The Liberal Mind

[usafreedom3]

What the liberal mind is passionate about:
A world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice

Those who occupy this world are:
“workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized.

All this pain lies in:
Faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism.

This suffering is inflicted on the innocent by:
“Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

None of their agonies are attributable to:
Faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character.


The liberal cure:
Is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.”

To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship.

Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions.


With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.


What it all boils down to my friends is this:

Conservatives believe in equality of OPPORTUNITY
Liberals believe in equality of OUTCOME

[mkat]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

The liberal cure:
Is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking.

as opposed to the government we have now that illegally spies on it's citizens and just ignores the Constitutions when it feels like it?

[mcsluggo]

this is such a farkin retarded tennis match.

Fine. Liberals are effite ineffectual pussys and conservatives neandrathal simple-minded bigots.

Is everyone happy now that the world is clearly delineated into two neat baskets?

[Flacolaco]

I wish I could just not vote for anyone and feel good about that....but I don't think I can.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I wish I could just not vote for anyone and feel good about that.....

it's not so hard....voting is a tad overrated in my view.

lessee..... link

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Fine. Liberals are effite ineffectual pussys and conservatives neandrathal simple-minded bigots.

actually I think that summarizes things quite well.

and I'm practically a museum quality specimen of a neanderthal simple-minded bigot.

cheers

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by usafreedom3

What it all boils down to my friends is this:

Conservatives believe in equality of OPPORTUNITY
Liberals believe in equality of OUTCOME

And "whose" outcome do you think they believe in. Mommy-state and daddy-state.

[mcsluggo]

In what parallel universe do conservatives stand for "equality of opportunity" !?!

[dude1394]

Self-owned social security, non-discrimination of college admittants, in-fact non-discrimination in all things. Keeping more of your own dollars so you can do what you want with them, etc.

You are confusing welfare (and hand-outs) as "oppurtunity".

[Flacolaco]

Keeping more of your own dollars so you can do what you want with them, etc.

If only.

[purplefrog]

The biggest problem with the conservatives these days is the absolute incompetence of the liberals. This lack of competition typically makes you play down to the level of your opponent.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

If only.

Hmm....who has been railed against for those "tax cuts" for the rich. You know the ones that lowered tax rates for everyone who paid taxes?

And the same group that will raise those taxes as soon as they expire.

[roxgirl]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

The biggest problem with the conservatives these days is the absolute incompetence of the liberals. This lack of competition typically makes you play down to the level of your opponent.

I see what you're saying.

A liberal's incompetence causes Bob Allen to offer $20 to go down on another male. (That trademark conservative hypocrisy. I guess only LIBERAL gays are bad?)

A liberal's incompetence, obviously, caused us to be wasting precious lives and time in Iraq all the while Al Qaida has return to it's pre-9/11 strength.

And surely a liberal's incompetence causes that ape of a president to deny the 3.5% pay raise to the soldiers he so willingly sent to fight an almost completely unfounded war.

DAMN YOU LIBERALS.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

this is such a farkin retarded tennis match.

Fine. Liberals are effite ineffectual pussys and conservatives neandrathal simple-minded bigots.

Is everyone happy now that the world is clearly delineated into two neat baskets?

KILLIN' IT, MR MCSLUGGO!

Idiots fill both camps and often the right path to walk is down the middle or off the map.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by roxgirl

I see what you're saying.

A liberal's incompetence causes Bob Allen to offer $20 to go down on another male. (That trademark conservative hypocrisy. I guess only LIBERAL gays are bad?)

A liberal's incompetence, obviously, caused us to be wasting precious lives and time in Iraq all the while Al Qaida has return to it's pre-9/11 strength.

And surely a liberal's incompetence causes that ape of a president to deny the 3.5% pay raise to the soldiers he so willingly sent to fight an almost completely unfounded war.

DAMN YOU LIBERALS.

That's right. You seem to understand perfectly.

