What is the common thread?

I'm going to be talking about labels here, so I hope I don't step on too many toes or offend too many people. I want to stress that I have respect for both political philosophies and believe that our two-party system only works when the parties keep each other in check: the liberals to drive things forward and the conservatives to keep things under control and in perspective.

We all know that there are exceptions and that few people fit the mold of a "conservative" or "liberal" perfectly (and even fewer whose genuine, thoughtful opinions honestly all align with one side or the other).

Yet we still have "conservative" opinions and "liberal" opinions. Precise enough that they seem like they should be stereotypes, yet correct far too often to be totally unjustified. I'm not talking about specific people, or the many flavors of the independent and those who reside along the spectrum. I'm talking about why there's a spectrum.

Why is it that environmental protection, gun control, freedom of abortion, social services, separation of church and state, corporate accountability and the like are traditionally liberal values? How does gun control play into environmentalism? What's the relationship between social services and secularism?

Why is it that free market, gun rights, right to life, small government, religion and the like are traditionally conservative values? What does religion have to do with guns? Or abortion with capitalism?

I've heard theories that it all comes down to risk; that liberals feel comfortable enough in their place in life that they're willing to take risks whereas conservatives are not so ready to give up a sure thing for a chance at something better... or worse. Our ancestors may have felt more inclined to try new things when they knew of multiple food sources and therefore did not need to fear starvation, and spend that time foraging for more resources. It makes some sense, and does explain some of the difference (it also adds convenient fodder for the "liberal elite" stereotype).

It clearly doesn't explain everything, though. Could it be that some core tenets are tied to such an explanation, or even the basic definition of liberalism versus conservatism of trust in the proven versus hope for a new way, and others hang upon those tenets? Is abortion only such a hot-button topic because religion tells us it should be? Is gun ownership simply a matter of freedom versus safety?

We are all well aware of the contradictions in each side's traditional values. Yet if these contradictions were truly irreconcilable, no amount of team spirit could make so many people ignore that inconvenient fact.

Is there a common thread to each philosophy: an opinion that holds true for each and every aspect of traditional liberalism or conservatism? Can we find something close, with explicable outliers due to cultural anomaly? Maybe even something accurate enough to be predictive, so that we can guess how conservatives and liberals will fall on emerging and future issues with something a little more concrete than an inexplicable gut feeling? How do we account for changes in the political parties, like the neoconservative movement or Obama's bank bail-out?

Or am I just trying to find reason in a system that is inherently unreasonable?

The easy maleability of the under educated and corrupted masses; an ability to ignore cognitive dissonance? Do I win?

LobsterMobster wrote:

Or am I just trying to find reason in a system that is inherently unreasonable?

It sounds more like you're trying to find an algorithm to predict human nature.
"I'm right. My group is best. My team should win. We are the good guys. The facts are on our side."
Those are the common threads. Everything else is just detail.... 'the color of the uniform' if you will. I'm right. My group is best. My team should win. We are the good guys and the facts are on our side.

EDIT: If membership with a 'label' were indicative of actual beliefs then we would find a lot more labels. Membership with a 'label' is like rooting for Coke. You wear the T-Shirt. You show up at the rallies. You make sure the local vending machines have your preferred products... if Coke wins the blind taste-test you tear up the local streets with your friends and if by some fluke a Pepsi slips into the finals you tear up the local streets with your friends. But if you had to pick your drink based on actual company policies, hiring practices, administrative structure, and social interactions... you'll find you actually prefer tap-water. But tap-water doesn't throw rallies or get invited to national taste-tests.

sigh... I should probably be working.

EDIT2:
Made me think of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_...
Was rewatching that show last night and it seems to fit. No one believes they are the bad guys until they start losing. Not sure if that clip has the second part of that sketch... but it gets the point across.

Great topic, Lobster. I'll have more cogent things to say later, but for now I want to point out that ocassionally, some issues can vacillate between the team Red and team Blue. I'm thinking specifically of environmentalism, which used to be a strong Republican virtue, and minority rights, which also used to be a strong Republican virtue; now both are considered liberal ideals.

I think it more has to do with how you naturally see the world. Nobody sees the world in black and white completely and conversely, nobody sees it as all neutral gray. Yet people align themselves with others along that spectrum because they can relate. The issues become the issues because somebody frames the experience from their perspective. Also people are more convinced by a perspective that relates the issue in easily perceived terms that are consistent with their world perspective.

People can disagree on an issue but still relate because they see shades of gray similarly. However, as you see less shades of gray the more likely you are to initially agree because there are less personal perspectives available. I have often wondered if this is the reason that it is so easy for conservatives to organize or is this what causes the "ditto head" phenomena. Also with less shades of gray, there is less internal conflict and hence conviction comes easier and is easier to maintain.

