CDZ Liberal/Conservative Labels Miss the Point

[Boatswain2PA]

Newsflash: we elect a Cult of Personality in every major election. That's nothing new. In effect we don't elect a candidate; we buy a product. That product is packaged and sold by marketers through all the powers of media exactly as their opponent is. We don't even look for an executive; we look for Superman. And the Party that pretends it comes in two flavors, red and blue, is happy to package that illusory puppet to sell us, using all the same deceptive angles that sell us cars and fast food and deodorants -- and many more.

So those who voted for McCain were voting for his personality? Does he have one?? Romney has a personality??

I don't think so. I usually hold my nose and, after careful consideration, usually vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[PratchettFan]

Exactly. It also makes developing an argument much easier. Hear something you don't like, call it conservative or liberal and you need go no further. It is automatically bad by association. No critical thought required.

In general, I would say there are extremely few people who go about the business of developing a political ideology from the ground floor, up -- by examining their values and developing positions from those values. The vast majority seem to just buy a ready-made ideology and then conform to its dictates.

People don't really know what he words liberal and conservative mean other than describing a person, and so you can end up with some pretty ridiculous examples of the labels missing the true philosophy by an enormous margin. When supposed liberals are acting as chief apologists for Islamism, for instance, I often wonder if the entire world has gone mad.

I think the assumption on the last point was the world was ever sane.

 

[Pogo]

You apply the terms with no meaning. What is a conservative? You have Barry Goldwater, who was extremely rational, and Ted Cruz, about as rational as a three year old on a sugar high.

The use of the labels is mostly just to establish camps. Us vs them.

....and in establishing camps, all people are doing is displaying a psychological need for tribe. They derive a sense of identity from it. We have been so conditioned by our political process to view these labels as applying to people rather than political philosophies that it too often devolves into little more than a game of cowboys and indians.

An interesting thought -- are you suggesting we polarize out of a need for self-identity, to "belong" to something?

You may have something here...

 

[Pogo]

Your theory appears to be wishful thinking, like fulfilling an expression of your identify. You can't simply claim to be more rational. You have to back up the claim.

For example, I can back up that people get more conservative as they drink more alcohol.

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Or that brain studies show conservatives to be more motivated by fear and threats.

Conservatives Big on Fear Brain Study Finds Psychology Today

Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are Conservative Mother Jones

Such findings seem to support that liberals are more motivated by rationality than conservatives.

You should take your act out on the comedy circuit.

The flip-side of conservatives being more perceptive of fear and threats is that liberals are reckless and blind to threats and so are more fearless. Two sides of the same coin. Have you ever seen a one-sided coin?

The engine of liberalism is emotion - they look around and they see inequality and this triggers anger and envy. A conservative sees the same inequality, and can be poor too, but he reasons that inequality is a necessary outcome which arises from a system evolved to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Liberal emotion versus conservative reason.

The emotions swirling around all manifestations of inequality completely dominate the liberal view of the world. Poor people, minoriites, ugly people, disabled people, shunned people, criminals, you name it, the underdog always gets liberals chanting about unfairness. Soft-hearted liberal judges take pity on the criminal, hard-assed conservatives judges throw the book. Emotion drives the liberal judge, reason drives the conservative. The liberal focuses on the suffering of the criminal, the conservative focuses on the principles of justice and deterrence.

The engine of all political positions is emotion. The argument that conservatives are driven by reason is absurd.

I agree with the second sentence but the first makes no sense.

 

[PratchettFan]

Newsflash: we elect a Cult of Personality in every major election. That's nothing new. In effect we don't elect a candidate; we buy a product. That product is packaged and sold by marketers through all the powers of media exactly as their opponent is. We don't even look for an executive; we look for Superman. And the Party that pretends it comes in two flavors, red and blue, is happy to package that illusory puppet to sell us, using all the same deceptive angles that sell us cars and fast food and deodorants -- and many more.

So those who voted for McCain were voting for his personality? Does he have one?? Romney has a personality??

I don't think so. I usually hold my nose and, after careful consideration, usually vote for the lesser of two evils.

