Is there a fundamental difference of perspective between liberals and conservatives?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I was listening, just a few minutes ago, to two voters in Pennsylvania, one voting Democrat and the other voting Republican. On the question of abortion, the Democrat spoke of the Democratic party's support for the right to autonomy over a woman's decision about herself, her body and her healthcare, and the Republican spoke of her party's "support for families and babies."

I rather suspect that if we really did the "word association" game using many supporters/deniers of abortion rights, LGBTQ issues and same-sex marriage, contraception, even miscegenation, we would find this basic dichotomy -- that the two sides are not talking about the same things -- that they are approaching the questions themselves from two perspectives at 90-degree angles from one another.

It seems to me that liberals, by and large, pay much more attention to individuals, and seem much more concerned about communities. In the liberal view, individual choices can be tolerated in the community, even if that leads to more diversity (and therefore complexity). It even allows for individuality in moral choices (like who you sleep with). Conservatives, on the other hand, seem much more concerned with the homogeniety of the community, held together by sets of rules describing moral and ethical behaviour -- such that outliers to the "common moral/ethical norms" are seen as threats.

I'm just speculating here, for the purpose of starting a debate. I'm just curious about members' thoughts.

 

[Orbit]

I recall seeing some research suggesting that conservatives are motivated by fear, and seek tradition, security and sameness. Liberals were said to score much higher on "openness to new experience" on a psychological test. It was academic research, can't remember where I saw it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

In interactions with my family (mostly Conservative) yes, there is a fundamental difference.

Individuals who are more Liberal are concerned with society as a whole, and policies which encourage the most optimal and equitable state of living for all.

Conservatives, anymore, are concerned with... not that. No individual pronouns, no individual gender affirmation, no livable wage, no equal right to marriage... Conservatives stand for nothing but staunchly and consistently oppose anything that Liberals attempt to put forward. Of course, this behavior is opposed by Liberals yet not simply because it is Conservative, but because the opposition of such policies is detrimental to society as a whole. And, sad as it is, regulations and policies must be put into place to protect marginalized groups because people are terrible, and unless there is a law saying that something is illegal, it will be exploited.

 

[Quintessence]

I'd be more interested in deferring to academic research on the subject. I've looked into it somewhat in the past, but the red party has transformed so significantly over the past few years I'm not convinced those analytics would still be as applicable now as they were then. It's becoming less a comparison of liberalism and conservatism than one of liberalism and fascism. And it is unfair to conflate conservatism with the rising fascist elements within their party, just like it's unfair to conflate liberalism with the socialist elements within the blue party.

If I find the time I might dig up a study or few.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And it is unfair to conflate conservatism with the rising fascist elements within their party

Agree with most, but I'm honestly not sure about this. Even my own parents, who I would have never thought would stoop so low, are falling to clearly fascist mindsets. It's unfair, perhaps, to conflate Republicans with fascists, but even that might be pushing it, I feel.

For clarity and visibility, these are the 14 Marks of Fascism as observed by cultural theorist Umberto Eco:

1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
7. The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

We see a lot of these from Conservatives.

 

[John D. Brey]

I was listening, just a few minutes ago, to two voters in Pennsylvania, one voting Democrat and the other voting Republican. On the question of abortion, the Democrat spoke of the Democratic party's support for the right to autonomy over a woman's decision about herself, her body and her healthcare, and the Republican spoke of her party's "support for families and babies."

I rather suspect that if we really did the "word association" game using many supporters/deniers of abortion rights, LGBTQ issues and same-sex marriage, contraception, even miscegenation, we would find this basic dichotomy -- that the two sides are not talking about the same things -- that they are approaching the questions themselves from two perspectives at 90-degree angles from one another.

It seems to me that liberals, by and large, pay much more attention to individuals, and seem much more concerned about communities. In the liberal view, individual choices can be tolerated in the community, even if that leads to more diversity (and therefore complexity). It even allows for individuality in moral choices (like who you sleep with). Conservatives, on the other hand, seem much more concerned with the homogeniety of the community, held together by sets of rules describing moral and ethical behaviour -- such that outliers to the "common moral/ethical norms" are seen as threats.

I'm just speculating here, for the purpose of starting a debate. I'm just curious about members' thoughts.