KingGorilla wrote:

The easy maleability of the under educated and corrupted masses; an ability to ignore cognitive dissonance? Do I win?

Or more succinctly: fear and ignorance.

People in power prey on people's fear and ignorance.

"Oh noes, all those lazy brown and black people are freeloading off your taxes!"
"Oh noes, all those greedy rich people are getting richer off your taxes!"

"Oh noes, they want to take away you're right to defend yourself!"
"Oh noes, criminals are getting access to more and better weapons!"

"Oh noes, the polar bears!"
"Oh noes, they want to take my Humvee away!"

LobsterMobster wrote:

Why is it that environmental protection, gun control, freedom of abortion, social services, separation of church and state, corporate accountability and the like are traditionally liberal values? How does gun control play into environmentalism? What's the relationship between social services and secularism?

Why is it that free market, gun rights, right to life, small government, religion and the like are traditionally conservative values? What does religion have to do with guns? Or abortion with capitalism?

I've heard theories that it all comes down to risk; that liberals feel comfortable enough in their place in life that they're willing to take risks whereas conservatives are not so ready to give up a sure thing for a chance at something better... or worse. Our ancestors may have felt more inclined to try new things when they knew of multiple food sources and therefore did not need to fear starvation, and spend that time foraging for more resources. It makes some sense, and does explain some of the difference (it also adds convenient fodder for the "liberal elite" stereotype).

I've grown to see it more in terms of an individual's willingness to look beyond their own needs to that of the greater society.

Conservatives have become to embody, well, selfishness. They don't like taxes because they feel Uncles Sam is taking *their* money and, worse, giving it to people who obviously don't deserve it. They like guns because they want to protect what's theirs at all costs and they really don't trust the protection society has put in place, the police. They favor unrestrained capitalism because they think that they'll actually strike it rich one day, much like the poor white farmers of the Confederacy who fought for slavery even though they owned no slaves, and don't want anyone messing up their chance. They favor a massive military because they want to feel safe (and likely get a personal kick out of us blowing up some poor citizen of the third-world, much like fans of a winning sports team). They are heavily inclined to doubt global warming largely because they can't stomach the solution to the problem as it would involve them changing how they live and it would severely contradict their views on the role of government.

Religion is the odd man out for conservatives, the one thing that should stress society over the individual, but I think even that has become twisted into selfishness. You have things like the Gospel of Prosperity that tosses out entire sections of the Bible in order to let people believe that if they are wealthy than that's just God's little way of saying "thanks for all the prayers" and carries the unsubtle message that if you are poor it must be because God is punishing you for some moral shortcoming. You have things like Creationists that would rather toss out centuries of hard fought scientific progress than admit that their personal worldview is wrong. You have abortionists and gay bashers who feel their personal moral outlook should be forced upon everyone in society, for their own good, of course. Even the core principle of religion, that of salvation, is selfish. Good is only done to ensure that you spend eternity as far away from the torments of Hell as possible.

But how do you really feel about conservatism?

to put it a somewhat nicer way than og, in my opinion conservatism is about governing for personal empowerment, liberalism is about governing for social empowerment. One is not necessarily more valid than the other, I think most of us follow a middle path, but our political representatives (conservatives, especially) tend to assume an extremist facade in order appeal to a perceived voting base. Well, in many cases it's just a facade.

I've heard theories that it all comes down to risk; that liberals feel comfortable enough in their place in life that they're willing to take risks whereas conservatives are not so ready to give up a sure thing for a chance at something better... or worse.

I think that's a big part of it. The issues you've mentioned are defined by how much of a change in thinking they require. As others have mentioned, Conservatism tends to cling to the established way of doing things, while Liberalism seeks to improve the status quo. That doesn't mean certain issues won't switch camps; as Seth pointed out, issues will shift, based on how the discussion is framed.

Some of these distinctions do seem quite arbitrary. In my experience, a fair amount of ideology and belief are simply inherited without question, allowing weird groupings to occur as time rolls.

Good is only done to ensure that you spend eternity as far away from the torments of Hell as possible.

While this may be dogma for some, it is by no means what Jesus taught.

Stereotyping: Fun for boys and girls!

boogle wrote:

Stereotyping: Fun for boys and girls!

Only boys like stereotyping, girls like dolls.

Polliwog wrote:
I've heard theories that it all comes down to risk; that liberals feel comfortable enough in their place in life that they're willing to take risks whereas conservatives are not so ready to give up a sure thing for a chance at something better... or worse.

