We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
As someone who has been through one divorce and several breakups (happily married now for 15 years), I finally had an epiphany of sorts. During a phone conversation with my ex-wife arguing about our only child together, then 4 years old, she said, "Here we are again arguing about the same things. Can't we just find a reasonable way to resolve these differences?" Me: "Um, no we can't, that's why we got divorced."
This is a lot like what goes on between liberals and conservatives. We have these age-old arguments, a long history of hurt and invective, and one side wants peace by togetherness when the other wants peace by separation. Neither accepts the legitimacy of the others' goals; in fact, they can't even comprehend what might be the value of the others' desired scenario. (Well, we understand them - they don't/won't understand us - but that's a debate for another day)
There is a fundamental difference that stands behind everything we debate that is rarely addressed. This is the left-wing worldview that defaults to togetherness and collectivism as the basic approach to solutions. Conservatives see individuality and separation as the solution. But not even that. Conservatives don't really believe in solutions. This sounds ludicrous to the love and togetherness crowd, but it's true. For us, it's already been solved to the best of our mortal abilities. Our Constitution addressed all these age-old problems and set up a mechanism for self-governance.
The conservative worldview has already given up on *solving* social problems with collective government enforcement. When conservatives want to solve social problems, it is only to undo the government interventions that exacerbated and compounded existing social problems in the first place. That's the one thing we see could improve things:
Stop trying to improve things - your endless fixes are just creating more, and often worse, problems, and not even solving the ones they are designed for in the first place!
This is where the debate is stalled and it serves Democrats well to keep everything on that level. They keep doing *good things* we keep trying to undo these *good things* and then the Democrats say,"Fine, what's your solution"? Meaning ("What's your big government solution" ) And we are back to square one.
But the idea that they (or more accurately from their point of view, we all) can't significantly improve things is incomprehensible to these people. Their entire identity and life-purpose is formulated around the idea that they can somehow improve the lot of others by their personal and civic generosity, their intelligence and creativity, their depth of caring, their ability to build consensus and agreement, and doing their part in the grand scheme of things. They go into public service, or vote, or recycle and buy hybrids all with the aim of setting an example and doing their part to make life better for "the planet". This is why the song of universal collective solutions (high-speed rail, government health care for all, global warming intitiatives, ad infinitum.) is such beautiful music to them. We are the world..imagine all the people..
When a government program, after 40 years of trying, is finally admitted as a failure, the reason for the failure is it "wasn't enough" and "there wasn't universal agreement" (those mean Republicans) And it's another self-affirming mantra for their delusions.
Permeating everything is the premise is that we, that is to say, government, needs to solve this or solve that. The reason for the problem is, this politician, or that party, or some human failing like "greed". (By the way, notice how leftists never cite "envy" as causing any problems whatsoever, but I digress.)
If only there was a rule that made people...
If only we could all agree (togetherness again)
If only we would just all agree! That is fundamentally what they need in order to enact Heaven on Earth.
The fact that people like us don't agree with them creates real problems for them, you see.
The fact that they don't agree with us - that there should be individual and separate solutions doesn't create the same problems for us conservatives because that is how we see things already. We not only accept dissent, we expect disagreement and celebrate differences of opinion. That's why we have a Democratic Republic!
So you see, this is why they feel so justified in being downright nasty to conservatives. We don't want to join them, and we are the obstacle toward the Utopian togetherness we should all share. To compound the issue, they don't like the angry feelings they get inside as a result of this rejection, because their feelings of anger conflicts with their wish for togetherness. The anger we *provoke* in them is evidence their model is wrong, thus making things exponentially more frustrating. They have this anger and they have to deny it to maintain their idealistic illusions. The next step is projecting these feelings onto us.
This is why there is a difference in intensity. Conservatives respect the need for disagreement (even while they may not agree with specifics) while collectivist togetherness types don't respect disagreement at all, since disagreement is an obstacle to their utopia. They find themselves born into a democracy that has given them rights to speak out, so they have to give lip service to the "will of the people" but clearly they don't like it going forward into the future. This accounts for the dichotomy of "the people are stupid" when they elect Republicans, and "the people have spoken" when Democrats rule.
So lefty Democrats are a result of democracy but they aren't true advocates of it. They are so arrogant and self-righteous they believe themselves beyond the need for it, and hold those who disagree with them in contempt. Republicans are the true democrats. I won't say what most Democrats are anymore, but sorry they won't *join* us in celebrating diversity of opinion.
- Comment (42)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
May '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Perfect.
Both liberals and conservatives seek unity. We're just not willing to sacrifice truth and justice to settle for a false peace. Evil is easy. The right path is a hard one. Liberals too often avoid harsh realities.
May '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
A similar (though not exactly the same) point is that conservatives accept imperfection more readily. "[Feces] happens" is a very conservative phrase.