[purplefrog]

Just thought someone should define the terms a bit better, so we all know what we are supporting or objecting to (from Wikipedia):

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that advocate individual liberty.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. A liberal society is characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy, free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In the 21st century, this usually means liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.

Since freedom and equality do not always go hand in hand, some liberal philosophies stress one of these ideals over the other. Classical liberalism emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights, laissez-faire economic policy, and freedom of contract, and opposes the welfare state. Classical liberals support equality before the law and hold that economic inequality, arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify forced wealth redistribution. [4] New liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence to protect individual rights (in a broad sense), often in the form of anti-discrimination laws. New liberals support universal education, and many also support welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick, all supported by progressive taxation.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hmm....who has been railed against for those "tax cuts" for the rich. You know the ones that lowered tax rates for everyone who paid taxes?

And the same group that will raise those taxes as soon as they expire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/no_income_tax

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by roxgirl

I see what you're saying.

A liberal's incompetence causes Bob Allen to offer $20 to go down on another male. (That trademark conservative hypocrisy. I guess only LIBERAL gays are bad?)

The problem here is that if a democrat did that liberal commentators and other democrats would say...eh...so what? You would think the liberal mind would be more sympathetic as Bob Allen is obviously just trying to deal with his "sexuality". He's obviously trying to come out...

But if it means political power...screw him.

Conservatives in this case are engaging in much less hypocrisy than the liberals are. They think it's bad and he should resign. Liberals do NOT think it's bad but won't speak up for their beliefs here.

Typical.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Just thought someone should define the terms a bit better, so we all know what we are supporting or objecting to (from Wikipedia)....

thanks, pf....onceuponatime I did my own little thing on what conservatism is, and ain't, written especially for liberals (and therefore devoid of big-words and complex ideas....just kiddin')....lessee if I can find it.......

.....

What conservatism ain't is deficit spending, bomb-dropping, and queer-bashing. Those who see it as nothing other than such miss the opportunity to learn much from a rich and analytically powerful framework.

The simplest way I can imagine to describe a conservative is to say, simply, that a conservative is someone who really listens to his or her elders. It is the antithesis of liberalism, which I define herein as a rationalist philosophy derived from the abstract belief that liberty (and perhaps equality) is (are) the highest political end(s).

That is, to be conservative is to recognize the authority of tradition and custom in a society, or as GK Chesterton stated:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.

According to conservative philosophy, tradition and custom are sources of wisdom and guidance which exceed that which can be rationally demonstrated and explicitly articulated. The institutions and values handed down to us by tradition and custom were deemed, for whatever reason, beneficial to society by our ancestors - these instutions and values have survived the severely judgmental and harshly unforgiving test of time and are reliable sources of social stability, even where they do not reflect utopian ideals. (and, I was quite careful in selecting the phrase "survived the severely judgmental and harshly unforgiving test of time")

That is not to say that conservatism is against change and reform...conservatism does, however, recognize that we are floating adrift on Neurath's Boat - while this boat may be in need of repair, we must nonetheless remain afloat as we make the repairs (our else we'll drown -duh!). To again quote Mr. Chesterton:

The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right.

It is always possible that any institution or value, however unenlightened it may seem, contains latent and not readily discernable benefits to society and that the destruction of such an institution or the decay of such a value may have unintended consequences which are dire, and for which we will pay for the sin of intellectual hubris.

So, this brings me briefly to the ironic subject of Conservatism in the US....the US, a land settled during the age of liberal, rationalist enlightenment, was settled and founded on very liberal and rationalist ideas. Hence, the tradition and customs of our society have, in their every fiber, much of the stuff of liberalism. These customs and values have been undeniably beneficial to our society and it is paradoxically quite conservative to hold to liberal ideas and affirm liberal institutions in the US.

Cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

thanks, pf....onceuponatime I did my own little thing on what conservatism is, and ain't, written especially for liberals (and therefore devoid of big-words and complex ideas....just kiddin')....lessee if I can find it.......

