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

mikkel_the_dane said:

But there is a limit to evidence for both versions of right and wrong in some cases. In those case there are no evidence for either one. That is the limit.

Click to expand...

mikkel_the_dane said:

Yet, I still act differently than you.

Click to expand...

mikkel_the_dane said:

I would like evidence for that.

Click to expand...

OK.

Revoltingest said:

This seems to be aimless meandering.

Click to expand...

I would like evidence for that.

Orbit said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is partially true but not the whole story. Conservatives are based on the root word conservation. Conservatives try to conserve and apply the best of the past, based on objective performance criteria; what has worked most efficiently. For example, the basic family unit; mother, father, children, grandparents, is still the most efficient social unit. There is no social structure that receives less social service and incurs less social costs. This is called objective performance data which is then what Conservatives will choose.

Liberals are more about change, often just for the sake of change, without regard to future social consequences and costs. They come up with idea that may sound good, but typically with little data to support their novel and faddish choice. The huge increase in social costs over the past 50 years, is mostly connected to the mops needed to clean up after bad Liberal ideas. Conservatives are getting tired of paying for Liberal bad calls, which is why they are now getting more vocal.

For example, transgender has traditionally been considered a type of pathology by psychologists. Liberals don't seem to understand what pathology means and why you should not encourage it. They think they can simply rename it; new packaging like soup, and force feed it with peer pressure, and like magic, it is now normal. They even try to encourage; brain wash, small children to accept the new and improved, as though this new idea is now so clean it will not cause social problems and increase social costs. Who supposed to pay for all the medical costs to become artificial? Conservatives though decades of data, objectively know how massive social pathology will end, so they now try to nip in it is the bud, before they have to pay for another bad idea they did not choose.

A better way to do this would be for Liberals and Conservative to have their own taxes and tax revenues that are ear marked for just themselves. We can have one country, but if you choose Liberal on your tax form your tax money is pooled with only Liberals.The same can be done by Conservatives. Whatever ideas Liberals or Conservative wish to support, will be funded by just their now tax base. Currently, a general federal tax fund causes a massive rip off of the Conservatives, who would prefer use conservative principles of performance and lower their taxes as a reward for objective efficiency.

A good example how this may work, is the lawlessness in Democrats run cities, is due Liberal ideology changing the way Liberals rank and file think we should deal with criminals; coddle them. This Liberal idea is madness, but luckily it is mostly impacting Liberal cities and they have to deal with the consequences. But eventually the Federal government will need to step in to clean up another bad Liberal Idea, and once again the Conservatives will be forced to help pay to clean up another Liberal mess.

This may be a good time to separate the taxes, and let it the new and improved Liberal social justice theory run its course in Liberal cities, so they can gain performance data and learn the fact that change for the sake of change does not always work out. Sometimes what was working from the past is still the most efficient way. Many things are worth conserving; safe streets and victims before criminal predators.

wellwisher said:

This is partially true but not the whole story. Conservatives are based on the root word conservation. Conservatives try to conserve and apply the best of the past, based on objective performance criteria; what has worked most efficiently. For example, the basic family unit; mother, father, children, grandparents, is still the most efficient social unit. There is no social structure that receives less social service and incurs less social costs. This is called objective performance data which is then what Conservatives will choose.

Liberals are more about change, often just for the sake of change, without regard to future social consequences and costs. They come up with idea that may sound good, but typically with little data to support their novel and faddish choice. The huge increase in social costs over the past 50 years, is mostly connected to the mops needed to clean up after bad Liberal ideas. Conservatives are getting tired of paying for Liberal bad calls, which is why they are now getting more vocal.

For example, transgender has traditionally been considered a type of pathology by psychologists. Liberals don't seem to understand what pathology means and why you should not encourage it. They think they can simply rename it; new packaging like soup, and force feed it with peer pressure, and like magic, it is now normal. They even try to encourage; brain wash, small children to accept the new and improved, as though this new idea is now so clean it will not cause social problems and increase social costs. Who supposed to pay for all the medical costs to become artificial? Conservatives though decades of data, objectively know how massive social pathology will end, so they now try to nip in it is the bud, before they have to pay for another bad idea they did not choose.

A better way to do this would be for Liberals and Conservative to have their own taxes and tax revenues that are ear marked for just themselves. We can have one country, but if you choose Liberal on your tax form your tax money is pooled with only Liberals.The same can be done by Conservatives. Whatever ideas your fellow Liberals or Conservative wish to support, come from their now tax base. Currently, a general federal tax fund causes a massive rip off of the Conservatives, who would prefer use conservative principles of performance and lower their taxes as a reward for objective efficiency.

