Liberal views based on empathy and conservatives based in logic

[Cammmpbell]

I remember this interview the actor Rob Lowe did on Hannity(and he did one on Oreilly too).

West Wing Star Rob Lowe Praises Conservatives? Right-Wing Politics Based on 'Logic' | NewsBusters.org

I just was talking about it the other day with a friend and I thought I would re-hash it here and see your various views. Rob Lowe use to be very liberal(like most actors in hollywood) and he stated as he got older he found his views becoming more conservative. He now considers himself a "centrist".

Oreilly said he was over simplying it - but I actually think Rob Lowe hit the nail on the head. Basically he said - Liberalism is based on empathy and Conservatism is based on logic.

It really makes sense. A conservative walks by and sees a begger on the street - and he will do one of two things - give the guy a few bucks, or give him nothing thinking he is lazy and should get a job.

The true blue liberal - would say we need a government program to make sure there are no poor people on the streets. FDR back in the depression actually advocated for a second bill of rights - one in which not only do we have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - but also where we are guarenteeed minimal results.

Here are some of the rights FDR mentioned every American should have:

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are these not things that liberals argue for today? free housing, free medical care, pensions, unending unemployment benefits and free college education?

The problem is NOTHING is FREE. Someone has to pay for it. And no even if you take all the money that the top 2 percent make - its not enough to pay for FDRs second bill of rights. He tried it - he raised the top brackets to something like 94 percent! Then he wanted to make it 100% for top income earners.

But even with a 94% top tax bracket(soaking the rich for all they had) FDR was still unable to solve the nations economic woes, and he certainly was not able to give free housing, medical care and education for all.

FDR's own treasure secretary said

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot"

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sound familar like what we face today?

It was only after the death FDR, and ending of WWII that great depression actually ended. It was due largely in part to something liberals hate - lowering of corporate taxes(like on excess profits) and lowering of marginal rates(in 1945,1946 and 1948). Kennedy also figured that out and did the unliberal thing of cutting them big again - and he saw good economic turn arounds as well.

All you "Emotional" people just keep on hanging with that shit and see where you end up.

Folks who thump on the back of a book of fairy tales, think they are going to meet the creator of the universe after they're dead, carry guns, fly their confederate flags in the back window of their pickup.....think it's just fine to cut taxes for the richest people in America and go in debt to cover the shortfall, believe the men in congress should be able to govern what a woman and her doctor might decide about her health, that a man with no legs can pull himself up by his bootstraps, etc. talking about logic would be like a mental patient advising Peyton Manning about how to throw a football.

 

[rightwinger]

Let em die

What is the logic behind that?

 

[Sallow]

Let em die

What is the logic behind that?

It is pretty logical.

If an organism is sick, intervention is not natural. It either survives or doesn't.

See?

 

[edthecynic]

"Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved."
— Aristotle

 

[rightwinger]

Let em die

What is the logic behind that?

It is pretty logical.

If an organism is sick, intervention is not natural. It either survives or doesn't.

See?

Oh, I get it

Darwinism...that is logical

 

[PratchettFan]

I can also say I've seen liberals who are completely heartless and conservatives who are completely illogical. In fact, it's often the case.

Conservative principles are logical. They are also very empathic depending on ones viewpoint because they work.

Hey Avatar - by the way I used to love that avatar cartoon - watched it with my boys all the time when it was on(the movie was a bit of a let down though).

As to your comments - I agree there are always exceptions. I may not have used a good example of what I meant by this. As a conservative(and most of my conservative friends feel the same) - we accept the reality of inequality of income - where there will always be some who are rich, some who are in the middle somewhere, and some who are poor.

It is true that in many societies there is almost no middle class, but that is because often times these societies do not have the religious and political freedom we have and often times have a great deal of corruption.

But in our society we accept the reality of the different classes, yes we give to the poor through our church charities and do what we can. But we don't believe it is the government's job to try and wipe out the concept of the poor(people on the bottom of economy) - because in a free - capitalistic economy you will NEVER do that.