So, for instance, a flawed healthcare system is a healthcare system's expected state from a conservative point of view. We desire to improve it, sure, but we recognize a grand scheme to eliminate all human suffering as an impossibility, and, as you say, as an invitation to more intense suffering. Liberals regard such realism as a lack of compassion, a failure to "get with the program" on humanity's drive to perfection.
This failure to accept imperfection is also a (maybe the) source of the Left's anti-Americanism, which, when boiled down, can often be summarized as, "America is not perfect; therefore it is evil." Ditto for capitalism. Or Christianity. Or Israel. Or [insert noun to which conservatives are generally well-disposed here].
Jul '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
I have often fantasized that the Eternal Reward for Liberals will be God granting them the 'priviledge' of living in the society they seek to provide for the rest of us.
And I think the ultimate irony that could be granted them is the ability to, after having lived in such a society for a prolonged period, beseech their former selves for relief from the lot they have been assigned.
I cannot think of a more fitting definition of He11 for a liberal than that.
Jun '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
I know what you mean about the "what would you do to solve the problem?" In a way, conservatism's answer is, "I don't know, but get government out of the way, and I'm sure someone will figure it out." That's the invisible hand at work and selling something invisible is a tough political task. I find myself frustrated that I know the "answer", but so many people want a tangible program, rules, and physical proof that someone is really doing something about a problem. I think we carry the bigger burden politically because of it.
I just thought of this while writing the above paragraph. Something my dad would say to me when I was a kid if I was hesitating to act assertively in a situation. He'd say, "do anything, even if it's wrong!" He was a diehard conservative, but I couldn't help connect that saying to what a typical liberal seems to think. It's a random thought, but I couldn't resist recounting a very funny memory of my dad.
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Dave Molinari
I agree absolutely that conservatives have the bigger burden. I have been thinking about this and it's really hard to even recruit someone on our side who is humble enough to want to take all the shots in the political arena, and then get out of the way.
On top of that, the guy has to explain to the electorate why they should send him to Washington to keep the other guys from *solving* things. Meanwhile the "government solutions" Republican gets all the journo-groupies.
And the Democrats have an advantage of at least looking like they are doing something.
Your Dad is right to say that to his son - someone younger, because if you try, you will at least learn something from failure. Trouble with that in our political sphere is we have already tried all those central planning solutions and millions have ended up very dead as a result, and apparently Democrats want to rinse and repeat
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
I think you will win for deepest post of the week. You should keep working on this great exposition. Distilled down in some cases, expanded with examples in others, we all could stand to hear this again and again.
Dec '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
A fundamental force of nature is competition.
The forces of attraction and aversion lead to everything present in the physical world, without which the whole would remain still and empty.
That competition breeds improvement is embedded in the growth of markets and in the survival of the living.
Most leftists adhere to their pet theory of Darwinism—an allegory of competition, a repudiation of a conflict-free world—and in politics, they fight to delegitimize opponents at each election—first on their own side in the primaries, then on the other in the general.
That they are hooked on exclusive power, there is no doubt; that their fury is no less than that of a woman scorned needs no further proof; that they intend to collectivize the rest of us into submission, the bills and diktats they write spell it out—all of which means that they have gone into an endless battle against competition, a perpetual force that is natural.
So, embracing competition makes us stronger and fighting against it can too.
Edited on February 13, 2011 at 9:12pmFeb '11
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
"the left-wing worldview that defaults to togetherness and collectivism as the basic approach to solutions"....yet a very high % of leftists **strongly avoid** togetherness and collectivism in their personal and professional lives. Many of them choose careers in which they work on their own, receive as minimal as possible direction from others, do not direct anyone else, and are not part of anything that could be called a "team."
How to explain the disconnect?
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Getting elected by saying you'll do (essentially) nothing is expecting the electorate to perceive the "seen and the unseen" instead of just the "seen" (Hazlitt), to "think beyond stage one" economically (Sowell), and to admit the basic self-interest of human nature, and to distinguish that from selfishness (M. Friedman, Ayn Rand). And, at the same time, act charismatic and charitable towards your opponent in the televised public debate.
Tall order.
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
david foster: "the left-wing worldview that defaults to togetherness and collectivism as the basic approach to solutions"....yet a very high % of leftists **strongly avoid** togetherness and collectivism in their personal and professional lives. Many of them choose careers in which they work on their own, receive as minimal as possible direction from others, do not direct anyone else, and are not part of anything that could be called a "team."
How to explain the disconnect? · Feb 13 at 12:55pm
I'm not sure. Can you give me examples and professions of leftyies that correspond to this? It doesn't really jibe with my general experience. The ones I know might be a skewed sample since I've been in the performing arts, but still I know a lot who aren't and they all are pretty gregarious and social,.OTOH, where does one go to find to meet committed loners...
Still, I'm really talking about what the left wants for everyone else in the public arena - not necessarily personal or even professional proximity and dependence.
Jul '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
It is a given of human nature that if we disagree on 10% of issues, those are the issues debated and discussed and receiving 99% of mind share.