Sigmund Freud's, Civilization and Its Discontents, deals with this in depth. He pits the "pleasure principle" against the rules, laws, morals, etc., required to establish culture, civilization, and nations.

In a sense he implies that in what you note as the liberal's broader acceptance of practices often seen as threats by conservatives, there lies a binary opposition, a sort of battle, between those discontented with societal, or national/cultural norms (i.e., those seeking greater freedom of action) versus those (conservatives) who see the societal discontents, gays, liberals, etc., as threats to what they see as the carefully crafted and delicate balance required to establish a sound culture and a civilized nation.

The importance put on freedom of abortion is the perfect poster-child for the battle between civilization and its discontents in the sense that the liberal, by privileging a woman's choice to abort a pregnancy achieved through sexual intercourse, in one sense makes the "pleasure principle" (the sexual orgasm) more important than taking responsibility for the results of seeking pleasure (in this case sex).

The pro-choice crowd, mostly liberals, is protecting a woman's right to have an orgasm over the responsibility of accepting nature's primary purpose for designing the orgasm in the first place. In other words, the natural, primary, evolutionary purpose of sex, and thus a sexual orgasm, is to produce offspring. By privileging the orgasm over the natural purpose of the orgasm, the reproduction of offspring, the liberal appears to imply that the pleasure of an orgasm should in all cases be freed from the responsibility of raising the offspring that evolution, nature, designed the orgasm to encourage in the first place.

Homosexual sex turns out to abide by the same pleasure principle. If two males love each other, and get pleasure in sexual bonding, then nature, evolution, be damned. The fact that the homosexual orgasm doesn't produce offspring implies that sex and orgasms can and should be completely detached from what nature has designed it for in the first place. I've quoted Microsoft Encarta saying that the HIV virus takes over the sexual mechanisms of the normal cell and uses them not to reproduce the natural born cell, but to produce more HIV virus.

Wherever we look, the liberal seems to be saying, nature, evolution, civilization, be damned if they think they can trick me into having offspring by means of the sex and orgasm that I can use as I like. And you conservatives are in for a fight if you imply that there's a purpose in life so great that it puts the pleasure principle (sex and sexual orgasm) beneath the requirements of a healthy and stable society: I don't need no stinking society or stability if I have a stable sexual relationship freed from nature's silly trickery and conservative's outdated cultural norms.



John

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It seems to me that liberals, by and large, pay much more attention to individuals, and seem much more concerned about communities. In the liberal view, individual choices can be tolerated in the community, even if that leads to more diversity (and therefore complexity). It even allows for individuality in moral choices (like who you sleep with). Conservatives, on the other hand, seem much more concerned with the homogeniety of the community, held together by sets of rules describing moral and ethical behaviour -- such that outliers to the "common moral/ethical norms" are seen as threats.

I think the fundamental difference is in their psychologies. When one is feeling unsafe, he needs more guns, more walls, more police, more missiles, more restrictions on voting, fewer people that don't look like him, more authoritarianism and order, etc.. When he feels safer, he can express his empathy, he embraces diversity, he wants to empower others, to tolerate them, to give them more choices. The conservative might feel that way about his family or tribe while excluding and fearing the other. He's liberal with his own only. And he likes hierarchies, whereas the liberal is more into networking among equals. But when the liberal feels unsafe, he withdraws into a more conservative psychological state.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think the fundamental difference is in their psychologies. When one is feeling unsafe, he needs more guns, more walls, more police, more missiles, more restrictions on voting, fewer people that don't look like him, more authoritarianism and order, etc.. When he feels safer, he can express his empathy, he embraces diversity, he wants to empower others, to tolerate them, to give them more choices. The conservative might feel that way about his family or tribe while excluding and fearing the other. He's liberal with his own only. And he likes hierarchies, whereas the liberal is more into networking among equals. But when the liberal feels unsafe, he withdraws into a more conservative psychological state.

Interesting, and I think much to agree with.

But look at how you phrase this -- and then look to the immediately preceding post by @John D. Brey, who took an entirely different (as I said, 90 degrees) tack. As you'll see in my upcoming response to him, I see him (mis)using "nature" to argue for why everybody should be the same. Yet, I can point to another eusocial species (ants) and make the case that since only one female and one male mate, and create a whole community of non-mating others, or that many species mate and have orgasms (he focuses on that a lot) only for the single purpose of pro-creation while others (bonobos, for one) have lots and lots of lovely sex, of all sorts, for purposes having nothing whatever to do with procreation -- but perhaps more for preservation of the community that will ensure the progency created by the very few orgasms that created them, will survive.