.....

What conservatism ain't is deficit spending, bomb-dropping, and queer-bashing. Those who see it as nothing other than such miss the opportunity to learn much from a rich and analytically powerful framework.

The simplest way I can imagine to describe a conservative is to say, simply, that a conservative is someone who really listens to his or her elders. It is the antithesis of liberalism, which I define herein as a rationalist philosophy derived from the abstract belief that liberty (and perhaps equality) is (are) the highest political end(s).

That is, to be conservative is to recognize the authority of tradition and custom in a society, or as GK Chesterton stated:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.

According to conservative philosophy, tradition and custom are sources of wisdom and guidance which exceed that which can be rationally demonstrated and explicitly articulated. The institutions and values handed down to us by tradition and custom were deemed, for whatever reason, beneficial to society by our ancestors - these instutions and values have survived the severely judgmental and harshly unforgiving test of time and are reliable sources of social stability, even where they do not reflect utopian ideals. (and, I was quite careful in selecting the phrase "survived the severely judgmental and harshly unforgiving test of time")

That is not to say that conservatism is against change and reform...conservatism does, however, recognize that we are floating adrift on Neurath's Boat - while this boat may be in need of repair, we must nonetheless remain afloat as we make the repairs (our else we'll drown -duh!). To again quote Mr. Chesterton:

The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right.

It is always possible that any institution or value, however unenlightened it may seem, contains latent and not readily discernable benefits to society and that the destruction of such an institution or the decay of such a value may have unintended consequences which are dire, and for which we will pay for the sin of intellectual hubris.

So, this brings me briefly to the ironic subject of Conservatism in the US....the US, a land settled during the age of liberal, rationalist enlightenment, was settled and founded on very liberal and rationalist ideas. Hence, the tradition and customs of our society have, in their every fiber, much of the stuff of liberalism. These customs and values have been undeniably beneficial to our society and it is paradoxically quite conservative to hold to liberal ideas and affirm liberal institutions in the US.

Cheers

you mean "traditions" such as racial discrimination, sexual discrimination and a laissez-faire doctrine in which social darwinianism relegates the under class to their lot in life?

you are accurate in describing our founding fathers as patriarchs of liberalism, bestowing upon the citizens (or at least the free ones...) "inalienable rights" that we all now hold as sacred. It only took a couple of centuries for those rights to finally extend to all citizens, a process that has been led not by the conservatives in our society but rather by those who profess a liberal view.

the problem today is what seems to be the groupthink of placing each and every person in a neat little box that says either "conservative" or "liberal". while those who do not think independently may be comfortable being placed in just such as box, those of us who do have the desire to think for ourselves bristle at the labeling.

but yet that neat little box will be applied to people ad nauseum.

give me leaders who defy the label...unfortunately they seem to be almost extinct.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you are accurate in describing our founding fathers as patriarchs of liberalism, bestowing upon the citizens (or at least the free ones...) "inalienable rights" that we all now hold as sacred. It only took a couple of centuries for those rights to finally extend to all citizens, a process that has been led not by the conservatives in our society but rather by those who profess a liberal view.

Interestingly enough it was many of those same christian(i.e. conservative) folks who drove the abomination of slavery for example and civil rights leaders as well.

[alexamenos]

mavdog, it's really cute how much of a quintessentially establishment liberal you are....anyhoo.

you mean "traditions" such as racial discrimination, sexual discrimination and a laissez-faire doctrine in which social darwinianism relegates the under class to their lot in life?

obviously, racial discrimination was not one of the "traditions" I had in mind. Why is it that establishment liberals (such as yourself) always imagine that every conservative argument is a veiled argument in favor of racism?

you are accurate in describing our founding fathers as patriarchs of liberalism, bestowing upon the citizens (or at least the free ones...) "inalienable rights"

classical liberal that I am, I would never say that our *founding fathers* bestowed upon citizens some inalienable rights -- that's anathema, in my view. surely you understand.

the problem today is what seems to be the groupthink of placing each and every person in a neat little box that says either "conservative" or "liberal".