I think that's a big part of it. The issues you've mentioned are defined by how much of a change in thinking they require. As others have mentioned, Conservatism tends to cling to the established way of doing things, while Liberalism seeks to improve the status quo. That doesn't mean certain issues won't switch camps; as Seth pointed out, issues will shift, based on how the discussion is framed.

I always thought fiscal conservatism at least came down to your level of idealism: how much you're willing to sacrifice for the benefit of others, particularly those that you might perceive as not being deserving of it.

I've never entirely understood what links fiscal and social liberalism/conservatism, though. My best guess is that a number of liberal social policies require a larger government to implement, and the rest of it sort of spins out from there.

I don't really understand how you guys can equate 'forced to give the government money so they can give it to other people' with 'give willingly to those in need around you'.

Maybe that's the difference? Conservatives want to do it themselves, Liberals want to pay someone else to do it for them? Or perhaps more accurately, want to force YOU to pay someone else to take care of the poor downtrodden of the world.

Pawz wrote:

I don't really understand how you guys can equate 'forced to give the government money so they can give it to other people' with 'give willingly to those in need around you'.
Maybe that's the difference? Conservatives want to do it themselves, Liberals want to pay someone else to do it for them? Or perhaps more accurately, want to force YOU to pay someone else to take care of the poor downtrodden of the world.

Erm, close but no cigar. It's not about forcing people to pay to take care of others, or paying someone to do something for you, it's about living in a society- and that means taking care of those around you who may not have, or have had, the same opportunities in life that some of us take for granted, and in doing so, ensuring that those same measures will be in place to help us if we should happen to fall on hard times. That's the ideal at least. No system is perfect, especially when people are involved. But we try to do the best we can. Everyone for themselves generally doesn't make for cohesive communities.

This is achieved by normal charity, no? Since when is wanting to cut out the middle-man somehow an 'everyone for themselves' enterprise? I can guarantee that there are hundreds of churches and non-religious organisations out there handing out all sorts of aid for those who need it, without government intervention.

Let's take Haiti, for instance. Immediately following the earthquake, people from all over the world donated generously to the country. Now, several months later with the country still struggling to regain it's footing, aid from governments continues while public donations have dropped severely. Personal charity only goes so far because people tend to have short attention spans, once a story has rotated out of the news cycle most assume it's been magically fixed.

Patrick Henry and Thomas Payne disagreed with you Pawz, as did Jefferson. Not to long after forming the Union, agrarian reform, re-allocation of wealth took a backseat to making sure the country stayed
together.

The fear was through money and land, America would have de facto lords. Hard to dispute that when JP Morgan, Rockafeller had more money than the US for example.

Some of those much needed reforms are back on the table. Healthcare, education, are two key areas of huge economic, racial gaps that need address. And charity cannot reliably solve them.

Nomad wrote:
Good is only done to ensure that you spend eternity as far away from the torments of Hell as possible.

While this may be dogma for some, it is by no means what Jesus taught.

With respect, Nomad, in this context it doesn't matter what Jesus actually taught. What matters is what people believe. The fact that you consider them to be bad Christians does not mean they are not Christians, or that they are not really religious. They certainly think they are.

One of the most common questions I get from believers is, "if you don't believe in God, what stops you from doing whatever you feel like doing?" I think if it wasn't for fear of God I would get that question less often. There's a good discussion to be had here but it's one we've had many times before, in many different places.

My point in noting religion was not to attack it and call for a defense of it. It is a fact that there is a correlation, and I am interested in that correlation as a neutral aspect of conservatism, neither good nor evil.

boogle wrote:

Stereotyping: Fun for boys and girls!

Well, I warned you that there was going to be a lot of that going on. I don't want to even begin to suggest that stereotypes are accurate but they are real things and they do come about for a reason, even if that reason is stupid and wrong-headed.

Pawz wrote:

I don't really understand how you guys can equate 'forced to give the government money so they can give it to other people' with 'give willingly to those in need around you'.

Maybe that's the difference? Conservatives want to do it themselves, Liberals want to pay someone else to do it for them? Or perhaps more accurately, want to force YOU to pay someone else to take care of the poor downtrodden of the world.

It could come down to a level of cynicism. Conservatives either want to handle charity themselves, or (if you don't mind being offensive), don't want to have to pay charity at all and so trot out the idealistic hope that someone else will do it. Liberals don't believe that the rich are so generous as to donate all that's needed and more without prompting.

Though I don't know if liberals really look at it as forcing the wealthy to subsidize the poor. I think some of them just believe that in a society as wealthy as ours, no one should have to go hungry, and that feeding the poor is more important than buying a third car, even if the poor didn't earn that money and the driver did.

