An Approach to Bridging the Conservative-Liberal Divide

[sealchan]

I have a thought I wanted to share and get feedback on about how to approach bridging the widening divide between conservative and liberal understandings about how we should conduct ourselves as a society. The thought will be couched in many generalizations which is unavoidable when discussing things at a high systemic level such as this.

First, I would characterize conservatives and liberals as differing primarily in the following ways:

• Conservatives favor thinking and acting locally while liberals favor thinking and acting globally
• Conservatives are grounded in practical realities while liberals are grounded in abstract realities
• Conservatives identify more with the pre-information age, even pre-industrial age character of rural life while liberals identify more with the information age and the realities of urban life

Now if the above dichotomies seem to unfairly describe one or the other side...that is not necessarily a bad thing...it may mean that there is common ground between the sides and the dichotomy is weaker than one might choose to believe.

Second, I would say that given the impact of the increasing human population on this planet plus the fact that in the United States we have historically been a "melting pot" of cultures from all around the world, the United States reflects, in many ways, the conflicts that happen all around the world when people from different backgrounds come into close contact. But on the global level we have the reality of climate change and all the environmental, economic and political fallouts that climate change brings with it. That is a direct result of technological advancement and a human population that lives ever longer and longer lives and utilizes more and more energy per capita. The melting pot of America is quite simply that of the world at this point and there is no going back to purely localistic thinking and acting.

The phrase think globally, act locally comes to mind...what we do individually, independently, better serves us all if it is mindful of what is happening globally. However, those who suffer the most may not be those who are comfortable with understanding the reasons why they are being asked to suffer. So if a carbon tax is implemented to economically drive different behaviors locally and the "locals" (we are all locals truly) don't get why they should suffer the cost, then there is a problem.

The approach I offer is the following...all global needs must find their fulfillment in local implementations. Those local implementations must be accepted by those who are impacted. If liberals with global-minded awareness want conservatives with local-minded concerns to do something different for reasons not immediately apparent to their own local reality, then liberals must sincerely negotiate, compromise until progress is made. This might mean implementing "consequences" differently in rural vs urban areas...or whatever strikes the right balance across the conservative-liberal divide. The truth is not with who is right but at the level of society is with those who can meet in the middle to move in a direction more or less acceptable to both without both having to win.

If liberals and conservative approach each other as if we need each other to succeed, then the right attitude will result. A liberal might think that we need to lower carbon emissions and so will vote for a carbon tax. A conservative might think that a carbon tax will only hurt their livelihood and offer no recompense. So what if a carbon tax is only implemented regionally? The liberal might say that is unfair, but businesses who supply could indicate they are paying their carbon tax and therefore create a decision point for buyers. Buyers may spend more for products from those who pay the tax...or they may choose the cheaper option. Those who understand what is happening globally can act while those who do not understand have their own choice. Motivation, understanding and economic prosperity will determine outcome and the divide will have less fuel to cause conflict. And I believe that such partial and "unfair" implementations, will actually work themselves out in the complex system that is our society.

Any sincere thoughts welcome...

 

[Secret Chief]

Of your three points, I don't believe the first two to be correct. The third, I wouldn't distinguish rural / urban, but I agree with the general point (hence the term conservative I suppose - conserving what is best of the past).

(My perspective is from the UK - if that matters)

 

[tytlyf]

It's as simple as dividing the country into people who believe science and those that do not.

 

[Nakosis]

Maybe more of a problem of grouping all liberals together and all conservatives together. It's the extreme ends that get all of the press. So people judge each other by what they hear from the press. I suspect there is a larger block of centrists they could find common ground and might even wish the extreme ends would go find somewhere else to play.

Yet they need the votes of the extremists to win elections so each side has to bite their tongue and cater to the extremes. The centrists will understand that compromise is necessary. The extremist will become very vocal make lots of noise, get all of the press coverage if they are not catered to.

 

[sun rise]

Conservatives favor thinking and acting locally while liberals favor thinking and acting globally

As a "card carrying" liberal, the slogan we've used is the classic "think globally, act locally" especially in times like this when it's impossible to have anything from the federal government.

And now we're seeing the federal government wanting the economy reopened no matter what state and local conditions might dictate.

Conservatives are grounded in practical realities while liberals are grounded in abstract realities

I've found that both can be both. We've seen that conservatives can insist on theory even when it has horrible results such as happened in Kansas not so long ago.

