jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (52 posts)

Does holding to established order make Republicans/Conservatives mean?

  1. Credence2 profile image84
    Credence2posted 17 months ago

    I have always wondered what makes progressives (liberals if you like) different from conservatives. When both are witness to the same events, yet each group has a different take on what is or what should be done.

    This is a lot like the gold or blue dress controversy of a couple of months ago. Who can explain why so many saw a gold dress, but otherwise normally sentient people also saw the dress in blue, looking at the exact same image.

    Yes, this article is from the 'leftist rag' Huffington Post, but the questions and theme proposed could stand a fair scrutiny by either side of the ideological ledger. Humor me, have a look and share your thoughts. Are these things in the article true, are they an exaggeration?


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain … lp00000592

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Wow. That really puts an unnecessarily negative spin on the whole Republican mentality.

      I think one could easily take the stand of the far left and fabricate a similarly unflattering article. I'm not certain what the point would be; other than to prove they too could be a pompous ass.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I wish that the other side could produce a similar article, perhaps I might learn more about how they  think and process situations. I am looking for answers, I am not beating anyone up. What was it that disturbed you specifically.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Nothing specific disturbed me. I'll admit I know people who could easily be the subjects used to write that article. But, they aren't people whose ideas should be dismissed. That article was obviously tongue in cheek. But, it is just like the belief/nonbelief debate in religion. The article belittles beliefs as if there is something mentally deficient in those who hold them. As if we should smile condescendingly at those who hold them because, they just can't help themselves.

          None of that is conducive to a productive exchange of ideas.

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Ok, L to L ( Denise), I admitted that the source of the article would probably have a left-wing bias.

            So on the subject of relgion and faith,,,,

            You know people that believe that their beliefs should be imposed upon others? That is what is spoken about here. No one is attacking faith and belief in the article.

            I am not bashing anyone, just  why does the conservative feel threatened under the circumstances?

            How others believe or not believe does not bother me, why does it bother them? It cuts to very soul of who we are as individuals.

            In another thread, we were talking about grass root revolts on an listless Washington. Until we deal with the fundemental differences in  our personal values, we can never act with one voice to do anything, with the exception of having a nuclear bomb detonated in your neighborhood.

            I know that we have differences, but why? If we are serious about debate, seems that this is a path that we must cross.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              I think we need to be more mature than we have been. I don't see it necessary to agree on many fundamental values. Mainly, because it will never happen. But, there are so many major issues we could agree on. I think politicians use the 'fundamental values' argument to keep us separated. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most people I discuss our national problems with all agree on so much more than we disagree. We should find a way to focus on the things we agree on, force those things to be worked on and let the politicians pander over the other things.

              1. Credence2 profile image84
                Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                But L to L, what major issues do we agree upon?

                Foreign Policy
                Entitlement Spending
                Military Spending
                Abortion/Contraception
                Gay issues
                Guns

                The Government had almost came to a halt when it defaulted on its obligations because of party and ideological gridlock back in '11.

                Who is saying, let's take the country back? Who do we take it back from?

                What was it "Get your Government hands off of my Medicare?

                I have never seen so contentious a society since the Civil War. While we have always had poles of disagreement, never have they been as virulent as they are today.

                We all can agree on that we all want nice peaceful lives, without want or concern that include good paying jobs and secure retirements, but getting from here to there and roads we take is the real question and arduous part of the journey

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Well, I don't expect the government to ensure I have a good paying job and a secure retirement. I think their only obligation to us is to ensure there are rules that protect the worker from being exploited or taken advantage of. And, free of want and concern? We'll always find things to want and things to be concerned about. So, I think we don't have any agreement there.

                  However, what could we all agree on? That corporations are not citizens and they should have no ability to sway elected officials? That for every seat at the table a corporation gets at a policy meeting, such as the front row seats they had during the health care negotiations, there should be several average citizens with as much pull. I think we could all agree to insist that pork barrel spending isn't piggybacked onto needed legislation.