I voted for McCain because he had a clear message, whether you agreed or not, and I am a conservative. I voted for Obama because Romney would make a statement in a speech and his people would immediately come out afterward to explain what he really meant to say, so I never understood what he stood for -other than he wanted to be President.

 

[PratchettFan]

You apply the terms with no meaning. What is a conservative? You have Barry Goldwater, who was extremely rational, and Ted Cruz, about as rational as a three year old on a sugar high.

The use of the labels is mostly just to establish camps. Us vs them.

....and in establishing camps, all people are doing is displaying a psychological need for tribe. They derive a sense of identity from it. We have been so conditioned by our political process to view these labels as applying to people rather than political philosophies that it too often devolves into little more than a game of cowboys and indians.

An interesting thought -- are you suggesting we polarize out of a need for self-identity, to "belong" to something?

You may have something here...

Yes. Humans are the silliest people.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly. It also makes developing an argument much easier. Hear something you don't like, call it conservative or liberal and you need go no further. It is automatically bad by association. No critical thought required.

I disagree. How do you study, or even THINK about issues without defining terms. If you were to study dogs and cats, you would have to define what a dog is, and what a cat is. And if someone were to prefer dogs over cats, it doesn't mean that by identifying a subject as a cat means that the researcher wouldn't be able to critically evaluate cats.

In other words, you cannot have critical thought about the political process without definitions that include conservative and liberal.

My problem with these terms is that today's "liberals" are NOT liberal at all. The term liberal is supposed to mean someone who is inclusive, who lets others believe what they want to believe, where everyone is equal. Think 60's hippy's who advocated for peace and love for everyone. Today's "liberals" are not liberal at all, they are illiberal, intolerant, leftists who force their progressive ways on everyone. If someone disagrees with a progressive they will find themselves at the end of a lawsuit (pastors being forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies or Christian bakers sued for not baking a gay wedding cake), regulations (California churches being forced to pay for abortions), or public scorn (the hundreds of moderate or conservative speakers who have been disinvited to give speeches at colleges).

Today's liberals are not liberal at all, but rather illiberal, intolerant leftists.

You are completely correct in distinguishing liberal from leftist. The two have been conflated as if they're the same thing as part of the overall dumb-down process (and ultimately as part of the dichotomy of division). I wish more people would wake up to this. It's part of the capsulization of politics by mass media referred to in post 17 above.

 

[PratchettFan]

Your theory appears to be wishful thinking, like fulfilling an expression of your identify. You can't simply claim to be more rational. You have to back up the claim.

For example, I can back up that people get more conservative as they drink more alcohol.

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Or that brain studies show conservatives to be more motivated by fear and threats.

Conservatives Big on Fear Brain Study Finds Psychology Today

Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are Conservative Mother Jones

Such findings seem to support that liberals are more motivated by rationality than conservatives.

You should take your act out on the comedy circuit.

The flip-side of conservatives being more perceptive of fear and threats is that liberals are reckless and blind to threats and so are more fearless. Two sides of the same coin. Have you ever seen a one-sided coin?

The engine of liberalism is emotion - they look around and they see inequality and this triggers anger and envy. A conservative sees the same inequality, and can be poor too, but he reasons that inequality is a necessary outcome which arises from a system evolved to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Liberal emotion versus conservative reason.

The emotions swirling around all manifestations of inequality completely dominate the liberal view of the world. Poor people, minoriites, ugly people, disabled people, shunned people, criminals, you name it, the underdog always gets liberals chanting about unfairness. Soft-hearted liberal judges take pity on the criminal, hard-assed conservatives judges throw the book. Emotion drives the liberal judge, reason drives the conservative. The liberal focuses on the suffering of the criminal, the conservative focuses on the principles of justice and deterrence.

The engine of all political positions is emotion. The argument that conservatives are driven by reason is absurd.

I agree with the second sentence but the first makes no sense.

