Cuz We Said So

« Maybe It's Just You, Paul | Main | The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals »

Interesting point there at the end, and while I'm not sure that I agree with it, it does seem to jive with one aspect on liberalism / conservatism that I see: liberals tend towards a relativistic stance on what's right and wrong / good and bad; while conservatives tend to identify with a absolute right and wrong / good and bad.

I don't get your semantics. "Conservatism" suggests a lack of empathy towards others, or a self-centered point of view? I ran that through the semantics parser: does not compute.

I'm not saying "conservative" suggests a lack of empathy, but a conservative approach towards who gets that empathy. From webster.com:

1 : PRESERVATIVE

3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

If you (not "Rip" but a generic "you") want to maintain or preserve your point of view, you will tend to empathize with those who share your point of view. The circle of people who deserve your time and effort is small. Limited. Your energies are, therefore, conserved for a select few.

Everyone does this. The difference is that a Conservative makes their circle a little narrower. A Liberal makes theirs a little wider.

Ok, this is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever read.

You wrote: The Environment – Why do liberals want to limit the impact on the environment? Because they empathize with animals and plants. Conservatives, on the other hand, empathize more with humans who need resources and energy and employment.

Liberals want to PRESERVE the planet for FUTURE generations of HUMANS. I want my children to see unspoiled forests, unpolluted rivers, breathe clean air, to see and enjoy wildlife all across the country and around the world. Zoos and museums are not the same and you would know this if you ever traveled out into the wilderness.

We also want jobs, energy and resources. But this is not an either/or proposition. You don't HAVE to have styrofoam cups, you can have cups made from renewable and recyclable paper and man-made products. Glass and aluminum can be reused almost endlessly, but do we do it? Barely. Our landfills are filling up with plastic and items that will NEVER decay. Since I worked at an engineering company, I can tell you that these landfills will leak eventually.

You don't HAVE to have an 8-cylinder roadhog when all you need is something to get to the store and back. Skyscrapers or treehouses? These are false choices.

When gas doubled in price during the 70s we didn't give up and go live on farms again. We put our brains to work and created solutions. We mandated higher MPG, we made double-pane windows, we insulated and retrofitted our homes. This created thousands of new jobs that did not exist before. These were LIBERAL ideas.

You wrote: Civil Rights – Liberals empathize with criminals. Conservatives empathize with victims. Victims are more like “us”. Criminals are the “other”.

This is the biggest load of tripe of all. Liberals care about EVERYONE. First and foremost, in our country and under our laws, everyone is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Everyone's life is precious. And yes we do care about the rights of people you call criminals, especially as in the case of the 13 men in Illinois who were on deathrow and who were INNOCENT. I believe in the death penalty, but we use it too casually. We fight to preserve, and are concerned about, the rights of those at the bottom of society because that concern defines the type of culture we create for everyone. A mean, vindictive culture breeds mean and vindictive citizens.

Is it right that people who sell crack get tougher sentences than people who sell cocaine? Is it right that Ken Lay and ENRON executives stole and plundered billions from thousands of people and may never serve a day in prison, while a common bank robber who steals a few thousand dollars may get 20 years in prison?

Your wrote: Gay Rights – Liberals empathize with homosexuals. Conservatives empathize with heterosexuals. Sure, there are examples of both proclivities in every political group, but heteros are still the majority, regardless of the success of Queer Eye.

We empathize with EVERYONE but especially to the downtrodden. Conservatives discriminate against everyone who has less than they do, anyone who doesn't fit their comfortable description of an American. The only problem is that few people ever fit that description and that ever-present truth is quickly facing the conservatives like it faced the forces of aparteid.

You wrote: Foreign Policy – Liberals empathize with the plurality of nations. Conservatives empathize with like-minded democracies.

Such as? It seems to me that few of the democracies agree with our conservatives, at all? Haven't you paid any attention to the news in the last three years? Other than the government of Britain, we have few friends agreeing with our policies right now.

Liberals realize that NO nation is an island. We are all in this together. Pollution, like nuclear fallout, does not respect national borders. We are strongest when we fight and pull together. Any success in Afghanistan can be placed at the feet of NATO which is on the ground in force there.

As for Iraw, there is no real coalition. Most of the "allies" have no combat troops on the ground and those that do can barely protect themselves. Others are in Iraq in name only and have already announced that they will be drawing down forces soon (probably after our election).

As for the ultimate difference between conservatives and liberals, no greater example can be seen than in the difference between Carter and Reagan. Carter believed the US should live by our principles. He was disrepected by conservatives for upholding and fighting for human rights all around the world, but totally respected by other nations. He is probably our finest ex-president.

Reagan believed that nothing was more important than his own agenda. He sanctioned illegal arms and drugs sales to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua, and right wing abuses all over Central America. The ultimate result? We sold arms to the terrorist regime in Iran and we abetted the murder of innocent people all over Central America. Reagan also ran the debt up higher than ever before in history, until Bush, Jr. His deregulation of the S&L industry led to its collapse and a multi-billion dollar bail-out. And who went to prison? Hardly anyone. (And certainly not the Bush's brother, Neil.) Reagan's continued deregulation of mental institutions contributed to much of the homeless problems we saw during the 80s and 90s.

You wrote: Drug Policy – Liberals empathize with drug users. Conservatives... don’t.

What conservatives are you talking about? Rush Limbaugh? For every marijuana smoker you point out, I can identify a woman or man abusing diet pills or oxycontin. Are these abuses less important?

Drugs affect everyone. Putting people in prison doesn't fix the problem. It just hides it. Although I'd love to see Limbaugh in jail, he would probably be better served doing a 1000 hours of community service in a methadone clinic. Mainly conservatives like him are hypocrites who always want you to look at the mote in someone else's eye. I haven't heard about him voluntaring for prison time.

Finally, our prisons and court systems are ill-served treating our drug problem. We spend billions a year trying to stop people from buying, selling and transporting drugs, all without success.

Instead, that money would be better spent on education and treatment programs.

The better description is that liberals are realistic pragmatists, while conservative are delusional optimists.

I appreciate the comments, if only because they support my argument:

I want my children to see unspoiled forests... to see and enjoy wildlife all across the country and around the world. Zoos and museums are not the same and you would know this if you ever traveled out into the wilderness.

You just refered to trees and wildlife. Exactly my point. (And I don't remember mentioning the words "zoo" or "museum" a single time in my post...)

This is the biggest load of tripe of all.

There you go, mentioning wildlife again.

And yes we do care about the rights of people you call criminals...

My point exactly.

We empathize with EVERYONE but especially to the downtrodden.

You're killing me here. That was exactly what I was saying. Did you even read my post?

Liberals realize that NO nation is an island. We are all in this together.

How exactly is this sentiment different from my position that "Liberals empathize with the plurality of nations." Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word "plurality"?

It sounds to me like you're angry with me for not vilifying conservatives. Trust me, that approach, while certainly a lot of fun, isn't constructive.

Ironically, though, you seem to contradict me in one area. You -- I suspect someone who considers himself liberal -- seem incapable of empathizing with conservatives. Maybe I am wrong after all.