What are the main misperceptions that Conservatives have about Liberals and why?
I don't know if I'd call it a misperception as much as i'd call it a perception that I need someone to prove me wrong on (without sourcing biased sources). I say this in the spirit of desiring mature conversation, not mud-slinging or name-calling or accusation-hurling. Just because we're of differing ideologies, there is always common ground to be found and we can all be 'adults in the room.'
My perception (and I'm conservative) is that when liberals want to make a point, they are long on diatribe, blowhardiness (sp?), and very short on fact; sometimes no fact at all.
A good example is a recent conversation I had with a fellow after watching and commenting on a YouTube video. I made a point, which he countered with his thoughts and emotions, my counter was that I needed some facts and his counter was the lies and deceit that FOX news put forward.
I asked for specifics facts that proved that, yes, FOX was full of lies and deceits and I received still more statements that they lied. I then told him that in absence of SPECIFICS, I had to assume that he was just blowing smoke and could GIVE NO SPECIFIC instances, no specific lies,
After saying this, I didn't hear again.
It is well-known that the FOX shows after 5 PM and commentary (like Charles Krauthammer, etc) are opinion, opinion and like O'Reilly, they don't say THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. They indicate that there's are opinion. The same with Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann (though the man is pretty astute-not sure he's on MSNBC any longer); these shows are entitled to give their opinion.
Bill O'Reilly has guests on both sides of an issue, but he can be rather abrasive at times. But, he didn't get to the top of the cable ratings (all other cable outlets combined), by keeping his yap shut. There is nothing like reading to get the facts, but you can't get it all from liberal Mother Jones; just like you can't get them all from reading the conservative Washington Times.
So, that, in a 'nutshell (?) is my perception of liberal thought. They don't have FACT to back up their stance to have a mature discussion; rather sentiment and the use of convenient conclusion-drawing. (When using 'x' poll backs up their discussion, they'll use it; but the minute the same poll points to a different conclusion, they abandon the poll). They don't take it a step further and find out ON THEIR OWN what the facts are.
Musings, and I'm getting used to attack dogs but I'm getting bleary eyed, so, I think I'll call it a day.
I've always trusted politifact (they rate comments false on both sides). And they fact-checked Jon Stewart's "50 Fox News Lies". Link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … news-lies/
lead off for politifact list is hannity. His show and others after news are opinion. News is Shep Smith. THese shows are opinion, ie Rachel Maddow. They try to have balanced viewpoints, (O'Reilly more than others);but OR gets carried away and shouts.
I do remember them making that distinction between news and opinion shows. But they have to know that the most popular talking heads, on a news network, are going to be perceived as reliable. They represent the network just as much as the anchors.
Using that logic, M Dremer, every time Chris, Mika, Steve Rattner or Rachel opens their mouth, I'm going to hear the gospel truth and I'll follow HRC BECAUSE she's a CLlnton who can tell no lies. I know that not to be true. I like Juan and K Powerss
Everyone who works at an organization represents that organization in some capacity. That's why an employee who says something racist will likely get fired. It reflects badly on a news network if its most prominent employees are so often wrong.
MTDremer, Anchors on FOX, right or wrong, have their own following, sort of a cult. They can afford that, given high FOX ratings, higher than all cable news outlests cobined. No, won't wash
You're right, their mistakes don't reflect badly to Fox execs because they line up with Fox's narrative (and what their audience wants to see). But it does hurt their overall credibility to people outside their core demographic.
MT Dremer, gloves are coming off, I see. All networks have narratives, agendas and it is the job of the watcher to buy into it-or not. An example might be the narrative of MSNBC or NBC. Let others do research for you: perpetuated false narrative.
The way I see it is, each of the TV news channels and news/commentary shows has its own choir. And in my case, it just so happens that I am a baritone in the Fox News Channel's choir.
Every network's agenda is the same; get high ratings. Even if it means distorting the truth. Getting to the bottom of things requires more research than just watching one channel. Which is why I referenced a fact-checking website, not msnbc.
Best to use a fact-checking website, CSM, Al Jazeera RCP, RCH, Wikipedia.Polifact has been getting more lib over years. Factcheck remains spins COMMENTARY, but check is ACCURATE, Best thing is to read accurate sources and make up own mind.no blog
There are many fact checking websites (that provide legitimate citations). I can't argue against 'liberal bias' because that's your opinion. But I agree that people should reference many sources before making political conclusions.
The main one that bothers me is the belief that liberals just believe in throwing handouts to people who do not do anything for them. I think many like myself, only support welfare going to people who genuinely need it. I don't believe we should just rob the rich and give it all to lazy drug addicts who refuse to work. I instead believe that we should give openly without having to be forced to do the morally right thing to those who need it.
