As pointed out on this blog many times, the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals is how they assess their goals.
For conservatives, goals are consequences in reality; for liberals, the means of achieving goals (institutions, individuals and social movements) are the ends in themselves. In other words, conservatives argue away from the individual toward an external effect, but liberals argue from an external effect toward the individual.
In this light it is clear why conservatives and liberals are destined to clash and forever be unable to compromise. They disagree with the basis on which a decision may be made.
Unlike the liberal, the conservative can accept different opinions. The conservative will however insist on assessing those opinions by their consequences in reality. This will infuriate the liberal, who because he assesses all things in relation to himself, will perceive an attempt to focus on consequences outside the individual as an attack on the individual.
When public debates rage in the United States and Europe, the two sides commonly diverge along these lines. The right talks about demographic change, the long term, strategies and systematic assessments; the left talks about how each of us would feel if affected by the proposed idea, who the idea might benefit more than others, and the possible motivations of the individuals involved.
Practical examples seem ludicrous when stripped of the “serious” adornments of politics. When a right-winger says we must cut payments to the poor in order to re-invest in infrastructure, the liberal asks why the right-winger hates the poor. If a rightist suggests a change that may benefit society as a whole, the liberal accuses that rightist of favoritism based on the rightist’s position in society.
Politics then becomes a battle of different directions. The leftist takes every idea as a personal assault and retaliates; for them, all politics is personal and thus the rightist is fundamentally offensive. They are more like angry small children. The rightist on the other hand is tolerant of the leftist viewpoint, but keeps asking what the end result will be, which infuriates the leftist and results in answers the rightist cannot use, so he passes them by.
It is very popular right now to insist that left and right are the same, mainly because this allows a de facto shift to the left. In other words, don’t challenge the committee; follow along the inevitable path, which just happens to shift to the left because that’s the directions most committees go. Committees try to please as many people as possible in order to avoid negative feedback, which tends to result in a lack of direction and hence an inoffensive but ineffective choice.
However, it’s clear that left and right are different planets. They have no common ground to discuss even how they should choose one idea over another. Until we admit this and separate the two, we are condemned to constant counterproductive internal conflict.
43 queries. 1.061 seconds
Dear Leftist:
I think it’s time for a chat.
I know we’ve had our differences, and that sometimes those differences seem too big to surmount. But it seems, to me, that all of them are based on a simple misunderstanding, and that really, we all want the same thing. It’s just that we’ve been going about things in different ways…
You want to save everyone. So do we. But the fact is, not everyone is like us, and there are always those that can’t be saved. A bit like the Titanic: with the best will in the world, there were always going to be those who would live, and those who wouldn’t.
This being the case, you would want to ensure that those who could be saved, would be, wouldn’t you? Rather than decide that if not all could be saved, then none should be?
It is difficult for you to consider this, I know. Emotions come into play, here, and what if you, yourself, were one of those who would not be saved? Un unpleasant choice, for sure.
But icebergs are not things you can negotiate with. Neither are should-have-beens, regarding the design of the ship. Life isn’t about constantly negotiable variables; you get what you get, and must make the best of it.
We all mourn the loss of those who will not survive, and those who do will mourn us, if we are not to be among the living.
From the dawn of time, this has been the rule, and can not be changed by wishing it were so.
It is well to feel emotion for things that sadden.
But not so well to try to outlaw sadness, itself.
We all want the same things, but there is a life to live, and we are all best served by living the life each of us has, by living it, the best one can.
A nation is not an individual. But an individual is part of a nation.
The part must play its part in the whole, rather than the whole playing to the part.
So let’s give up this disaffection with each other. We are all parts of a whole. Let’s make an attempt to play our own parts, rather than expect the whole to play to us.
It’s a fine day. The sun is shining, the grass is green. What will you do today? Enjoy your one-and-only life, or complain that since not everyone may be having good weather, that none of us should?
Come, let us cast emotion aside, for once, and let us reason together.
Best wishes:
Crow.
Nice, but I would not knock myself out trying to convince them. I would propose the division of North America into two states: traditionalist conservatives; and liberals. What possible objections could the liberals possibly have?
Yes, exactly. They benefit from hating us full time.
Possible objections?
That conservatives are misguided and must be re-educated.
For their own good :)
Man, you said it. In theory, they’d like to be free from us. But in actuality, they know they’re parasites.
There is no reasoning with progressives. They ban instead of debate. These people are insane.
