Contemporary American politics is intricately related to “worldview”. Conservatives simply see the world differently than do liberals, and both have a difficult time understanding accurately what the other's worldview is.

I have been wanting to post about the differences between the conservative and liberal world views for a while now but haven’t been sure how to do it. I stumbled on an interesting review of two books on this subject that really got me thinking.

The article mentions two books:

George Lakoff's Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think and James M. Ault Jr.'s Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church

http://www.uuworld.org/2005/03/bookshelf.html

I also stumbled on a website about postmodern thought and Christianity: http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/dotch1.htm

These sites got me thinking about some of the important differences and I am curious what others have to say. Here are some of the differences I gleaned from these two sites:

Liberals tend to adhere to moral relativism and postmodern thought. Very few things (if any) are absolutely right or wrong. Society, culture (and language) and power dictate what is acceptable conduct. We are socially constructed, whether by our community or our family, each person's reality is created by that person's social environment. In practical terms we see this thought manifested in:

(1) The increasingly universal belief that all cultures are to be equally "respected" and never criticized;

(2) Lack of importance attached to requiring immigrants to learn English.

(3) The new importance attached to language, as seen in the "political correctness " movement

(4) "Labeling theory " in parenting and education--the idea that children become what they are labeled

(5) New versions of history from the perspective of oppressed interest groups (e.g. feminist, or gay and lesbian history ) that purposely leave out even major events in the past

Conservatives adhere more generally to moral absolutism. There are absolute rights and wrongs that ought to guide our conduct in the world. In practical terms we see this line of thought manifested in:

(1) Laws having their basis in a moral prohibition

(2) Preference for teaching history/literature from a traditional perspective without overemphasizing minority groups etc.

(3) Preference for requiring immigrants to learn English


Another major difference relates to the conception of “family”. Conservatives tend to view family in terms of blood or “given” relationships. Liberals in terms of chosen relationships:




Conservatives prefer the guard the status quo with respect to societal mores; Liberals more readily seek change in societal mores.

These are just a few fundamental philosophical differences I was able to glean. I am curious what others think.

Questions for Debate:

(1) Do you agree with the above characterization of differences between Conservative and Liberal thought?

(2) Would you add any other fundamental differences to the list?

(3) Is it possible to get the two sides to better understand the other? If so, how? If not, why not?

(1) Do you agree with the above characterization of differences between Conservative and Liberal thought?

Well, a qualified "some" - sometimes, I feel as if I am really in a good position to field this question- I was raised in the fundamentalist Christian lifestyle, Reagan supporters to the core, joined the Army at 17 like every male since the Revolutionary war before me. It was my travels around the world, on my own, after leaving the military that I understood the basic hypocrisy and flaws of the conservative (US conseratism) modern movement.

But in the 20 years since then, I have also watched an evolution away from the conservatives of my childhood and now. What was once conservative thought would now mostly be classified as libertarian thought today A very, very important distinction.

It is the last 20 years of evolution of political thought that makes the definitions very amorphous- as pointed out in some of the recent political quizes- they simply don't follow the pattern of the classic liberal or conservative.

For instance- Conservative USED to mean:

1) Fiscal restraint and deficit pay down- and in fact, modern conservatives have been some of the most disastrous fiscal managers of modern US history!
2) Fixing America first, perhaps some isolationism as well- well, we see how this jives with what a modern conservative is- doesn't it?
3) Govermevnt out of individuals lives- this is the worst transgression of the modern conservative- they have become big brother plus since Reagan

(2) Would you add any other fundamental differences to the list?

Not really- because, as John Kerry pointed out on the Daily show- they really mean nothing anymore.



(3) Is it possible to get the two sides to better understand the other? If so, how? If not, why not?

It was quite easy to understand the old guard conservatives, and respect them. The modern religious right type do not give respect, and so do not deserve respect, only contempt. Before the mods jump all over me for this one, let me explain- the mean-ness of todays political climate is simply the outgrowth of the Reagan politics of the early 80s, demonize, destroy and label. Now, the only thing left is to fight fire with fire. It would be great if we could get back to the old statesmen ship prior to 1968, sure, it was rancorous, but nothing like today. When Eisenhour won the election, I doubt many poeple who didn't vote for him thought that he would go as crazy with power as GW and his gang- and respected the results of the election- see the difference today?

One problem I have here is the connection made between liberals and post-modernism. First, postmodernism, originated in France and has been around for ages (not something new as presented in the link provided). Second, at it's core, post modernism sees everything as culturally relative. An extreme example would be that torture is only wrong if it is culturally wrong. So torture of a prisoner in America would be wrong, while torture of a prisoner in a under-developed country where that is socially accepted would not be wrong. This line of thinking does NOT apply to most of the Liberal thinkers I know. Second, is the implication, that liberalism is at odds with Christianity. Many people I know who call themselves liberal are also Christians. The Christian Churches throughout the ages have looked to help the needy for example. Something that is very much in line with liberal thinking.

An interesting note on postmodernism is that, if all opinions are acceptable, and none are inherently wrong, then the opinion that postmodernism is ridiculous should be considered equally valid by postmodernists.

Also what postmodernism is, frequently gets mis-characterized. Humanist thinking is NOT postmodernist, though many humanist groups have been over-run with postmodernist thinkers.

(1) Do you agree with the above characterization of differences between Conservative and Liberal thought?

Not at all. The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is not that one sees less as morally wrong then the other. The difference is in what both sides see as morally wrong. Both sides are quite capable of moral indignation, and both will wave their idea of what is right or wrong in the faces of the other while wearing that annoying condescending smile.

One I thought I would hit on though:



This is a myth. Conservatives seek just as much change as Liberals, and Liberals seek to protect the status quo just as much as conservatives. The difference lies in the specifics. Both seek to do this things to the benefit of their own ideologies.

As an example. Conservatives were the ones behind the movement to change the way the country and the law treated corporations. Deregulation, Corporate "Personhood", etc. Liberals were the ones fighting to maintain the way we treated business.

Liberals are now the ones fighting to maintain the status quo in regard to the filibuster issues, while conservatives are the ones threatening to change the Senate rules to combat it.

The difference between a Liberal and a Conservative is simply what part of the status quo they support and what part the oppose. The traditional definition of the words conservative and liberal have not applied to these ideologies for decades.

(2) Would you add any other fundamental differences to the list?

The basic difference between the two is:

Liberals generally see the government as the solution, while conservatives generally see the government as the problem. Neither is 100% right or wrong. It is just an underlying bias that effects how each side views every new idea / problem to arrises.

(3) Is it possible to get the two sides to better understand the other? If so, how? If not, why not?