A good example how this may work, is the lawlessness in Democrats run cities, is due Liberals changing the way Liberals think we should deal with criminals; coddle them. This Liberal idea is madness, but luckily it is mostly impacting Liberal cities and they have to deal with the consequences. But eventually the Federal government will need to step in to clean up another bad Liberal Idea, and once again the Conservatives will be forced to help pay to clean up another Liberal mess.

This may be a good time to separate the taxes, and let it new Liberal social justice run ti course in Liberal cities, so they can gain performance data and learn the fact that change for the sake of change does not always work out. Sometimes what was working from the past is still the most efficient way. Many things are worth conserving; safe streets and victims before criminal predators.

Click to expand...

There are no objective criteria for morality in the end.

F1fan said:

That makes sense because liberals don't have a rigid set of rules to follow, rather an approach to thinking. Liberals DO debate and discuss ideas because that is a natural and reasonable thing to do. This is how progress happens, as the pros and cons of accepting change is discussed. Much of the social progress that has occurred in history has been liberal minds. Look at Teddy Roosevelt who was a huge avocate for worker safety as industry took off. He really wanted to go far in helping the poor, but he was reeled in by conservatives. Liberals do look to improve society and equality, while conservatives want there to be a status quo where the individual must work his way into prosperity. Of course we know life doesn't give everyone equal opportunities, so that status quo model is crude and insensitive.

Right, but they are ready to tell you liberal slackers that you are wrong if you don't agree with them. Liberals do the same, ha. But they will explain why. Conservatives operate with a set of assumptions that most everything is agreed upon. They do agree on a lot of basic things, and that is why they don't argue. Low taxes, government doesn't interfere, let nature take its course, let business do what it wants to do, few regulations, let citizens sort out life for themselves. They are usually not open to change, they do like status quo. Any progress tends to be technology that industry creates. If you produce cars that pollute more, you just cope with the pollution, as that is the way it is. Conservatives will only see pollution as a problem if it causes problems for commerse. If it causes health problems, then you move to where there is clean air.

Click to expand...

I have noticed some changes over the years, although the defining factors of "liberal" and "conservative" do tend to change with the overall values and direction of the country.

We have liberals who have become warmongers and extremely bourgeois, money-grubbing capitalists who believe in screwing the poor and working classes (i.e. Clintons, Obama, Kardashians, Bezos, etc.). They preach environmentalism while using private planes. They preach gun control while using armed security guards for their own protection. They seem to think that nobody notices these things, but they do.

On the other side, we have conservatives who are hardly the "family values" paragons of morality they would like people to think they are, such as turning the blind eye to Trump's lecherous, adulterous behavior. Looking back to the 1950s, it's extremely doubtful that white conservatives from the South would have given overwhelming support to an adulterous divorcee and career woman like MTG, yet today it's different.

The culture and image of both parties has changed as well. The Democrats have become the party of the uber-rich, the glamorous celebrities, the limousine liberals, the academic elite - while going out of their way to make the point that the conservatives are the underclass, the uneducated, unsophisticated "hillbillies" who are easily manipulated and duped. Over the past few decades, I've noticed this as being the central focus of the liberal narrative.

By the same token, conservatives no longer have the "country club," old money image they once had. (They're obviously still around, yet they're smart enough to hide in the background and let Trump get all the limelight.) Moreover, since the classist, coastal liberals have alienated and shown nothing but contempt for all the "hillbillies" and others in flyover country, they've driven a lot of working-class people and would-be Democrats into the arms of the conservatives.

wellwisher said:

This is partially true but not the whole story. Conservatives are based on the root word conservation. Conservatives try to conserve and apply the best of the past, based on objective performance criteria; what has worked most efficiently. For example, the basic family unit; mother, father, children, grandparents, is still the most efficient social unit. There is no social structure that receives less social service and incurs less social costs. This is called objective performance data which is then what Conservatives will choose.

Click to expand...

Except that is NOT what actually happens in practice.

For example, sex education has been shown to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and the number of abortions. yet conservatives are against it.

For example: Conservative state policies generally associated with higher mortality, study finds: Making policies fully liberal in all U.S. states could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in recent years, research suggests

Conservative policies are generally associated with higher mortality. That was certainly the case during the COVID epidemic, but it is also true more generally.

The problem is that conservatives don't want to change even when the facts show that change is a good thing.