Well, yes, we know that. But there are probably benefits to remaining open to the possibility that something, at some point, may change.
A cataclysmic disaster, for example. There’s nothing like looming extinction, right now, to yank people back to reality.
Allies are generally a good thing, and there’s never any telling where they might come from, in an emergency.
But nature is wily and tricky in this regard. Extinction comes slowly and by the time it is “visible” it’s too late. Otherwise it would never succeed.
Crow, i <3 your comments… always insightful and entertaining.
“
Oops. My entire response got truncated to a single quotation mark!
Maybe its a sign, or a portent…
Imagine absolutely anything, and that may be exactly what I typed :)
”
(Me, too.)
” It is well to feel emotion for things that sadden. But not so well to try to outlaw sadness, itself.”
So very true, the leftists can’t help but take political debate personally, it’s in their leftists nature. Total self-absorption, the leftist is the ultimate narcissist.
“As pointed out on this blog many times”
Indeed. And it started, according to the Archives, in January 1970, that is, 42 years ago. And in 1970th articles there were predictions about 2002, which is amazing.
“the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals is how they assess their goals.”
Not in the goals, but merely in their assessment. No fundamental difference in their goals? Then why all these long talks about insane liberals? Or maybe the goals are not clearly defined?
“For conservatives, goals are consequences in reality”
That means, conservatives are satisfied with any goals, as we have a great variety of consequences in reality. Many goals or no goal at all? Please explain.
“Politics then becomes a battle of different directions. The leftist takes every idea as a personal assault and retaliates; for them, all politics is personal and thus the rightist is fundamentally offensive. They are more like angry small children.”
In this paragraph only “directions” are in plural; that means, these directions are like angry small children, and for them all politics is personal. I got confused.
“However, it’s clear that left and right are different planets”
Different planets of the same system. That’s why they both still exist, I guess. What system?
These guys were around in 1970? Are you pulling my leg?
Did you know a “pullet” is a young chicken? Pullets for ferrets… actually I have no idea what ferrets eat…
A chicken would be just fine with any ferret, I guess.
This Amerika.org page has a list of old articles on the right, under the title “Archives”. Go to the “January 1970″: http://www.amerika.org/1970/01/?doing_wp_cron=1339472074
and enjoy the article by Brett when he was 42 years younger, perhaps 25.
You can also read the “About” that is placed in the right upper corner of the page. And if you can explain how we are going to “fix our reversed logic and make a renewed civilization that will rise above this chaos”, I would be very happy. Something different from “liberals are insane” repeated infinitely, please.
Brett is good, and he is persistent.
But he is not in the business of saving everybody’s souls on their behalf.
Why don’t you tell us how we are going to “fix our reversed logic and make a renewed civilization that will rise above this chaos”?
“Liberals are insane” repeated infinitely, is probably as good a strategy as is currently available, since there are still vast numbers of them that don’t yet realize it.
“Why don’t you tell us how we are going to “fix our reversed logic and make a renewed civilization that will rise above this chaos”?”
Actually, I did, and am still doing. And it is not so easy. There are certain notions that should be understood and their definitions learned not from the mass media. Here is the list of most important definitions:
Liberalism, liberal democracy, democracy, polity, leftism, socio-economic formations, feudalism, communism, socialism, capitalism, capital, means of productions, social class, living standard, quality of life, quality of life index, profit.
The main problem is, as I see it, nobody here has the the goal of making a renewed civilization. If I did, I would be considered sick.
Make a thought experiment: imagine you’ve told to your friends and relatives you were making a better civilization that would rise above this chaos. How many of them would be still with you?
Thus we sit and make our best efforts in looking good, wise, etc.
I like this blog for a better manners than anywhere else, good thought provoking articles and comments; but we don’t have a real discussions here. In couple of days, when an article is not seen on the current page, comments stop. Next cycle a similar exchange of comments would start and die without much progress (sorry for this dirty word).
WEll yes this site needs a glossary or dictionary, that’s for sure.
Reversed logic is liberal logic I think. Backwards from end to means. In other words means over ends.
How to reverse that back I guess is to do the opposite, ends over means.
“this site needs a glossary or dictionary”
Why? These are notions that everybody making comments here should know. If one forgets or not sure, there is a great opportunity of finding all these definitions on the Internet. I like the wikipedia, for example. It is the responsibility of the commenter to know the meanings of the words when commenting. Not the site where comments are posted.