That leans more toward the "personal enrichment" versus "social enrichment" idea.

You guys might be interested in the Pew Research Center's "Beyond Red vs. Blue" reports. The latest one was done in 2005.

It used to be the case that the common thread behind liberalism was that they believed government could be used as a force for good and that society could be improved through policy. Conversely, the common thread behind conservatism was that society would tend toward progress and improvement on its own without too much aid from the government or policy.

Today, it appears, the roles are skewed pretty far right. So-called liberals seem to have surrendered the activist position in favor of a traditional conservative stance. They seem perfectly happy to allow society to dictate the changes and have policy lag behind it. Obama, for instance, would be considered a center right politician as recently as 20 years ago.

Conservatives, otoh, could best be described as reactionary now in that the goal does not seem to be to {ableist slur} social progress, but to "turn back the clock" to social norms we no longer share.

Conservatives, otoh, could best be described as reactionary now in that the goal does not seem to be to {ableist slur} social progress, but to "turn back the clock" to social norms we no longer share.

Reactionary as well in a decidedly activist approach to Federal jurisprudence.

I do often wonder about people utterly convinced of their fabricated history. Examples like Glenn Beck talking about how awesome the 70's were(if you ignore the drugs, the crime, the Vietnam cluster f*ck). Going back further. Or how government control is anti-free market. Yet free markets can only exist in regulated economies.

Environmentalists talking about "restoring America to its woodland." When europeans settled, natives were meticulously tending marshes, prairies, and forests to attract wild game, is was the planting of trees to an alarming degree that caused catastrophic water shortages, dustbowls, famines.

What truly frightens me is how fashionable it has become to create and proliferate your own reality. We are now on second, third, fourth generations fed some of the same fabrications.

I remember how the people Beck idolizes *hated* the 70's, too. And yes, the ideal of the American wilderness as an unmanaged system has not survived archaeology. The Indians were *massive* manipulators of huge areas of the country, which they deforested for their own use in many areas of the country. Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse".

There's plenty of stupidity and cupidity on both sides. The problem is that in the past, through Reagan's time, we actually had a Congress where ideas met each other in the middle. Now - with the very interesting exception of the last month or so - partisanship is so extreme that Congress can only do stupid things, except in times of great peril, when we do *expensive* stupid things. (What a lot of people have not noticed is that both parties are now mostly working together on several major bills, something not seen since the mid-80's, but commonplace up to that point. We'll see if it continues.)

KingGorilla wrote:

The easy maleability of the under educated and corrupted masses; an ability to ignore cognitive dissonance? Do I win?

This. Identity politics. When you have an ignorant and uneducated citizenry, they respond less to extensive explanation of policy stances and more to accusations a politician cheated on his wife, or who is a Muslim sympathizer, or who smoked dope in college, or who you would rather have a beer with. It's a popularity contest.

This is why since GWB senior you've seen a huge move towards negativity being the primary content of campaign commercials and advertising. When the country is virtually split down the middle between two candidates, winning an election comes down to simply pushing a few percentage points in your favor. And the most impactful way to do that is to target the opposing candidate with a marketing campaign of negativity.

Instead of taking a top down look at the topic which I think is a large factor in determining why certain issues are championed by people who identify themselves as liberals and conservatives - after all, I think one of the best ways to figure this out is to look at who is running the show, who are the biggest campaign contributers, lobbyists, etc., I think it's even more important to take a bottom up look - why do voters identify as they do with their respective political ideologies? After all, it's the voter base that ultimately can decide what the issue du jour is. If marsupial conservation was listed as the latest hot issue that American citizens were concerned about, I think we can all agree that tomorrow every political party would be soiling themselves trying to one up each other to be viewed as the best option for marsupial conservation in the country. However you also have to consider your current voter base. So if marsupial conservation were alluded to in the Bible, well the right would drop this issue entirely since it would conflict with the majority of their voting base.

That said, I'm going to recommend reading What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank as well as The Wimp Factor by Stephen Ducat which asks the question why is it that working class people and lower middle class folks consistently seem to be voting against their rational economic interests as workers, etc. and instead voting for reactionary candidates whose economic policies are really not in their best interests and in many cases actually counter to their interests, and instead voting on the basis of other types of politics be they the politics of evangelical Christianity, the politics of heterosexist backlash against gay and lesbian liberation, the politics of religious polarization, etc.

Robear wrote:

I remember how the people Beck idolizes *hated* the 70's, too. And yes, the ideal of the American wilderness as an unmanaged system has not survived archaeology. The Indians were *massive* manipulators of huge areas of the country, which they deforested for their own use in many areas of the country. Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse".