                  I think we could probably all agree that if we removed every incentive politicians had to get rich while in office we might actually get some people to run who have our interests at heart. True public servants instead of the half butt actors we currently employ.

                  As to the other? My dad always said that if the Republicans were permanently in power they'd starve us all out and if the Democrats were permanently in power they'd beggar us all. True public servants would still disagree. But, true public servants would argue in defense of their beliefs and ideals. Not because some millionaire who wants his corporation to get a multi billion dollar government contract will give him property for pennies on the dollar or some other benefit if he votes in favor of things that will benefit that corporation.

                  1. Credence2 profile image84
                    Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    I agree with your statement regarding Government's obligation to ensure that there are rules that protect the worker from being exploited or taken advantage of. 

                    That is the crux of the problem, you tell me, which side has be most adamant in the attempt to 'water down' these protections? There are as many people on the right that says if the Govermnent steps back from its oversignt and regulatory responsibility, which ensnarles the 'job creators' with more red tape, the workers would benefit. This is how they say you find your protection
                    According to them, let the invisible hand of the free market see to the proper relationship between labor and capitalist.

                    In your second paragraph, of course we agree, but who do you think created the absurd notion and continues to promote it as 'free speech'? The Republican, the Right, Conservatives. There are a lot of them and they are not interested in parity at any level. We all say what is desirable, but we vote advocates of these insane ideas into office. The theme of Government interference in the economy and how a laissez-faire approach produces a better outcome attracts many on the surface  but allow people to be deceived and not see the component parts, the details of which serves to disenfranchise us all.

                    On your third paragraph, you are right. We spoke of the concept of term limits,but you will see how much resistance there is to curbing the excess power and influence of these legislators.

                    The people and groups that promote this bad stuff are not just an amorphous mass. While there is a stench from all politicians, there is a matter of degree and absolutes of one side being the villian and the other, the hero,  is not accurate

                    But in my opinion the Right is more of an impediment to solving the problems that we have been discussing in this and the other thread.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Actually, there have been multiple reputable studies now showing consistent differences in conservatives and liberals brains. 

            If you want to know something less than stellar about liberals, it is that all that open-mindedness leads to less happiness.

    2. colorfulone profile image87
      colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Huffington Post's articles are usually one sided dribble.  That article sets as an example for the site and of it's writers like Cody Cain.  Silly!

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I never denied the fact that the article had a left bias, bring me a one with a right wing bias and let me sieve for the fundamentals behind it. The article was used to stimulate debate on the fundamentals of differences between the ideological poles. So what is the otherside? I have a hard time pinning conservatives down as to the bases of their beliefs at the molecular level.


        Why do two people look at the samething and have a different reaction?

        Do you have points of reference that put forth a more accurate conservative based appeal, as this is so one sided? I anxious to hear and debate the efficacy as to their objectives for the  general society and why.

        1. colorfulone profile image87
          colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          You are smart so you would know about perceptions.
          Can You Trust Your Eyes? (or your perceptions for that matter).
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZflIMBxyIak

          Scientists do not understand the phenomenon of the biological and neurological factors of eye-sight fully as to why A) person sees blue, and  B) person sees gold while looking at the same image. 

          Then, I have a cousin who is color-blind. Clearly my car is gold, my cousin sees it as tan. He doesn't argue because he realizes he cannot trust his eyes.

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, I saw the link, those are optical illusions that are common to all of us with two eyes and relatively healthy eye sight.

            But, taking this to ideological affiliation and identification, are you implying that the differences are unknowable, like the difference in visual perception in different people in the dress color example?

            I am speaking of two groups of people that are equally functional in their reasoning abilities in everyother way, but ideologically both can look at the same object or circumstance with one seeing blue and the other red. I ask again, why?

            Why are my perceptions different from that which would be considered conservative points of view? Neither side is neurologically blind, so what is the difference? It is not of passing interest as national debates and policy have been affected by this anomaly between individuals, groups of people, etc.

