posted
I propose an addition to TomD's sweeping definitions of the differences between liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives have a different standard of expectations and behavior towards their own, while liberals expect to apply the same behavior to everyone.
Have you seen this? If it isn't my family, it isn't a big deal. A lie to someone I'm not tied to is not as big of a deal as a lie to someone I am tied to. I need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions only as much as they effect the people I deal with everyday.
In To Kill a Mockingbird, Jem and Scout are speaking with Miss Maudie about their father. Jem said their father, Atticus Finch, said that "lying to a black man is ten times worse than lying to a white men. It's the most low-down thing a man can do." Miss Maudie and smiled and said, "Your father isn't like other men, children, and it's time you learned that." (quotes are paraphrased from memory - sorry if they are innaccurate in details, although I am confident they are accurate in general meaning.)
On the other hand, there is a limit to how much resources (money, time, effort, heart) can be given out. (...maybe not heart...) It's one thing to ask someone to be the same level of honest to everyone, but different to ask them to divide their resources to include everyone in the neighborhood, when it is their children that will get less because of it.
posted
1.) In the italicized portion, I think you have an additional "not."
2.) This seems like one of those things where someone continues a conversation after a couple hours and I have no idea what the topic is. Which thread are you continuing? (This is not a slam, or even a complaint -- it happens all the time to me from both sides of the conversation. I'm just trying to follow along.)
It was inspired by something in RL, but I'm trying to rework the way I bring up topics of interest (as per Kayla's advice) by not adding the personal details - because then the thread gets about the personal details when I'm fine with that, but want to discuss the philosophical ramifications.
posted
It's been weeks, Papa, so don't fret. I'll link to my continuation of the subject, which pretty much died immediately, I'll let someone else find the other. Lib/Con Definitions Reloaded
So it sounds like kind of an affirmative action plan for social conduct, kat? When does that leave off and patronization begin? I guess it all comes down to the intent of the heart, which cannot be seen or proven.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't accept that you can't see or prove the intent of the heart. A person actions show what's in their heart. If there is something in their heart that is consistently not being reflected in their actions, then it isn't sincere. It may be a wish or, say, a goal, but it isn't the intent of their heart.
I look at it this way: the Lord, having something of a sense of humor, gives to us the desires of our hearts. We become what we admire and aspire to.
The Lib/Con Definitions endeavor has been going on for, oh, years now. Somehow I missed that other thread. This is meant to be another leaf on the tree.
posted
I'm gonna cogitate on it a bit, but on the surface I disagree. I think.
It depends on in what context you're referring to conservative and liberal. Political? Economic? Social? There are so many that I don't think a single explanation can accurately split them.
I think of myself as relatively conservative, in that I think in general that change needs to come slowly enough to be absorbed. Social, political, or economic change that comes to quickly I liken to water being splashed on a dry sponge. The water shoots off, and all you have is a puddle, and people saying "See? Sponges weren't meant to interact with water." When, in fact, sponges were designed specifically to interact with water, but they must first be in a condition to do so.
So even though I'm conservative, I think standards of behavior should be the same for all, all things being equal. And when I say all things being equal, I'm not talking about a "me and mine/them and theirs" mentality -- I'm talking about different facets of individuals' (or societies') lives being taken into account.
I also think there's a different expectation from people than from governments. To put a Biblical spin on it, there's a "all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial" issue. Government (in my opinion, of course) should operate as much as possible dealing with things which are or are not permissible, not on things which are or are not beneficial. Those issues belong to the individual. Unfortunately, the two categories are not always distinct.
Anyway, as I said, I plan to continue thinking about it. I'll also try to find the old threads and read them, so I'm not just repeating something that was already said. With this being an "addition to" something, I'd like to see what that something is.
posted
I'm not sure what your original statement is saying, kat.
Doesn't it work as well to say "I'm going to put my kids in the best school I can afford to to make sure they get a good start in life." Isn't this also the conservative way? I guess I must really be conservative through and through, since I see any other view as being "indifferent" to my children.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I do need more context in this thread. What is the source of the quote? I did not see it. It was not another thread? Then was it on the news?
That's a very good question, though. Whose keeper am I? I believe it to be every living creature, and all of creation, though I am limited by my ability to have a real effect to something smaller than that.