There's plenty of stupidity and cupidity on both sides. The problem is that in the past, through Reagan's time, we actually had a Congress where ideas met each other in the middle. Now - with the very interesting exception of the last month or so - partisanship is so extreme that Congress can only do stupid things, except in times of great peril, when we do *expensive* stupid things. (What a lot of people have not noticed is that both parties are now mostly working together on several major bills, something not seen since the mid-80's, but commonplace up to that point. We'll see if it continues.)

I wonder if the rise of the whacko fringe elements like the tea party has resulted in greater cooperation among folks in the middle. I don't know if this would explain it, but I imagine that when voters have a choice between a moderate who gets some of the things done that they want and a radical who spends all his time giving meaningless press conferences, likely voters eventually get around to making the right decision.

I suspect Obama went and gave the "if you get *nothing* done, you'll *definitely* be out the door!" talk to the leadership types. Or maybe Pelosi and McConnell figured it out on their own.

Robear wrote:

I suspect Obama went and gave the "if you get *nothing* done, you'll *definitely* be out the door!" talk to the leadership types. Or maybe Pelosi and McConnell figured it out on their own.

I'm pretty sure it was David Frum who gave that talk.

ruhk wrote:

Let's take Haiti, for instance. Immediately following the earthquake, people from all over the world donated generously to the country. Now, several months later with the country still struggling to regain it's footing, aid from governments continues while public donations have dropped severely. Personal charity only goes so far because people tend to have short attention spans, once a story has rotated out of the news cycle most assume it's been magically fixed.

Certainly there's an issue with today's media, and the assumption with many many people that 'something is being done' to help. With decades of the kind of mindset that assumes that charity and assistance is a government job, is it surprising to see people assume that the government will take care of the final details? Obviously you wouldn't be able to chuck all the gov't charity programs out the window tomorrow and assume people would step in to fill the gap immediately - doesn't make it an invalid goal though.

KingGorilla wrote:

Patrick Henry and Thomas Payne disagreed with you Pawz, as did Jefferson. Not to long after forming the Union, agrarian reform, re-allocation of wealth took a backseat to making sure the country stayed
together.

The fear was through money and land, America would have de facto lords. Hard to dispute that when JP Morgan, Rockafeller had more money than the US for example.

Some of those much needed reforms are back on the table. Healthcare, education, are two key areas of huge economic, racial gaps that need address. And charity cannot reliably solve them.

Well, charity doesn't have much to do with healthcare OR education and their effectiveness. And social programs have been running for decades without solving either of those problems.

I think there is a common economic theme underlying the conservative movement; that the most effective way to get something done is to connect the generator of wealth as closely as possible to the decisions made on how to spend the wealth. Every time money is spent, there's a risk/reward decision that needs to be made. If you're using your own wealth, you're naturally going to be that much more involved in whether or not spending that wealth is a good idea.

LobsterMobster wrote:

It could come down to a level of cynicism. Conservatives either want to handle charity themselves, or (if you don't mind being offensive), don't want to have to pay charity at all and so trot out the idealistic hope that someone else will do it. Liberals don't believe that the rich are so generous as to donate all that's needed and more without prompting.

Though I don't know if liberals really look at it as forcing the wealthy to subsidize the poor. I think some of them just believe that in a society as wealthy as ours, no one should have to go hungry, and that feeding the poor is more important than buying a third car, even if the poor didn't earn that money and the driver did.

That leans more toward the "personal enrichment" versus "social enrichment" idea.

There's obviously all sorts of people on both sides of the argument. There will be people who are against big government simply because they ARE greedy and don't want anyone's hands in their pockets. And on the other side there are the people who are profiting from big government and crying for more & more simply so they can line their pockets. Both cases would be working at cross purposes of their professed ideology, so there's really little point in using them as the baseline for declaring that conservatives are all greedy selfish bastards or liberals are all trough slurping government pigs. Neither are accurate or helpful in understanding either position.

It also does seem to be a common misrepresentation that to be against social programs = against charity / helping the poor. Another common misrepresentation would be the one that says social programs are all about making sure people don't go hungry. There's a pretty massive gap between the calorie intake of the average 'poor' American and the average poor person in a 3rd world country. In any case, removing as many steps from the process, and putting the decision making in the hands of the producer of the wealth, is what I would consider the best solution to many issues.

Another way to look at it is that of some of the Founders - those who benefit the most from our government and it's protections are obligated to contribute the most back, for the betterment of society and those not as fortunate as they are.