            You spoke of bias in the Post article, what is the premise that supports that bias and what refute is presented by the otherside that is of merit to counter the bias.

            I would be even smarter if I can figure that out.
            Are conservatives slow in defending the merit of their points of view?
            Do you have an answer, does anyone out there have an answer?

            1. colorfulone profile image87
              colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              I definitely am not "implying that the differences are unknowable".  Are you researching that?   I would be interested in knowing if the differences are knowable (not theories).

              1. Credence2 profile image84
                Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, nature or nurture? All that is available to support the nature or hard brain wiring is only possible within the concept of theory based on tests as the proof of direct correlation between political ideological leanings and evident orientation of the brain is beyond the capability of current science. There is as indicated by Pretty Panther,  some meaningful research.  I had provided an article from the Washington Post, and we can agree that this is not a liberal rag.

                So, if it is not nature, it must be nurture? The only overwhelming group that is conservative in its leanings are rural older white males. So on the opposite pole the strongest consistently liberal groups are minorities, young urban dwellers. How does educational attainment figure into this? Income levels, social class?



                http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ … story.html

                1. colorfulone profile image87
                  colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Thanks for putting that link in front of my face so I could plainly see it and read that article. Interesting! 

                  I was in a group many years ago that used neutralization techniques to eliminate knee jerk reactions to overt hostility.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Am I reading you correctly that you see "overt hostility" in this thread?  Is that what you mean, or am I misunderstanding something.

            2. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              A great thread, Credence. I’m sorry I am late to the party.

              I discovered a short excerpt with a comprehensive analysis covering this topic a few months ago. I spent more than an hour searching for it today. It answers your questions and provides insight for understanding the conflicting worldviews held by Conservatives and Liberals.

              While your link deals with the difficulties Liberals face trying to comprehend Conservative thinking, this author offers dozens of puzzles facing both camps, but here are a few that challenge Conservatives just to counterpoint the Huff-Post article:

              “Of course, most conservatives have just as little understanding of liberals. To conservatives, liberal positions seem outrageously immoral or just plain foolish. Here are some corresponding questions that conservatives have about liberal positions.

              Liberals support welfare and education proposals to aid children, yet they sanction the murder of children by supporting the practice of abortion. Isn't this contradictory?”

              “How can liberals support federal funding for AIDS research and treatment while promoting the spread of AIDS by sanctioning sexual behavior that leads to AIDS? In defending gay rights, liberals sanction homosexual sex; they sanction teenage sex by advocating the distribution of condoms in schools; they sanction drug abuse by promoting needle exchange programs for drug users. How can liberals say they want to stop the spread of AIDS while they sanction practices that lead to it?

              How can liberals claim to be supporters of labor when they support environmental restrictions that limit development and eliminate jobs?

              How can liberals claim to support the expansion of the economy when they favor government regulations that limit entrepreneurship and when they tax profitable investments?”

              “How can liberals claim to be helping people in need when they support social welfare programs that make people dependent on the government and limit their initiative?”

              “To conservatives, liberals seem either immoral, perverse, misguided, irrational, or just plain dumb. Yet, from the perspective of the liberal worldview, what seems contradictory or immoral or stupid to conservatives seems to liberals to be natural, rational, and, above all, moral.”"


              The author sets out as a cognitive scientist to create two models that explain the differences in worldviews. “The job of the cognitive scientist in this instance is to characterize the largely unconscious liberal and conservative worldviews accurately enough so that an analyst can see just why the puzzles for liberals are not puzzles for conservatives, and conversely.”

              The remarkable success of his thesis is finding the conflicting worldviews are centered around two very different ideals of family life, the Conservative thinkers following a “Strict Father” model and Liberals a “Nurturant Parent” model.