I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I guess I am conservative, as well, in the sense that I think it's a whole lot smarter and better not to smoke or drink or take drugs or gamble or have extramarital sex. But since I believe attempts by force to prevent people doing these things are even worse (more evil), then I'm very much not in favor of the agenda of the religious right (whom I think of as misguided and ignorant). I believe strongly in the bill of rights and am opposed to these draconian measures taken lately in the war on terrorism, holding people forever with no charges, etc. Not even telling who you have detained. Those things are more dangerous than terrorism, I think. I am for civil rights, and women's rights, and reproductive rights. I think everyone should have free access to information. I abhor secrecy in government or in any enterprise, for that matter. I believe strongly in education. I am against any sort of gun control. (I think it's a terrible shame that it's illegal for me to make a flamethrower. I wasn't going to start big fires. I was going to be a responsible flamethrower owner!)
So overall I have to say that I'm a liberal.
And I do believe I have a responsibility toward and connection with and empathy for, not just every human but every living feeling creature, and all the rest of creation as well. I believe I go far beyond even PETA in that feeling. I think we can change our hearts and begin taking good care of everyone and everything in the world and then on to the solar system and galaxy and universe and beyond.
Is that what you were asking?
[ December 04, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread has a definite bias, I admit. It isn't meant to be political at all. More... internal.
Yeah, in this case, I do think Atticus Finch is a better person that the other people Jem and Scout would encounter.
Yes, in anne kate's word, whose keeper are you? Is this why young liberals turn into middle-aged conservatives - they aquire a tiny fiefdom of property and people they seek to protect, and if it has to come at the expense of someone else, that's okay?
Were both Atticus and Miss Maudie correct?
I don't mean the question of where to put the kids... more a question of, well, being a class mom and then only organizing events and tutoring geared towards your own kids, regardless of whether or not the other children need it. Because, you know, if they wanted official help, they should get their own moms to volunteer.
posted
On the question of how you treat the powerless vs. how you treat the powerful...
How you treat the powerless shows who you really are, when nobody is making you and there's nothing in it for you. How you treat the powerless can have a profound effect on their circumstances, on what it's like to be them. The powerful will be more or less okay no matter what you do to them. You can't really hurt them too badly, because they are free. But those who are under you, who are subject to your whims, they are the ones it is absolutely crucial for you to treat kindly and well.
I think that's the best way to judge someone's character, is to watch how they treat those over whom they have complete power.
Yes, I am totally with Atticus on that. Lying to someone who is powerless is far far worse than lying to someone else.
Is that a liberal vs. conservative issue, though? I have never thought that it was. More like honorable vs. dishonorable, and there are honorable people in all political camps.
[ December 04, 2003, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's best to help with what I know about. One of the stereotypes we conservatives have of liberals is them bumbling about trying to force good on others without finding out what the people need.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that overlap between the political liberal = left and conservative = right. I don't mean the political ramifications at all. I don't accept that the solely the left is liberal and the solely the right is conservative.
I mean the mental paradigms - more along the lines of what Anne Kate is saying.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Atticus, I think he was giving a specific example within his cultural context. To say now that lying to a black man is ten times worse than lying to a white man would be patently incorrect. But I agree with ana kata's take, which I believe is what Atticus was really saying -- lying to someone who is powerless is worse than lying to someone who is not. And when I say worse, I mean in the way it affects both the person lying and the recipient of the lie, not some universal grand result of the telling of a lie.
Maudie's comment could be taken to mean that every person is equal, and so lying to a black man is not worse than lying to a white man. However, I don't think within that culture (or that book, more precisely) that she's saying that. That's a kind way of interpreting her words, but an inaccurate one. What she's saying is that lying to "your own" is worse than lying to others. So while her words are not in and of themselves false, her intent is. (It's been about 20 years or more since I read To Kill a Mockingbird, though, so maybe I'm remembering wrong.)
posted
When I brought up this subject months ago,I had a slightly different phrasing.
Conservatives, in my mind, were more concerned with helping those close to them. Is there anything wrong with loyalty to ones family, friends, church, country?
Liberals, in my mind, were more concerned with helping everyone, especially those who could not help themselves. The down side of this is their insistance that You pay the bill too.
This is a good question.
You see a homeless man in the street. He is hungry and cold. What do you do?
Do you walk away, happy that he didn't rob you and that your money is safe in your pocket? You need that money to buy food, home, games for your family. His poverty is not your problem.
