A Liberal's Attempt to Understand the Conservative Mind

[logical4u]

Okay, Colorada..., you received a lot of responses from conservatives, how about getting the libs to answer the same questions.

I think a better idea is for a conservative to start a thread with what they think liberalism is (and not in the archaic sense of libertarianism) just like I did with conservatism. I would love to tackle that and perhaps end some mischaracterizations and misunderstandings or erase any inaccurate preconceived notions. Go for it logical4u!

Don't bait me!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Don't bait me!

Aw, c'mon!

 

[MaggieMae]

I pleased to see that some of my preconceived notions on conservatism were wrong or inaccurate. I appreciate those of you who replied without attacking or taking my OP as partisan hackery, cause it really wasn't. What I wrote in the OP was what I actually thought, or perceived. Tech_Esq, BBD, Si Modo, logical4u thanks. I've learned and had my mind changed about what I think conservativism means. I'm still a liberal, and I don't think that I am by any means without ignorance about conservatism (as this thread is hardly an in depth, critical, analysis by an authority), but I think it will help me not have a knee-jerk reaction to some of what I read posted by conservatives anymore, at least except for the radical fringe elements.

I hope that more conservatives respond to my OP so I can get an even better idea of what the conservatives in the US really think. Most liberals are probably only exposed to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or what is shown in the news. Obviously, the creekiest wheel gets the grease so the most outspoken get the media. Perhaps what we should try to remember is that those people in the media don't necessarily represent the people they believe they represent or are portrayed to represent i.e. Limbaugh represents conservatives like Bill Maher represents liberals.

My problem with TODAY'S conservatives is that everything has to be either black or white (and there's no intended innuendo there). Never any gray.

Even on the wider issues like "welfare" as conservatives insist on taking it ALL down and refusing to acknowledge that, yes, there ARE parts of so-called welfare that are absolutely necessary. But nope. Bad bad bad.

Using the Constitution as a crutch to justify all of their complaints about how this nation is governed when, in fact, the Constitution was specifically written ambiguously BECAUSE it would need to be applied only at its foundation as the country evolved.

The newest label of "just say no" is so very apropos to today's conservatives. We cannot remain nor survive as a super power and a leader for the rest of the world to emulate by remaining in gridlock. And "conservatives" not too long ago were not at all like that. That's why I too appreciated seeing some well thought out responses by THINKING conservatives for a change.

Your comment on "just say no" interests me. Can you show where liberals have moved right? Can you demonstrate where they tried to meet conservatives halfway?

The Bible says: suffer no evil (basically everything is right or it is wrong). It might offend those against religion, but it simplifies the answer: why should conservatives "accept" (vote for) a plan that will lead to evil (even if it is only a tiny bit evil, now)? Conservatives tend to resist unproven theories and ideals that have already been proven to be detrimental for society. Why won't the liberals "try" to explain logically how THIS time, all will be different that all those previous times the same plan was put in place and FAILED?
It seems the labeling of "bigot" and "racist" are used instead of logic.
When I ask "if I am a bigot, can you show me a better way to live?", the person calling the names walks away.

It seems like I've responded to that question elsewhere in this thread, but here goes again. Without going into lengthy detail, as I'm sure you are fully aware of the background, here goes again.

First of all, people need to differentiate between a "liberal" and plain ol' Democrat. Most are the latter, best described (and you'll probably hate this too) as Clinton Democrats. Hardly "liberal" as in Pelosi Democrats.

When Obama won the election, he didn't intend to take office and start spending willy nilly just to get caught up. He walked into an awful situation which required huge amounts of money funneled into the economy in order to keep PRIVATE ENTERPRISE (capitalism) alive. And Republicans knew that. Yes, they did. And there is only ONE place where the amounts of money required could be tapped, and that is the United States Government with its vast borrowing power. But it would have been worse, much worse, and the bleeding needed to be stopped before gangrene set in.

First the TARP loans, despite whose "fault" it was that the financial institutions came crashing to the ground, which were absolutely necessary to at least place stop gaps to what surely would have been a domino effect of business after business which relied on lending power from being shuttered.