Liberals are more about change, often just for the sake of change, without regard to future social consequences and costs. They come up with idea that may sound good, but typically with little data to support their novel and faddish choice. The huge increase in social costs over the past 50 years, is mostly connected to the mops needed to clean up after bad Liberal ideas. Conservatives are getting tired of paying for Liberal bad calls, which is why they are now getting more vocal.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, liberals are in favor of change that leads to more individual freedom. So, those liberal policies of the last 50 years are those that addressed previous injustices towards blacks, women, gays, and other minorities. And while the specifics might have been less than perfect, the problem they addressed was and is very real.

For example, transgender has traditionally been considered a type of pathology by psychologists. Liberals don't seem to understand what pathology means and why you should not encourage it.

Click to expand...

It has been considered a pathology by those espousing the conservative viewpoint that is anti-sex and against personal freedom, yes.

They think they can simply rename it; new packaging like soup, and force feed it with peer pressure, and like magic, it is now normal. They even try to encourage; brain wash, small children to accept the new and improved, as though this new idea is now so clean it will not cause social problems and increase social costs. Who supposed to pay for all the medical costs to become artificial? Conservatives though decades of data, objectively know how massive social pathology will end, so they now try to nip in it is the bud, before they have to pay for another bad idea they did not choose.

Click to expand...

So, instead of making changes to bring more justice and freedom into the world, conservatives insist that nothing change even when the world at large is changing.

A better way to do this would be for Liberals and Conservative to have their own taxes and tax revenues that are ear marked for just themselves. We can have one country, but if you choose Liberal on your tax form your tax money is pooled with only Liberals.The same can be done by Conservatives. Whatever ideas Liberals or Conservative wish to support, will be funded by just their now tax base. Currently, a general federal tax fund causes a massive rip off of the Conservatives, who would prefer use conservative principles of performance and lower their taxes as a reward for objective efficiency.

A good example how this may work, is the lawlessness in Democrats run cities, is due Liberal ideology changing the way Liberals rank and file think we should deal with criminals; coddle them. This Liberal idea is madness, but luckily it is mostly impacting Liberal cities and they have to deal with the consequences. But eventually the Federal government will need to step in to clean up another bad Liberal Idea, and once again the Conservatives will be forced to help pay to clean up another Liberal mess.

Click to expand...

And yet, conservatives seem to want to coddle those that kill 'undesirables' and those that threaten others with violence. Cops killing people with little or no reason should get off because we want to coddle the cops.

The US has the largest incarceration rate of any country in the world, including China. That is hardly 'coddling' people.

Instead, most countries realize that there are social factors that lead to crime and that to address those factors reduces crime far better than simply locking people up

If you want to reduce crime, figure out how to reduce poverty. If you want to increase security, figure out how to give minorities voice over their own affairs. if you want people to respect the law and police, make sure that the law works for them and the police aren't simply another gang that fights against them.

This may be a good time to separate the taxes, and let it the new and improved Liberal social justice theory run its course in Liberal cities, so they can gain performance data and learn the fact that change for the sake of change does not always work out. Sometimes what was working from the past is still the most efficient way. Many things are worth conserving; safe streets and victims before criminal predators.

Click to expand...

And some others are worth working for: decrease poverty, increase access to health care, increase the ability for people to vote for meaningful candidates. If those happen, the streets will become and remain safe and you won't have to have victims on both sides.

Revoltingest said:

A popular view in Europe....dolts they are.
I've yet to run across any cogent argument
for this view. It would need some evidence.

Click to expand...

Evidence #1: SCotUS has always been very conservative, originalism and precedence been high values. That has recently changed and the US has been brought back (regressed to) pre 1973.
Evidence #2: Our own resident right wingers (not naming names) just recently stating their fandom for '50 and how everything was better then.
Evidence #3: This one goes back a little to 2016 and 2020. A truly progressive candidate with a flawless career and high potential to win was blocked by the DNC establishment in favour of conservative candidates.
Evidence #4: Sleepy Joe and his administration, Obama and his administration. What progressive measures have they accomplished? Obama's legacy is implementing a health care model developed by a republican and doing pretty much nothing else. Biden has wound back the worst errors of his predecessor but not much else. Business as usual.

Stevicus said:

I have noticed some changes over the years, although the defining factors of "liberal" and "conservative" do tend to change with the overall values and direction of the country.

We have liberals who have become warmongers and extremely bourgeois, money-grubbing capitalists who believe in screwing the poor and working classes (i.e. Clintons, Obama, Kardashians, Bezos, etc.). They preach environmentalism while using private planes. They preach gun control while using armed security guards for their own protection. They seem to think that nobody notices these things, but they do.

Click to expand...

That's the thing about liberalism, it is oen to nuance and how certain issues might have some validity. This is part of the way liberals are open to debate and discussion. Most liberals I know don't want to ban guns, they only want to ban guns that are threatening to society, and set regulations (part of the wording in the 2nd amendment) of who is allowed to own them, and for what purposes.