Do you give him money? You don't have enough money to change his life. All you are doing is freeing up your own guilt.
Do you try to raise the money to make his life better, to train him for a job, to make him a useful member of society? How do you get the money? You take it from everyone you can. You become the theif, in a way, and tax/beg/preach the money out of others pockets. Is that any less a theft from the families of those others?
Do you give him a job? But there are only a finite number of jobs. Giving him one would be taking one away from someone possibly more qualified or more deserving. Why should that other person suffer so this one can work?
Do you assume that someone else will take care of him? There are shelters/programs/churches that will take in the poor and the helpless. Sure, you may not contribute to them much, but they are there. That is their job, not yours. You can not be held responsible for every person's failings and problems.
And after you are done doing what ever it is you do in such a situation, whether it was any of the suggestions I mentioned, or others, do you sit back and ask yourself, did I do what I did for the reasons I say, or are those just rationalizations. If they were just rationalizations, why do you need them?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't give to beggars because I'm already in debt, and I would be stealing that money from my creditors. It gets complicated, and is why money troubles are the number one cause of deciding to bite off your partner's tongue.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you give him money? You don't have enough money to change his life. All you are doing is freeing up your own guilt.
Dan, speaking as someone who has, way long ago in a desparate part of my life, actually been a "begger on a street" for a short time...
It isn't the money that you give him that might change his life -- it is the KINDNESS that you exhibit when you give him the money. That kindness represents hope, which he has very little of, day to day....
posted
In Dallas, there is a begger at every major intersection. Always only one, and the person (usually a he) steps out among the cars when the light turns red.
It's hard to know what to do. The first problem is I almost never carry cash. Secondly, there are always people there. On the way home, I'll usually see three on an average day. What to do?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and the fact that I can't help everyone in the universe yet, or help change someone's life completely, is not at issue. Can I help some? Do I refuse to do so? What effect does that then have on my own heart, and on the beggar?
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
About panhandlers, I do believe in always giving them something, even if it's the change in my pocket. It's the kindness that matters, not the money. And $5 to them represents a whole lot of money, while to me it's not much, so that the total value that exists is raised by that transaction. Occasionally I give them more, just because I like to surprise random people with things that might make them happy.
Any time they act pushy or insistant, or aggressive, they get nothing at all, though. I really dislike the sort of begging that is borderline extortion.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This happened to me about three or four years ago. It is a combination of the two views.
I was working out in my lawn one Saturday when this older black gut walks up. He is dressed in what was obviously old clothes. I live in mainly all white area and reasonably upscale. He tells me a sob story about how he needs money to get down south and back to his family because someone was sick. Then he puts in the kicker. He was willing to work for some money to get a bus ticket. Well I agreed to that. He and I agreed on what he was to do, a couple hours work, and the amount, around $20. I went inside while he got to work. While he worked I talked to my wife. When he was done I gave him the $20 and went further. My wife had fixed him a very nice sack lunch. Several sandwiches, carrots, apple slices, cookies and some type of juice drink. I offered and he accepted a ride downtown to the bus station. On the way I gave him another 60$ to help out with the bus fare. He seemed very appriciative and kept talking about family and God. I dropped him off at the bus station and never saw him again.
Now he might have been telling me a story and used the extra money to go buy booze, but that is his problem not mine. His attitude of I will work for the money you give me was all I needed to know. HIS willingness to make the effort rewarded him more. I could barely afford it(the total was $80 cash plus the food and times were tighter then) but I don't regret it at all.
posted
Charitable donations to causes are different. I decide how much to give to these, and which are my favorites due to good management, high percentage of the intake going to the actual ones in need, and so on, and give to those. I don't feel responsible to give to every cause there is. I pick the ones that seem most important to me. Stuff people sell in the office for their kids and things, raffle tickets, etc, and of course the junk my nieces are peddling, wrapping paper and girl scout cookies and all that, I pony up for as a form of good citizenship. <laughs>
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Conservatives have a different standard of expectations and behavior towards their own, while liberals expect to apply the same behavior to everyone.
I disagree with this on so many levels that I don't know how to participate in this thread.
Really quick, though, the typically liberal and conservative stances on affirmative action would tend to disprove this.
It depends on what you mean by Conservative and Liberal.