              A fascinating, insight-filled, quick read that I think you will find interesting:
              Moral Politics, How Liberals and Conservatives Think by George Lakoff {1}
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Thank you for the Huff-Post article with an explanation of the liberal agenda and the corresponding conservative view of it. As with any position with regards to the human condition it is hard to describe all the complexities of behavior. I totally get that the paradoxical insights of liberals by conservatives is justified in a black and white comparison. What it shows is an opposite view without discretion. Discretion is what judges the causes and affects of our behavior. Just as the abortion clinic bomber justifies his actions in protest of the taking of life of a fetus, so does the welfare queen justify the advantage she takes of the system she condemns. Human nature is a paradox.

              2. Credence2 profile image84
                Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Better late than never, Quill.

                I am reading your link and will get back with you. Conservative and Liberal leaning thought, must be taught as you can sort and take sides based on distinctive demographic groups.

              3. colorfulone profile image87
                colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Quilligrapher, that is one of the best articles I have read on the differences between liberals and conservatives. I read that article this morning and am still thinking about it. Thanks for taking the time to find it to share.

                1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  You are quite welcome, Ms. Lehto.

                  The impact of this author’s thesis stayed in the forefront of my consciousness for a few days as well. However, this is only one chapter of the book. I am looking forward to reading the entire work. 

                  Your post is appreciated.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. colorfulone profile image87
                    colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Quilligrapher, perhaps you would be so kind as to write a hub about your conclusions after reading that book?  You do have some interesting titles in your portfolio. I just read about the Tear of Grief monument and am richer for having done so.

  2. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 17 months ago

    Seriously ?  Who could even begin to say that conservatives are mean  and not  Know that  liberal fanaticisms are  witchy  at the minimum and downright  war-like at the worst ?   There is probably nothing nor  no one  as down right  jackal -like as the liberal idealist activist .     There IS anger , disgust and  extreme divisiveness  in both arena's of our two party political fields  yet to even suggest  that only "conservatives are mean" ?.........Please !    Open your mind.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Before you go off on a tangent, did you bother to read the article that was linked here?  Being open minded means reading available material and then making a judgement? What substantive information do you have to refute that found in the article?

      Are conservatives unduly defensive?

    2. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Since you obviously didn't read the article, here are the last few paragraphs, in which the author of the article suggests, in so many words, that liberals open their minds about the motivations behind conservative beliefs.

      Is it possible to be opposed to having a black president but not be racist? Well, the brain theory seems to offer an explanation. As the theory goes, conservatives are not mean and evil people who hate black people, but rather, conservatives are honorable and noble people who are merely attempting to protect the established order against threats to its existence.

      A similar perspective can be applied to gays and gay marriage. Under the brain theory, the reason conservatives are opposed to gay marriage is not because conservatives are mean and hate gay people. Instead, conservatives are honorably and nobly seeking to protect the established order against threats that would upend it, and in doing so they are acting for the benefit of our entire society.

      Now, if you have suffered discrimination as a result of being female, black, or gay, it probably does not matter much to you whether those who discriminated against you were acting with what they believed to be honorable intentions. Fair enough. Discrimination is wrong and our society must strive to eliminate it.

      But the reason this matters is that understanding the cause of discrimination can be critical to developing solutions to eliminate it.

      Understanding the science of the brain just might help conservatives and liberals get along with each other a little bit better. Liberals might bear in mind that conservatives are not just mean and nasty, but instead that their brains are more likely to perceive circumstances as being extremely threatening. As a result, liberals might seek to take extra measures to allay these fears. And conservatives might bear in mind that their own brains are more susceptible to interpret circumstances as being overly threatening when such threats may not be so severe.

      We might just be able to get along with each other after all.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago

    I have felt and believed for a long time, ever since I observed the conservative reaction to 9/11, that conservative beliefs are fear-based.  They are afraid of change and afraid of people who are different. 

    I am speaking in generalities, of course.  There are always exceptions.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Hello, Pretty Panther,

      Here is a case in point. On this gun thing, it has never occurred to me that I should want a conceal and carry permit for a gun. I could never figure out why I needed a gun in my day to day interactions with people.

