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:


Herkybird
Joined
Apr '11
Herkybird

Recently, U-VA psychology professor Jonathan Haidt - himself a liberal - published a book, The Righteous Mind, in which he identified 6 moral foundations:  Caring, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity.

People of a conservative frame of mind, Haidt says,  give equal weight to all six principles. Liberals, he found, are not just heavily skewed to the first three but actual see the last three as the root of all evil.

That, I submit, is why liberals  can't articulate nor even understand the conservative point of view.

Edited on June 14, 2012 at 3:54pm
oldbaritone
Joined
Apr '12
oldbaritone

It never ceases to amaze me that most liberal arguments against the conservative viewpoint consist of name-calling, frequently blatant and childish: the 'liar liar pants on fire" response.

I would expect better from people who supposedly are well-educated, but alas such is rarely the case.

nick
Joined
Jan '11
nick

At bottom, (post) modern leftism is a form of irrationalism. It is a descendant of the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School. Officially, at least, it rejects the rationalism of the Enlightenment, including the requirement upon adults to use reason to justify one's beliefs. Since beliefs cannot be justified, they say, it is pointless to try (now you see why I said "officially"). In place of reasons is mere commitment. What matters to the left is that they really believe what leftists believe. Since justification is a mug's game, they mustn't bother with it. If the right wants to saddle itself with the hard work of thinking---of believing only what is rational---let them: they are fools to so handicap themselves. Little surprise, then, that typical lefties would have difficulty explaining beliefs---even their own.

For the irrationalist, what makes a belief believable is that one prefers it. For the leftist, leftist beliefs are, by definition, preferable. If you happen to believe otherwise, you are therefore perverse. You and your beliefs are evil. The job of the fully-committed lefty is to transform you, or shut you up, not to indulge your perversity.


Joined
Mar '12
StandAndWait

Doug Kimball: Liberals are the albatross of the political landscape.  They fly just above the waves, skipping across the political surface, never stopping, never delving below the surface of any political matter.  They see just the tips of the waves, one after another, and wonder why everyone isn't just like them, gliding through life on nothing more than air.  Conservatives are penguins.  They can't fly at all, except below the surface, where they face all kinds of dangers.  On land, they are stubborn, dogged, awkward creatures, fiercely loyal, protective and dedicated to a lifetime mate and their progeny. · 12 hours ago

Edited 12 hours ago

I enjoyed your analogy, but it brought to mind a news story I read recently: 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/11/penguins-explicit-sex-acts-shocked-polar-explorer/

Seems more like liberal behavior to me.

Casey
Joined
Mar '11
Casey
jt: Many liberal arguments strike me as adolescent...

Absolutely.  A child has a limited frame of reference.  Ask a child how to help poor people and they'll say something like "give them money" or "give them jobs".

Adult liberals respond in the same way - People too fat?  Ban big cups.  People don't have health insurance?  Make them have health insurance.

Ed G.
Joined
Feb '11
Ed G.

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? · 5 hours ago

Before we all go overboard painting with such a broad brush, let's at least consider that thoughtful liberals (they do exist) say the exact same kinds of things about conservatives as you all are saying here. Let's also consider that liberals have their own "scientific" studies showing how conservatives are close-minded, dumber on average, or even psychologically impaired. So Haidt produced a study that flatters us; is it really so easy to disarm conservative skepticism?

To answer your question, Brasidas, I think that thoughtful liberals are capable of understanding your arguments just as well as you understand theirs. The difficulty is in finding the real point of divergence and contention, considering how complex life is and further considering just how fundamental the differences really are.

Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

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? · 6 hours ago

My answer: Experience. 

Casey
Joined
Mar '11
Casey
oldbaritone: It never ceases to amaze me that most liberal arguments against the conservative viewpoint consist of name-calling, frequently blatant and childish: the 'liar liar pants on fire" response.

I think this has more to do with the fact that liberalism's time is waning.  They are out of excuses so they shout, stomp, run to their rooms, slam their doors and cry in their pillows.

Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

Ed G.

...

Before we all go overboard painting with such a broad brush, let's at least consider that thoughtful liberals (they do exist) say the exact same kinds of things about conservatives as you all are saying here. Let's also consider that liberals have their own "scientific" studies showing how conservatives are close-minded, dumber on average, or even psychologically impaired. So Haidt produced a study that flatters us; is it really so easy to disarm conservative skepticism?

To answer your question, Brasidas, I think that thoughtful liberals are capable of understanding your arguments just as well as you understand theirs. The difficulty is in finding the real point of divergence and contention, considering how complex life is and further considering just how fundamental the differences really are. 

Liberals are capable of reasoning, I agree. But, where conservatives and Republicans make a big mistake is to think that they are in a rational discussion with liberals. Liberals (in general) use a facsimile of the rational argument but this is only window dressing to sucker us in. They really have no strong commitment to their reason based points. 

(continued)

Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

(from #49)

This is easy to prove to yourself. Try investigating some crucial data point that they are wrong about, show them the correct data -- and then watch them change the subject, the crucial point having absolutely no effect on them even though before this one would have assumed that this was the sticking point.

Tom Meyer
Joined
Jan '11
Tom Meyer
Tom Lindholtz: It is because, while we have to defend our ideas, vocally or in our own minds, all the time, liberals are never in a position where their ideas and values are exposed to scrutiny or even ridicule.  Thus they are never required to defend them or examine them.  Defending your own ideas requires understanding the opponent's ideas.

