I've long held that I could, if I wished to, convince almost any liberal that I was liberal myself.  So versed am I in their arguments, thinking and style that I believe I could infiltrate an Occupy Wall Street or Code Pink rally without any other attendee suspecting my sincerity.  Even in those rare thoughtful and civil exchanges with someone on the other side of the aisle, I think I understand well their position and can articulate that to their satisfaction.   I don't share their beliefs, of course, but I can state them in a way that they agree with.  

What I find interesting is that the opposite is almost never true.  Ask even a thoughtful liberal to characterize a conservative position on a topic and you'll usually get some silly strawman.  This is not about truth or falsehood.  Rather, it's an observation I've made about the Left's inability to state conservative positions in a reasonable way.  Even when they try not to, they almost invariably represent the Right's arguments as cartoonish, ridiculous or simply stupid.  

Why is this?  If I choose to do so, I could step into their shoes and make their arguments for them.  But they -- even the serious ones -- seem almost universally unable to do the same for me.  Even if they don't conform to it, why can't liberals simply grasp an opposing worldview?  

Comments:



Joined
Apr '12
Sweet and Low

Never mind not being able to articulate conservative point of view, they can't explain their own once they get past the bumper sticker phase.  A while back, I went to see a production of Gilbert and Sullivan's Least Loved Light Opera, "Utopia, Limited."  After the show, the director talked to the audience, and enthusiastically explained that "this show is so relevant to what's going on today!"

"Really?" inquired your humble narrator.  "How, exactly?"

"It talks about how corrupt the two party system is."

"So?"

"So that's right out of today's headlines."

"There's a debate about the need for the two party system?  Where?  Who's having that?"

With nary a word or backward glance, she turned and RAN offstage.  A few minutes later, the shows star entered the lobby, and talked to the audience.  He loudly proclaimed that "this show is so relevant to what's going on today!"

"Really?" not learning my lesson,  "How, exactly?"

"It talks about how corrupt the two party system is."

"So?"

"So that's what they're talking about at the New York Times."

It went downhill from there.  It involved him running away.

Edited on June 14, 2012 at 9:20am
dogsbody
Joined
Sep '10
dogsbody

Leftist ideas permeate our culture.  We hear them from our teachers from primary school upward.  Motion pictures and television tell us that capitalists are evil, and beautiful actresses regularly express their hatred of Republicans.  In the US, the news media is dominated by the agenda set by The New York Times, The Washington Post and NPR;  in Britain, it's dominated by the BBC, The Guardian and The Independent, all left wing.

Our culture is so dominated by leftist ideas and habits of thought that it's easy for liberals to think that their viewpoint is not ideology, but just the way things are.  When you and a million other fish like you are going with the flow, the ones who swim against the tide are strange and annoying and they get in the way of progress.

Edited on June 14, 2012 at 6:05am
David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson
Doug Kimball:  Conservatives are penguins.  

As a conservative pilot, I think of myself more as a seagull - like Jonathon  Livingston.

Although, Albatrosses are masters of soaring flight - I'm not sure I would compare 'em  with a Liberal, who tends to reside on the ground - in the fiscal ditch.

Peter Meza
Joined
Apr '11
Peter Meza

The Rational Optimist blogs about The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt:

"The book is mainly about the moral foundations underlying political proclivities. Haidt is a psychologist, and his research centered upon detailed questionnaires filled out by thousands. Their answers showed that our moral thinking utilizes six distinct modules that Haidt analogizes to taste receptors (sweet, sour, salty, etc.). They are: caring (versus harm); liberty (vs. oppression); fairness (vs. cheating); loyalty; respect for authority; and sanctity (vs. degradation)."

I saw the author on BookTV and he said that liberals can only taste "caring". This is why they cannot articulate arguments requiring other taste sensations.

E. Blackadder
Joined
Jun '12
E. Blackadder

Johnathan Haidt's research has touched on this topic, and that is the  UVA study referenced above by Diane Ellis (and now, Peter Meza).

If you prefer video, the short answer is here, give it about one minute to whet your appetite...

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/9376?in=14:24&out=19:59

but then you'll want to hit the previous segment to get a more broad understanding on the difference between liberal morality vs. conservative morality.

Edited on June 14, 2012 at 6:41am
James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Larry Koler: It's just this simple: the liberals have had this country by the throat since FDR was president.They don't care because they don't have to. We are a buzzing sound in their ears. We have almost no real power in this country.

During the Cold War there was a shared fear of the USSR but....

Liberal dreams of the seventies included massive central planning, industrial nationalization and the Equal Rights Amendment. Conservatives really won those arguments. There are still bailouts and problems with government investment, but we have no strong constituency calling for soviet/ 70s British-style ownership of commercial industry outside healthcare, education, and the media. The ERA is a thing of the past even amongst feminists.