Good reply, Ferret.
I’ve sometimes thought a forum-format would serve better than a blog, but that is not how it is, and probably there is a good reason for this.
But, strangely, the following link is allied in some way with Amerika. Did you know about it? Discussions take place there:
http://www.deathmetal.org/forum/index.php/board,2.0.html
Thanks for the link. I’ve learned new ideoms, e.g., “I’ve always enjoyed a little male bondage every now and then.”
“Every now and then” – that’s what I would never use if not learned from such a lovely sentence.
The site itself is not as good as amerika.org. And there is no understanding of what they are talking about. For example, one comment was: “Socialism, leftism, communism and so on – they’re all forms of egalitarianism. In order to function, they have to assume that all humans are perfectly interchangeable cogs.”
The commenters haven’t bothered to check what all these words mean.
If not your citing about jews being hated only because JC was the one, it would be even worse.
People aren’t going to accept that liberals are insane until they know how liberals are insane and why liberals are wrong.
Still not enough. If you see on the Internet there are liberal ideas and a criticism of this ideas without proposing a better alternatives with the prove why they are better, a reader would decide: these guys liberals want some improvement; those who criticise are jealous, have nothing to say but name calling. Let’s go with liberals.
Or is it enough to tell one he is an idiot, and then happiness comes?
Now you are practicing the leftist-reversal.
This is the way leftists see things.
The anal route to hell.
Did all that study of Marx warp you, do you think?
“This is the way leftists see things.”
No. This is the way people see things just before they become leftists. If people see a good explained alternative, at least some of them may become conservative.
“Did all that study of Marx warp you, do you think?”
This is a leftist way of discussing something, isn’t it? Instead of talking about the idea, to go to a person that was warped by another person.
My point is so simple: conservatives should be able to explain why their way is better and must do it. Otherwise, there is little chance of convincing people and making more supporters. As Brett stated: “If we convince 5% of our fellow citizens of the above, a peaceful cultural revolution will lead to political change.”
What’s wrong with convincing people, where Brett has made a mistake, and what was that mistake?
You present the sort of argument that atheists present to those who are not atheists. You demand evidence where no such thing applies.
Conservatives are a lot like believers in God, and many actually are exactly that.
They know what is reasonable, sustainable, creative, and good, whether or not they, themselves manifest such things. They do not have a dogma in the way leftists do. They live their lives, rather than busying themselves with defining how everybody else should be living theirs.
You don’t convince a leftist of their errors; they convince themselves.
Or not.
“they convince themselves.”
and those who are not leftists yet. Unless you prevent it.
We’re not supposed to say liberals are insane anymore?
That file date has to be a mistake, it’s the start of the UNIX system date numbering, the equivalent of writing a zero to a raw date field.
Brett is obviously at least 105, cantankerous old man!
It wouldn’t surprise me.
How old do you need to be, to have the kind of insight he has? Or the ability to remain focused and unruffled by the regular ridicule of lesser beings? Pretty old, I’d say.
“We’re not supposed to say liberals are insane anymore?”
A liberal who was told he is insane (instead of explaining to him what is wrong with his stance) would hardly consider any alternative to liberalism. Ask Brett, whether he decided to go conservative after he was told that liberals were insane, or he found some explanations that just made sense.
We can keep telling liberals are insane, but this way there is little chance some of them would become conservatives.
As one great man said, the best way to conquer an enemy is to make him a friend.
Have you ever met a leftist who would be your friend unless you were exactly like him?
Unless you were – in effect – him?
This is the very odd insanity of the leftist.
He can only be a friend to anyone he has never met, and never will, and a friend to none who stand before him.
Besides, appearance being everything to a leftist, it is likely that the worst thing he can imagine is appearing to be insane.
It’s hard to know the truth of this, not being one, myself.
“Have you ever met a leftist who would be your friend unless you were exactly like him?”
Brett told once he was a leftist. He has changed the direction because he has learned something. To me a conservative converted from a leftist worth 100 ones that were born conservative.
We were all leftists, once.
This is the condition of childhood, and of unrealistic expectations.
Those who continue to develop become conservatives, at some point. Those who stop developing, simply add layers of excuse-making, posing as rationale, in an attempt to continue being the center of their own private universe.
Then again, as you say, the ones who carry on their self-aggrandizement into adulthood, and then convert to a reality-based view, are the real leaders in the field. They know both sides.