You have completely mischaracterized the nature of the "liberal opposition" to the war. Everyone involved in the national debate (with a very few exceptions), liberal and conservative, believed that Iraq had WMD's. The opposition from the left was based on the emotion that "war is bad, war is immoral, and war will cause death and suffering". (collection found here: http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm). That emotion was particularly out front when the president was a republican, not a democrat. The same people outraged over Bush's post 9/11 military action didn't seem to mind much when Clinton fired cruise missiles at Iraq in 1998 or went into Kosovo without UN approval. Again, selective indignation driven by EMOTION. On the other hand, Bush took the available facts from our intelligence services AND the intelligence services of most of the western world, reviewed history and Hussein's lies about WMD's from the past, his ties with terrorists, his acts of war against US airplanes patrolling the no-fly zone, the fact that Saddam tried to assassinate former president Bush, and the widely held belief that the situation in Iraq would continue to deteriorate, LOGIC was used to reach the conclusion to go to war. It was the right move from that perspective. The emotional way to go would be to do what Clinton did. Fire a few ineffective missiles, talk tough, and then leave the problem for a future president to deal with after it deteriorated even further. Frankly, History will show if Bush did the right thing or not. It's too early to tell one way or the other. But, there is no way that the decision made by Bush could possibly be characterized as "emotional". No way. No how.




Selective history as I pointed out to you in several posts in another thread. History has shown that militaristic countries, run by brutal dictators, and defeated in a war with the US can be converted into democracies with a pro-US stance; Germany, Japan, and Italy.

The logic that Bush is using is solid. If there is not a fundamental change in that region (i.e., democratization) which, by the way, IS taking hold, then peace can never be achieved. That's brilliant logic and Bush will be remembered for it.



Logic says that if there was REAL fraud, the Kerry people would be all over it like ugly on an ape. Emotion says that if you're "unhappy" that Kerry lost, there MUST be some evil conspiracy without any real evidence to back it up. I understand math. I took years of it in college. Statistical models are all based on assumptions. If the assumptions are not met, then the model is invalid and likely will result in bad data. For example, calculating a standard deviation on a set of data that does not meet the test for normality is an exercise in futility. It's emotion that is driving the "Bush stole the election" crowd and that emotion is largely irrational hate.



There is no widespread "conservative" opposition to teaching of science, including evolutionary theory in public schools. This is a non issue.




Again, you dramatically mischaracterize the opposition to gay marriage. That issue is covered in a number of threads and the conservative position is handled logically by a number of posters. I would suggest you review "Hayleyanne's" postings on that topic. On the other hand, emotion seems to be driving the "pro gay marriage" crowd since it's the liberal flavor of the month hot issue for this year.



Well, there was emotion on both sides of that issue for sure. But, the logic of the conservative side was that the woman had made no legally binding statement indicating that she'd want to die in that situation. The husband created it all on his own and OVER the objections to her parents and family. On the other hand, the liberal argument was an emotional projection along the lines of "if I were in that state, I wouldn't want to live that way", etc.



My hip boots have been replaced by chest waders. Conservatives approve of torture? When? Where?



Well sir, I could suggest a sorting of posts in this forum made by a certain individual but that might be stretching the rules a bit....

Well, LordHelmet, I won't address your claims about the reasoning behind the various positions taken by conservatives and liberals, first because Jamie has correctly pointed out that they are off-topic. Besides, I think your characterizations are prima facie off the mark, and I am happy to permit other readers to make their own judgments on this. To return to the main thread of this discussion, I think it's pretty clear that you have offered some personal and highly prejudiced opinions that you cannot substantiate with any evidence. The real value of this thread lies in determining what everybody, conservatives and liberals, can agree on about their relative positions, and I don't think that your characterizations come close to obtaining support. Can you offer us any observations about liberals and conservatives that you think liberals might agree with?

That's not the point I was trying to make. What I was saying is that there isn't any way to pick a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' side...since neither party currently holds very tightly to that ideaology. Rather, those constructs are usually used today to 'rally the troops' with pretty mindless rhetoric. Now, if one wants to base their decision on that, by all means, do so. But it's that line of thinking (or lack thereof) that has us in the mess we're in today. We'd be better off removing the labels, and examining the issues....but that makes for pretty muddled slogans, doesn't it? Look at some of the discussions going on right here in this thread....inject the label, and people immediately get defensive. Any chance at really discussing the issue goes right out the window.