What I've seen here on RF is that there are times where conservatives and I agree on the problem but not the solution. Agreeing on a problem is possible when both sides agree on fundamentals such as scientific results.

So, to take climate change, if people agree on basic physics such as the level of CO2 (and other gases) is increasing in the atmosphere and that increase causes on average warming over time, then the discussion can move to looking for solutions that conservatives can accept as relatively business friendly and liberals can accept as mitigating negative affects on people's lives.

 

[joe1776]

I'm a die-hard liberal. That my opinions are Utopian is a frequent charge I hear. One that is never supported by a valid reason. So, I'd quarrel with the charge that my thinking is grounded in abstract realities. In fact, I'd argue that the opposite is true.

For example, I don't think the world is ready to dump capitalism completely because we humans have yet to invent a government that is both effective and free of corruption. Until we have that, the free market serves a useful but limited purpose. The staunch conservatives that I've encountered don't seem to recognize that capitalism has useful limits. While fraud might only be at the 10% level in manufactured products which can be seen and comparison-shopped by consumers spending their own money, it's at the 70% level in healthcare where those constraints don't exist.

I think the root of the problem has to do with equality. We are born equal in human worth at birth but we are not born equal in talents and abilities. In today's world, the equal right to own private property is a scam. Some people are born with high intelligence and infected with greed. They can own far more property than they need while others are born who will never own property. That's not only morally wrong, it's dumb because a society is a cooperative endeavor that works well only when everyone is equally motivated.

There has been a long-term, conscience-led trend toward equality:

equality for slaves
equality for women
equality for homosexuals
equality for the children of the poor
equality for the insane or the handicapped
equality for all minority groups

Conservatives, who oppose progressive change, are pissing into the wind.

 

[Stevicus]

I have a thought I wanted to share and get feedback on about how to approach bridging the widening divide between conservative and liberal understandings about how we should conduct ourselves as a society. The thought will be couched in many generalizations which is unavoidable when discussing things at a high systemic level such as this.

First, I would characterize conservatives and liberals as differing primarily in the following ways:

• Conservatives favor thinking and acting locally while liberals favor thinking and acting globally
• Conservatives are grounded in practical realities while liberals are grounded in abstract realities
• Conservatives identify more with the pre-information age, even pre-industrial age character of rural life while liberals identify more with the information age and the realities of urban life

Now if the above dichotomies seem to unfairly describe one or the other side...that is not necessarily a bad thing...it may mean that there is common ground between the sides and the dichotomy is weaker than one might choose to believe.

Second, I would say that given the impact of the increasing human population on this planet plus the fact that in the United States we have historically been a "melting pot" of cultures from all around the world, the United States reflects, in many ways, the conflicts that happen all around the world when people from different backgrounds come into close contact. But on the global level we have the reality of climate change and all the environmental, economic and political fallouts that climate change brings with it. That is a direct result of technological advancement and a human population that lives ever longer and longer lives and utilizes more and more energy per capita. The melting pot of America is quite simply that of the world at this point and there is no going back to purely localistic thinking and acting.

The phrase think globally, act locally comes to mind...what we do individually, independently, better serves us all if it is mindful of what is happening globally. However, those who suffer the most may not be those who are comfortable with understanding the reasons why they are being asked to suffer. So if a carbon tax is implemented to economically drive different behaviors locally and the "locals" (we are all locals truly) don't get why they should suffer the cost, then there is a problem.

The approach I offer is the following...all global needs must find their fulfillment in local implementations. Those local implementations must be accepted by those who are impacted. If liberals with global-minded awareness want conservatives with local-minded concerns to do something different for reasons not immediately apparent to their own local reality, then liberals must sincerely negotiate, compromise until progress is made. This might mean implementing "consequences" differently in rural vs urban areas...or whatever strikes the right balance across the conservative-liberal divide. The truth is not with who is right but at the level of society is with those who can meet in the middle to move in a direction more or less acceptable to both without both having to win.

