Conservative and Liberal. Nature or Nurture?

[Deleted member 848]

Please don't become that guy, dala.

I'm of the opinion that Reagan was firmly average. Some of his policies were good, some were structurally racist in their ramifications. He wasn't out there saying blacks are inferior, but that isn't the point. This is not a #hottake it's literally acknowledged in probably every circle outside of the Fox News bubble. Even Bill Clinton is now getting heat for his policies that disproportionately affected blacks. I'd use the same language on him as I would with Ronald, and Bill is a "Democrat" (and a widely cherished one, at that).

 

[franklin]

I'm shocked anyone would use the war on crack for political advantage, whether for party line push, "war on drugs" cliches, libertarian mumbo jumbo or what have you.

That was one of the best accomplishments this country has seen in the last 30 years. We fought through an escalation of extremely violent crime rates and reversed it. Crime has been in decline ever since the war on crack. You really want to argue that it was racist to save black women from the violent rape and murder culture? Such a shameful take in trying to build some talking point advantage.

 

[franklin]

Basically, the argument against the war on crack is support for rapists, torture, underground sex slave rings, and all sorts of add-on violence. But Reagan was a Raxcist so I'm against dat!!!!!111111

 

[♪alt13]

I think "conservative" in America means people who believe in keeping our Constitutional form of government, and respecting our human rights.

"Liberal" has been hijacked by globalist advocacy to mean the opposite of the general old meaning: a "Liberal" is somebody who really wants to control you. As in govern you, essential the opposite of democratic governance.

This

Through the bastardization of words and the murder of concepts the political elite has molded our minds. I don't think it's a big conspiracy so much as a system that encourages little manipulations of concepts that perpetuate the system until eventually it becomes almost impossible to think outside it. It's very difficult to have an intelligible conversation about politics. It's very Orwellian.(after all it was the real world that was the inspiration for 1984 not Orwell's imagination)

The most recent offender has been Bernie Sanders. Despite his claim, he is not a democratic socialist. Socialism is at it's heart the social ownership over the means of production. He has not ever advocated for this(to my knowledge). He is a social democrat. Which one is the adjective and which is the noun ****ing matters. System education ensured that no one even noticed or cared.

Most self styled conservatives would probably be shocked to realize that what Reagan was endorsing was economic liberalism. Concepts have become so muddied by politicians and partisans that when you ask a person their position they will awkwardly stumble in their attempt to tell you. They haven't the language to express their positions and we wouldn't understand them if they did.

 

[Red]

Thought provoking and interesting read. Thanks to the contributors.

It's been my impression that Jazzfanz has a much above average number of posters who are very thoughtful in their responses, in terms of obviously putting a lot of effort into presenting their points of view. I'm a denizen of many Internet forums, and that is just not always the case on average. It's something to be proud of as a community, I think. People here really put in an effort, and the diversity of well thought out opinions is great, in my own humble opinion.

 

[Red]

I'm going to be unplugged until next week so this will probably be my last post for a while. I'm sure I'll find myself thinking about this stuff quite a bit, though. I admire your willingness to consider all sides of the issue. I never imagined you'd be taking the conservative position in this conversation. While I'm away I'm going to see if I'm capable of arguing the liberal side. I'm not sure I am. I think there's some merit to the idea that conservative and liberal brains work differently.

Regarding Toqueville, he has a lot of great sounding quotes, but it seems to me like a lot of them don't really jive with many of the others. These issues are complex so I guess that's to be expected.

The idea that a form of government like ours was eventually going to result in more and more social programs was predicted even by some of the founding fathers. It's easy to understand why this happens, especially if segments of the population quit dreaming the American Dream. You really can't blame people who don't see a way to improve their lives for voting in politicians who promise social programs. The irony is that every time we implement a social program we give up a little bit more freedom in exchange for security, and doing so makes it just a little bit harder (and less logical) for an increasing segment of the population to chase the dream. America, without the dream, simply won't work.

I believe Thomas Jefferson said that every nation needed a revolution every couple of generations. If not, that's a quote my dad often attributes to him. It feels like we're on the verge of a revolution of sorts (hopefully more ideologically than physical). The success of the Sanders and Trump campaigns sure point to that. It's going to be fascinating to see where things go from here.

Yeah, that sentiment is attributed to Jefferson. Forget the exact wording, and sometimes those things turn out to be more anecdotal then literal, but so it is said, and I agree that we seem to be on the verge of something that may make this a pivotal time in our history.

I had seen some articles recently exploring the subject of "OK, so exactly when was the last time America was great?" All those hats, might as well ask, lol. So, under those circumstances, I thought this observation was interesting.

“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers – and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerce – and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution – and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

 

[Red]

I don't believe the differences are as stark as people generally believe.
For example: It's equally as insulting to a conservative to be considered uncaring of people in need as it is insulting to a liberal to be accused of wanting only big government and freebies for everyone.

The problem is largely hyperbolic partisan and media driven messages that drive wedges between otherwise mostly like-minded people.