I would not agree that this is "the problem today". *Liberal* or *Conservative* is a useful first order analytical construction, nothing more or less. We might likewise say that people are generally either Plato-ists or Aristotle-ists....it's just a handy way of breaking things down on a large scale, and it doesn't imply that they are beholden to some rigid orthodoxy.

then again, most would agree that there is such a thing as a *Liberal* worldview and there is such a thing as *Conservative* worldview, so it's seems useful to describe and understand the two worldviews better.

anyhoo -- you may note that I described conservatism as an "analytically powerful framework" and not a specific set of political/social beliefs. that is, in my view conservatism is not so much a question of what a person believes but how they go about forming their beliefs...obviously you disagree with me, perhaps because you imagine that I'm just making a thinly veiled argument for racism.

cheers

[purplefrog]

I tend to agree with Mavdog on this one. Although the labels "conservative" and "liberal" should be useful as alex states, imo they have lead to more harm than good in recent times. These labels encourage the extremes, promote division, and thereby hinder problem-solving. Those that attempt to lead from the middle often find themselves without allies because the political machines will not allow for compromise.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

mavdog, it's really cute how much of a quintessentially establishment liberal you are....anyhoo.

actually you have no idea about most of my positions. nice how you use the very labeling i speak about however...

obviously, racial discrimination was not one of the "traditions" I had in mind. Why is it that establishment liberals (such as yourself) always imagine that every conservative argument is a veiled argument in favor of racism?

ah, labeling again...
just because you didn't have "racial discrimination...in mind" doesn't negate the history of its existence, nor does it remove it as one of the "traditions" of which you express such adoration.

classical liberal that I am, I would never say that our *founding fathers* bestowed upon citizens some inalienable rights -- that's anathema, in my view. surely you understand.

such rights may be ordained by a higher power, which I assume is the basis for you "anathema", however it took the efforts of our founding fathers to place them in actual practice.

I would not agree that this is "the problem today". *Liberal* or *Conservative* is a useful first order analytical construction, nothing more or less. We might likewise say that people are generally either Plato-ists or Aristotle-ists....it's just a handy way of breaking things down on a large scale, and it doesn't imply that they are beholden to some rigid orthodoxy.

then again, most would agree that there is such a thing as a *Liberal* worldview and there is such a thing as *Conservative* worldview, so it's seems useful to describe and understand the two worldviews better.

set your mind free without the shakles of trying to put everyone in a neat box. it's neither "useful" nor constuctive imho.

anyhoo -- you may note that I described conservatism as an "analytically powerful framework" and not a specific set of political/social beliefs. that is, in my view conservatism is not so much a question of what a person believes but how they go about forming their beliefs...obviously you disagree with me, perhaps because you imagine that I'm just making a thinly veiled argument for racism.

cheers

there is no uniqueness of an "analytical" ability to the varied political philosophies, nor are the political philosophies uniquely illogical either.

and no, I do not in any manner subject you or any other anarchist to a label of "racist" merely because of your political philosophy, the charge of racism is one that is earned through the very act itself.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

I tend to agree with Mavdog on this one. Although the labels "conservative" and "liberal" should be useful as alex states, imo they have lead to more harm than good in recent times. These labels encourage the extremes, promote division, and thereby hinder problem-solving. Those that attempt to lead from the middle often find themselves without allies because the political machines will not allow for compromise.

And I fundamentally disagree with you both....these labels most certainly do not encourage the extremes, but rather the extremes encourage the labels -- to imagine that political divides are caused by such labels is to imagine that the weather in texas during the month of august is unbearable because we label it *hot*.

...................