If liberals and conservative approach each other as if we need each other to succeed, then the right attitude will result. A liberal might think that we need to lower carbon emissions and so will vote for a carbon tax. A conservative might think that a carbon tax will only hurt their livelihood and offer no recompense. So what if a carbon tax is only implemented regionally? The liberal might say that is unfair, but businesses who supply could indicate they are paying their carbon tax and therefore create a decision point for buyers. Buyers may spend more for products from those who pay the tax...or they may choose the cheaper option. Those who understand what is happening globally can act while those who do not understand have their own choice. Motivation, understanding and economic prosperity will determine outcome and the divide will have less fuel to cause conflict. And I believe that such partial and "unfair" implementations, will actually work themselves out in the complex system that is our society.

Any sincere thoughts welcome...

My impression of the conservative vs. liberal divide is that it's a clash of values. I'm not sure if it has much to do with acting locally or globally, as both factions can and will do both.

When I observe liberals and conservatives argue with each, they don't seem to have any real meeting of the minds or any kind of real communication. Instead, they talk past each other and often mischaracterize each other's position.

As far as bridging the divide, there might be two levels to look at. There are the elite conservatives and liberals who are known to the public and have a certain measure of influence. Then there are those among the hoi polloi, the average Joes and Janes who take up a liberal and conservative position at a street level, social media, private conversations, etc. - mainly people who are followers and tend to repeat the talking points of the elite.

 

[Sunstone]

@sealchan, I find your concern with bridging the gap between conservatives and liberals both humanly decent and refreshing. More power to you!

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a thought I wanted to share and get feedback on about how to approach bridging the widening divide between conservative and liberal understandings about how we should conduct ourselves as a society. The thought will be couched in many generalizations which is unavoidable when discussing things at a high systemic level such as this.

First, I would characterize conservatives and liberals as differing primarily in the following ways:

• Conservatives favor thinking and acting locally while liberals favor thinking and acting globally
• Conservatives are grounded in practical realities while liberals are grounded in abstract realities
• Conservatives identify more with the pre-information age, even pre-industrial age character of rural life while liberals identify more with the information age and the realities of urban life

Now if the above dichotomies seem to unfairly describe one or the other side...that is not necessarily a bad thing...it may mean that there is common ground between the sides and the dichotomy is weaker than one might choose to believe.

Second, I would say that given the impact of the increasing human population on this planet plus the fact that in the United States we have historically been a "melting pot" of cultures from all around the world, the United States reflects, in many ways, the conflicts that happen all around the world when people from different backgrounds come into close contact. But on the global level we have the reality of climate change and all the environmental, economic and political fallouts that climate change brings with it. That is a direct result of technological advancement and a human population that lives ever longer and longer lives and utilizes more and more energy per capita. The melting pot of America is quite simply that of the world at this point and there is no going back to purely localistic thinking and acting.

The phrase think globally, act locally comes to mind...what we do individually, independently, better serves us all if it is mindful of what is happening globally. However, those who suffer the most may not be those who are comfortable with understanding the reasons why they are being asked to suffer. So if a carbon tax is implemented to economically drive different behaviors locally and the "locals" (we are all locals truly) don't get why they should suffer the cost, then there is a problem.

The approach I offer is the following...all global needs must find their fulfillment in local implementations. Those local implementations must be accepted by those who are impacted. If liberals with global-minded awareness want conservatives with local-minded concerns to do something different for reasons not immediately apparent to their own local reality, then liberals must sincerely negotiate, compromise until progress is made. This might mean implementing "consequences" differently in rural vs urban areas...or whatever strikes the right balance across the conservative-liberal divide. The truth is not with who is right but at the level of society is with those who can meet in the middle to move in a direction more or less acceptable to both without both having to win.

If liberals and conservative approach each other as if we need each other to succeed, then the right attitude will result. A liberal might think that we need to lower carbon emissions and so will vote for a carbon tax. A conservative might think that a carbon tax will only hurt their livelihood and offer no recompense. So what if a carbon tax is only implemented regionally? The liberal might say that is unfair, but businesses who supply could indicate they are paying their carbon tax and therefore create a decision point for buyers. Buyers may spend more for products from those who pay the tax...or they may choose the cheaper option. Those who understand what is happening globally can act while those who do not understand have their own choice. Motivation, understanding and economic prosperity will determine outcome and the divide will have less fuel to cause conflict. And I believe that such partial and "unfair" implementations, will actually work themselves out in the complex system that is our society.

Any sincere thoughts welcome...

On the rare occasions when I get along with liberals & conservatives,
it's cuz we're friendly (or at least civil) & thoughtful, with exploration
of both common ground & differences. That's all that's needed.