The liberal - based on his emotion at seeing the poor, believes we can bring about income equality by simply taking from rich and middle classes and giving it to the poor. In the conservative mind - this is tanamount to legalized theft and conservatives understand that eventually this type of thinking will destroy an economy.

The reason that liberalism will always fail is - it is at war with nature itself. Nature produces inequality - conservatism accepts this reality, while liberalism with its emotionalism trys to fight it.

I disagree that conservatism accepts reality any more than liberalism. Both equally fail to recognize human nature.

There is never going to be equality because there are always going to be those who are smarter, more talented, luckier or just born to the right parents. There are always going to be poor because some people are going to make stupid decisions, circumstances will make them poor or they will be born to the wrong parents. The government can never change that and any attempt to create a truly equal society is doomed.

However, the idea that allowing the marketplace to just handle itself is equally doomed. One need only look back at the late 19th and early 20th century in this county to see where that path lay. Just because some people attain great wealth does not mean they act wisely or treat those who work for them fairly. You end up, as we did, with what amounts to open warfare in the streets, giving rise to powerful unions and forcing the government to side with them just to maintain the peace.

The only realistic approach is centrist. You have to recognize the nature of human beings and provide a controlled environment in which the marketplace can thrive. Too far to the right, you end up with robber barons and company stores. Too far to the left and you end up with commisars. No matter which way you go, the same people end up at the top with the same destructive results.

One of the purposes of the government under the Constitution is to provide for the general welfare. Not the welfare of the wealthy or the poor or the middle class. The welfare of all. That cannot be accomplished using just a liberal or a conservative approach. It requires a combination.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I can also say I've seen liberals who are completely heartless and conservatives who are completely illogical. In fact, it's often the case.

Conservative principles are logical. They are also very empathic depending on ones viewpoint because they work.

Hey Avatar - by the way I used to love that avatar cartoon - watched it with my boys all the time when it was on(the movie was a bit of a let down though).

As to your comments - I agree there are always exceptions. I may not have used a good example of what I meant by this. As a conservative(and most of my conservative friends feel the same) - we accept the reality of inequality of income - where there will always be some who are rich, some who are in the middle somewhere, and some who are poor.

It is true that in many societies there is almost no middle class, but that is because often times these societies do not have the religious and political freedom we have and often times have a great deal of corruption.

But in our society we accept the reality of the different classes, yes we give to the poor through our church charities and do what we can. But we don't believe it is the government's job to try and wipe out the concept of the poor(people on the bottom of economy) - because in a free - capitalistic economy you will NEVER do that.

The liberal - based on his emotion at seeing the poor, believes we can bring about income equality by simply taking from rich and middle classes and giving it to the poor. In the conservative mind - this is tanamount to legalized theft and conservatives understand that eventually this type of thinking will destroy an economy.

The reason that liberalism will always fail is - it is at war with nature itself. Nature produces inequality - conservatism accepts this reality, while liberalism with its emotionalism trys to fight it.

I disagree that conservatism accepts reality any more than liberalism. Both equally fail to recognize human nature.

There is never going to be equality because there are always going to be those who are smarter, more talented, luckier or just born to the right parents. There are always going to be poor because some people are going to make stupid decisions, circumstances will make them poor or they will be born to the wrong parents. The government can never change that and any attempt to create a truly equal society is doomed.

However, the idea that allowing the marketplace to just handle itself is equally doomed. One need only look back at the late 19th and early 20th century in this county to see where that path lay. Just because some people attain great wealth does not mean they act wisely or treat those who work for them fairly. You end up, as we did, with what amounts to open warfare in the streets, giving rise to powerful unions and forcing the government to side with them just to maintain the peace.

The only realistic approach is centrist. You have to recognize the nature of human beings and provide a controlled environment in which the marketplace can thrive. Too far to the right, you end up with robber barons and company stores. Too far to the left and you end up with commisars. No matter which way you go, the same people end up at the top with the same destructive results.

One of the purposes of the government under the Constitution is to provide for the general welfare. Not the welfare of the wealthy or the poor or the middle class. The welfare of all. That cannot be accomplished using just a liberal or a conservative approach. It requires a combination.