In the 90s, they wanted to see environmentalism and global warming dominate our lives. We've not completely won that, but we're most of the way (although we'll have to live with the post-policy failure indoctrination for a while yet). They wanted guns banned, but we now have a stronger Second Amendment than ever in history. Progressives now deny having even wanted eugenics.

They don't win all the fights.

gnarlydad
Joined
Jun '12
gnarlydad

The liberal mind suffers a shocking lack of imagination when faced with well reasoned argumentation challenging closely held belief. No attempt is made to reconcile irrefutable logic laying siege against deeply entrenched opinion because to do so would threaten to bring down the entire moral edifice. Notions of fairness, kindness, transcendent equality, need no defense because they are ineffably good. Challenging them attacks everything the liberal holds as sacred. Conservatives also embrace these ideals (after a fashion,) while concurrently recognizing the limitations imposed on them when attempting to enshrine them into public policy. It is a great irony that the conservative, who sees the fallibility of human institutions (as constructed by corrupted humanity) seeks to limit their power in the interest of individual and corporate freedom, while the liberal, tirelessly working toward an existential utopian ideal, seeks to enslave the will of the individual to the uncompromising dictates of the all knowing collective.

Tom Lindholtz
Joined
May '10
Tom Lindholtz

“The liberal must do something about the social problem even when there is no objective reason to believe that what he does can solve the problem—when, in fact, it may well aggravate the problem instead of solving it. . . . The real and motivating problem, for the liberals, is not to cure poverty or injustice or what not in the objective world but to appease the guilt in their own breasts; and what that requires is some program, some solution, some activity, whether or not it is the correct program, solution and activity.”   --  James Burnham, ‘Suicide of the West’, 1964

Conservatives, on the other hand recognize that the solution to any problem will require trade-offs.  Any increase in government "help" will be accompanied by a diminution of individual self-sufficiency, the only source of personal satisfaction.  That is not an insignificant loss, so a conservative will be more careful about how they propose to "help".  Liberals have much less regard for the individual and much greater regard for the group, especially the group as centered in government, and so they don't even regard the loss of self-sufficiency as important.

Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

James Of England

...

Liberal dreams of the seventies included massive central planning, industrial nationalization and the Equal Rights Amendment. Conservatives really won those arguments. There are still bailouts and problems with government investment, but we have no strong constituency calling for soviet/ 70s British-style ownership of commercial industry outside healthcare, education, and the media. The ERA is a thing of the past even amongst feminists.

In the 90s, they wanted to see environmentalism and global warming dominate our lives. We've not completely won that, but we're most of the way (although we'll have to live with the post-policy failure indoctrination for a while yet). They wanted guns banned, but we now have a stronger Second Amendment than ever in history. Progressives now deny having even wanted eugenics.

They don't win all the fights. 

Notice who's setting the agenda in your examples.

No, they don't win all the fights. But, they start almost all of them and through attrition they win the ones they really push for. 

We, on the other hand, can't roll anything back nor can we assert our own positive agenda because we lack the power (and the will).

Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

E. Blackadder: Johnathan Haidt's research has touched on this topic, and that is the  UVA study referenced above by Diane Ellis (and now, Peter Meza).

If you prefer video, the short answer is here, give it about one minute to whet your appetite...

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/9376?in=14:24&out=19:59

but then you'll want to hit the previous segment to get a more broad understanding on the difference between liberal morality vs. conservative morality. 

Don't you just love Haidt's reasoning ability? He shows us how to think.

E. Blackadder
Joined
Jun '12
E. Blackadder

Larry Koler

E. Blackadder: Johnathan Haidt's research has touched on this topic, and that is the  UVA study referenced above by Diane Ellis (and now, Peter Meza).

If you prefer video, the short answer is here, give it about one minute to whet your appetite...

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/9376?in=14:24&out=19:59

but then you'll want to hit the previous segment to get a more broad understanding on the difference between liberal morality vs. conservative morality. 

Don't you just love Haidt's reasoning ability? He shows us how to think. · 0 minutes ago

He's a professor, that's what he does for a living.  Consider that most of his students, peers, and audience are... liberals and even TEDsters.  It would be a lot of extra work for him to do two talks every time someone interviewed him, one for the unwashed masses, and the other for ricochetters. (is that the right word?  I'm new here.)

Edited on June 14, 2012 at 7:41am
Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

The Independent Whig summarizes Haidt's view here:

To a conservative, talking with a liberal about moral issues – and politics is morality in action; moral thinking for social doing – is like the Spacelander trying to explain thickness and height and breadth to a Flatlander. 