After the Republicans voted en masse against TARP because they preferred the laissez-faire approach of letting the market right itself (of course that being what caused the collapse in the first place!), the Republicans then decided their sole course of action would be to oppose ANYTHING a Democratic administration tried to do. They also KNEW that allowing the auto companies to fail would create thousands of business closings which supported the auto industry. They opposed the stimulus package, allegedly because they hadn't "read" it, yet they had read enough to know that there was a clause buried in it somewhere that protected San Francisco wetlands--which they embellished to claim (in camera view) was to protect some rare mouse. It seemed to the casual observer that Republicans thought the economic crisis was just one big joke that they could easily remedy.

One of my biggest disappointments has been certain Republicans who were once rational moderates, like Chuck Grassley who has proven to be just another party-first, country-maybe, just-say-no Republican.

But I'm making this too long. I'll stop because I think you get the gist.

As to your final point regarding bigotry, that just came out of left field, as it doesn't fit this discussion at all.

 

[dimondia]

my concern with your queries is this, to group all conservatives, all liberals, all democrats, all republicans into one cohesive group is assuming that all members of said group have the same background, same upbringing, same opinion, same perception, same everything. In other words, whatever response you get is only going to be accurate for some.....not all. So, although your questions are thoughtful, insightful, clear, and well communicated, the answers you receive will only confuse you more.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

my concern with your queries is this, to group all conservatives, all liberals, all democrats, all republicans into one cohesive group is assuming that all members of said group have the same background, same upbringing, same opinion, same perception, same everything. In other words, whatever response you get is only going to be accurate for some.....not all. So, although your questions are thoughtful, insightful, clear, and well communicated, the answers you receive will only confuse you more.

Absolutely and I am keeping that in mind while forming my thoughts, ideas, impressions, perception of all individuals that would categorize themselves under the word "conservative", whether that term loosely fits them or fits them well. Already I've received answers regarding social conservativism from two people who would categorize themselves only as fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately the human mind can grasp only so much, and language narrows that even further. How many categories of conservatives can we all agree upon and still retain a means of communicating effectively? I can really only think of a few:

Conservative - both socially and fiscally
Fiscal conservative - not necessarily socially conservative
Social conservative - a theoretical conservative who believes in big government with tight social control
Christian conservative - basically a conservative who is socially and fiscally conservative
Rightwinger - a very partisan conservative
Right wingnut - far right fringe conservative
Moderate conservative - self explanatory
Extreme conservative - same as right wingnut?

Slap the word "liberal" or "left" in there and now you can speak of both ends of the politcal spectrum in generalities (as long as they are expressed as that) and by using the word "moderate" we can now all gain a basic understanding of an individual's spot on that spectrum even if it isn't totally accurate.

 

[rdean]

Two sides of the conservative mind:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HiilGXfj90]YouTube - Marci X - Boys R Us[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

^^^^ Seagull. Flys in; shits on the place; then flies away.

 

[rdean]

Conservative philosophy:

REDNECK WAREHOUSE . com

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Coloradomtnmn,
What you assign to be conservatism is what you see through liberal glasses. It also seems that you are an avid reader of the DU, DailyKOS, Huffington, ThinkProgress, MoveOn and I'm sure a plethora of other liberal propaganda sites.

I consider myself conservative. I disagree with about 50% of what you say conservatives are. It looks like you got a bunch of talking points from the DNC and your looking to start an argument over individual tenets you assign to conservatism.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Coloradomtnmn,
What you assign to be conservatism is what you see through liberal glasses.

Absolutely, 100% correct. I'm a liberal and that is my worldview.

It also seems that you are an avid reader of the DU, DailyKOS, Huffington, ThinkProgress, MoveOn and I'm sure a plethora of other liberal propaganda sites.

Wrong. In fact I've never even been to one of those sites. I get the majority my news from NPR (which, granted, are moderate left but I try to remember the bias when listening) or from CNN because it pops up on my google home page and the rest of the news I get is from other posters here on USMB.

I consider myself conservative. I disagree with about 50% of what you say conservatives are.

In the OP I prefaced my points with the statement that this is what I thought conservatives believed or how I perceived them. And although you disagree with 50% of those, other conservatives who have replied agreed with almost all of them i.e. Big Black Dog.

It looks like you got a bunch of talking points from the DNC and your looking to start an argument over individual tenets you assign to conservatism.