You're exactly right but should those who are smarter, more talented, richer etc. RULE all the others?

An IQ regimine assumes that the average intelligence is measured at 100....that there are as many of us with an IQ less than 100 as there are with IQs above. What would you like for us to do.....let those at the lower end of the scale starve or take orders from the elitist assholes who not only inheirited their IQ's but also the money they play around with in the stock market? I say let's come off this unlimited privileges for those at the top and when a war or military action is declared send their asses too. Before long the trillion dollars a year which ends up in the pockets of those who don't even need it can be used to teach those who need a trade to do something within their reach.

What you seem to be advocating is a return to the medieval "prince/peon system."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let em die

What is the logic behind that?

Rdean snuck into the townhall meeting

 

[PratchettFan]

Hey Avatar - by the way I used to love that avatar cartoon - watched it with my boys all the time when it was on(the movie was a bit of a let down though).

As to your comments - I agree there are always exceptions. I may not have used a good example of what I meant by this. As a conservative(and most of my conservative friends feel the same) - we accept the reality of inequality of income - where there will always be some who are rich, some who are in the middle somewhere, and some who are poor.

It is true that in many societies there is almost no middle class, but that is because often times these societies do not have the religious and political freedom we have and often times have a great deal of corruption.

But in our society we accept the reality of the different classes, yes we give to the poor through our church charities and do what we can. But we don't believe it is the government's job to try and wipe out the concept of the poor(people on the bottom of economy) - because in a free - capitalistic economy you will NEVER do that.

The liberal - based on his emotion at seeing the poor, believes we can bring about income equality by simply taking from rich and middle classes and giving it to the poor. In the conservative mind - this is tanamount to legalized theft and conservatives understand that eventually this type of thinking will destroy an economy.

The reason that liberalism will always fail is - it is at war with nature itself. Nature produces inequality - conservatism accepts this reality, while liberalism with its emotionalism trys to fight it.

I disagree that conservatism accepts reality any more than liberalism. Both equally fail to recognize human nature.

There is never going to be equality because there are always going to be those who are smarter, more talented, luckier or just born to the right parents. There are always going to be poor because some people are going to make stupid decisions, circumstances will make them poor or they will be born to the wrong parents. The government can never change that and any attempt to create a truly equal society is doomed.

However, the idea that allowing the marketplace to just handle itself is equally doomed. One need only look back at the late 19th and early 20th century in this county to see where that path lay. Just because some people attain great wealth does not mean they act wisely or treat those who work for them fairly. You end up, as we did, with what amounts to open warfare in the streets, giving rise to powerful unions and forcing the government to side with them just to maintain the peace.

The only realistic approach is centrist. You have to recognize the nature of human beings and provide a controlled environment in which the marketplace can thrive. Too far to the right, you end up with robber barons and company stores. Too far to the left and you end up with commisars. No matter which way you go, the same people end up at the top with the same destructive results.

One of the purposes of the government under the Constitution is to provide for the general welfare. Not the welfare of the wealthy or the poor or the middle class. The welfare of all. That cannot be accomplished using just a liberal or a conservative approach. It requires a combination.

You're exactly right but should those who are smarter, more talented, richer etc. RULE all the others?

An IQ regimine assumes that the average intelligence is measured at 100....that there are as many of us with an IQ less than 100 as there are with IQs above. What would you like for us to do.....let those at the lower end of the scale starve or take orders from the elitist assholes who not only inheirited their IQ's but also the money they play around with in the stock market? I say let's come off this unlimited privileges for those at the top and when a war or military action is declared send their asses too. Before long the trillion dollars a year which ends up in the pockets of those who don't even need it can be used to teach those who need a trade to do something within their reach.

What you seem to be advocating is a return to the medieval "prince/peon system."

It isn't a question of "should". They will rule. There are those who seek power and those who do not. I think it a truism that the people who seek power are the very people who should never be allowed to attain it. But the reality is that only those who seek it will attain it. So you are faced with that as a simple fact.

