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:
Feb '11
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
MarkW..."I would call entrepreneurism, invention, innovation, etc also to be individual-oriented activities"
Entrepreneurism/innovation are individually-oriented in the sense that the individual has a vision that he feels strongly about rather than following the crowd; however, any successful entrepreneur is also a team builder and a team leader. Most successful entrepreneurs I have known have a great deal of the "evangelist" in their makeup.
May '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
david foster: MarkW..."I would call entrepreneurism, invention, innovation, etc also to be individual-oriented activities"
Entrepreneurism/innovation are individually-oriented in the sense that the individual has a vision that he feels strongly about rather than following the crowd; however, any successful entrepreneur is also a team builder and a team leader. Most successful entrepreneurs I have known have a great deal of the "evangelist" in their makeup. · Feb 13 at 5:32pm
Agreed. I meant it just as you described. I was just addressing the argument that there's some quality unique to liberals that makes them "go their own way" and that by implication, conservatives are followers.
Oct '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Why not stop with "And we are back to square one?" In my experience, the right seems just as preoccupied with establishing their own superior faculties and sensibilities, and impugning the left for venality and bad faith, as their counterparts.
What I learned from the counseling which preceded my divorce was that my ex and I processed information in utterly disparate ways. I ultimately learned to respect those differences. Democrats are about fairness and security; Republicans are about rights and risk. My children certainly benefitted from exposure to both perspectives. That's one of the primary advantages of two parent families.
There is lots of territory between statism and libertarianism. Conservatives easily recognize dangers in the first instance, but it's worth remembering that some ills, like 10 year olds working to exhaustion in lint filled loom rooms, were not halted by free wheeling capitalists.
It's not surprising that liberal voters are so often concentrated in urban areas on election maps. Cities are, in fact, collectives. They simply cannot function without collective solutions, which quite naturally become the default approach to problem solving.
We are an adversarial culture; we do not agree, we push and pull -- as we should.
Oct '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
I hope not to get all “David Brooks” squishy RINO on you, but government does have a place in securing the civil society. The Republican Party was formed to eliminate the abomination of slavery in this country; an institution that huge segments of society thought was OK. The RINO Republicans voted to secure the liberty of black Americans in the Civil Rights Act, while the conservative movement was praising so-called “states rights” during a time when the Declaration and the Bill of Rights was being denied a significant portion of its citizens.
We need a positive view of conservative governance. I love this post and the spirit in which it was given (and a huge Thomas Sowell fan). But conservatives must paint a picture of a free, responsible society with more clarity than “a shining city on a hill” for today’s political environment. Segmenting the American people into groups and passing out goodies isn’t going to work. I don’t pretend to have the answers, but I realize we need to demonstrate a positive force for government, where businesses please customers and the rules are not rigged for crony capitalists like the Chamber of Commerce.
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Mark Wilson: 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.
I highly recommend Sowell's book Conflict of Visions, followed by The Vision of the Anointed, which Peter Robinson has said "explains everything." · Feb 13 at 3:15pm
I read that book, obviously it has informed my world-view. I lent this book to my cousin, a raging lefty - a Keith Obermann type. He returned it, saying he couldn't understand it. He is fully capable - he just didn't want to understand it.
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
JM Hanes: Why not stop with "And we are back to square one?" In my experience, the right seems just as preoccupied with establishing their own superior faculties and sensibilities, and impugning the left for venality and bad faith, as their counterparts.
Democrats are about fairness and security; Republicans are about rights and risk.
There is lots of territory between statism and libertarianism. Conservatives easily recognize dangers in the first instance, but ....... some ills, like 10 year olds working to exhaustion in lint filled loom rooms, were not halted by free wheeling capitalists.
We are an adversarial culture; we do not agree, we push and pull -- as we should. · Feb 13 at 9:05pm
It sounds to me like you are buying into their standard reply to rolling back government programs. "Oh you want to return to (some draconian age) because you want to cut the growth of government" It's absurd.
I believe crony capitalism is the result of mostly Democrat initiated policies, with full complicity from elements of the GOP. Regulation and the need of lawyers and lobbyists as protection, the complex tax code that favors big corporations and stifles competition from smaller firms, etc..
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Ken Sweeney: I hope not to get all “David Brooks” squishy RINO on you, but government does have a place in securing the civil society. The Republican Party was formed to eliminate the abomination of slavery in this country; an institution that huge segments of society thought was OK. ......