A few years ago there was a gubernatorial election in my state and one of the big issues was roads. There were three candidates, all agreeing this was a huge problem and needed addressing. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates said they were going to fix this problem and lower taxes. The independent said it was ridiculous to say you could fix the problem and lower taxes, the money had to come from somewhere. The independent got less than 1% of the vote and his was the only rational position. The Republican won and taxes went up.

Just because it makes no sense does not mean it isn't true. Read any political speech and you will find at least 95% is an appeal to emotion and more often it will be 100%.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly. It also makes developing an argument much easier. Hear something you don't like, call it conservative or liberal and you need go no further. It is automatically bad by association. No critical thought required.

In general, I would say there are extremely few people who go about the business of developing a political ideology from the ground floor, up -- by examining their values and developing positions from those values. The vast majority seem to just buy a ready-made ideology and then conform to its dictates.

Mostly agreed... seems to me more that people will listen to position A and position B (and given any intelligence at all, positions D, E and F...) and gravitate to the one that makes the most sense to them. I suspect that has to do with the combination of (a) one's personal philosophy and (b) what one's formative experience taught them.

People don't really know what he words liberal and conservative mean other than describing a person, and so you can end up with some pretty ridiculous examples of the labels missing the true philosophy by an enormous margin. When supposed liberals are acting as chief apologists for Islamism, for instance, I often wonder if the entire world has gone mad.

You'll need to specify an example on this last, as there is a distinct but ignored difference between on the one hand "apologizing for" something (an active position) and on the other counterattacking an irrational attack on it (a reactive position). Deconstructing an irrational attack does not constitute "apologism".

I've certainly called out myriad bullshit reports about alleged Islamist acts and motivations. It's never been out of a defense of Islam (I don't believe in organized religion at all). It's out of a simple defence of accuracy and a respect for history. Because it's far more important that when we define our terms starting out, we're not telling blatant lies, irrespective of who those lies favour or disfavour.

 

[Pogo]

Your theory appears to be wishful thinking, like fulfilling an expression of your identify. You can't simply claim to be more rational. You have to back up the claim.

For example, I can back up that people get more conservative as they drink more alcohol.

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Or that brain studies show conservatives to be more motivated by fear and threats.

Conservatives Big on Fear Brain Study Finds Psychology Today

Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are Conservative Mother Jones

Such findings seem to support that liberals are more motivated by rationality than conservatives.

You should take your act out on the comedy circuit.

The flip-side of conservatives being more perceptive of fear and threats is that liberals are reckless and blind to threats and so are more fearless. Two sides of the same coin. Have you ever seen a one-sided coin?

The engine of liberalism is emotion - they look around and they see inequality and this triggers anger and envy. A conservative sees the same inequality, and can be poor too, but he reasons that inequality is a necessary outcome which arises from a system evolved to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Liberal emotion versus conservative reason.

The emotions swirling around all manifestations of inequality completely dominate the liberal view of the world. Poor people, minoriites, ugly people, disabled people, shunned people, criminals, you name it, the underdog always gets liberals chanting about unfairness. Soft-hearted liberal judges take pity on the criminal, hard-assed conservatives judges throw the book. Emotion drives the liberal judge, reason drives the conservative. The liberal focuses on the suffering of the criminal, the conservative focuses on the principles of justice and deterrence.

The engine of all political positions is emotion. The argument that conservatives are driven by reason is absurd.

I agree with the second sentence but the first makes no sense.

A few years ago there was a gubernatorial election in my state and one of the big issues was roads. There were three candidates, all agreeing this was a huge problem and needed addressing. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates said they were going to fix this problem and lower taxes. The independent said it was ridiculous to say you could fix the problem and lower taxes, the money had to come from somewhere. The independent got less than 1% of the vote and his was the only rational position. The Republican won and taxes went up.

Just because it makes no sense does not mean it isn't true. Read any political speech and you will find at least 95% is an appeal to emotion and more often it will be 100%.

Then what you meant to say was apparently that "the engine of all political rhetoric is emotion".