I will tell you that I am a firm conservative...yet I bet you couldn't, from that, tell me what my stance is on a variety of issues. It is currently a politically meaningless label, outside of the associated rhetoric. I suspect the same is true for 'liberal'. Turnea seems to be espousing that viewpoint....yet he and I probably agree on a great many issues (as shown, I think, in many, many threads here). Now, if he's a 'liberal' and I'm a 'conservative'....how is that possible? I contend, of course, that its because we're both pretty conservative . Where we might differ is in political affiliation...whereas this is an idealogical issue. Politics and ideaology are no longer that closely related, I think especially regarding this particular ideaology.

I agree with you, Hobbes. I think though that Hugo made a good attempt at differentiating the major categories of conservative thought, whereas he did not succeed in the same vein with liberal thought. If the label is accurate and a group self-identifies with it, then I believe the label is useful and even good. However, if the label is used to castigate and is not accepted by the group upon whom it is appellated, then the label is not useful and even bad. Furthermore, a label should contain that with which one identifies and not that with which one does not identify. So much for labeling theory . It is clear that this debate requires more refinement. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are way too broad a brush (as you have pointed out).

Lordhelmet, do you have any actual evidence that engineers tend to be conservatives, or is that just an anecdotal observation?

Even if your claim is true, however, is there any reason to think that engineers are more logical regarding policy issues than, say, physicists? Political scientists? Sociologists? Philosophers? Etc. Is there any reason, other than your evident political bias, to assume that being able to design a good bridge correlates strongly with the ability to craft good policy?



Yes, because claiming that conservatives are logical whereas liberals are emotional teenagers is in no way arrogant.

Millions of conservatives buy books written by prominent conservatives about liberals with titles like "Treason: Liberal Treachery"; "Useful Idiots"; "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism"; and the like. Clearly, there's a very large audience for conservatives who paint a contempt-filled and (yes) arrogant picture of liberals as both evil and stupid.

God, I hate reading threads like these! You're essentially saying "Conservatives are all great people, only liberals say arrogant things about the opposition." Don't you realize what a hypocritical, self-contradicting view that is? And some liberals say the same thing in reverse; it's as if extreme partianship has eaten away the ability, in both conservatives and liberals, to apply even the slightest bit of critical thought to anything their own side says.

Don't you understand that your entire approach is the opposite of reasoning? You're just making ad homs about people you disagree with, while not applying the same criticism to those you agree with. That's not thought, that's cheerleading.

Here's the truth: Most people, liberals or conservative, just aren't that evil, although few people are saints either. There are extremely good, logical thinkers to be found on every side of the political spectrum. Furthermore, many people on every side of the political spectrum genuinely care about trying to improve humanity's lot.

On the other side, there are many poor thinkers and corrupt politicians out there - and, again, they can be found on both sides of the political spectrum.

If you don't agree with the above two paragraphs, then - regardless of if you agree with my politics or not - you're really not looking with clarity at the political situation.

This is not an issue of "castigation". The point of this thread was to address some of the general differences between liberals and conservatives. One of the differences that I offered was that liberals tend to be more "emotion centered" while conservatives are more "logic" centered. That's an observation, not a "castigation" and frankly, I'm not unique in forming that opinion.

The actor and "registered democrat" Ron Silver was on C-span recently and was interviewed by Jeff Greenfield. He made this exact same point when asked why so many actors were "liberals". According to Silver, a good actor must be very in touch with their emotions and taking a step back and analyzing a situation from a "logical" perspective is often an obstacle to the creative process. Silver said that he is still very liberal on many issues but that 9/11 changed him and his outlook which is why he supports our current president and even spoke at the RNC convention last year.
(http://members.tripod.com/~Barbara_Robertson/NYTarticle090104.html)

Interestingly, Silver also talked at the harsh treatment that he now receives from many within Hollywood since he no longer toes the liberal line on all issues and does not share with them their irrational hatred of George W. Bush. That also plays into my other point with respect to liberals/conservatives which is that conservatives tend to see liberals as "misguided" if they don't share their outlook while liberals view conservatives as lesser human beings to be reviled and hated.

Another ex-leftist who has been on both "sides of the fence", David Horowitz (http://www.frontpagemag.com) makes essentially the same points in his writings and in his books. Of course, we have Liimbaugh and Coulter so there are always exceptions to be pointed out. But, this was a "general" thread.