      I guess that was naive as that I should have thought that I could protect myself against a bolt of lightning. Crime is of such a nature, even being armed would I be perfectly prepared to use my weapon getting the upper hand on an assailant? The "Dirty Harry" thing is just fiction. I saw having one  more as an inconvience rather than a souce of 'power'

      Living in a rough patch of lower downtown Denver a few years ago and having experience a number of breakins, I almost (almost) bought a pistol.
      Dealing with a bunch of drug crazed opportunistic 15 years olds that stole my transistor radio was irritating. Sitting down and thinking it out made me realize that I cowering in my own house and fortunately I had the resources and decided to move to a safer part of the city. Yes, those kids had it coming, but it wasn't worth it to me.

      So when I listen to people actually say that these massacres could have been avoided if the teachers/administrators or church member had been armed is so much bunk, I have to question the sanity of the "other side"

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Belief in gun ownership as a means of self protection is fantasy, not borne out by factual evidence.  It doesn't matter, though, because the need to own a gun for supposed self-protection is fear-based, not reality based. 

        The health risk of having a gun in the home

        I do own a gun, but at this particular moment, I don't even know exactly where it is because my husband stored it and locked it away.  The reason I own a gun is quite humorous, actually, and supports the theory that gun ownership is often fear-based.  When GWB was president, I could barely stand to look at him or listen to him.  The mere sight or sound of him was repulsive to me.  Then, Katrina happened, and I sat and watched the chaos and ineptitude of the aftermath.  That is when I decided I needed a gun, not to protect myself against "thugs" or "druggies" or "those other people," but to protect myself in the event of a natural disaster under the malevolently inept Bush administration.  I laugh now, because my husband dutifully bought me my own personal gun, but I realize my desire for one was not reality-based.  I am an outstanding shot, having grown up in a hunting family, but I don't feel the need to carry a gun or have it handy in my home.  In fact, my reality-based self knows it would put me and my family in greater danger.

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Bush, yeah , his brother, Jeb, seems to be following in stride.

          Knew quite a few hunter types while living in the middle Montana for 2-3 years. We have always had our hunters and firearm enthusiasts, but this new obsession is different. It is like a rite of passage, it is that the having is more important than any purpose that it serves. I believed that those that want to carry had a chip on their shoulder and was looking for an opportunity to use their weapon. They would go to places that they had no business being and would not be
          there unless subconsciously they are looking for a confrontation. People with perpetual chips on their shoulders?

        2. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          THIS , is exactly what's wrong with the usual perception of   anti- gun - advocates .   " I own a gun but I don't even know where it is ............?"      What !    What a blind and yet  irresponsible  statement ,      A responsible gun owner , for one thing ,  knows exactly where it is    !    The unknown location of this gun is the real danger , Besides the fact that- that's the reason most child deaths happen -, misplaced weapons ,   This shows the exact meaning of the hypocrisy of most  anti- gun  people .

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Did you miss the part where I said my husband stored and locked away the gun?  I know generally where it is but not its specific location.  The ammo is also stored and locked away separately.

            Geesh.

        3. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          THIS , is exactly what's wrong with the  perception of   anti- gun - advocates .   " I own a gun but I don't even know where it is ............?"      What !   Doesn't this shows the exact meaning of the hypocrisy of most  anti- gun  people .

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Ahorseback, defensive again? No one is talking about anti-gun. I just wanted to know why you felt you needed one in your day to day interaction with the general public, when I don't seem to feel the necessity?

          2. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            LOL, where did I say I was anti-gun?  I am NOT anti-gun.  I know how to shoot and I am good at it.   I come from a family of hunters.  Do I think gun ownership should be regulated?  Yes, but that does not make me anti-gun.

            Do I think I need to keep a loaded gun on my person or in my house, just in case I need to shoot someone to defend myself or my family?  No, but that doesn't make me anti-gun.  That makes me pro-reality.

            I sincerely cannot figure out how you concluded I am anti-gun from that post.

  4. Emeka Patrick profile image60
    Emeka Patrickposted 17 months ago

    We to build strong relationship with each other and that cannot be done with gun in our hand.

 
working