 

[Boatswain2PA]

...People don't really know what he words liberal and conservative mean other than describing a person, and so you can end up with some pretty ridiculous examples of the labels missing the true philosophy by an enormous margin. When supposed liberals are acting as chief apologists for Islamism, for instance, I often wonder if the entire world has gone mad.

Yeah. I always laugh at the stupidity when an intolerant, illiberal leftist supports imprisoning a baker for not baking a gay-wedding cake in one sentence, and then supports Islam in the next sentence. I'm like "You know that in many Islamist countries you would be subject to stoning for your first sentence...right?"

 

[Boatswain2PA]

A few years ago there was a gubernatorial election in my state and one of the big issues was roads. There were three candidates, all agreeing this was a huge problem and needed addressing. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates said they were going to fix this problem and lower taxes. The independent said it was ridiculous to say you could fix the problem and lower taxes, the money had to come from somewhere. The independent got less than 1% of the vote and his was the only rational position. The Republican won and taxes went up.

If the republican was a conservative he would have cut wasteful spending (ie: Swedish massage therapy for cats) and spent that money on roads.

 

[PratchettFan]

Your theory appears to be wishful thinking, like fulfilling an expression of your identify. You can't simply claim to be more rational. You have to back up the claim.

For example, I can back up that people get more conservative as they drink more alcohol.

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Or that brain studies show conservatives to be more motivated by fear and threats.

Conservatives Big on Fear Brain Study Finds Psychology Today

Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are Conservative Mother Jones

Such findings seem to support that liberals are more motivated by rationality than conservatives.

You should take your act out on the comedy circuit.

The flip-side of conservatives being more perceptive of fear and threats is that liberals are reckless and blind to threats and so are more fearless. Two sides of the same coin. Have you ever seen a one-sided coin?

The engine of liberalism is emotion - they look around and they see inequality and this triggers anger and envy. A conservative sees the same inequality, and can be poor too, but he reasons that inequality is a necessary outcome which arises from a system evolved to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Liberal emotion versus conservative reason.

The emotions swirling around all manifestations of inequality completely dominate the liberal view of the world. Poor people, minoriites, ugly people, disabled people, shunned people, criminals, you name it, the underdog always gets liberals chanting about unfairness. Soft-hearted liberal judges take pity on the criminal, hard-assed conservatives judges throw the book. Emotion drives the liberal judge, reason drives the conservative. The liberal focuses on the suffering of the criminal, the conservative focuses on the principles of justice and deterrence.

The engine of all political positions is emotion. The argument that conservatives are driven by reason is absurd.

I agree with the second sentence but the first makes no sense.

A few years ago there was a gubernatorial election in my state and one of the big issues was roads. There were three candidates, all agreeing this was a huge problem and needed addressing. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates said they were going to fix this problem and lower taxes. The independent said it was ridiculous to say you could fix the problem and lower taxes, the money had to come from somewhere. The independent got less than 1% of the vote and his was the only rational position. The Republican won and taxes went up.

Just because it makes no sense does not mean it isn't true. Read any political speech and you will find at least 95% is an appeal to emotion and more often it will be 100%.

Then what you meant to say was apparently that "the engine of all political rhetoric is emotion".

No, I didn't mean to say that at all. I think the biggest mistake people make is thinking political positions are some sort of entity of their own. They are not. They are entirely human. Politics is nothing more than humans interacting with other humans, and that is almost all emotional. Most people's political positions have absolutely nothing to do with a rational examination of the facts. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a single person whose position had no emotional component at all.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly. It also makes developing an argument much easier. Hear something you don't like, call it conservative or liberal and you need go no further. It is automatically bad by association. No critical thought required.

I disagree. How do you study, or even THINK about issues without defining terms. If you were to study dogs and cats, you would have to define what a dog is, and what a cat is. And if someone were to prefer dogs over cats, it doesn't mean that by identifying a subject as a cat means that the researcher wouldn't be able to critically evaluate cats.

In other words, you cannot have critical thought about the political process without definitions that include conservative and liberal.