It's complicated -- and again, I think a liberal can deal with that complexity, and I think it confounds the conservative who wants to feel the safety of homogeneity in their surroundings.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

even miscegenation

Who the hell is bringing this up except (white) "progressives" to take thinly veiled racist cheap shots at Clarence Thomas? Who even uses that word anymore, honestly? I haven't heard any Republican mention this at all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was listening, just a few minutes ago, to two voters in Pennsylvania, one voting Democrat and the other voting Republican. On the question of abortion, the Democrat spoke of the Democratic party's support for the right to autonomy over a woman's decision about herself, her body and her healthcare, and the Republican spoke of her party's "support for families and babies."

I rather suspect that if we really did the "word association" game using many supporters/deniers of abortion rights, LGBTQ issues and same-sex marriage, contraception, even miscegenation, we would find this basic dichotomy -- that the two sides are not talking about the same things -- that they are approaching the questions themselves from two perspectives at 90-degree angles from one another.

It seems to me that liberals, by and large, pay much more attention to individuals, and seem much more concerned about communities. In the liberal view, individual choices can be tolerated in the community, even if that leads to more diversity (and therefore complexity). It even allows for individuality in moral choices (like who you sleep with). Conservatives, on the other hand, seem much more concerned with the homogeniety of the community, held together by sets of rules describing moral and ethical behaviour -- such that outliers to the "common moral/ethical norms" are seen as threats.

I'm just speculating here, for the purpose of starting a debate. I'm just curious about members' thoughts.

I think you're potentially overstating things. Looking from a distance, both the left and the right seek to deconstruct opposing views, and generally demonise them as being bad for society.

Whilst I have more empathy generally for an argument on abortion couched in consideration of the rights of the individual, that isn't so much the case when looking at the right to bear arms, or the right to remain unvaccinated without consequence.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting any of these positions is 'right' or 'wrong' per se (at least in this thread). I'm merely suggesting that it's not as clear cut as individual vs societal rights imho.

I tend to think that there is a strong element of theological influence at play, as that helps me make sense of conceptually 'small government' conservatives who are somewhat okay with the government co-opting citizens to watch their neighbours and report on abortion.

I also see echo chambers, and the ability to politically choose a narrative and then self select 'facts' as a MAJOR issue, and that doesn't appear restricted to either the left or the right. Whilst not directly related to the OP, I think it leaves us seeing our 'opponents' in more simplistic and un-nuanced terms.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think the fundamental difference is in their psychologies. When one is feeling unsafe, he needs more guns, more walls, more police, more missiles, more restrictions on voting, fewer people that don't look like him, more authoritarianism and order, etc.. When he feels safer, he can express his empathy, he embraces diversity, he wants to empower others, to tolerate them, to give them more choices. The conservative might feel that way about his family or tribe while excluding and fearing the other. He's liberal with his own only. And he likes hierarchies, whereas the liberal is more into networking among equals. But when the liberal feels unsafe, he withdraws into a more conservative psychological state.

I'd disagree. The controlled discourse at liberal universities doesn't seem to support this view, frankly.
Liberalism has changed.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that liberals, by and large, pay much more attention to individuals, and seem much more concerned about communities. In the liberal view, individual choices can be tolerated in the community, even if that leads to more diversity (and therefore complexity). It even allows for individuality in moral choices (like who you sleep with). Conservatives, on the other hand, seem much more concerned with the homogeniety of the community, held together by sets of rules describing moral and ethical behaviour -- such that outliers to the "common moral/ethical norms" are seen as threats.

I don't see that picture. Individual vs group.....which is which?
It depends on which issue. Same for the other aspects.
The big difference I see is old school Christianity vs
new age Christianity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Who the hell is bringing this up except (white) "progressives" to take thinly veiled racist cheap shots at Clarence Thomas? Who even uses that word anymore, honestly? I haven't heard any Republican mention this at all.