I think it's worth noting that this is an accurate description of elite culture -- in the Charles Murray sense -- but not necessarily of culture in general.*

I would assume that liberals in deep red states are generally better at empathizing with conservative arguments than are their blue state compatriots.  Likewise, I'd imagine that conservatives from blue states -- which describes a fairly significant portion of Ricochteers -- are generally better at understanding liberal arguments than a conservative from a deep red state who doesn't know a lot of liberals.

* Though, as others have noted, we are all exposed to some amount of Elite culture through mass media, which means conservatives will always have an edge this way.

Foxfier
Joined
Apr '12
Foxfier

Ed G.

Before we all go overboard painting with such a broad brush, let's at least consider that thoughtful liberals (they do exist) say the exact same kinds of things about conservatives as you all are saying here. Let's also consider that liberals have their own "scientific" studies showing how conservatives are close-minded, dumber on average, or even psychologically impaired.

It doesn't matter if they say the same thing, it matters if it's true.

Skepticism should not be a goal in and of itself; it is a tool.  (Ditto evenhandedness-- just because both sides claim the other is wrong, you can't stop at the conclusion that they're both wrong.  At the end of reasoning, you might conclude it, but it can't be assumed.)

From what I have read about Haidt's reasoning and conclusions, it gets through my skepticism by working through it.  We should all know by now that liberals and conservatives have different world views, and although the "six moral foundations" is a bit simplified, it functions well as a model.  
If applied to what I have seen, it works.
Within itself, it works. 

Western Chauvinist
Joined
Dec '10
Western Chauvinist

I too am uncomfortable using the broad brush on liberals as shallow, irrational, or stupid. I'm always impressed with how badly mistaken the highly intelligent, good, kind, and well-read (although not the conservative canon, to be sure) liberals I know can be.

Having listened to the first two lectures of a Great Course on C.S. Lewis (intro to argument by desire) this morning, I have these thoughts as to why liberals can't articulate conservative positions. They've had a glimpse of the good, the true, and the beautiful, but they've fallen in love with the counterfeit. It's like the artist whose desire is to capture the iridescent light on water he sees, but he spoils the joy he senses with the real thing by becoming obsessed with materials and technique. This is how the liberal loses interest in the truth. 

The liberal becomes enamored with, intoxicated by, his virtue and the sensations (feelings) he experiences as a result of his good intentions and those of others like him. There's a lot to appeal to us fallen humans in that world. Unfortunately, Liberal Land is circumscribed and temporal. And truth-tellers are unwelcome aliens.

Tom Meyer
Joined
Jan '11
Tom Meyer

Ed G.

Before we all go overboard painting with such a broad brush, let's at least consider that thoughtful liberals (they do exist) say the exact same kinds of things about conservatives as you all are saying here. Let's also consider that liberals have their own "scientific" studies showing how conservatives are close-minded, dumber on average, or even psychologically impaired. So Haidt produced a study that flatters us; is it really so easy to disarm conservative skepticism?

I half agree.

On the one hand, there is something unseemly about a bunch of conservatives gloating about how -- unlike those un-empathetic liberals -- we understand how they think.  It's a little  self-congratulatory.

On the other hand, Haidt's thesis seems generally correct to me, for the reasons I explained in #51.

Misthiocracy
Joined
Aug '10
Misthiocracy

It's quite simple.

Conservatives learn about liberalism from liberals.

Liberals learn about conservatism from liberals.

Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

Misthiocracy: It's quite simple.

Conservatives learn about liberalism from liberals.

Liberals learn about conservatism from liberals. · 5 minutes ago

Beautiful, beautiful! Thanks.

Wylee Coyote
Joined
Jul '10
Wylee Coyote
Leigh: Comparative lack of exposure, to at least some extent.   If you want to go through life in a liberal cocoon, you can probably pull it off, at least in some parts of the country.  Whereas if you at least went to public school, you had at least some exposure to the underlying philosophies, arguments, and emotions behind liberalism.

Next time you talk to a liberal about this, bring up that point and demand that they "acknowledge their privilege".  The look on their face will brighten your day.  ;)

Wylee Coyote
Joined
Jul '10
Wylee Coyote
Doug Kimball:   Conservatives are penguins.  They can't fly at all, except below the surface, where they face all kinds of dangers.  On land, they are stubborn, dogged, awkward creatures, fiercely loyal, protective and dedicated to a lifetime mate and their progeny.

Southern Pessimist, call your office.

Charles Mark
Joined
Aug '10
Charles Mark

I'm not much of a TV person but I'm pretty sure there aren't too many dirty rotten liberals in mainstream dramas or sitcoms. Could they find actors to play the roles?

Ed G.
Joined
Feb '11
Ed G.

Larry Koler: (from #49)

This is easy to prove to yourself. Try investigating some crucial data point that they are wrong about, show them the correct data -- and then watch them change the subject, the crucial point having absolutely no effect on them even though before this one would have assumed that this was the sticking point. · 7 hours ago

That's because the underlying disagreements between liberals and conservatives (or even libertarians) aren't foremost about data - they're disagreements about morality and preference, e.g. the relationship between individual and community, between community and state, etc.


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