If you go back through this thread and read each post you will see that I haven't debated or argued with any of the conservatives who replied. This thread isn't a bait thread nor is it an attack on conservatism.

I started this thread so that there could be some real understanding between me and conservatives that I communicate with on this forum. Other conservatives on this forum that I get along with such as Pale Rider, Dude, Immie, Zoom-Boing, Big Black Dog, Tech_Esq, Si Modo, and others and I might now be able to refrain from jumping to conclusions or making assumptions about each other.

Some of the things that I learned from those who replied on this thread have actually got me thinking. Si Modo and Tech_Esq, in particular, had extremely practical and logical approaches to their fiscal philosophies - and I am beginning to lean in that direction (pragmatically not idealogically). In other words, socialism still works best for me idealogically, but, pragmatically, when it comes to US fiscal policy (considering the US has and always will have a capitalist economy) I see the sense of what those Si Modo and Tech_Esq have to say.

You have assumed that as a liberal I have simply used this thread to lure conservatives into...I don't know what, just so I could attack their political ideologies and that I was some sort of Obamabot (which I'm not - I voted for him, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he does or that he can do no wrong by me) or liberal hack. That's a partisan attitude and I don't appreciate being lumped in with what you perceive to be how liberals behave or think. I am an American and I want to get along with my fellow countrymen even if they see things differently than I do. Right? Does this ring a bell: United we stand, divided we fall? Here's some advice: don't be a partisan hack.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Coloradomtnmn,
What you assign to be conservatism is what you see through liberal glasses.

Absolutely, 100% correct. I'm a liberal and that is my worldview.

It also seems that you are an avid reader of the DU, DailyKOS, Huffington, ThinkProgress, MoveOn and I'm sure a plethora of other liberal propaganda sites.

Wrong. In fact I've never even been to one of those sites. I get the majority my news from NPR (which, granted, are moderate left but I try to remember the bias when listening) or from CNN because it pops up on my google home page and the rest of the news I get is from other posters here on USMB.

I consider myself conservative. I disagree with about 50% of what you say conservatives are.

In the OP I prefaced my points with the statement that this is what I thought conservatives believed or how I perceived them. And although you disagree with 50% of those, other conservatives who have replied agreed with almost all of them i.e. Big Black Dog.

It looks like you got a bunch of talking points from the DNC and your looking to start an argument over individual tenets you assign to conservatism.

If you go back through this thread and read each post you will see that I haven't debated or argued with any of the conservatives who replied. This thread isn't a bait thread nor is it an attack on conservatism.

I started this thread so that there could be some real understanding between me and conservatives that I communicate with on this forum. Other conservatives on this forum that I get along with such as Pale Rider, Dude, Immie, Zoom-Boing, Big Black Dog, Tech_Esq, Si Modo, and others and I might now be able to refrain from jumping to conclusions or making assumptions about each other.

Some of the things that I learned from those who replied on this thread have actually got me thinking. Si Modo and Tech_Esq, in particular, had extremely practical and logical approaches to their fiscal philosophies - and I am beginning to lean in that direction (pragmatically not idealogically). In other words, socialism still works best for me idealogically, but, pragmatically, when it comes to US fiscal policy (considering the US has and always will have a capitalist economy) I see the sense of what those Si Modo and Tech_Esq have to say.

You have assumed that as a liberal I have simply used this thread to lure conservatives into...I don't know what, just so I could attack their political ideologies and that I was some sort of Obamabot (which I'm not - I voted for him, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he does or that he can do no wrong by me) or liberal hack. That's a partisan attitude and I don't appreciate being lumped in with what you perceive to be how liberals behave or think. I am an American and I want to get along with my fellow countrymen even if they see things differently than I do. Right? Does this ring a bell: United we stand, divided we fall? Here's some advice: don't be a partisan hack.

Thank you for making my point about looking to start an argument. In fact if you go back and read your posts and those of your liberal bretheren that's exactly what you are doing.....you asked for an opinion...I gave you mine....you say I'm a partisan hack because I gave you my opinion...how is that achieving an understanding when you choose to place convenient lables on everyone and every thing? I'll bet you have one of those lable makers and have little tags on everything in your house......and you are a self admitted socialist....just what sort of "understanding" with normal people would you like to achieve?