We need a positive view of conservative governance. ... But conservatives must paint a picture of a free, responsible society with more clarity than “a shining city on a hill” for today’s political environment. · Feb 13 at 10:23pm
I don't disagree with you here, but I don't think it is useful to go back into party history to inform the present. Parties morph over time. In my life I've seen JFK, who today would be shunned by Democrats, and many conservative Republicans today who would be shunned by yesterday's GOP and this post-dates the era to which you refer by 100 years!
And again, we aren't having an all-or-nothing debate - not even close!
We need a better message, but that starts with understanding who we are speaking to - as well as who not to even bother with.
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Sorry for quoting myself, but I just want to add one more thing.
I want to live in a country where, even if the people are *stupid* by someone's judgement, they (that is, we-all) get represented. That's what a democracy is!
So a bunch of rubes in the country don't want this or that. So what? That means the country isn't ready for it, period. If liberals are so smart why don't they try to educate these folks, show them where they are wrong and hope they can bring about the change they want that way? Instead, they attack their views and try to force their will, antagonizing ordinary, well-meaning citizens, and then go off lamenting how bigoted and stupid these folks are. These are people who believe in democracy?
Edited on February 14, 2011 at 1:33pmOct '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
What an excellent short essay--'post' just doesn't do it justice. This is an epiphany for me that gathers many obvious threads of conservative thought together in a new garment of whole cloth.
I think that JM Hanes is incorrect in his characterization of Liberals as champions of fairness and security and Conservatives of rights and risk, as if we just need to find the sensible middle ground and everything will be fine. This is the paradigm of the left that is fundamentally flawed. If fairness and security could be achieved at the expense of risk and rights, what monster would object? While fairness is the stated aim and intent of the left, collectivist solutions result in neither, and in fact have proven to take us further from both. It is so counter-intuitive that freedom leads to greater security (freedom from want), that it is difficult to keep the fact steadily in mind. --More below--
Oct '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
I think that this false dichotomy is further illustrated by
"it's worth remembering that some ills, like 10 year olds working to exhaustion in lint filled loom rooms, were not halted by free wheeling capitalists"
as if capitalism and compassion are somehow antithetical. Did those pushing to end unfair child labor perhaps also believe in free markets, and were the "free wheeling capitalists" greedy men that would have been just as happy with government/business cronyism, or whatever mechanism available that would satisfy their avarice. Linking capitalism and heartlessness feeds directly into the mistaken thinking fostered by the left.
Jun '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
There is something in the left leaning brain that does not empathize. I've noticed not only intolerance, but the inability to understand another perspective. A liberal will be ultra critical of a perceived fault in an ideological opponent while they are even more guilty of that very fault. The recent call for civility in criticizing our president is a perfect example. Certain behaviors are fine for "the anointed", but abhorrent for everyone else. Unfortunately, they are the squeakiest wheels.
I guess our mission will be to convince those open minds in the middle of the Bell Curve to strive for individual liberty and private sector exceptionalism - leaning slightly right, while still allowing those on the left to have their say. Always a tall order.
Feb '11
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
"Democrats are about fairness and security"....the small manufacturers and homecrafters whose businesses have been crippled by the "Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act", passed and left in its current damaging form largely because such businesses were not organized into an effective lobby, might beg to differ. The regulatory state, in the extreme form favored by today's leftists, strongly favors the established/large/well-organized entities at the expense of the independent and the new. Not much fairness there.
Or how about the millions of children whose prospects are being irrecoverably harmed because Democrats care more about the support of the teachers unions than about effective education. Where's the fairness in that?
It *would* be accurate to say that Democrats *talk* more about fairness, but there is a difference between the advertising and the reality.
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
I'm fairly well disgusted by True Believers on both sides.
I grew up in Denver. If there had not been a national environmental policy, the skies in Denver today would be like Beijing's.
The Dep't of Education is reviled by our side. And yet, we as a nation need to keep plugging away at fixing the non-functioning public schools in the Black inner city. (Sorry, it's not enough to say that all the stuff we've tried has failed and so let's not do any more.) Who knows what's gonna work, we need to keep trying.
On the other side, the left hates No Child Left Behind. But it's those stats that allow programs to be targeted for assistance. Just as the city of Denver was incapable on its own of fixing its smog problem, it is only concerted action by the Federal government that can move us ahead on the schools problem.
Those are a only couple of my exceptions to conservatives' rules.