It's doubtful. When one is a conservative, or a liberal, as in a label they apply to themselves they tend to look at the issues through ideological blinders. Both sides have a political bias, that colors what they see when looking at a new idea or problem. For one side to convince the other that their idea is right, they need to bring forth a mountain on verifiable evidence, and make a brilliant and reasonable argument without a hint of condescension. Condescension runs wild in both sides, and as soon as that tone enters the discussion the other-side tunes out. Furthermore, many new approaches to todays problems can be argued reasonably, and presented logically, but since they are new, they is unlikely to have the verifiable evidence. Without the evidence, both sides are free to discredit the idea based on ideological bias regardless of it's potential merit.

Both sides are even willing to fight measures they have supported for years simply because the other-side brought it to the table. The line "I could not support that bill because it did not go far enough" is a classic used all the time to justify voting against something one normally supports. The measure obviously went father then nothing, and could be added to later, but that logic rarely enters the discussion. The true reason behind this sort of thing from both sides is that, though they might support such a measure, they do not want the other-side to get credit for it. So, in order to protect their own political capital, they are willing to sacrifice all manors of potential improvements for the average American.

In the end, most on the right and the left tend to write off the ideas presented by the other-side (or the outside) simply because they are from the other-side (or the outside). We have lost many opportunities in this country because of such ideological bigotry. Hopefully, as movements like the Radical Center, Moderate Independents, and the like gain strength, we will be able to overcome the ideological bigotry of both sides and actually get something accomplished.

OS- "Liberals generally see the government as the solution, while conservatives generally see the government as the problem. "

Now, had you said this prior to 1980- I would agree with you LOL

But, as you can see with the current "conservative" regime, goverment is indeed seen as a solution to problems- you know, NCLB, Patriot Act, etc etc etc.

You see OS- my point is that the conservative and liberal labels have morphed into something different today.

Gee, another thinly disguised "liberal bashing" thread. What a shock.....

Fortunately, hayleyanne, the items you've chosen to highlight in this post are rather easily dealt with, so let me do so, post-haste.


Garbage. Maybe for some, but this is a huge overgeneralization, and negative stereotype. Of course there are absolutes as far as right and wrong go, even for liberals. They may be somewhat fewer, in terms of personal freedom over things like gay marriage, or some other issues. Issues, where in terms of government permission or interferrence, we believe that government should err on the side of personal freedom, as long as such freedom does not interfere in anyone else's ability to live as they see fit. I hardly think however, that you will find many "moral relativists" when it comes to the biggies, like murder, theft, or unethical behavior.


And this is true, whether you are a political conservative or liberal. It cannot be otherwise. Your "world-view" is determined by any number of factors: Your parental upbringing, your education, the attitudes and actions of other relatives, friends, neighbors, community, and country.


Respected, and understood, as best as possible? Yes. Never criticized? Not at all. I find problems with a lot of cultures not my own. But because I don't agree with it, does not mean it doesn't work for those living within a particular culture's framework.

Says who? English is the language that is dominant in this country, and every immigrant should have to learn it, if nothing else to be able to conduct business and interact with the government here. I, for one, consider all of the bi-lingual roadsigns, and government forms and such a huge waste of money.

If by this, you mean we worry about "disrespecting" other cultures through the use of, for instance, tasteless or insensitive remarks or jokes made to make us feel better or smarter while denigrating the other culture (hear any good Polish jokes, lately?), then you are correct. Do some take it too far? Of course. But this is just another generalization, for the most part.

And it's been proven in some sociological studies. Go ahead - label some first grader "slow" or "disingaged" from the learning process, and another student as "bright" and "interested". Studies show that these labels have an effect on how teachers deal with each student, and which one will get more attention from the get-go, basically re-inforcing the labels originally given them. Or, in parenting, tell a kid everyday that he's worthless and will never amount to anything. See how well he does in 15 years.

I'm afraid you've lost me on this one. Do you have any specific examples to cite?


Doesn't seem to keep conservatives from murdering, stealing, committing adultery, or any of the other morally prohibitive absolutes any less frequently than "liberals" though, now does it?


And by "from a traditional perspective" you mean the White, anglo-saxon perspective? I don't see any real lack of that kind of history or literature instruction in our schools these days. Are there times, or classes in high school or college where minority literature or history is discussed from the perspective of minority groups? Of course. Still, these classes are far fewer than any "traditional" studies being taught.

Answered above.



More anti-liberal nonsense. At Shawmut River, mutual obligations are no more or no less "chosen" than any other religion or cultures. These people choose to restrict their "obligations" to family and a few closely associated friends or church members.

Do liberals do this as well? Surely. To say that we don't consider helping family members or other closely associated people as an obligation to the help we have been given along the way is just plain wrong. Personal relationships, and even marriage, are no more "free form" for most liberals than they are for anyone else. These so-called "obligations" are just as immutable for many liberals as they are transient for many conservatives.


Yes, of course. Cute little stories, like "when harmed, turn the other cheek", "treat others as you would be treated", "feed the hungry", "clothe the poor". Certainly no gravity, or commitment to justice and obligation in any of that, now is there?


And is change in societal mores, when it gains equality of minority or oppressed people a bad thing? Societal mores once dictated the holding of slaves. Societal mores once said that women couldn't hold property, or vote. Societal mores once allowed children to work in such dangerous industries as coal mining and ore smelting. Forcing a change in societal mores ended these practices. Unless of course, you think we should go back to them?

Questions for Debate:

Do you agree with the above characterization of differences between Conservative and Liberal thought?
Absolutely not, as described in my responses above.


Is it possible to get the two sides to better understand the other? If so, how? If not, why not?
Absolutely. But not in this manner. Generalizations and over-simplification do nothing to further understanding of the complex issues involved. And here's why. One of the articles you quoted, says that "common sense" is actually a build-up of pre-conceived notions, built upon by prior education and experience. And, that "common sense" as defined by conservatives or liberals can actually hinder understanding, because each defines common sense differently based on their experiences. Here's the quote (emphasis mine) to illustrate that fact:

There are, of course, preconceived notions of "common sense" on the other side of the isle, as well.

The problem is, we are no longer trying to set aside what we may already have ingrained about the "other side". "It can't possibly work because it goes against every thing my 'common sense' tells me." Too many of us have become content with just accepting that the other guy is evil, because a politician that agrees with us tell us it's so. Too few of us bother to examine the issue without the blinders to see that there may, in fact, be another solution to the problem, because it comes from those on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

If we want to really fix the problems we have, we need to get rid of the "Us-vs- Them" mentality, and make it simply an "All of Us-vs-The Problem" mentality.

(1) Do you agree with the above characterization of differences between Conservative and Liberal thought?
No, I believe that the characterization you offer is a conservative's characterization of the differences, not an objective characterization. I am sure that a liberal would provide an equally slanted characterization of the differences. Let me address some of the points:

Very few things (if any) are absolutely right or wrong. Society, culture (and language) and power dictate what is acceptable conduct.
I don't know any liberals who subscribe to this. All liberals I know have a strong sense of absolute right and wrong. Their high level of education often permits them to consider moral issues with greater depth, which is often interpreted by ignorant folk as moral relativism. That accusation is utterly without merit. Consider, for example, that liberals are the ones condemning torture as wrong in all circumstances, while some conservatives -- some -- are applying moral relativism to justify torture in some cases.