 

[sealchan]

Of your three points, I don't believe the first two to be correct. The third, I wouldn't distinguish rural / urban, but I agree with the general point (hence the term conservative I suppose - conserving what is best of the past).

(My perspective is from the UK - if that matters)

Well, a conservative might balk at the suggestion that something happening somewhere far away need have any impact on their concerns...everyone suffers by virtue of location or circumstance or luck so why make things more complicated? But a liberal would say that moral action requires universal behavior which, in turn, inspires willing compliance due to shared suffering. This is an abstracted approach vs the conservative local, practical.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I have a thought I wanted to share and get feedback on about how to approach bridging the widening divide between conservative and liberal understandings about how we should conduct ourselves as a society. The thought will be couched in many generalizations which is unavoidable when discussing things at a high systemic level such as this.

First, I would characterize conservatives and liberals as differing primarily in the following ways:

• Conservatives favor thinking and acting locally while liberals favor thinking and acting globally
• Conservatives are grounded in practical realities while liberals are grounded in abstract realities
• Conservatives identify more with the pre-information age, even pre-industrial age character of rural life while liberals identify more with the information age and the realities of urban life

Now if the above dichotomies seem to unfairly describe one or the other side...that is not necessarily a bad thing...it may mean that there is common ground between the sides and the dichotomy is weaker than one might choose to believe.

Second, I would say that given the impact of the increasing human population on this planet plus the fact that in the United States we have historically been a "melting pot" of cultures from all around the world, the United States reflects, in many ways, the conflicts that happen all around the world when people from different backgrounds come into close contact. But on the global level we have the reality of climate change and all the environmental, economic and political fallouts that climate change brings with it. That is a direct result of technological advancement and a human population that lives ever longer and longer lives and utilizes more and more energy per capita. The melting pot of America is quite simply that of the world at this point and there is no going back to purely localistic thinking and acting.

The phrase think globally, act locally comes to mind...what we do individually, independently, better serves us all if it is mindful of what is happening globally. However, those who suffer the most may not be those who are comfortable with understanding the reasons why they are being asked to suffer. So if a carbon tax is implemented to economically drive different behaviors locally and the "locals" (we are all locals truly) don't get why they should suffer the cost, then there is a problem.

The approach I offer is the following...all global needs must find their fulfillment in local implementations. Those local implementations must be accepted by those who are impacted. If liberals with global-minded awareness want conservatives with local-minded concerns to do something different for reasons not immediately apparent to their own local reality, then liberals must sincerely negotiate, compromise until progress is made. This might mean implementing "consequences" differently in rural vs urban areas...or whatever strikes the right balance across the conservative-liberal divide. The truth is not with who is right but at the level of society is with those who can meet in the middle to move in a direction more or less acceptable to both without both having to win.

If liberals and conservative approach each other as if we need each other to succeed, then the right attitude will result. A liberal might think that we need to lower carbon emissions and so will vote for a carbon tax. A conservative might think that a carbon tax will only hurt their livelihood and offer no recompense. So what if a carbon tax is only implemented regionally? The liberal might say that is unfair, but businesses who supply could indicate they are paying their carbon tax and therefore create a decision point for buyers. Buyers may spend more for products from those who pay the tax...or they may choose the cheaper option. Those who understand what is happening globally can act while those who do not understand have their own choice. Motivation, understanding and economic prosperity will determine outcome and the divide will have less fuel to cause conflict. And I believe that such partial and "unfair" implementations, will actually work themselves out in the complex system that is our society.

Any sincere thoughts welcome...

I was thinking more like pistols at ten paces.

 

[joe1776]

Well, a conservative might balk at the suggestion that something happening somewhere far away need have any impact on their concerns...everyone suffers by virtue of location or circumstance or luck so why make things more complicated? But a liberal would say that moral action requires universal behavior which, in turn, inspires willing compliance due to shared suffering. This is an abstracted approach vs the conservative local, practical.

From 1933 to 1941, American citizens were isolationists. They were solidly against getting involved in another war in Europe and gave no thought at all to Japan's invasion of China. The isolationist attitude only delayed the USA's preparation for war and caused millions of unnecessary deaths in the process.

We humans are part of a global society, one cooperative endeavor. This is a fact as I see it.