I would, however, agree that the labels as commonly applied are practically useless. The differences, for instance, between the "arch-liberal" Hillary and the "arch-conservative" Bush are mostly marginal and matters of tactics not of strategies and certainly not of values.

This is a problem of semantic sanity in my view, not of stereotyping or childish name-calling.

This, incidentally, is why I often find self-described *moderates* horribly borish -- there's simply nothing terribly enlighted about residing at the mid-point of a narrow spectrum.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Interestingly enough it was many of those same christian(i.e. conservative) folks who drove the abomination of slavery for example and civil rights leaders as well.

Don't farkin call me a conservative, A-hole!

While your point of calling the abolutionists "conservative" is obviously completely ree-dic-ulous, it does bring up a good point. Until relatively recenly much of the socially progressive fervor ("liberal", as it is commonly used on this board) actually DID come from highly religous groups. It is only recently that the Rovites have managed to convince a large segment of the population that christian somehow equates with conservative. (the abortion issue has also gone a LONG way towards this end. I know many people that overall are pretty damn liberal, but abortion is a big enough litmus test to sway the way they vote)

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

.....

obviously, racial discrimination was not one of the "traditions" I had in mind. Why is it that establishment liberals (such as yourself) always imagine that every conservative argument is a veiled argument in favor of racism?
.....

cheers

Nonetheless, pointing out racisim IS pertinent to the way you define conservative (a fine definition).

No matter what you believe about racism TODAY in the U.S. (and whether or not Conservatives or Liberals are more racist today, etc) .... racism CERTAINLY existed in this country in the past, and was well embedded. By definition (your definition), conservatives at the time would be more resistant to the large change in the structure of society that was called for in tackling the spectre of racism. Same with sexism. etc... Surely you see this?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Don't farkin call me a conservative, A-hole!

While your point of calling the abolutionists "conservative" is obviously completely ree-dic-ulous, it does bring up a good point. Until relatively recenly much of the socially progressive fervor ("liberal", as it is commonly used on this board) actually DID come from highly religous groups. It is only recently that the Rovites have managed to convince a large segment of the population that christian somehow equates with conservative. (the abortion issue has also gone a LONG way towards this end. I know many people that overall are pretty damn liberal, but abortion is a big enough litmus test to sway the way they vote)

Christian is a pretty solid definition of conservative. Respecting the morals and traditions of society I think is pretty conservative in thought.

Your attempt to link this to Rove (in the last what 6 years) is ree-dic-u-lous.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Christian is a pretty solid definition of conservative. Respecting the morals and traditions of society I think is pretty conservative in thought.

Your attempt to link this to Rove (in the last what 6 years) is ree-dic-u-lous.

Now that is funny. Another one that has tuned into Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard to long.

I would love to watch W and Dick give a speech starting out on morals and traditions of society. I would tune in to that.

[Janett_Reno]

Nice post mcsluggo and you are right on with what you said.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Now that is funny. Another one that has tuned into Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard to long.

I would love to watch W and Dick give a speech starting out on morals and traditions of society. I would tune in to that.

So in general are not christians by definition conservative?

With respect to Rove...the moral majority started a long, long time before rove, and many of their positions are pretty common sense ones.

- Don't use federal dollars to murder babies.
- Don't legislate from the bench.
- Don't allow a state judge to re-define marriage as they see fit.

Things like that.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Christian is a pretty solid definition of conservative. Respecting the morals and traditions of society I think is pretty conservative in thought.

Your attempt to link this to Rove (in the last what 6 years) is ree-dic-u-lous.

no, as a christian I'd say its a downright shitty definition of conservative.

over 80% of the country declares themselves christian... is over 80% of the country conservative?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Nonetheless, pointing out racisim IS pertinent to the way you define conservative (a fine definition).