My problem with these terms is that today's "liberals" are NOT liberal at all. The term liberal is supposed to mean someone who is inclusive, who lets others believe what they want to believe, where everyone is equal. Think 60's hippy's who advocated for peace and love for everyone. Today's "liberals" are not liberal at all, they are illiberal, intolerant, leftists who force their progressive ways on everyone. If someone disagrees with a progressive they will find themselves at the end of a lawsuit (pastors being forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies or Christian bakers sued for not baking a gay wedding cake), regulations (California churches being forced to pay for abortions), or public scorn (the hundreds of moderate or conservative speakers who have been disinvited to give speeches at colleges).

Today's liberals are not liberal at all, but rather illiberal, intolerant leftists.

I will agree you cannot have critical thought about the political process without definitions that include conservative and liberal. However, that is pretty much why most of the political process has no critical thought associated with it. On either side of the aisle.

I also agree today's liberals are not liberal. However, today's conservatives are not conservative. They are reactionaries who are intolerant of anyone not agreeing with them. They would make Bill Buckley vote for a Democrat. And all of this is fanned by politicians who are only interested in power and are willing to tell any lie which will get them elected.

Newsflash: we elect a Cult of Personality in every major election. That's nothing new. In effect we don't elect a candidate; we buy a product. That product is packaged and sold by marketers through all the powers of media exactly as their opponent is. We don't even look for an executive; we look for Superman. And the Party that pretends it comes in two flavors, red and blue, is happy to package that illusory puppet to sell us, using all the same deceptive angles that sell us cars and fast food and deodorants -- and many more.

So those who voted for McCain were voting for his personality? Does he have one?? Romney has a personality??

Of course they were. And how else can you explain Sarah Palin, the barracuda hockey mom? Doesn't get more emotional-personality packaged product than that.

I didn't say every packaging of personality wins. I said they're packaged that way. George Bush, the guy you could have a beer with. Bill Clinton, who "fells your pain". George Bush I, the continuation of Ronald Reagan and Reagan the Grandfather. Carter the honest religious peanut farmer. The stronger the personality sells, the better the chance of winning. When it sells weakly because the personality wasn't adequately marketed (Mondale, Dukakis, Bush '92, Dole, McCain), the better-marketed product wins.

That's because we live in a consumer-commodity culture and we're going to buy what gets marketed in the most emotionally-convincing way. We don't talk about policies but about politicians.

I don't think so. I usually hold my nose and, after careful consideration, usually vote for the lesser of two evils.

We all do that. And I think the main reason is laid out above.

 

[PratchettFan]

A few years ago there was a gubernatorial election in my state and one of the big issues was roads. There were three candidates, all agreeing this was a huge problem and needed addressing. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates said they were going to fix this problem and lower taxes. The independent said it was ridiculous to say you could fix the problem and lower taxes, the money had to come from somewhere. The independent got less than 1% of the vote and his was the only rational position. The Republican won and taxes went up.

If the republican was a conservative he would have cut wasteful spending (ie: Swedish massage therapy for cats) and spent that money on roads.

I don't think we were spending money on Swedish massage therapy for cats. It was being wasted on other things like public education, low income housing, public health, police, fire, etc. We had a conservative governor and lt. governor, conservative attorney general and a conservative legislature. And taxes went up. If cutting spending is conservative, I doubt we have a single conservative politician in the country - except in their speeches. The problem is you can lie to get elected, but once elected you actually have to do the job.

 

[Pogo]

Newsflash: we elect a Cult of Personality in every major election. That's nothing new. In effect we don't elect a candidate; we buy a product. That product is packaged and sold by marketers through all the powers of media exactly as their opponent is. We don't even look for an executive; we look for Superman. And the Party that pretends it comes in two flavors, red and blue, is happy to package that illusory puppet to sell us, using all the same deceptive angles that sell us cars and fast food and deodorants -- and many more.

So those who voted for McCain were voting for his personality? Does he have one?? Romney has a personality??

I don't think so. I usually hold my nose and, after careful consideration, usually vote for the lesser of two evils.