The suggestion that "power dictates what is acceptable conduct" would surely be met with snorts of outrage by liberals. They think of themselves, above all, as defenders of the little guy against the powerful.

(1) The increasingly universal belief that all cultures are to be equally "respected" and never criticized;
Tell that to the liberal -- not conservative -- crusaders against genital mutilation in some cultures. Tell it to the liberal -- not conservative -- defenders of the Nigerian woman sentenced to being stoned to death for adultery. Tell it to the liberal -- not conservative -- campaigners who saved the woman in, was it Saudi Arabia, who was facing execution as soon as the baby conceived during a rape by her jailers was born. Tell it to the liberals -- not conservatives -- who drove the effort for sanctions against South Africa during apartheid. Tell it to Jimmy Carter, the classic liberal who introduced human rights into foreign policy, against stiff opposition from conservatives.

(2) Lack of importance attached to requiring immigrants to learn English.
I deny that this is a characteristic of most liberals. Most argue for such things as bilingual education as a means of increasing the effectiveness of integration into society.

(3) The new importance attached to language, as seen in the "political correctness " movement

The PC movement has been the object of derision of most of society -- including most liberals -- for a long time now. Yes, there remain some continuing expressions of it at some universities, but outside of that venue, PC is viewed by most liberals as silly.

(4) "Labeling theory " in parenting and education--the idea that children become what they are labeled

I have heard very few liberals talk about that. Some do, I'm sure, but it is certainly not universal among liberals.

(5) New versions of history from the perspective of oppressed interest groups (e.g. feminist, or gay and lesbian history ) that purposely leave out even major events in the past

Again, these are the interests of special interest groups within the broad spectrum of liberal thought. I don't think that they command wide respect among liberals.

In sum, you have taken particular beliefs of various subgroups within the liberal grouping and applied them to the entire group. I would be just as unfair if I were to declare that the banning of evolution from high school biology courses is a standard conservative belief, or that conservatives in general support torture or starting wars or denying habeus corpus.

Now let's look at some of your characterizations of conservativism:

(1) Laws having their basis in a moral prohibition

The silliness of this characterization is best demonstrated by inverting it: "Liberals deny that laws have any basis in morality." Is that silly enough for you?

(2) Preference for teaching history/literature from a traditional perspective without overemphasizing minority groups etc.

Same analysis: "Liberals prefer to teach history with an overemphasis on minority groups." Pretty silly, nicht wahr?

(3) Preference for requiring immigrants to learn English

Again: "Liberals prefer that immigrants not learn English."

(2) Would you add any other fundamental differences to the list?

I would replace your characterizations with a simplistic but more accurate generalization:

Liberals see the task of government as to nurture good; conservatives see the task of government as to destroy evil.

It's a grand generalization, I confess, and as such there are plenty of picky objections to it, but I think it works as a generalization.

(3) Is it possible to get the two sides to better understand the other? If so, how? If not, why not?

This is the single most important question facing the American body politic and I have been wanting to address it in a topic for some time now. At this point, I see no interest on the part of either side to understand the other. I think your characterization of liberals bespeaks a contempt for liberals, not a genuine attempt to understand their thinking. Both sides see politics as a battle for power, not a process of coming together. The current battle in the Senate is the last stand of political collegiality, and I fear that naked power will triumph over reasoned compromise. It would seem that the American body politic is in need of another sobering lesson in the costs of political dogmatism. In the long run, I think it would be for the best if the Senate were to be brought to a grinding halt, and government were to face a constitutional crisis that scares the wits out of everybody. Perhaps that would bring these ideologues to their senses.

(1) Do you agree with the above characterization of differences between Conservative and Liberal thought?

No. These characterizations are false. I agree with what other folks have posted. If you wish to differentiate between liberal and conservative thought, you must first employ less inflammatory characterizations. Then, you will need accurate definitions which these are not. Of course, this synthetic dichotomy between liberalism/conservatism leaves out folks like myself who are more pragmatically minded.

(2) Would you add any other fundamental differences to the list?

Yes, I could add fundamental differences to the list, but I would first need a list with incorrect definitions removed.

(3) Is it possible to get the two sides to better understand the other? If so, how? If not, why not?

Yes, it is always possible for people to understand each other. The current political political landscape, however, doesn't give me much hope that this will happen anytime soon. When I regularly read things like "Dubya/conservatives are evil" and "liberals are anti-American", I know that the possibility for rational dialogue is very low.

Not to pile on I will make my objections to the proposed characteristics brief.

They are very wrong.

Now that this is done let's make the best of it.

From the tone of the opening post and the previous contributions of the thread's author to our site I think it safe to assume that the characteristics were posted without malice and to brand them inflammatory is pointless as I'm sure that wasn't the intent.

In fact I think the reason for the problem has been very well framed in the opening post.


I think that's fair enough...

In the spirit of the third question for debate let's see why the misunderstanding.

Proposed Characteristic #1
Liberals tend to adhere to moral relativism and postmodern thought
This like all of the proposal has a tiny kernel of truth. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to adhere to moral relativism, but on the whole very few liberals ever do.

As Eurasmussimo implied the frequent exclamations of righteous indignation when liberals believe someone has trample on their value prove this to be false.

So why would conservatives believe this?

I believe this to be true: Liberals are more open to change in societal norms. They seek to right the wrongs of the present by proposing new methods for the future.

Liberals therefore are more likely to abandon traditional standards of morality for new ones. That doesn't mean they have no standard, it's just not one that conservative recognize.

(1) The increasingly universal belief that all cultures are to be equally "respected" and never criticized;
Conservatives in their reticence to change an order they believe is working and hold on to the standards of the past often come into conflict with other cultures whose tradition are perceived to pose a threat to the order.

They understand the order responsible for their success to be their own "culture"

Liberals on the other hand don't place culture on so high a pedestal. Cultures are merely a group of actions, largely irrelevant to ultimate success. Therefore if a different culture arrives, well who cares.

Conservatives wondering why liberals to not perceive a threat assume they must be avoiding conflict, practicing political correctness. When really, liberals just don't care.

(5) New versions of history from the perspective of oppressed interest groups (e.g. feminist, or gay and lesbian history ) that purposely leave out even major events in the past
This I've never even heard of. I'm afraid it is conservatives who are more likely to gloss over history to preserve the image of a strong, proud, tradition.

Conservatives again feel that history form the perspective of those their culture clearly wronged must be an attack on the culture. Sometimes this is true.

Liberal usually don't see cultures as a threat, but when they cross the lines of their deeply held moral convictions as a matter of course, some liberals tend to go on the attack.

Most liberals however just want to truth to be told, so that people would "realize" that the traditions of the past need to be abandoned for a method that wont cause such harm.
Another major difference relates to the conception of “family”. Conservatives tend to view family in terms of blood or “given” relationships. Liberals in terms of chosen relationships
I disagree again. most conservatives would understand an adopted child is fully part of the family for instance.