Also conservatives assume we are not patriotic. The opposite is usually true. Most of us love our country. That doesn't imply that we should stop holding our government accountable for it's actions or that we should support every decision our government makes. I can love my country without supporting war for example.
Lastly for me, I also think many conservatives assume liberals are against the constitution. The opposite is really true. Example, I can support the second amendment without finding it acceptable for proven violent criminals having access to guns. The constitution is a great basis for our country, but common sense can sometimes be added to these things.
Well put and I respect that you made your points and respected mine. Dang, only 125 characters left. Means that discussion can't happen. Well, it's been real. Suggestion: Write another Hub, only this time format so there can be true give and take!
That they think the government is always right. The argument often gets boiled down to government versus corporations, with liberals on the side of the government and conservatives on the side of corporations. But that doesn't mean a liberal can't think the government is doing something wrong and a corporation is doing something right. (And vice-versa for a conservative.)
I think the disconnect comes from the role of government. Though we all acknowledge that it isn't perfect, I think liberals view government as the vehicle of change and the source of personal protection. Therefore, even if elements of it are corrupt, it can and should be saved.
Lib sol'n to many problems is money. The homeless problem can be solved by building more shelters. Cons see a better sol'n: Give a man a fish, and he'll eat today, Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. I was heretical, unfeeling. $ prob.
Giving a man a fish could also be considered compassionate. If the man is too weak to stand up and learn how to fish, should we ignore him or nurse him back to health?
MT, I was called an incompassionate )_____for not giving the fish. Of course we give the fish UNTIL he learns to fish or if sick and can't learn, other arrancements (SSD can be made, NO CONSERVATIVE, none, are incompassionate boobs. Someone else's $
I didn't mean to imply conservatives were in-compassionate. Rather, the two disagree on where compassion ends and handouts begin.
MT Dremer, what is an example of not agreeing where compassion ends and begins?
The first misperception, in my opinion, is what the terms conservative and liberal actually mean. There was a point in time when the Democrat Party was considered conservative and the Republican Party was considered liberal. As such the two terms actually refer to maintaining status quo vs changing status quo. However, since this question seems to be more directed at what current conservatives (republicans) misperceive about current liberals (democrats), I would have to say that they see them as pot smoking socialists hell bent on wrecking their country and taking their stuff. It's rather reminiscent of the Cold War. You see, what makes any story interesting is the conflict. Without an antagonist, there can be no protagonist. The end result is utter boredom. So throughout history, the true powers that be have constantly pitted the masses against one another by grouping them into 2 major categories. Each is indoctrinated with opposing philosophies which cannot possibly be resolved. Regardless of which side an individual chooses, they will constantly be expected to beat their drums and demand the other side agree with them. Who is right? Who is wrong? Is there such a thing really? In the end, what works best for the individual is to look out for their own best interests. I, personally, take niether side and do my best to treat each human being I encounter as the divine creature they intend to be. Sometimes this involves being a protagonist and other times an antagonist. Sometimes it means encouraging a person's behavior, and other times means illuminating the dichotomy of a person's values to affect a transformation. Grace Williams, in my opinion, performs this function quite admirably.
WHAT WORKS BEST for an individual.. b/c when you require that candidates pass a litmus test, then you don't listen to the substance of what they have to say, the WHOLE context. Then you'll get more talking points, less substance. I have to disagree
I am a stone-cold, hardcore conservative and I do not have even one "misperception" of liberals. The way I see them is exactly the way it is.
Among the numerous negative ways in which I view liberals is, it is because of them and all the liberal policies that they have installed during the past 60 years or so that "my people," blacks, are currently burdened with a wide range of disproportionate social-and-economic problems.
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or with the Liberalscurrently running it? Why? Why not?
by Jack Lee6 months ago
In discussions here on HubPages, a common topic arises when discussing the media. In most circles, people believes what they read and see on TV. That is why we Conservatives don't trust the media for providing the...
by Kylyssa Shay2 years ago
American Conservatives, do you think Liberals who believe in Christ are real Christians?Many of my Liberal Christian friends are puzzled that, when speaking with Conservatives, they sometimes find themselves referred to...
by Shannon George5 years ago
Are there way more conservatives than moderates/liberals on hubpages or is that just my perception?
by Scott Bateman19 months ago
I'm always amazed at how many people don't understand Fox News. It has a successful business strategy of appealing to people's conservative biases, which is why a majority of viewers are conservative Republicans.Fox is...
by crankalicious5 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.