Also, it is the crime of identity politics that, rather than vote for the candidate with the sounder plan or common world view, being able to vote for someone who looks like me is the big thrill. Obama campaigned from the middle, tries to rule from the very left, and has the credibility with a large bloc of people invested in his success that they nod like wobble weevils when he claims to be a centrist.
Individual coalitions in the Democrat Party are far to the right of the leadership in both the social and fiscal axis, but vote Democrat because of what they are (brown, urban elite, sociologist) rather than finding out about candidates' records on the issues. Or even their government's record on the issues. Success, even mitigated success, is not a common result of government expenditures. With RomneyCare and ObamaCare, the rending of space and time and jobs and dollars is just too huge to hide from the hundred million American voters smarter than the Dem leadership.
Dec '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
I know some intelligent liberals (not always an oxymoron). They share a common angst. They feel they have a responsibility to correct the ills of the world. They feel that they can actually do that.
Disagreement angers them because their opinions are feelings. How can you argue with a feeling?
Allowing water to seek its own level is unacceptable. A liberal must require the outcome in defiance of the laws of nature, human, economic, or otherwise.
Jul '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
What a great post. I sent it to many friends, some of whom think conservatism is a peculiarity akin to cooking meth in the kitchen as the babies play on the floor.
May '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
This is what Sowell refers to as the Conflict of Visions, and he spends and entire book discussing it. The Unconstrained Vision is that of liberals who believe human problems are caused by specific human actions or lack thereof. Government provides an instrument they can use to coerce people into changing things, which drives progress with the eventual result of eliminating our problems with solutions.
But as you said, conservatives don't believe in solutions, just trade-offs. This is the Constrained Vision, which holds that human problems exist because of human nature. They are something we have to live with because of who we are. Attempts to impose solutions to these problems through government have unintended consequences that exacerbate the problem or cause other problems, so the trade-off almost always comes out on the side of less government.
I highly recommend Sowell's book Conflict of Visions, followed by The Vision of the Anointed, which Peter Robinson has said "explains everything."
Oct '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Call me a balding nerd (why not, I am one!), but may I invoke the motto of the Perl programming language here?
“There is no one best way.”
This is what free markets and open discourse are ultimately about. As Hayek observed, nobody, not even a central planner with near-instantaneous information from all over, has but a tiny fraction of the information in the minds of the people who are making the individual transactions (buying, selling, deciding which articles in the newspaper to read, etc.), which is collapsed into the dead grey aggregates the central planner peruses in formulating orders all must obey.
The free market works like evolution, like the immune system, and like the pattern matching of neural networks: by massively parallel gradient-climbing search. The planner seeks to figure out, by pure reason, insulated from the mass of raw data, the one best way.
In the immortal words of Rocket J. Squirrel,
“That trick never works.”
I'd say that defenders of liberty don't believe in solutions (as Mark Wilson said supra); we believe in a process which optimises outcomes with incomplete information and ever-changing circumstances.
Jan '11
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
david foster: "the left-wing worldview that defaults to togetherness and collectivism as the basic approach to solutions"....yet a very high % of leftists **strongly avoid** togetherness and collectivism in their personal and professional lives....
How to explain the disconnect? · Feb 13 at 12:55pm
No disconnect. They expect to be favored members of the bureaucracy which imposes collectivism on everybody else.
Jun '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
And to top it off, all a Dem. has to say is "free stuff for all", while the poor sap Rep. Conservative has to try to explain why there is no free lunch. Dem. sound bite- two seconds. Rep. sound bite- thirty minutes of network time. It tough to be a grown-up.
Jul '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
If We're talking federally, then saying "It's unConstitutional" takes two seconds.
Feb '11
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Franco...examples of leftists who prefer working on their own to being part of (or leader of) a team: There seem to be a disproportionate number of leftists in professors such as:
Academia, where a high % of professors seem to prefer research--often but not always an individual activity--to teaching. (And few enjoy serving on committees or aspire to become department chairmen, etc.)
Writers--an activity that's inherently pretty individual
Advertising--leftists are surely more likely to be found among the "creatives" than among the account executives whose jobs are all about interacting with clients.
There is a long tradition among leftist intellectuals of mocking "joiners"
May '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
david foster: Franco...examples of leftists who prefer working on their own to being part of (or leader of) a team: There seem to be a disproportionate number of leftists in professors such as:
Academia, where a high % of professors seem to prefer research--often but not always an individual activity--to teaching. (And few enjoy serving on committees or aspire to become department chairmen, etc.)
Writers--an activity that's inherently pretty individual
Advertising--leftists are surely more likely to be found among the "creatives" than among the account executives whose jobs are all about interacting with clients.
There is a long tradition among leftist intellectuals of mocking "joiners" · Feb 13 at 4:24pm
I would call entrepreneurism, invention, innovation, etc also to be individual-oriented activities. In contrast, we have leftists competing with each other to join the bandwagon and show who is submitting to the Green Leader the mostest.
I don't agree with the premise that led to this sidebar.