Conservatives prefer the guard the status quo with respect to societal mores; Liberals more readily seek change in societal mores.
...not quite.

Conservative aren't just looking for the "status quo." Most tend to idealize the past not the present.

...of course when confronted with specifics it is clear this is an idealization. Just like when confronted with the present most liberals would agree that some social mores are just fine.

Conservative tend to believe that people were, in the past, more self-reliant and responsible and that this is good. Liberals believe people in the past were more callous and predatory, which they see as bad.

I'm sorry Hayleyanne, but your characterization is partisan and incorrect; and I can only speculate as to why. Either you genuinely believe that you are able to speak from an objective position (which is evidently not true), or you are trying to cloak a "this is where liberals are silly" message in a seemingly open debate.



I think it is fair to say that you'll find examples of moral relativism in liberal circles more often than you will amongst conservatives, but it's not a mode favoured or adhered to by liberals. As for post-modernism, I think you've made a classic blunder here. Post-modernism is a branch of critical thinking which is contradictory to the value structures that you'll find in a strong conservative ideology, and given your obvious predisposition to understand everything in simple black-or-white terms, you've simply lumped it in with liberalism. The fact is that post-modernism doesn't really speak to either philosophy. The difference is that conservatism excludes post-modernist thought, whereas liberalism has little to say on the subject.

The above are fairly simple misunderstandings. Your following conclusions are alarming and insulting, although I will only deal with the most serious false accusations:



This has already been covered. Do you honestly think this? If so, seriously, sit down and actually talk to a liberal minded person instead of just waiting for a chance to complain about judicial activism. Cultures must be UNDERSTOOD, but in liberalism OR conservatism respect is something that primarily is earned. Perhaps we liberals are more comfortable with granting a certain measure of universal respect at the outset, but it is not blind fealty or ignorance of problems, as you are obviously suggesting. And yes, we do criticize. Since we don't engage in the sort of childish condascension that is exemplified by people like Lewis and Huntington, then you need to expand your readings if you think this is true.



In this sentence you have both marginalized just about every minority AND at the same time missed the point of CRITICAL HISTORICISM in its entirety. Revisionism isn't necessarily a bad thing. The fact is that history isn't always recorded with the fair eye and keen observations of an objective scholar. The very origin of "history" is the assembled anecdotes and second-hand tales describing ancient Greece. If we accepted them at face value, then our understanding of that period would be LAUGHABLY incorrect. However, the remedy for Plutarch's ambitious, if flawed study, was not to sit down and assemble a "true" history from start to finish; it was to analyze, interrogate, study and work on little bits and pieces; a king here, a war there, until the picture becomes clear.

The historians you are describing are not trying to rewrite history, they are trying to fill in the gaps or correct the areas where their specialty leads them. I can't see an outcry coming from your 'position' when a classical historian writes a groundbreaking study that suggests that the Spartan forces at Thermopylae numbered in the tens of thousands, as opposed to the smaller number that we generally accept. However, when a historian suggests that a certain figure was homosexual, or that such a policy was drafted because of racial prejudices, all of a sudden their work is invalid because they are not being objective, or they are "rewriting" history. Your true colours are showing on this one Hayleyanne.

OK, you guys-- I have to say something in my defense!

I purposely took those two sources from both a conservative (the first one) and a liberal (the second one) source!! Because I wanted to be fair. Geez. If you read the source and quoted material on the second one, you will see it is written by a liberal trying to understand the Conservative viewpoint. If you look closely at the first source, its perspective is the flip side. It is a christian ministry that has published a book on how to better understand the current postmodern thought in our culture. It is actually quite interesting.

And for the record, I don't think anyone can deny that postmodern thought is rooted in our culture today. I think it is beyond debate actually. Or are you all going to argue that it is not? If so, I would sure like to hear that argument.

And I sure don't understand why you make the assumption that I reject a postmodern view of the world! I think most of us accept it. It just is a matter of degree. What is interesting though is that postmodernism is at odds with most traditional religious beliefs that there is one and only one path to God.

I have tried to be very honest with this post and I am upset that you all jumped to the conclusion that I was posting loaded or bias thoughts. In fact, everything in the post was drawn directly from either one of those two sites!

I, for one, do not fault the intent... simply the result.

The first characteristic (and its subsections) is just plain wrong. Seeing as it is from a conservative source I'm sure you're not too surprised.

The second is very wishy-washy and has much smaller policy implications anyway.

The last statement about changing social mores is the only one close to the truth. Even then it's not complete.

Speaking as a liberal social mores are only one of many aspects of society that need reform.

Like I said before, it's not an attack... but look at it this way.

If you walked up to the average guy in the street and "informed" him he was a woman, he would likely think you were insulting him.

Not because there is something wrong with being a woman, but because he is not.

That is where the "outrage" is coming form here.

This is a good example of how two supposed polar opposite sources do not balanced positions make. Both sets of characterizations for conservative and liberal have inaccuracies. I'd have to say though that the liberal characterizations are inaccurate to the point of being inflammatory. I'm not really that interested in debunking each statement point by point. But, you really need a new list if this debate is to get off the ground.


Of course, post-modernity is part of the culture. However, the presumption is that this is a "liberal" thing.


I'm not sure what this has to do with liberal vs. conservative thought.


I don't think you've necessarily jumped to any conclusions. Yet, the characteristics of liberal/conservative positions which you chose to present do have bias. Not that bias is wrong but in this case the bias is unfair.

Here's what I'd suggest if you wish to draw from liberal/conservative sources. Use the liberal source to define the characteristics of liberal and use the conservative source to define the characteristics of conservative. Afterall, who better to define who they "are" but those who identify with it?

I think that there's an interesting conclusion that can be drawn from this. If we are willing to assume that your selection of sources was a fair-minded attempt to be even-handed -- and I am willing to make that assumption -- then the imbalance between the two points of view says something not about you, but about liberals and conservatives. The conservative view of liberalism is, as everybody agrees, inflammatory and grossly unfair. But all of us appear to have been fooled by the liberal view of conservatism: we assumed that it, too, came from a conservative source. We were wrong.

What this suggests to me is that the conservative view of liberalism is grossly distorted by prejudice while the liberal view of conservatism is not far from the truth. It suggests that the liberal claim to be "the reality-based community" may in fact have some substance.

Good point, however, it is slightly flawed. To call the current crop of Republicans in the Congress, or the White house conservatives is flawed. They may have been conservative thinkers once, but now that power has corrupted them, they are no longer conservative or liberal, they are simply power vampires, bent on obtaining and maintaining more and more of it.

Now, my statement was incorrect however. This comes from my own bias. When someone says conservative I tend to think fiscal conservative, not social conservative. In the case of the social conservatives out there, it seems clear at this point that they see government as a tool to force their moral beliefs on the rest of us. Not that liberals are guilt free in this regard.