I voted for McCain because he had a clear message, whether you agreed or not, and I am a conservative. I voted for Obama because Romney would make a statement in a speech and his people would immediately come out afterward to explain what he really meant to say, so I never understood what he stood for -other than he wanted to be President.

Actually the bolded part on the end for me is how they pretty much all look.

McCain had a "message"?

 

[PratchettFan]

...People don't really know what he words liberal and conservative mean other than describing a person, and so you can end up with some pretty ridiculous examples of the labels missing the true philosophy by an enormous margin. When supposed liberals are acting as chief apologists for Islamism, for instance, I often wonder if the entire world has gone mad.

Yeah. I always laugh at the stupidity when an intolerant, illiberal leftist supports imprisoning a baker for not baking a gay-wedding cake in one sentence, and then supports Islam in the next sentence. I'm like "You know that in many Islamist countries you would be subject to stoning for your first sentence...right?"

And I always laugh when someone talks about religious liberty because a teacher can't lead a class in a prayer and then wants to have all Muslims tossed out of the country. You know that is the kind of intolerance you find in Islamist countries.... right?

 

[Pogo]

You apply the terms with no meaning. What is a conservative? You have Barry Goldwater, who was extremely rational, and Ted Cruz, about as rational as a three year old on a sugar high.

The use of the labels is mostly just to establish camps. Us vs them.

....and in establishing camps, all people are doing is displaying a psychological need for tribe. They derive a sense of identity from it. We have been so conditioned by our political process to view these labels as applying to people rather than political philosophies that it too often devolves into little more than a game of cowboys and indians.

An interesting thought -- are you suggesting we polarize out of a need for self-identity, to "belong" to something?

You may have something here...

Yes. Humans are the silliest people.

It's an open question -- I don't know. Was this meant to be sarcastic?

I'm not a joiner myself so the concept really isn't familiar. The idea of belonging to a political party (or organized religion, etc) just to "belong to" something seems at base pointless.

 

[PratchettFan]

Newsflash: we elect a Cult of Personality in every major election. That's nothing new. In effect we don't elect a candidate; we buy a product. That product is packaged and sold by marketers through all the powers of media exactly as their opponent is. We don't even look for an executive; we look for Superman. And the Party that pretends it comes in two flavors, red and blue, is happy to package that illusory puppet to sell us, using all the same deceptive angles that sell us cars and fast food and deodorants -- and many more.

So those who voted for McCain were voting for his personality? Does he have one?? Romney has a personality??

I don't think so. I usually hold my nose and, after careful consideration, usually vote for the lesser of two evils.

I voted for McCain because he had a clear message, whether you agreed or not, and I am a conservative. I voted for Obama because Romney would make a statement in a speech and his people would immediately come out afterward to explain what he really meant to say, so I never understood what he stood for -other than he wanted to be President.

Actually the bolded part on the end for me is how they pretty much all look.

McCain had a "message"?

Yes. He did. I know they all want the job, but at least you understand what they intend to do when they get it. You may not agree with them, but they are consistent in what they say. McCain was consistent.

 

[PratchettFan]

You apply the terms with no meaning. What is a conservative? You have Barry Goldwater, who was extremely rational, and Ted Cruz, about as rational as a three year old on a sugar high.

The use of the labels is mostly just to establish camps. Us vs them.

....and in establishing camps, all people are doing is displaying a psychological need for tribe. They derive a sense of identity from it. We have been so conditioned by our political process to view these labels as applying to people rather than political philosophies that it too often devolves into little more than a game of cowboys and indians.

An interesting thought -- are you suggesting we polarize out of a need for self-identity, to "belong" to something?

You may have something here...

Yes. Humans are the silliest people.

It's an open question -- I don't know. Was this meant to be sarcastic?

I'm not a joiner myself so the concept really isn't familiar. The idea of belonging to a political party (or organized religion, etc) just to "belong to" something seems at base pointless.

Not sarcastic at all. As a species I think one of the best descriptions of us is "silly". You may not see the point to belonging to a political party or religion, but obviously other people do. We are a social animal. What makes us unique is we are so adept at living in a world of make believe.