No, but that's just because Clarence Thomas -- who did bring up the other topics I mentioned (and you ignored) -- is in just such a situation. And it wasn't a "veiled racist shot," it was an overt hypocrite shot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who the hell is bringing this up except (white) "progressives" to take thinly veiled racist cheap shots at Clarence Thomas? Who even uses that word anymore, honestly? I haven't heard any Republican mention this at all.

No one uses "miscegenation" anymore because it long
ago stopped being a crime. However, it is one of those
non-enumerated constitutional rights, eg, gay marriage,
contraception, abortion. Clarence Thomas has a
hypocrisy problem, ie, attacking the mentioned rights,
except for inter-racial marriage...cuz Ginny has jungle
fever. So miscegenation is back under discussion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, but that's just because Clarence Thomas -- who did bring up the other topics I mentioned (and you ignored) -- is in just such a situation. And it wasn't a "veiled racist shot," it was an overt hypocrite shot.

No, it was pretty racist. I saw it right away. I thought it was disgusting, honestly. It was only coming from white people, too, from what I saw.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No one uses "miscegenation" anymore because it long
ago stopped being a crime. However, it is one of those
non-enumerated constitutional rights, eg, gay marriage,
contraception, abortion. Clarence Thomas has a
hypocrisy problem, ie, attacking the mentioned rights,
except for inter-racial marriage...cuz Ginny has jungle
fever. So miscegenation is back under discussion.

Wow.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I was listening, just a few minutes ago, to two voters in Pennsylvania, one voting Democrat and the other voting Republican. On the question of abortion, the Democrat spoke of the Democratic party's support for the right to autonomy over a woman's decision about herself, her body and her healthcare, and the Republican spoke of her party's "support for families and babies."

I rather suspect that if we really did the "word association" game using many supporters/deniers of abortion rights, LGBTQ issues and same-sex marriage, contraception, even miscegenation, we would find this basic dichotomy -- that the two sides are not talking about the same things -- that they are approaching the questions themselves from two perspectives at 90-degree angles from one another.

It seems to me that liberals, by and large, pay much more attention to individuals, and seem much more concerned about communities. In the liberal view, individual choices can be tolerated in the community, even if that leads to more diversity (and therefore complexity). It even allows for individuality in moral choices (like who you sleep with). Conservatives, on the other hand, seem much more concerned with the homogeniety of the community, held together by sets of rules describing moral and ethical behaviour -- such that outliers to the "common moral/ethical norms" are seen as threats.

I'm just speculating here, for the purpose of starting a debate. I'm just curious about members' thoughts.

Really?

Like this type of concern for individuals?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, there are a host of studies that show that conservatives and liberals think differently, hold different approaches to moral values, and have very different concerns. Conservtives do seem to be more concerned with safety and normalcy while liberals with freedom and individual choice.

"Liberalism and conservatism are associated with qualitatively different psychological concerns, notably those linked to morality, shows a new study that explores how political ideology and moral values are connected to motivated social cognition."

Conservatives and liberals motivated by different psychological factors, new study shows


"Their findings, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that liberals and conservatives respond differently to the same videos, especially when the content being viewed contains vocabulary that frequently pops up in political campaign messaging."

Hot-button words trigger conservatives and liberals differently: Brain scans reveal the vocabulary that drives neural polarization

Conservatives and liberals do think differently:

Conservatives and liberals do think differently: Research shows different ways of solving everyday problems linked to political ideology

Lots of other links:
ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow.

Do you see no hypocrisy in Thomas's questioning
non-enumerated rights that don't apply to him,
but allowing the right that would affect him?

About "miscegenation"....it should not be revived
in discussion. But Thomas's recent opinions
make it highly relevant. After all, "buggery" &
"sodomy" might again become popular, & perhaps
even in legislation thanx to him.

 

[sun rise]

Comparing true conservatives, not the MAGA cult crowd against liberals, I see the right wanting big government to tell individuals what to do instead of allowing them to work out their own morals. The left wants to tell big business and mega rich what to do (pay more taxes etc) rather than allowing the rich to have more power than the middle. So both want big government operating in different spheres.

When I was in the middle before the right moved the Overton window so far that I became a total lefty, I used to use an image of a healthy body. If something was unchanging it was dead. If change was not checked, you had cancer. The trick was to have a balance of forces leading to a healthy body politic. The me that said that is long gone because the forces that tell big lies to turn people crazy so they can get money and power have taken over and the problem has mutated.