You are right about the morphinic of labels though, as I said later in my post:



It seems that both sides of the aisle are willing to manipulate whatever part of the system they need to in order to forward their agenda, and more importantly to them, gain and maintain power over others.



The argument to this has been made here repeatedly. To be a postmodernist, one needs to feel that all points of view, cultures, etc are equally valid. I don't know one human being that truly feels this way. Funny thing is, most people that I have met who are self-proclaimed postmodern thinkers, are the first to display outrage at any opinion that differs with postmodern thought. So even those who claim to be postmodernists rarely, follow their own ideology when challenged.

Everyone has their own view on right and wrong, but few people see right and wrong a truly relative. The difference between liberals and conservatives is what they see as right or wrong, not that one sees it and one sees it as relative.

Postmodern thought is NOT rooted in our culture today. I would love to hear your arguments that differ on this.

Just because there are large segments on the population that differ with what you see as right or wrong, does not mean that they do not see other things as right and wrong. For example, you mention of family in the first post. You see the inclusion of homosexual couples into the ranks of the married with childrent to be morally wrong. Others see your postion on that to be morally wrong. Thier position is NOT rooted in postmodern thinking.

The current political climate has the religious right lining up with the Conservatives. The religious right is identified as fundamentalist christians. The web site is specifically designed for fundamentalist christian seeking to proselytize to people in today's society who adhere primarily to some form of postmodern thought. It got me thinking that maybe conservatives (beyond the fundamentalists) tend toward a more "modern" world view and reject more a postmodern world view.


Erassmussimo wrote:



Exactly, Erassmussimo-- that's why I presented this as I did. It's not about me believing one view or the other, but about understanding how each side sees the other. Granted the "conservative" site is more extreme as it is from a fundamentalist perspective, but it still gives insight into how the "right" sees the secular world-- read here liberal (in their view).

Logophage says we should ask each side for their view and then we can get a more accurate picture. This is true to a certain extent. But it is very interesting to see how the other side sees you. If I can see how the liberals view conservatives or you can see how the conservatives view liberals, we can both clear up the misunderstandings better. Maybe this thread can do that. For example, do liberals understand why conservatives are generally opposed to gay marriage? The original thread offers two possible answers (and there may be more): one is that some may oppose it based on moral grounds (a "modern" as opposed to postmodern view) or it may be in the tendency to preserve the status quo and proceed with caution. Another example: Do conservatives understand why liberals support affirmative action? I would say that liberals' support affirmative action is rooted in post modern view (see below). We could go on and on, but the point is that if we examine why one side takes a position on a particular issue in a more in depth way (relating to world view), it is more helpful at opening up a dialogue.

This is a myth. Conservatives seek just as much change as Liberals, and Liberals seek to protect the status quo just as much as conservatives. The difference lies in the specifics. Both seek to do this things to the benefit of their own ideologies.

True, both sides seek "change" through legislation and whatever else, so as to further their ideologies. But from the labels themselves we see that conservatives are more closely aligned with conserving the status quo, particularly with respect to social mores and the liberals more aligned with "progressive" change. I think this is more than a myth and is actually a fundamental difference between the two sides.






But postmodern thought is not just defined by such an extreme world view. Post modern thought is present in all aspects of our culture. I was a french literature major and when I studied in France in the 80s, a new literary theory was firmly becoming entrenched -- called structuralism. This type of theory is now firmly rooted in the study of literature. The language itself takes precedence over what the author may have intended. Jacques Derida is a perfect example of this type of postmodern literary theory. Instead of the author having power of the work so as to define what it is about, the reader takes precedence; the language itself, the structure and the narrative take precedence. Born out of this movement is all the specialized literary criticism like feminist theory etc, which produces an analysis of Beauty and the Beast that is far removed from what the simple story tells.

In the law, there was a movement that began at Harvard in the early 70s called legal realism. That theory has now become very rooted in accepted legal theory. It relates to how, for example, judges themselves cannot separate themselves from their own biases and societal views. A fundamental precept of postmodernism looks at the power structures in a society and argues that class in power seeks to maintain its power at all costs: hence we get a true blossoming of the view in law, that we must protect the minority group at all cost, because the class in power will never do so.




First off, my view that marriage should remain traditionally defined has nothing whatsoever to do with a moral judgment of homosexual conduct. My view stems from the cautionary conservative view that we should maintain the status quo.

Second, your point that some groups see certain conduct as wrong and other groups see other conduct as wrong-- is in itself a postmodern view. It basically admits that no one has the absolute answer as to what constitutes immoral conduct.

No that isn't a Postmodern view. It is simply the fact that different viewpoints exist in America as we are all free to determine what we believe, support and oppose. For it to be a Postmodern view, it would have to include that neither sides moral views were wrong. In the case of the exclusion of homosexuals and their children from the benefits and security of marriage, I see that position as morally wrong and not in anyway equally valid to the position of including them. As a result, my view is not Postmodern. And I think you will have a hard time finding examples of true Postmodern thinking in American politics because none of the parties see the other parties views as equally valid or even valid at all in many cases.

You are applying a very broad brush to a somewhat narrow concept. Postmodernism is about treating all view points as acceptable (as in not wrong). That is pretty much the extent. Someone who focuses on the rights of the individual over the rights of the society is more of a humanist then a Postmodernist. If they also see government involvement in this as a problem and prefer to leave the individual and business alone to protect themselves are more likely found among Libertarians. If they instead seek to use the government to balance the playing field between the disadvantaged and the advantanged through regulation of actions then they will more likely be found in the liberal camp. However, those who seeks to use the government to protect and promote commerce as the way to protect the individual they are more likely (economic) conservative thinkers. Those who feel we need to control what the individual can do in order to protect them can be found in both the liberal camp (helmet laws, college speech rules, etc) and the conservative camp (blue laws, gay marriage bans, etc).

The fact that these different view points exist does not suggest that Postmodernism pervades our society. For that to be true, those holding the different view points would have to see the other view points as equally valid. In America, this is far from the case. I think we could benefit for a little Postmodern thinking in politics, at least this approach might lead to a bit more civility in policy debates. It might even lead to whole new ideas where a blending of the best from the various camps leads to real solutions to the problems we face. Currently, if the right proposes it, the left immediately sees it as wrong, and vice versa.

The problem here seems to be that we hold different viewpoints on what Postmodernism is. According to an article I read recently in Free Inquiry magazine there has been an increase in Postmodernist thinking within the humanist camp. So much so, that many see Postmodernist and humanist as the same thing which they are not. As a result, more and more humanist are starting to describe themselves as progressive humanist in an attempt to separate themselves from the Postmodernist view (this is the main subject of the book "Postmodernism, Humanism, and the Left", By Barry F. Seidman). Most people I have met who are self described humanist as equally capable of moral indignation and condescension as any religious zealot. They are FAR from the Postmodern ideal, because they see their viewpoint as right and the opposite viewpoint as wrong, even morally wrong.