On the other side, we have conservatives who are hardly the "family values" paragons of morality they would like people to think they are, such as turning the blind eye to Trump's lecherous, adulterous behavior. Looking back to the 1950s, it's extremely doubtful that white conservatives from the South would have given overwhelming support to an adulterous divorcee and career woman like MTG, yet today it's different.

Click to expand...

It's one of the biggest flaws of MAGA conservatism to abandon family values. But they abanddonded it accross the board. There isn't a faction of repblicans who claim to be that party of family values, and this illustrates how they are consistent to whatever narrative their leadership sets, even if vile. The elec tion results seem to suggest that MAGA is not acceptable to many conservatives and democrats did vastly better than expected.

The culture and image of both parties has changed as well. The Democrats have become the party of the uber-rich, the glamorous celebrities, the limousine liberals, the academic elite - while going out of their way to make the point that the conservatives are the underclass, the uneducated, unsophisticated "hillbillies" who are easily manipulated and duped. Over the past few decades, I've noticed this as being the central focus of the liberal narrative.

Click to expand...

The Bible got one thing right, and that is about how greed is a vice. I sushttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il1bHT62jCgect those who are liberal and get a lot of money are conflicted with their better angels versus the greed that infects the mind. Comedian Richard Jeni had a funny bit about this:

By the same token, conservatives no longer have the "country club," old money image they once had. (They're obviously still around, yet they're smart enough to hide in the background and let Trump get all the limelight.) Moreover, since the classist, coastal liberals have alienated and shown nothing but contempt for all the "hillbillies" and others in flyover country, they've driven a lot of working-class people and would-be Democrats into the arms of the conservatives.

Click to expand...

The tribe of conservatism has had to attract the less educated, and there is a reason for this. I saw a lower class woman interviewed about why she voted for Trump and she said "He's one of us". No he isn't. He says horrible things about lower class people in private, but he knows how to appeal to their fears and prejudices. So "one of us" means a tribe of people who have a narrow set of "values", and the rest are ignored. The republicans in congress have a toxic co-dependent relationship with lower class white people. The republicans get the power, and the conservtive voters gets the security of a tribe, even if the policies the republicans set harm them. The emotional security is more imporrtant than life and health. Let's note most of these people believe they are worthless rags to God and this mortal life is meaningless until their soul is sent to heaven.

Heyo said:

Evidence #1: SCotUS has always been very conservative, originalism and precedence been high values. That has recently changed and the US has been brought back (regressed to) pre 1973.

Click to expand...

2 problems....
1) Constitutional originalism doesn't work the way you believe.
It's neutral regarding conservative vs liberal, ie, it's about
the intent of the framers, & of subsequent authors of
amendments. I favor originalism primarily because it
tends to support greater liberty.
2) Recent SCOTUS decisions that undermine liberty
are the result of Pub (not Dem) judicial appointments.

Evidence #2: Our own resident right wingers (not naming names) just recently stating their fandom for '50 and how everything was better then.

Click to expand...

RF gadflies don't represent the whole.
Nor do they indicate that Dems are conservative.

Evidence #3: This one goes back a little to 2016 and 2020. A truly progressive candidate with a flawless career and high potential to win was blocked by the DNC establishment in favour of conservative candidates.

Click to expand...

No name mentioned?
I can't address it.

Evidence #4: Sleepy Joe and his administration, Obama and his administration. What progressive measures have they accomplished? Obama's legacy is implementing a health care model developed by a republican and doing pretty much nothing else. Biden has wound back the worst errors of his predecessor but not much else. Business as usual.

Click to expand...

Biden still works to preserve abortion rights.
Moreover, as one who once voted for war,
he actually ended one.

I still see no cogent argument that Democrats
have become "conservative".

Polymath257 said:

And yet, conservatives seem to want to coddle those that kill 'undesirables' and those that threaten others with violence. Cops killing people with little or no reason should get off because we want to coddle the cops.

The US has the largest incarceration rate of any country in the world, including China. That is hardly 'coddling' people.

Instead, most countries realize that there are social factors that lead to crime and that to address those factors reduces crime far better than simply locking people up

Click to expand...

The prisons in the USA are filled with many mentally ill people, and I suspect this is partially due to the lack of adequate healthcare. Conservatves have long had the view that nature should just take its course, and of people can't afford insurance then too bad. Then they claim to be Christians.

Note that health insurance policies have largely dropped mental health coverage to keep premiums lower. So even if a person needs help they won't have access unless they have the means to pay out of pocket. This is why more and more treatment for mental health problems is drugs.

