Tweet
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates
It is unfortunate that I have given you the impression that is what I am after. It isn't.
I do think that conservatives have been trained over the last generation to believe that strawman because it is far easier to put it up and then shout it down than it would be to engage with liberals, listen to what we propose and our motives for doing so, and think about it awhile before responding. I believe that if you did this you would find that our basic values and even our goals are not so different from yours, or, more accurately, that there is more variance within liberalism than there is between liberalism and conservatism.
I also think that conservatives would make the same statement above, just flipping the two terms around.
Doubtless I don't always succeed but I do try, deliberately, not to slag all conservatives or all conservatism, and I bend over backwards to try to tease out the IMO damaging aspects of what currently is disguised by the far right as "conservative," but which in reality is an authoritarian radicalism to which the right has gradually drifted over the past 50 years.
I think there are likely folks on the right here on the Cafe who do the same, though the fact that I can't really think of any speaks volumes about the strength of my own confirmation bias and other cognitive deficiencies.
But here, I'll try again.
I don't want a meritocratic, scientific Wings Over the World class to dominate politics.
I don't want to intrude on the way people choose to live, provided they are not hurting other people. But there are such things as basic rights, and "God told me to" or "this is what we've always done" are not magic words that enable one group to violate the rights of another group.
The political history of America is the story of gradually making good on the Founders' vision of government protecting the freedom to pursue "life, liberty and happiness" of all citizens. We started out in pretty bad shape, actually, with maybe 5% of the adults in the US having that freedom, though in comparison with the world at the time it was probably fairly good. Through the ages we have gradually removed the constraints on that freedom from successive outgroups: non-property holding white males, blacks, women, religious minorities, LGBTQ. We still have people who we treat like sh-t: primarily the poor, but also the occasional ethnic or religious boogeyman. Other western countries have jumped ahead of us on the very train track we laid down, which is galling. But overall I am proud to be a part of the great American Experiment -- proud enough to take it seriously and keep pursuing it.
We both agree that fundamental rights are not granted by government, they're axiomatic -- for some, by virtue of being human, for sociobiologists by virtue of having voltion, for the religious by virtue of having a soul.
Where we disagree is the extent to which the government should stop predation against these rights by one group on another. Conservatives prefer a smaller role and in consequence their policies leads inexorably to outcomes that favor the already powerful in expanding their field of action while that of less powerful groups' shrinks.
Liberalism, by contrast, is the extension of the famous quote about the duty of a free press: "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Conservatism at this time and place has been so triumphant in economic policy that it has, whether intended or not, made its motto the opposite: "to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted." Therefore today I put my weight behind liberalism to correct the imbalance. At another time and place I can imagine feeling that liberalism has gone too far, and I would shift my weight the other way, or at least stop pushing quite so hard.
That doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, so it's easier to portray liberals with a variety of easy-to-attack caricatures. But if you want to engage with the real thing, there it is. Just as conservatives hate being reduced to dumb stereotypes that don't fit them, so do we.
Originally posted by The Sicatoka
View Post
I do think that conservatives have been trained over the last generation to believe that strawman because it is far easier to put it up and then shout it down than it would be to engage with liberals, listen to what we propose and our motives for doing so, and think about it awhile before responding. I believe that if you did this you would find that our basic values and even our goals are not so different from yours, or, more accurately, that there is more variance within liberalism than there is between liberalism and conservatism.
I also think that conservatives would make the same statement above, just flipping the two terms around.
Doubtless I don't always succeed but I do try, deliberately, not to slag all conservatives or all conservatism, and I bend over backwards to try to tease out the IMO damaging aspects of what currently is disguised by the far right as "conservative," but which in reality is an authoritarian radicalism to which the right has gradually drifted over the past 50 years.
I think there are likely folks on the right here on the Cafe who do the same, though the fact that I can't really think of any speaks volumes about the strength of my own confirmation bias and other cognitive deficiencies.
But here, I'll try again.
I don't want a meritocratic, scientific Wings Over the World class to dominate politics.
I don't want to intrude on the way people choose to live, provided they are not hurting other people. But there are such things as basic rights, and "God told me to" or "this is what we've always done" are not magic words that enable one group to violate the rights of another group.
The political history of America is the story of gradually making good on the Founders' vision of government protecting the freedom to pursue "life, liberty and happiness" of all citizens. We started out in pretty bad shape, actually, with maybe 5% of the adults in the US having that freedom, though in comparison with the world at the time it was probably fairly good. Through the ages we have gradually removed the constraints on that freedom from successive outgroups: non-property holding white males, blacks, women, religious minorities, LGBTQ. We still have people who we treat like sh-t: primarily the poor, but also the occasional ethnic or religious boogeyman. Other western countries have jumped ahead of us on the very train track we laid down, which is galling. But overall I am proud to be a part of the great American Experiment -- proud enough to take it seriously and keep pursuing it.
We both agree that fundamental rights are not granted by government, they're axiomatic -- for some, by virtue of being human, for sociobiologists by virtue of having voltion, for the religious by virtue of having a soul.
Where we disagree is the extent to which the government should stop predation against these rights by one group on another. Conservatives prefer a smaller role and in consequence their policies leads inexorably to outcomes that favor the already powerful in expanding their field of action while that of less powerful groups' shrinks.
Liberalism, by contrast, is the extension of the famous quote about the duty of a free press: "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Conservatism at this time and place has been so triumphant in economic policy that it has, whether intended or not, made its motto the opposite: "to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted." Therefore today I put my weight behind liberalism to correct the imbalance. At another time and place I can imagine feeling that liberalism has gone too far, and I would shift my weight the other way, or at least stop pushing quite so hard.
That doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, so it's easier to portray liberals with a variety of easy-to-attack caricatures. But if you want to engage with the real thing, there it is. Just as conservatives hate being reduced to dumb stereotypes that don't fit them, so do we.
Comment