The issue we have these days is that the Religious Right has done an excellent job of gaining a more and more powerful voice in the Republican party. Now, the party that once represented fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and greater opportunities for the individual has abandoned all of those concepts in practice, and instead focused on trying to force Americans back to the 50s socially.

The fault for this belongs to the Democrats as well as the Republicans. Until the Democrats can begin to articulate a new message, one that includes new ideas and not just that tired old line "vote for me because the other guy is bad", the Republicans will remain in power. And with the new hold the RR has gained within the GOP this means that we will continue to try to socially devolve.

Postmodernism is a difficult concept to explain in layman's terms. It is usually written about by academics and discussed in the lingo of philosophy and it is difficult to peg down. "Narrative" is a key term in postmodern thinking. It has moral relativism associated with it for some. Others, as you say, distance themselves from this piece. Another aspect of postmodern thinking has to do with the power struggles of the ruling class and the minority. I think you are correct that we cannot define postmodernism as purely moral relativism. Although there is that aspect that really dates back to Nietsche and the concept that the society defines what is right or wrong. Perhaps liberals do indeed believe that one course of conduct is right or wrong. But what is the source for what is right or wrong then? Certainly, you will not find liberals advocating that the source is religion, or God? I think it is more from the society itself. Tell me if you think otherwise. Where is the source for what is moral or immoral conduct in secular humanism? From man? Man in society?

Why does what is right or wrong have to be dictated by religion? Is it right or wrong to rob, cheat, steal, or murder? I doubt you will find a secular humanist who believes any of these activates are right.

Where is the source? One primary sources would be one's upbringing, another would be their education (not necessarily a formal one) and another would be one's life experiences. It also comes down to simple Empathy in many cases. Treating your neighbor as you would wish to be treated my be represented in several religious faiths, but it is really just a simple variation on empathy that exists in the human condition for everyone (though some choose to ignore or repress it for their own ends).

It is difficult at best to find people that advocate criminal acts as morally correct. There are some the advocate such things as a way to change what they feel is wrong. There is a small minority of environmentalist who advocate arson and sabotage as a tactic to protect the environment. There are also a small minority of pro-life advocates that promote arson, and murder (though they see it as justifiable homicide based on self-defense ) as a tactic to protect the unborn. However, the vast majority in both camps see both of these minorities as acting in a morally wrong way. Regardless of the inclusion or exclusion of religion in their lives.

And in the quote above you seem to suggest an absence of religion or God in the lives of liberals. However, there are many political liberals who are also members of the faithful in one religion or another. Just looking at the average member of the Catholic or Jewish faiths that I have the pleasure of having (of have had) in my life is a good example of that. Being Liberal does not require an absence of religious faith.

One does NOT need to be religious to be moral. A good editorial on this can be found here.

One point I particularly like from the link above is:



You can choose to support yourself and you family without violating others. You can choose to donate your time to charity, or simply to helping those around you who need you assistance, and you can choose to advocate political actions that will better society as whole, all without the need for religion in your life. I know this because I live it.

Long-term self-interest. I do not kill because the act of killing denies the beauty of life; if I deny the beauty of life, I rob myself of the joy that comes from that beauty. I do not lie because every lie requires, to some small degree, the creation of a belief in the truth of the lie; every lie therefore creates a tiny dislocation of truth inside the mind that ultimately robs the mind of the ability to see truth. My morality springs not from some boorish fear of hellfire in a future life; it springs from my own desire to live well. This is very much a Graeco-Roman concept (and an Eastern one, too), not a Christian one. I sometimes wonder how any Christian, plagued with all those contradictory and ambiguous passages in the Bible, can ever chart a moral path through life.

I agree with most of the other posters here that, despite hayleyann's good intentions, the initial description of "liberals" was both inaccurate and insulting. On the other hand, I think that Doug Muder's essay is actually pretty good, and was too quickly dismissed by people on this thread.

* * *

I think that a lot of the base difference between liberals and conservatives is the idea of constraint versus individual responsibility - how much constraint do individuals in society face? And how much should individuals be held responsible for their own actions?

Conservatives tend to think that most constraints are relatively unimportant, and individuals must therefore be held responsible for what happens to them. Bad health striking you down? Well, that's terrible, but you should have bought more health insurance. Blacks got less money than whites? Well, that's terrible, but it's because a pathological welfare culture has produced individuals who don't have a good work ethic and take pride in not being educated - not because racism constrains them. Unwanted pregnancy? Well, too bad - but she chose to have sex, now she can face the consequences of that decision. Born poor? Well, if you work hard, you won't die poor.

Conservative philosophy in a nutshell: You can't help someone who isn't willing to help themselves. Government solutions and handouts therefore tend to be inefficient; they take money away from people who are taking individual responsibility for their own well-being (thus improving society), and by giving money to people only if they're down they create a perverse incentive for those people to not take individual responsibility for helping themselves.

Liberals, in contrast, tend to see the constraints holding people as too big to be overcome by individual action, and so seek collective solutions. It's better to pay universal health insurance than to have individuals struck down by bad health, poverty, or both. Insofar as individual pathology is hurting blacks, it's because of racism, and until racism is completely defeated and remedied we much collectively take action to mitigate racism's effects (thus, affirmative action). The biological constraint of pregnancy is unfair - why should only women be saddled with that responsibility? - and so we mitigate this unfairness with legal abortion (and preferably with legal, government-subsidized abortion, so that poor women aren't constrained from being able to make that choice). And so on.

Liberal philosophy in a nutshell: Sometimes people need help before they'll be able to help themselves. Collective action, through government, is often the only way we have of letting our collective better natures overcome our collective ills, such as racism, homophobia, poverty, etc..

Neither of there are absolutes - obviously, conservatives believe that sometimes constraints are more than individuals can overcome, and liberals believe that sometimes individuals need to be held responsible. Rather than thinking about it as either/or, it's helpful to think of it as a spectrum. The far right end of the spectrum believes that individuals are 100% responsible for where they end up in life. The far left end of the spectrum believes that individuals are 0% responsible for where they end up in life. Neither conservatives nor liberals are at these extremes of the spectrum; but liberals are closer to the left on this spectrum, and conservatives are closer to the right.

Let me seperate conservatives first:

Social conservatives: Religious, favor restrictions on civil liberties; pretend to hate the sin and love the sinner, while denying basic rights to gay Americans. Liberals try to taint all social conservatives with the religious right label ignoring that there are many social conservatives who are liberal on economic issues. John Paul II was a prime example of a social conservative with a liberal economic agenda.

Fiscal conservatives: Fiscal conservatism died with Barry Goldwater; May he rest in peace. Basically the post-depression fiscal conservative stood for a balanced budget over the economic cycle, most did recognize some legitimacy for small deficits during a recession.

Economic conservatives: Believe individual responsibilityand strong families are the key to prosperity. See welfare programs as undermining both individual responsibility and family.

