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.