Revoltingest said:

Biden still works to preserve abortion rights.
[...]
I still see no cogent argument that Democrats
have become "conservative".

Click to expand...

You should hear yourself speaking.

Heyo said:

You should hear yourself speaking.

Click to expand...

You should try understanding.

I see abortion rights as still existing.
SCOTUS disagrees, but those justices
won't be there forever.
Also, just in case you deny that Biden
seeks to preserve them....
Here's what's in Biden's executive order on abortion rights | CNN Politics

Revoltingest said:

You should try understanding.

I see abortion rights as still existing.
SCOTUS disagrees, but those justices
won't be there forever.

Click to expand...

But for a long time, and the dems failed to stack the court.

Also, just in case you deny that Biden
seeks to preserve them....

Click to expand...

I don't. What I see is that the dems are in the business of conserving what is there in a fight with the reps who want to take it all away.

Heyo said:

But for a long time, and the dems failed to stack the court.

Click to expand...

There's the random element of when justices die or retire.
Nonetheless, failure to stack the court doesn't make Dems
conservative.

I don't. What I see is that the dems are in the business of conserving what is there in a fight with the reps who want to take it all away.

Click to expand...

In the context of politics here, "conservative"
means something different from "conserving".

Democrats today are who the Republicans used to be 30 years ago.

If you take our Democratic party and put them in any European country and they would be considered extreme Right-wing.

Revoltingest said:

In the context of politics here, "conservative"
means something different from "conserving".

Click to expand...

OK, then that may be the point of our disagreement. All my statements were under the presumption that that is exactly what conservative means.
How do you define (political) conservatism? (In a way that doesn't make dems conservative and keeps reps conservative. And can be applied to today's politics as well as historical.)

Heyo said:

OK, then that may be the point of our disagreement. All my statements were under the presumption that that is exactly what conservative means.
How do you define (political) conservatism? (In a way that doesn't make dems conservative and keeps reps conservative. And can be applied to today's politics as well as historical.)

Click to expand...

Conservatism - Wikipedia
In short....
USA conservatives typically lean towards....
- Fundamentalist Christianity
- Traditional society, eg, straight, monogamous,
- Strict law-&-order (for lower classes)

Revoltingest said:

Even primitive backwards places like IN have changed
since the days of illegality of miscegenation. This is
because it has no perceived biblical prohibition.
But gay marriage....oh, how the fundies see that as
a violent affront to their God. (Contraception seems
to only be a real problem for Catholics.)

Click to expand...

Yes, it does have a Biblical prohibition (of sorts). It's partly why Jews very frequently and typically marry Jews because the Bible does prohibit them from mixing with other tribes.
And then there is also the belief that they, black people, are the cursed descendants of Ham, as evidenced by their having black skin (this one is major huge leap and stretch for them to make, but they still make it). But at the same time it says those descendants will be the slaves of the descendants of Noah's other kids. And the Bible, of course, is very pro-slavery.
And hardcore Protestants often aren't too big into contraception themselves. They aren't as vocal as the Catholics, but to them the primary function of sex is for a married couple to have kids. Contraception gets in the way of that.

Revoltingest said:

A popular view in Europe....dolts they are.
I've yet to run across any cogent argument
for this view. It would need some evidence.

Our lot in life.

Click to expand...

It's that America uses it's own set of words while the rest of the world uses them differently. Such as, repeat this is wrong all you want, it is a fact libertarianism to the rest of the world isn't strongly tied to economics as Americans use it.
This is because, I believe, America has long championed self-inflicted and willful stupidity upon itself (even during America's height the military was concerned even then about the average American's poor math performance a.d colleges have required remedial math of high school grads for many decades at least).

Shadow Wolf said:

Yes, it does have a Biblical prohibition (of sorts). It's partly why Jews very frequently and typically marry Jews because the Bible does prohibit them from mixing with other tribes.

Click to expand...

A Jewish engineer I once worked with boinked
shicksas with no intention of ever letting the
relationship develop into anything serious.
His mother told him....
"Gentiles are for practice."

And then there is also the belief that they, black people, are the cursed descendants of Ham, as evidenced by their having black skin (this one is major huge leap and stretch for them to make, but they still make it). But at the same time it says those descendants will be the slaves of the descendants of Noah's other kids. And the Bible, of course, is very pro-slavery.

Click to expand...

I like ham.

And hardcore Protestants often aren't too big into contraception themselves. They aren't as vocal as the Catholics, but to them the primary function of sex is for a married couple to have kids. Contraception gets in the way of that.

Click to expand...

I've not run into Protestants who feel that way.