Social liberals: pro gay rights, expansion of the 1st to include protection of porn, but not political speech during an election, protection of the weak against the strong, unless the weak happens to be a fetus or someone with severe brain damage.

Fiscal liberals, everyone in Washington is a fiscal liberal nowadays. John Kenneth Galbraith once said "It is more conservative to tax and spend than to borrow and spend." There is a counter argument that deficits slow the growth of government spending and, therefore, every tax cut is a good one. Personally I want to see government spending cut along with government revenues cut.

Economic liberals: If you're poor society is to blame. Basic minimum needs, such as viagra, should be provided by government.

Good job defining different types of conservatives, but bad job for different types of liberals, Hugo. Is it possible for anyone who self-identifies as one type or the other to propose definitions that don't contain inflammatory rhetoric? Maybe, that's what the debate should be about . On that note, here's a couple of somewhat tongue-in-cheek dialectical definitions:

Proposal 1:

Conservatives think liberals are to blame for society's ills.
Liberals think conservatives are to blame for society's ills.

Proposal 2:

Conservatives blame the powerless for the actions of the powerful.
Liberals blame the powerful for the actions of the powerless.

Do you think the descriptions I wrote were inflammatory?

C'mon, Hayleyanne. Do you really think that Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter do anything to "clear up the misunderstandings any better"? They are all so quick to point out how they "see" liberals. And that view is generally in the same vein as the articles you presented - Conservative = good, Liberal = bad. The same is done on the other side with the likes of Air America, and a number of reactionaries on the left.

But tell me, has the political discourse gotten any better, or has it gotten worse since since these people "explaining" how they see the other side have come on the scene? I'd certainly argue the latter.


And while not a "post-modernist", if we look at politics over the course of history, we find that's pretty much the case. No one in power is going to willingly give it up. Elections are heavily weighted in favor of the incumbent. And those in power are more and more beholden to those who can finance their campaigns, to the detriment of the country as a whole.


Then you would think wrong. Again, why do you insist in your belief that liberals are not in any way religious? Do you honestly think that everyone sitting with you in church on Sunday is a conservative? Look again.

Second, as I pointed out in my first post, liberals may also see their work in society from a different religious view than do conservatives. It appears to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that most of the self-described conservative "religious leaders" we see today are rooted more in the Old Testament - it's more about what not to do, and in fighting to label this action or belief as "against God", and "against traditional values". Judge those who do not fall in line with these beliefs as bad, and undeserving of compassion.

Liberals, on the other hand, as I noted, tend to take the views of the New Testament to heart - Treat others as you want to be treated, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and be judged by how you treat the least well off and the most reviled among us. Hate the sin, yes, but have compassion and understanding for the sinner.

You haven't disclosed whether you are liberal or conservative so how could we know your not perfectly in the middle??

I thought your assessment is right on. The problem with many conservatism to me is they place too much focus on individualism. Which is totally contradictory to the shear fact that we are social creatures. What one person does in many cases does affect others

Another view of conservatism or the "darkside", as I sometimes call it, is it seems to constantly appeals to our fears and our greed, rather than our humanity. Humanity is what separates humans from animals. To me, humanity is the process in which we humans overcome our animalistic behavior through greater logical reasoning. Liberalism, through its ideals, envision a better world for all. Conservatism in many cases shun this. They can only see how to make a world better for themselves or keep the world in a way that they are comfortable with. As hayleyanne said earlier "support the status quo."

Also it has always seemed to me that the conservatism relies on skewed version of so called morality or maybe it is just purposeful self-delusion.

Let's take abortion. Almost half of American people believe it is wrong, in fact I am willing to say a great majority of people believe abortion is wrong. But the way conservatism will differ from liberalism is the conservatives who believe it is wrong want to ensure that no one can have an abortion.

Let for a second assume that the conservative pro-lifers get their way, then what?? If the are fiscally conservative will they support welfare if the woman needs such assistance to raise the child?? Will they be willing to invest for 18 years to ensure that this kid if orphaned or impoverished obtains every tool that a wealthy or even middle class child has?? I find myself in awe of the blatant hypocrisy and overall cruelty of conservatism, not in all cases but in most cases. Yet, when debating I am even more astonished that the conservative does not recognize it as well.
Let's talk about "Gay Marriage" Truthfully I am not "pro-Gay Marriage." I'm just not against it. Again I am astounded by the overall disregard for another human being the the conservative side present all the while maintain a supposed higher moral status. Again is it self delusion or just skewed morality.

This is what I read earlier from hayleyanne



I do not mean to be inflammatory here, but honest. My first thought after reading things like this is "Is she being honest" Just because she never has presented a moral argument does not mean that the true core of the reason she is against gay marriage is not due to her moral views. But maybe this truly is how she feels. Maybe she is against homosexual marriage due to the fact she merely wants to protect some "status quo".

But then I feel even more lost. Why would a human treat another human with such disregard just to say things are still like they used to be. How would we have ever expanded out of times of slavery and women being sold to one another with attitudes like that. It is astounding. Conservatism at least in this regards would rather treat another human like a social outcast, allow them to remain stripped of dignity for the sole reason that the way it use to be is still the way it is. But that's not all... It is perfectly right and moral to do so.

I think that most conservatives would agree with that, to some degree. Really, the differences are all matters of emphasis. I mean, you tend to see humans as social creatures, but you'd still agree that we have individual rights, right?



Here I disagree with you; I think most conservatives, like most liberals, envision a better world for all. It's just that the means of approaching this better world are disagreed on. And also what the better world would look like.

Really, if you don't think your opposition wants what's best for all of us, I'm not sure what the point of debating is. We should be able to give each other that much benefit of the doubt, don't you think?

Despite what Haleyanne said earlier, it's clear that Conservatives don't blindly support status quo. There are plenty of changes conservatives want made.

I agree that "support the status quo" is not a coherent or logical defense of opposition to same-sex marriage.

I agree that conservatism no longer includes an element of resistance to change. This is for the best; technology and economics are now changing so fast that any ideology fundamentally opposed to change is obsolete.

An interesting dichotomy just occurred to me. Somebody earlier posted a link to a discussion of the Baptist congregation that is very conservative. The key observation of the writer was that the individual in this group defined himself in terms of his relationship and obligations to the group, whereas the liberal community defines itself much more as individuals. While conservatives frequently talk about the importance of the individual, this suggests to me that liberals may hold the individual in higher esteem than conservatives. Consider, for example, the current brouhaha over gay marriage. Most liberals, as an earlier contributor noted, don't exactly favor gay marriage, but they do favor the right of gays to marry. Their attitude seems to be tolerant for individuals of all stripes. Conservatives, by contrast, are adamantly opposed to that right. This seems to me to be putting group standards above the interests of individuals. In this sense, I think conservatives have more in common with Asian and Islamic culture than liberals do.

I'm not sure that I'm willing to drape the robes of individualism around the shoulders of liberalism, but it sure looks that way from this line of thought. Would somebody care to shoot at this line of thought?