I am not advocating a prince/peon system. However, that is the nature order of human societies. The trick is not to change that situation, it is to make sure the peons aren't crushed by it.

 

[rightwinger]

Let em die

What is the logic behind that?

Rdean snuck into the townhall meeting

It all supports the OPs premise

Liberals base decisions on empathy. We need to take care of sick people regardless of whether they can pay or not. It is the right thing to do

Conservatives use logic. Survival of the fittest, if you can't afford medical care then you should die and your place will be taken over by someone stronger

 

[rdean]

I remember this interview the actor Rob Lowe did on Hannity(and he did one on Oreilly too).

West Wing Star Rob Lowe Praises Conservatives? Right-Wing Politics Based on 'Logic' | NewsBusters.org

I just was talking about it the other day with a friend and I thought I would re-hash it here and see your various views. Rob Lowe use to be very liberal(like most actors in hollywood) and he stated as he got older he found his views becoming more conservative. He now considers himself a "centrist".

Oreilly said he was over simplying it - but I actually think Rob Lowe hit the nail on the head. Basically he said - Liberalism is based on empathy and Conservatism is based on logic.

It really makes sense. A conservative walks by and sees a begger on the street - and he will do one of two things - give the guy a few bucks, or give him nothing thinking he is lazy and should get a job.

The true blue liberal - would say we need a government program to make sure there are no poor people on the streets. FDR back in the depression actually advocated for a second bill of rights - one in which not only do we have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - but also where we are guarenteeed minimal results.

Here are some of the rights FDR mentioned every American should have:

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Second Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are these not things that liberals argue for today? free housing, free medical care, pensions, unending unemployment benefits and free college education?

The problem is NOTHING is FREE. Someone has to pay for it. And no even if you take all the money that the top 2 percent make - its not enough to pay for FDRs second bill of rights. He tried it - he raised the top brackets to something like 94 percent! Then he wanted to make it 100% for top income earners.

But even with a 94% top tax bracket(soaking the rich for all they had) FDR was still unable to solve the nations economic woes, and he certainly was not able to give free housing, medical care and education for all.

FDR's own treasure secretary said

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot"

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sound familar like what we face today?

It was only after the death FDR, and ending of WWII that great depression actually ended. It was due largely in part to something liberals hate - lowering of corporate taxes(like on excess profits) and lowering of marginal rates(in 1945,1946 and 1948). Kennedy also figured that out and did the unliberal thing of cutting them big again - and he saw good economic turn arounds as well.

Conservaitves will think, "Get a job, but don't take mine. I only make $14 an hour" or give him a dollar and walk away feeling they've done something.

Liberals will try to get him into school so he could become a productive member of society and add to the general revenue so we have enough money to pay for the food stamps conservatives need because they only make $14 an hour in unskilled labor.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I disagree that conservatism accepts reality any more than liberalism. Both equally fail to recognize human nature.

There is never going to be equality because there are always going to be those who are smarter, more talented, luckier or just born to the right parents. There are always going to be poor because some people are going to make stupid decisions, circumstances will make them poor or they will be born to the wrong parents. The government can never change that and any attempt to create a truly equal society is doomed.

However, the idea that allowing the marketplace to just handle itself is equally doomed. One need only look back at the late 19th and early 20th century in this county to see where that path lay. Just because some people attain great wealth does not mean they act wisely or treat those who work for them fairly. You end up, as we did, with what amounts to open warfare in the streets, giving rise to powerful unions and forcing the government to side with them just to maintain the peace.

The only realistic approach is centrist. You have to recognize the nature of human beings and provide a controlled environment in which the marketplace can thrive. Too far to the right, you end up with robber barons and company stores. Too far to the left and you end up with commisars. No matter which way you go, the same people end up at the top with the same destructive results.

One of the purposes of the government under the Constitution is to provide for the general welfare. Not the welfare of the wealthy or the poor or the middle class. The welfare of all. That cannot be accomplished using just a liberal or a conservative approach. It requires a combination.

