to the 70s, Nixon and McGovern were probably intellectually similar, both being champion debaters. LBJ certainly didn't fit any elitist mold.

 

I don't see the evidence.

[Haezed]

American conservatives are more inclined to believe that:

 

Collective guilt does not obviate individual responsibility;

 

Governments should act like doctors, with their first mandate to do no harm;

 

The world will never be perfect and efforts to make it so are destined to fail catastrophically;

 

A system which does not effectively harnass greed cannot compete with a system which does;

 

America is more often in the right than in the wrong;

 

If you are smart and government doesn't unfairly get in your way, failure is your own fault no matter what your background.

 

Those are all the generalities I can trot out on short notice.

[Dak]

Governments should act like doctors, with their first mandate to do no harm

 

this seems to sum part of the ideological divide up quite nicely.

 

conservatives: if it aint broke, dont fix it.

 

liberals: if it aint perfect, it's broke.

[Pangloss]

Kerry did even worse than Bush at Yale, with 4 Ds in his Freshman year.

 

I agree that Clinton was a brainiac but George Sr. was Phi Betta Kappa at Yale. (Of course, we have GWB because of GHB.) He certainly was one of the elites familiar with high culture. The only reference I could find re Dukakis is that the got a D in physics,, a subject in which Carter must have excelled. Reagan was in a category by himself.

 

Going back to the 70s, Nixon and McGovern were probably intellectually similar, both being champion debaters. LBJ certainly didn't fit any elitist mold.

 

I don't see the evidence.

 

Oh he's certainly right about the perception amongst liberals that their candidates are more intelligent. Your post completely dispells the notion as a reality, though. Well put. Those generalities were pretty interesting as well.

 

 

conservatives: if it aint broke' date=' dont fix it.

 

liberals: if it aint perfect, it's broke.[/quote']

 

Very nice.

[ParanoiA]

American conservatives are more inclined to believe that:

 

Collective guilt does not obviate individual responsibility;

 

 

Thank you.

 

Governments should act like doctors, with their first mandate to do no harm;

 

Thank you again.

 

The world will never be perfect and efforts to make it so are destined to fail catastrophically;

 

How do you know it will never be perfect? And why shouldn't we try? Any ideology that draws that kind of absolution is feeble in my mind. Excuses not to try, nothing more. My teenage son says similar things...

 

A system which does not effectively harnass greed cannot compete with a system which does;

 

Because greed is the greatest motivator of all? I disagree. Survival is the greatest. A system that harnasses the fear of death could defeat a system that merely harnesses greed.

 

America is more often in the right than in the wrong;

 

Not convinced. In the spirit of blind devotion, sure.

 

But more importantly, why does it matter? Most issues are deeper than right or wrong. Terrorism for example: It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, it is what it is. Maybe America is a geat country, completely in the right, and doesn't deserve this treatment - because we're "right". That doesn't mean that war and invasion is the right way to fix it. Justified? Maybe, but irrelevant as to the fix.

 

If you are smart and government doesn't unfairly get in your way, failure is your own fault no matter what your background.

 

Thank you, yet again...

 

conservatives: if it aint broke' date=' dont fix it.

 

liberals: if it aint perfect, it's broke.[/quote']

 

Pure genius, Dak. I love it.

[Haezed]

How do you know it will never be perfect? And why shouldn't we try? Any ideology that draws that kind of absolution is feeble in my mind. Excuses not to try, nothing more. My teenage son says similar things...

 

Because the worst kinds of hell on earth have come from idiots in power who think they can engineer heaven on earth. Humans are imperfect and you are not going to stamp those imperfections out of any human system.

 

I believe we should do our best for those around us but I also believe that imperfect situations arise which simply cannot be fixed by the government (see your post in Darfur thread).

 

PS: You have a very bright son!

 

Because greed is the greatest motivator of all? I disagree. Survival is the greatest. A system that harnasses the fear of death could defeat a system that merely harnesses greed.

 

I was speaking of economic, not military, systems and I think what I said holds true. Fear of death would result in people figuring out what it takes not to draw attention and innovation would suffer.

 

Not convinced. In the spirit of blind devotion, sure.

 

I think it's a conservative trait whether you agree with the conclusion or not. The OP made something of the reverse point.

 

But more importantly, why does it matter? Most issues are deeper than right or wrong. Terrorism for example: It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, it is what it is. Maybe America is a geat country, completely in the right, and doesn't deserve this treatment - because we're "right". That doesn't mean that war and invasion is the right way to fix it. Justified? Maybe, but irrelevant as to the fix.

 

It matters because it's relevant to the OP and Pangloss asked us to try to think of traits of conservatives.

[ParanoiA]

Because the worst kinds of hell on earth has come from idiots in power who think they can engineer heaven on earth. Humans are imperfect and you are not going to stamp those imperfections out of any human system.

 

I believe we should do our best for those around us but I also believe that imperfect situations arise which simply cannot be fixed by the government (see your post in Darfur thread).

 

PS: You have a very bright son!

 

Ah' date=' you misinterpret. Priorities is the secret here. Is capitalism perfect? No. It could be better. But should we mess with it right now? Hell no. We've got about million other issues that are more important. But to say that nothing is perfect, and therefore we shouldn't try is a copout.

 

Your pointing out the "well intentioned liberal" failure. I totally agree. I completely agree with your premise - up until the absolute idea that perfection is impossible. You have no idea that 40,000 years from now, humans may very well be perfect. They won't be until they try though.

 

Now is that kind of perfection even reasonable today? Hell no. We've got that list of a million things I was talking about that need to be dealt with. We're probably a millenia or two away from the point where perfection could even be a reasonable goal. [i']But[/i], it's still possible.

 

And yes, I do have a bright son. That's why he's such a pain in the ass...

[Haezed]

But to say that nothing is perfect, and therefore we shouldn't try is a copout.

 

True, which is why I never said we shouldn't try.

[Pangloss]

I saw another interesting aspect of this issue (the subject of this thread) today in the way the Supreme Court's decision was characterized in the media. The decision was to continue the ban on partial-birth abortion, and it was assessed as a "conservative" decision.

 

That's certainly not surprising, but is it accurate? I've met plenty of people who are opposed to abortion over the years, and quite a number of them were ostensbily "liberal". Scientists, engineers, accountants, all races and genders and religions.

 

One can even make the argument that opposing abortion is a matter of logical reasoning, on the basis that embryos eventually become human beings, so with abortion you're essentially drawing a somewhat arbitrary line in the sand for reasons that have to do with socio-political choice rather than scientific reasoning. Sure, there's a perfectly valid logical counter-point, but the point is that being opposed to abortion doesn't mean that you're (a) religious, or (b) stupid. You could well be neither.

 

It seems to me that this country should make a decision whether or not to allow abortion based on the relative merits of the tradeoff of freedom and death. We need to make that decision with the full understanding of the exact consequences of what it means, not by hiding it behind faulty reasoning and demonstrative rhetoric.

[Sisyphus]

But Roe v. Wade makes the relative merits a moot point, since outlawing abortion outright is deemed unconstitutional (whether or not you agree with the legal argument).

[Pangloss]

That may be, but I'm curious what you think about my point with regard to your thread subject? I wasn't really sure it was entirely germain, but did you see what I was getting at?