Western religion is a "source" that is outside the individual. I wasn't saying that only religion can dictate right and wrong. I was asking about the source for what is right and wrong.



So these are your examples of the "source" for secular humanists notions of what is right and wrong: empathy, I can see that -- it comes from within the individual. Upbringing and education would still have a source, and I guess that would be the societal mores.




I think many religions have been influenced by secular humanism. Some religions have rejected notions of black and white morality. Also, eastern religions, as I understand them, see "God" as part of the individual, and not a separate all powerful God that western religions understand. I would still hold to my belief that american conservatives are more drawn to traditional western religions and their notions of black and white morality. I mean how else can you explain the identification of the fundamentalist christians with the ultra conservative wing of the republican party? How many fundamentalist christians do you know that are left wing democrat? How many american buddhists do you know that are conservative republicans?



Of course not. That should go without saying.




Erasmussimo wrote:



Agreed. The self - interest piece sounds kind of Ayn Rand'ish too.




I think this is true. Conservatives view of human nature is much different, I think that Liberals view. Conservatives, I think, see people as ultimately acting to further their own interests. Personally, if I am honest with myself-- that is how I believe that I act in almost every instance. Except maybe when it concerns my daughter. Perhaps liberals do not.






I don't want to preserve the status quo simply for the sake of preserving the status quo. What I mean is that conservatives, like myself, will err on the side of caution when any fundamental change to society is proposed. Such a fundamental change as gay marriage counsels caution. And certainly should not be mandated by a court.

[sorry to join this late. please allow me to take a crack at the initial questions.]

(1) Do you agree with the above characterization of differences between Conservative and Liberal thought?

no I don't. I think it's an oversimplification. I honestly don't know anyone at all that happens to believe all of the things that liberals or conservatives are supposed to believe. therefore, there truly are "shades". it seems to me that the more rational people are, or the more thoughtful people tend to be, the more differences they have with the set ideologies. they think for themselves. and their minds can change depending on circumstances.

(2) Would you add any other fundamental differences to the list?

I thought that Lakoff's ideas about strict and nurturing parental models dictating worldview were very compelling. I'm surprised you didn't mention them.

(3) Is it possible to get the two sides to better understand the other? If so, how? If not, why not?

sure, empathy is sometimes difficult, but by no means impossible. get informed. tune out disingenuous messages. recognize when the other side is being villified with an irrational argument. unfortunately in our media, nothing of substance is said about the "sides." the sides are merely quoted, while talking about one another. the mainstream news media seems to feel that it isn't its job to determine whether or not what someone has said is true or false is not. if it did, better understanding might be much easier.

I don't see humans as social creatures, we are social creatures. We live in societies. I believe we have as many individual right's that our society affords us.



I can see what you are saying to a degree, but as I read many conservative post and listen to them talk I find it hard to believe they envision a world that is better for all, because then they can't have a better world for just themselves. At the same time as I tried to explain in my first post conservatism seems to make itself believe it is trying to make a better world for all.

Let's go back to Gay Marriage.

I think I have said before, I do not have gay friends. I do not in any way relate to their lifestyles, I do not understand what has caused them to have an attraction for the same sex.

Yet it is apparent to me that they are indeed gay. I have seen enough in my lifetime to reasonable assume that they are actually attracted to the same sex. Now at this point with my liberal mind I reasoned, "hey I never chose to be attracted to women", so it seems likely that these gay men had no choice in being attracted to other men. Oh yeah, I also decided to ask some gay people over the internet... "do you choose to be gay??"

I think I may be getting too far away from the point....

Does those with conservative viewpoints on the subject of homosexualitly still believe that homosexuality is still just a choice. Again, if so, is this some sort of self inflicted disillussion. And if they are capable to see that our sexuality is not something we choose, why do they still stand against homosexual marriage??

If it is true, as you state it, that people with a conservative thinking on this matter want to envision a better world for all just like a liberal, why would the conservative side choose exclusion and disregard for this group of humans. Do they believe it is for a greater good. Ican understand that if someone wishes to explain how it is for a greater good(it has to be a plausible reason with some sort of tangible benefits for the rest of society) But I don't think this will be the case.




If the conservative is included in the "us" then the conservative wants what's best for us. The problem is the conservative never wants what's best for "them" But I am willing to hear how a conservative looking who opposes gay marriage is looking out for us all. Or some other topic will do.

You may be on to something here. While I'm not particularly enthusiastic about gay marriage, neither do I see the slightest reason to forbid it. What is it about the conservative mindset that is threatened by gay marriage? Conservatives talk about "defending marriage" or "defending the family", as if married gays will immediately after their weddings break into heterosexual homes and force daddies and mommies to get divorces and abandon their children. The absurdity of the notion that gay marriage constitutes some sort of threat to traditional marriage reveals something important about the conservative mind. I'll go out on a limb here and speculatively trace it back to early hominid group identifications, which led to murderous xenophobia (only for males -- females were always good to bring into the tribe). In conservative opposition to gay marriage are we seeing the same mental phenomenon that leads a group of baboons to attack a stray baboon male?

The nature vs. nurture debate is really only relevant if you are opposed to gay marriage on moral grounds. It does not play into the calculation if you are opposed to gay marriage because you want to support traditional marriage. If this were a superficial trait -- like race-- your point would be accurate. But it is not. Sex as a characteristic makes a difference. It opens up a pandoras box for those who fear fundamental changes to society. We are talking about redefining the historical definition of marriage itself. Marriage has always been linked to family in some way and by legalizing gay marriage we raise all kinds of other new issues-- about family: How does a same sex household affect the children? does society want to embrace artificial insemination? what about surrogate parenting?

Nifty drifty wrote:

.

Yes, you are right nifty. I was going to go back and edit that in. Both liberals and conservatives follow a "family" model in how they view government. Liberals see government as nurturing (you can see this in droops posts) and conservatives see it as a strict paternal model. I have heard this theory before. And it makes sense in my opinion. I also think it relates to the point that erassmussimo and droop bring up: that conservatives and liberals see human nature differently.

The differences in how the two camps see human nature I think is paramount. Conservatives, really do see the individual as acting primarily in his own best interest. And then seeks to have government follow that naturally. They also see the world as an even playing field. Which means for example, allowing the free market full reign to reward hard work. If one is not rewarded for hard work -- and everyone shares equally as in a socialist or communist model, human nature is thwarted.

Of course, Liberals deny that there is a level playing field to begin with. Even those with the best intentions and willing to work hard, may not get ahead. They seek to level that playing field: affirmative action for example is one means.

1. Yes, it is a good starting point to the debate.

2. Yes, I would offer that liberals tend to be guided by emotion while conservatives are generally more motivated by values/reason. In that case, a general philosophy of "moral relativism" is the most convenient belief system for a liberal person to have. There is not "right" or "wrong", only what "feels best" emotionally to that person.

3. Yes. (edited by LH to remove gratuitous cheap shot)