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Very true. I can only offer a bit of wisdom I heard from Thomas Sowell on an old episdoe of Uncommon Knowledge. He said that almost every leftist "solution" can be shot down by asking the following three questions.
1) Compared to what?
2) At what cost?
3) Who decides?
Edited on February 14, 2011 at 5:19pmOct '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Franco
I don't disagree with you here, but I don't think it is useful to go back into party history to inform the present. Parties morph over time. In my life I've seen JFK, who today would be shunned by Democrats, and many conservative Republicans today who would be shunned by yesterday's GOP and this post-dates the era to which you refer by 100 years!
And again, we aren't having an all-or-nothing debate - not even close!
We need a better message, but that starts with understanding who we are speaking to - as well as who not to even bother with. · Feb 14 at 4:09am
I disagree. We should champion our history. I ran out of space on my initial post, but I was going to mention the 1990's welfare reform as an example of smarter, more efficient, and SMALLER government that conservatives should champion across all agencies. The EPA did help stop Cleveland's river from burning and reduces smog in our major cities. Now EPA is out of control and we need a "better government" message rather than a "no government" one.
Nov '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Franco
Sorry for quoting myself, but I just want to add one more thing.
Don't be sorry for quoting yourself; you've written a lot of really good material here, and should be quoted.
Oct '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Well. Plenty of conservatives work hard to solve social issues. But not through top-down government programs.
Most people understand this intuitively, but as a simple matter of science, top-down government solutions cannot work. In computer science, it's fairly straightforward; gathering enough information is impossible, and processing what information you have is equally impossible.
Lefty solutions are scientifically infeasible. I don't understand why we still discuss them. Decentralized solutions are as close to perfect as you are going to get; in computer science, the best way to approximate these sorts of problems is with hundreds of individual computing nodes working together.
But just because conservatives prefer decentralized solutions, doesn't mean they prefer no solution (just look at how conservatives both donate more to charity and volunteer more in their communities, even in studies done by liberals).
Oct '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Patrick in Albuquerque: I'm fairly well disgusted by True Believers on both sides.
On the other side, the left hates No Child Left Behind. But it's those stats that allow programs to be targeted for assistance. Just as the city of Denver was incapable on its own of fixing its smog problem, it is only concerted action by the Federal government that can move us ahead on the schools problem.
Schools aren't something the federal government can fix. It comes back to what I wrote above, decentralized solutions are the only ones that will work.
In the end, only the states can solve their educational woes. There's a lot that needs to be done (school choice, flexibility in teacher pay and hiring, risk adjustment for education, end of tenure, destroying (or limiting the size of) teacher unions, etc). All of these are deeply painful reforms, and all of them are necessary.
Our current education system (in my opinion) cannot be saved. More and more, I'm convinced the system's built-in inflexibility and lack of accountability explains quite a bit of the violence and shootings we see in American schools.
Oct '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
Franco
It sounds to me like you are buying into their standard reply to rolling back government programs. "Oh you want to return to (some draconian age) because you want to cut the growth of government" It's absurd.
Quite the contrary. I was arguing for push back against the Feds and regulatory incursions on the body politic back under Republican majorities, long before there were any Tea Parties around to take up that cause. I figured I didn't need to point out the dangers of central planning and bureaucracies gone wild here, but I do think conservatives are generally loathe to concede that there are dangers inherent in the libertarian utopia which so many on the right so often seem to be touting.
The fact that the left and right are animated by different visions of the commonweal and see different sets of risks is a fundamentally healthy thing, IMO. Competition on the field of contempt is not.
Sep '10
Re: We Don't Just Disagree - We Disagree about the Disagreement
JM Hanes
Franco
It sounds to me like you are buying into their standard reply to rolling back government programs. "Oh you want to return to (some draconian age) because you want to cut the growth of government" It's absurd.
Quite the contrary. I figured I didn't need to point out the dangers of central planning and bureaucracies gone wild here, but I do think conservatives are generally loathe to concede that there are dangers inherent in the libertarian utopia which so many on the right so often seem to be touting.
· Feb 15 at 7:10pm
I'm sorry but right now the debate is between statism in full practice vs. libertarianism in the abstract. Not even - we are debating between more statism and a little less statism. Libertarianism is barely on the playing field.
We aren't returning to child labor or anything like it, and bringing it up degrades the debate into a cartoon. Nowhere in this piece am I saying there is no merit to regulation, or do I advocate unrestricted capitalism. And no one on our side does either - just as no Democrats are advocating forced labor camps, which would be the corrolary.