I only consider myself a conservative (though not necessarily republican) because I believe in very cautious and calculated change that needs to be measured, adjusted, and tweaked appropriately.
Whether fair or not, I typically feel liberals speak of things in more sweeping and far-reaching change. Maybe I'm wrong.

As I've said many times, I don't consider myself pro or anti either party or that party's candidates, per se.
But a Romney message resonates better with me than does a Hillary or Obama (or Bernie).

One of the ways in which I am very liberal is I love living in an environment where there is a melting pot of ideas. I always thought the Hellenistic Period in the eastern Mediterranean would have been hog heaven to me because of the great mix of cultures and religious beliefs at that time and in that region. So, it was no surprise to me to react with alarm at the whole "cultural appropriation" movement. It seems like the epitome of narrow mindedness, whereas cultural diffusion and borrowing is the norm throughout history, and far more conducive to the birth of new ideas, and sharing ideas. It's not something to be afraid of, or discouraged. It's OK to borrow from other cultures, and even introduce changes to what is borrowed. Evolution that way is OK. Put me somewhere where every idea under the rainbow will cross my bow, and I'm ecstatic. Academia was like that, and just in terms of the world of the mind, I will always be extremely liberal.

And, although there may be a great deal of truth to there being fundamental psychological differences between liberal and conservative brains, nurture has to play a role. If the countryside, rural America, is more conservative on average, and cities, urban America, more liberal, where you are born and raised is bound to play some role. Certainly that distinction between city and farm is right there in our history as a nation.

We tend to plug the terms into political discourse, and for obvious reasons, but politics is not the only venue, obviously, and most of us should expect to have a mix of liberal thoughts and conservative thoughts in something as complex as life. Americans have often been described as a pragmatic people as well, and pragmatism probably makes for easier transitions from one side to another of the liberal/ conservative divide. Usually what works is more relevant then which philosophy it reflects.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I'm shocked anyone would use the war on crack for political advantage, whether for party line push, "war on drugs" cliches, libertarian mumbo jumbo or what have you.

That was one of the best accomplishments this country has seen in the last 30 years. We fought through an escalation of extremely violent crime rates and reversed it. Crime has been in decline ever since the war on crack. You really want to argue that it was racist to save black women from the violent rape and murder culture? Such a shameful take in trying to build some talking point advantage.

A rising Crime rate in the 80s started dropping after the war on drugs?

You're fact-free rhetoric has honestly brought you to the point where you're not even worth engaging anymore. And I'd bet you don't even believe this stuff, you're just trying to rile ppl up.

*yawn*

 

[Deleted member 848]

I have no problems with people holding different opinions than mine. I'm calling it as best I see it, and I don't take offense of ppl (like Dr. Jones) are thinking I'm being off-base. Maybe my posts come across as militant, but that isn't the intended effect. I'm just passionate in my convictions.



What I truly don't ****ing understand is when posters like franklin antagonize strictly for the sake of antagonizing. For some, Jazzfanz is an escape to their otherwise extremely difficult life (examples including posters who've had children killed/a wife suffering from cancer, posters going through failed marriages, Trans posters, the list goes on). At the end of the day, idgaf about his trolling directed towards me-- but I just can't understand why someone goes out of their way to make this community more inhospitable. It's pretty childlike, for a poster who constantly refers to me as one.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

"Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem" ~ Reagan

Yes, this little ditty just clarifies everything so well and, thus, should be used as the basis for all public policies in the future.

Government by trite cliche, nothing beats it.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

He admits he is part of the problem and then declares war (an un-winnable one at that) on a huge population of his own people? (War on drugs was reagans big thing iirc)

Seems kind of dumb to me.

And you put your finger on an inherent contradiction (hypocrisy) of the small government right. Opposition to government intrusion in the affairs of private citizens is offered as a foundational principle of the right, yet, it is selectively applied, particularly in the realm of social policy.

Why not start from the fact-based agreement that we have a mixed system involving a combination of private/state involvement and have a rational, grown-up discussion about what the appropriate mix is, along with trade-offs?

I realize this is a pipe dream, but I do so tire of inflexible ideological positions. Politics is a wasteland of vacuous, slogan-based rhetoric and policies played to largely ignorant/ill-informed (often willfully) voting population done with an eye to political advantage than anything related to, say, the public good. Instead we get insipid slogans (e.g., "Government is the problem not the solution) and shallow, often fact-starved partisan talking points.

 

[franklin]

A rising Crime rate in the 80s started dropping after the war on drugs?

You're fact-free rhetoric has honestly brought you to the point where you're not even worth engaging anymore. And I'd bet you don't even believe this stuff, you're just trying to rile ppl up.

*yawn*

Fanatic,

I don't know what ax you are trying to grind here. You obviously have not researched the war on crack. At all. You are a complete fool if you don't acknowledge the effects that the war on crack had on inner city violence.

You spout off some seriously dumb **** out of naivete and hate but this loafer trumps them all by far.

I'm sure @elroach will be along in short order to root on your alchemistish pseudo-intellectual takes. Enjoy his pathetic grasps at relevancy as much as your own are.

Sincerely,

frank