You're exactly right but should those who are smarter, more talented, richer etc. RULE all the others?

An IQ regimine assumes that the average intelligence is measured at 100....that there are as many of us with an IQ less than 100 as there are with IQs above. What would you like for us to do.....let those at the lower end of the scale starve or take orders from the elitist assholes who not only inheirited their IQ's but also the money they play around with in the stock market? I say let's come off this unlimited privileges for those at the top and when a war or military action is declared send their asses too. Before long the trillion dollars a year which ends up in the pockets of those who don't even need it can be used to teach those who need a trade to do something within their reach.

What you seem to be advocating is a return to the medieval "prince/peon system."

It isn't a question of "should". They will rule. There are those who seek power and those who do not. I think it a truism that the people who seek power are the very people who should never be allowed to attain it. But the reality is that only those who seek it will attain it. So you are faced with that as a simple fact.

I am not advocating a prince/peon system. However, that is the nature order of human societies. The trick is not to change that situation, it is to make sure the peons aren't crushed by it.

But beginning in the 80's tax rates were cut for the wealthy, money was borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall, the middle class began to shrink and here we are with a dilemma...the bottom sixty percent have been losing ground while those with the most money have increased their wealth more than double, almost three times as much:

 

[occupied]

The op is engaged in some pretty broad and flawed generalizations but let's examine what logic looks like without empathy.

Let's say you have a population of hungry children, without empathy it is quite logical to kill half of them and feed them to the other half until there are no more hungry children, problem solved.

 

[Cammmpbell]

The op is engaged in some pretty broad and flawed generalizations but let's examine what logic looks like without empathy.

Let's say you have a population of hungry children, without empathy it is quite logical to kill half of them and feed them to the other half until there are no more hungry children, problem solved.

Yeah...that scenario reminded me of a question during the debates for all of the Republican presidential candidates about someone showing up at the emergency room with no health insurance...."Let 'Em Die" was the consensus...at least that's what Ron Paul said and best as I remember none of them disagreed and the crowd applauded.

That's the kind of bullshit which cost the Republicans the election......and will cost them more if they don't recognize the problem and do something about it.

 

[occupied]

The op is engaged in some pretty broad and flawed generalizations but let's examine what logic looks like without empathy.

Let's say you have a population of hungry children, without empathy it is quite logical to kill half of them and feed them to the other half until there are no more hungry children, problem solved.

Yeah...that scenario reminded me of a question during the debates for all of the Republican presidential candidates about someone showing up at the emergency room with no health insurance...."Let 'Em Die" was the consensus...at least that's what Ron Paul said and best as I remember none of them disagreed and the crowd applauded.

That's the kind of bullshit which cost the Republicans the election......and will cost them more if they don't recognize the problem and do something about it.

Republican politics is really about fear, their fringe is ruled by fear and the rest fear angering them, I do not see logic as much as a devotion to truisms, things that sound like common sense to them but have little basis in reality, their treatment of the national economy like a household budget scaled up is a good example.

 

[Avatar4321]

Benbullshit.

Truth hurts and makes dimwits stupid. Obamaturd is guilty on this issue.

Guilty of what?

Parroting spook talking points?

Delibrately lying to the public. Unless you are going to tell me that he honestly didn't know it was a terrorist attack when he was on the view and said otherwise despite Sec. Clinton already saying it was.

 

[Avatar4321]

An example of CON$ervoFascist "logic."

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
- George Carlin

Actually, it's an example of a comedian trying to get a laugh. And an example of the absurd things people will believe is true despite having no basis in reality.

 

[Avatar4321]

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence.* Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.*
~William E. Gladstone

You trust the people so much that you want the government making all their decisions. You dont even know what prudence mean.

It's amazing what people will parrot without actually thinking about it.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved."
— Aristotle

So you are actually going to try to argue that Aristotle, who lived thousands of years ago, was talking about the modern progressive/liberal movement, which has absolutely nothing to do with what the word liberalism actually means?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Liberalism has nothing to do with empathy, only greed for the unearned..........