To a liberal, talking with a conservative is like talking to a being from another dimension; they seem foreign, or “alien.” ... “The principles of principled conservatism go beyond fairness to include principles that liberals do not acknowledge to be moral principles.”  Since half of the moral spectrum is essentially invisible to liberals they are dumbfounded in their attempts to understand conservatives, and are left with practically no other option but to attribute conservative views to some sort of mental or moral dysfunction, like racism, homophobia, religious zealotry, “climate of hate,” “paranoid style,” etc.

Haidt has shown that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives.  The conservative Spacelanders, with their six-foundation perception of the full spectrum of human nature can see and understand the liberal Flatlanders.  But the Flatlanders, with their three-foundation partial spectrum “color blind” perception of human nature have a difficult time comprehending what the heck the conservative Spacelanders are talking about.

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules

This is an easy question to answer.  Liberals don't consider our ideas because they think they understand our motivations.  In their minds we are cruel, greedy, selfish, ignorant, bigoted, racist, homophobic and violent.  What's left to examine?  

Brasidas
Joined
Mar '12
Brasidas
Diane Ellis, Ed.: P.S. Brasidas, judging by the way you dressed at the recent Ricochet SF Meetup, you wouldn't be able to blend right into an OWS rally.  You'd look more like the guy from Morgan Stanley who came to check out the rally on his lunch break.  · 3 hours ago

Yes, I should have qualified that statement.  If not for the attire, I could fit right in.  ;-)

show jt's comment (#35)

Joined
Apr '11
jt

Many liberal arguments strike me as adolescent and since we were all teenagers once it's easy to understand the mindset. Many of their arguments are variants on:

  • It's not fair!
  • It's old-fashioned and outdated.
  • Your observations based on real-life experience are simplistic prejudices. I have a brilliant theory that I learned from someone much smarter than you. (Use this one on your dad)
  • Why can't I do whatever I want?!?

Conservatives outgrow most of this  and realize that just because something is a nice thought (cue Lennon's "Imagine") doesn't mean that it's sensible to try to implement.

I like Sowell's constrained vs. unconstrained explanation.

Michael Labeit
Joined
May '10
Michael Labeit
Brasidas: What I find interesting is that the opposite is almost never true.  Ask even a thoughtful liberal to characterize a conservative position on a topic and you'll usually get some silly strawman. 

How do you know this?


Joined
Dec '11
Guruforhire

They are just entirely convinced of the self-evident moral righteousness of their causes and actions.

Franco
Joined
Sep '10
Franco

Lots of great points. I can add that liberals, or default leftists, my preferred term for most of these people, have joined an ongoing belief system. It is much like a religion in that they need to reinforce each other's beliefs and they are not interested much in exploring why they might be wrong. It is psychologically threatening to them and they will instinctively avoid truly exploring "the dark side". And it is the dark side for them, because integral to their belief system is that there can be heaven (on earth) and the only thing that prevents this utopia is lack of understanding and lack of cooperation. (Right-wing greed, right-wing ignorance)

They begin to see themselves as smarter and nicer, and their preachers in the media and elsewhere do everything they can to reinforce this self-regard. They feel better about the world and themselves when they hold onto these precepts. 

When confronted with a conservative, they see the conservative as either greedy and self-interested, or ignorant, closed-minded, stubborn and afraid. They are so sure they are right - and their identity is dependent on them being right - they need no more information.

PracticalMary
Joined
Nov '11
PracticalMary
Casey: ... In other words, their thought process is a subset of our own. We need to understand the parts to understand the whole. · 9 hours ago

I was thinking of CS Lewis' description of this as ships in formation on the sea, or a musical note in song. If one is out-of-whack it effects the whole thing (paraphrase of course). However my thoughts were in terms of stating the flaws in the Libertarian stance on social issues. Not fully formulated but goes something like if you are agreeing with a liberal you should examine your thought processes, especially the logical outcome (or historical outcome) of the specific cure (usually), itself, and make sure your ideology isn't clouding reality.

Mama Toad
Joined
Feb '11
Mama Toad

jt: Many liberal arguments strike me as adolescent and since we were all teenagers once it's easy to understand the mindset. Many of their arguments are variants on:

  • It's not fair!
  • It's old-fashioned and outdated.
  • Your observations based on real-life experience are simplistic prejudices. I have a brilliant theory that I learned from someone much smarter than you. (Use this one on your dad)

Teaching the tadpoles the sounds that various animals make ("What does a cow say, dear?" "Moo, moo!"), Papa Toad and I have amused ourselves over the years with this one: "What does a liberal say, dear?" "It's not fair! It's not fair!"


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In