If we're looking for general differences between liberals and conservatives, these points must be considered. It's the reality.

In a couple of threads, there was debate as to whether the religious right is now the majority of conservatives, and your older libertarian-conservative has basically been left behind in the modern conservative movement.

Hugo makes a very good point of course- while LordHelmets assertations pretty much typifies the new Ann Coultier conservative. No reality in the accusations, but if you make them loud and often enough, someone will beleive them I guess LOL

Anyway, back to Hugo- with rare exception, when you place specific issues on the table, and ask which way a person would believe in each issue, they swing wildly between conservative and liberal thoughts.

Since I can only accurately define myself, I will give examples.

I am pro- universal health care= liberal

I am pro-death penalty= conservative

I am against fiscal irresponsibility= conservative

I am against gutting social programs for the until we have corporate welfare reform= liberal.


The funny part is- niether party is consistant in THIER application of thier own thoughts on conservative vs liberal either.

The GW regime calls themselves "conservative"- yet is the most fiscally irresponsible administration in the last 100 years- how is that conservative?

I think that the current modern conservative movement is the most easily manipulated, especially at the local level- by politicians just claiming to be "conservative" to get elected.

All a politician has to do is succesfully label his/her opposition as "liberal" - regardless of actual position on issues, and they will get elected- and we have excellent examples here in Alaska, a state dominated by conservatives and Republicans. We have the least popular governer in the US- but come election time, there is no way he will lose because he is republican, and he has a label attached to himself as "conservative"-

Just do a search on the various issues on www.adn.com and you will see the silliness of conservative thought in this state!

If the group you are labelling doesn't agree that its positions are "emotion centered", then your definition is at best inaccurate. Just because you're not unique in giving inaccurate labels, doesn't mean those inaccurate labels are correct. Aren't you the guy who's so adamant that consensus proves nothing?

So far, you have made some "interesting" implicit assertions:

1. Anecdotes prove the claim.
2. Job title determines the way one arrives at a political philosophy.
3. Emotions and logic are somehow mutually exclusive.

No, other conservatives (including conservatives who used to be liberals) agree with you. That's hardly a persuasive point. David Broder used to be a conservative, but I doubt you'd therefore be willing to accept all of his characterizations of conservatives as true.

Can you find a single mainstream, current liberal (speakers at the Republican National Convention don't count!) who agrees with you?

Do you have any logical reasoning at all to support your contention that Rush and Ann are exceptions to a rule, rather than representative of a significant faction of conservatives? Clearly, authors like Rush, Ann and Sean H. are extremely popular within modern conservatism, so by "general" you can't mean "popular." So what determines the difference between "general" and "exception," in your view?

* * *

Moving to a more general level of theory, classical debating theory says that rhetoric must include both emotion and logic. I think that's true; although emotion alone makes more politics, it's also a bad idea for emotion to be completely lacking from politics. Emotion tempered by reason is the way that God and/or human nature (whichever you believe in) tells us what's important and what's appalling. And it's pretty clear that both conservatives and liberals use both appeals to both emotion and reasoning in their rhetoric.

It's easy to see tons of conservative appeals to emotion. For example, the advertising against same-sex marriage here in Oregon was strongly biased towards "protect our children!" style appeals to emotion (for instance, a phone recording which called every voter in Oregon and implied that "the gay lifestyle" will be taught to children in schools unless an anti-gay-marriage amendment is passed). "Protect the children!" is as clear-cut an emotional appeal as there is. So although there may be rational reasons to oppose same-sex marriage (if any of them make sense is a subject for a different thread), the impossible to dispute fact is that conservatives did make appeals to emotion.

Similarly, it's easy to find liberal arguments about issues such as Social Security and universal health care which appeal to rationality (again, whether or not the arguments make sense is a subject for a different thread) - there are literally hundreds of these published in academic journals every year.

I'm not saying that conservatives tend to be emotional and liberals tend to be logical; I'm saying that it's clear that both groups use both emotion and logic in their arguments. Lacking some objective way of quantifying and measuring how much emotion and logic each sides uses, the claim that "liberals tend to use emotion, conservatives tend to use logic" cannot be proved or disproved, and is not a useful way of distinguishing between liberals and conservatives.