No matter what you believe about racism TODAY in the U.S. (and whether or not Conservatives or Liberals are more racist today, etc) .... racism CERTAINLY existed in this country in the past, and was well embedded. By definition (your definition), conservatives at the time would be more resistant to the large change in the structure of society that was called for in tackling the spectre of racism. Same with sexism. etc... Surely you see this?

in my view, "pertinent" to the definition and "restistant to the large change....called for in tackling the spectre of racism" differs materially from the suggestion that "racism" is, or was, a *tradition* that should be conserved.

I certainly can see how one can use conservative as previously defined to argue for racism, but I don't agree that it follows that a defense of racism is inherently part of a conservative worldview, then or now--we might note that *science* was used as a defense of racism (racism in it's most extreme forms)--people are infinitely clever in devising arguments to provide some rational justification for base instincts.

as for sexism....that's a whole 'nother ball of wax, and I'm too much of a sexist pig to provide an objective opinion.

cheers

[mcsluggo]

ok ok ok.

The "resistant to change" angle was just looking for an explanation... but, simple question:

If you look back at 1948, when severe instutional racism was deeply ingrained in our society........ do you think that the "conservatives" of the day were more willing to let that level of racism continue than the "liberals" of those days?

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

And I fundamentally disagree with you both....these labels most certainly do not encourage the extremes, but rather the extremes encourage the labels -- to imagine that political divides are caused by such labels is to imagine that the weather in texas during the month of august is unbearable because we label it *hot*.

...................

I would, however, agree that the labels as commonly applied are practically useless. The differences, for instance, between the "arch-liberal" Hillary and the "arch-conservative" Bush are mostly marginal and matters of tactics not of strategies and certainly not of values.

This is a problem of semantic sanity in my view, not of stereotyping or childish name-calling.

This, incidentally, is why I often find self-described *moderates* horribly borish -- there's simply nothing terribly enlighted about residing at the mid-point of a narrow spectrum.

alex, my position is supported by social psychological theories and experiments. The key concepts are expectations, stereotypes, competition, and behavioral confirmation. The bottom line is that if we use lables or stereotypes we tend to look for evidence that supports our expectation. Even if the evidence is not there, we will interpret another's behavior in ways that allow us to confirm our belief or stereotype (even when it is not warranted). When this occurs in competitive situations (dems/liberals vs republicans/conservatives in Congress let's say) the end result is a lack of cooperation and increased competition/division. Unless the stereotypes can be somehow broken (not easy) the result is movement towards the extremes because of faulty perceptions and expectations. I believe that today we use the labels "liberal" and "conservative" way too much when characterizing political parties and individuals in those parties. As I said before, it sets us up for faulty perceptions and expectations and hinders problem-solving because we keep looking for the "hidden motives" of that darn conservative/liberal. After all we know what to expect from "someone like that".

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

....If you look back at 1948, when severe instutional racism was deeply ingrained in our society........ do you think that the "conservatives" of the day were more willing to let that level of racism continue than the "liberals" of those days?

In this case, conservatives certainly would be far more prone to condone the institutionalized racism.

Before we get hit with a severe case of the screaming meamies at any defense of conservatism, we should also note that (by and large) proponents of eugenics in the early part of the 20th century were "liberals" of those days while the opponents of eugenics were very much conservatives, Margaret Sanger being one quite well embraced by proponents and GK Chesterton being a prominent example of an opponent.

So sue me...if given a choice between institutionalized racism and eugenics, I'll take the former.

cheers

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

The bottom line is that if we use lables or stereotypes we tend to look for evidence that supports our expectation.

certainly, we all do this in all walks of life.

my point, tho, is that an attempt to lay the blame for political divides at the feet of labeling is to gloss over the very real basis for political divisions...namely, much of politics is a zero-sum game, no matter how much we might like to imagine that we're all in it together. For some to win, others lose and vice versa.

When Democrats get more power, Republicans get less...when the fed gets more power, states get less....when group "a" pays taxes for the benefit of group "b", group "b" has more stuff and group "a" has less. this is the basis for the political division.

As Clauswitz said, war is politics by other means....we might likewise say that politics is war by other means.

cheers