Not the political definitions. I don't like the political definitions of them at all, so the affirmative action bit doesn't apply to it.
*thinks* I mean, in order for their to be an "us", there needs to be a "not us". I have recently posited that conservatives (not in the political sense) consider their self-definition of themselves as charitable as so on to rest only on what happens to "us".
In other words, if you're kind to your children and cruel to the neighbor kids, the cruelty to the neighbor kids does not mean you are cruel, because you are kind to your children.
Maybe I mean that if we are defined by how we interact with others, the liberals definition of "others" is wider.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then I guess we need to get some definitions on the table now - which may be difficult since this is about defining the terms.
Nobody I know would call me a liberal, but I disagree with all the views you have assigned to conservatives. So either I think you're totally wrong or I just don't understand the point you're trying to make.
I'll bow out unless the meanings of the dialog clarify at some point.
posted
Dan Raven, I read your post as a list of reasons why we are off the hook for doing anything at all. Is that not what it is?
First you say we can't fix everything. Then when shown other people who do what they can, you question if their motives are really sincere and good, or ask if it's not just selfishness in disguise. I guess that's pretty much the standard response from people of all times and places who do nothing and feel justified. I don't want to sound like I'm getting on to you specifically, but I really object to that line of reasoning whenever I encounter it.
The only real answer I have to that is to realize how very close we always all are to changing places. A downturn in the economy, a war, an illness, a natural disaster, we are all beggars, in truth. There is nothing that we own but our own hearts and our own choices. A person who can't afford to help anyone else is poor indeed.
[ December 04, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You hit the nail on the head Kat. I remember David Bowles (I haven't seen him in ages, anyone know what happened to him) once posting that he would rather see everyone in the US die than his children. I was shocked but in the past year as I have become very politically outspoken I have talked with many "conservatives" who have voiced more or less that same point of view. They see me and other liberal/progressive people as near animals who don't even love their own families enough to kill for them. The liberals/progressives tend to see them as selfish barbarians who are not capable of real love.
It has been a real eye opener.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends, Rabbit. I saw a clip of the final episode of MASH, where the mother suffocates the baby so the enemy doesn't capture the whole bus. I might do that the first time, but knowing how it feels to lose a child I wouldn't do it again. A few years later I have other children, and have to ask if I would do it if killing the baby would save my other children. I didn't sleep well that night.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that was the final episode of MASH pooka, I remember it well. It is not quite the same thing that David Bowles said because it was never a choice of save the Baby and let everyone else die or kill the Baby and save the others -- If they had been caught, the Baby would have been captured and killed with everyone else.
In a cold intellectual way, it is easy to say that one should be willing to kill one child to save the others -- but the reality and the emotion of making that choice is very different. I think in this situation I think I would probably choose to spare the child and hope for miracle to spare the rest.
The situation I was talking about is just a slight variation, where to me the answer is far more clear. If you could save your own child by killing someone elses child -- would you do it. I have been shocked by how many people would.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly would rather not have anyone die at all. But given the purely hypothetical exercise of a choice... let's say that a deadly disease were about to be released in a major urban area, and I was forced by some insane person to chose between saving those people and saving my own daughter, then I would save my daughter.
What that has to do with being conservative is beyond me. I rather doubt that liberals, for all their professed desire to help their fellow humans, would be keen on sacrificing their children either, and I imagine they'd be wracked with debiltating guilt the rest of their lives if they did.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
David, If you daughter were on her death bed dying of heart disease and could only be saved by a heart transplant, would you be willing to OK the killing of another child in order to get her the heart. (Assume that all hope of getting a transplant through other means is gone).
If so, then I would say you are selfish and barbaric.
If not, then how does this situation differ from the one where you would allow someone to kill a whole city to save your daughter (except perhaps that it is a more likely scenario).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, rabbit, are you for or against cloning?
David, in a case where it was the "whim of a madman", I'd tell him to bite me. If he is so lacking in decency as to threaten a child, I'm supposed to respect his thieves honor that he'll release the child if I comply? The moment's hesitation will give the SWAT team a chance to blow him away.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I wouldn't (though I might be up to some John Q. action, heh). The difference is that I would be actively advocating someone's death (or killing her myself) in your hospital example, whereas in my example it's an either or that someone is forcing me into.
In other words, I would never actively seek someone's death for the benefit of my children, but given a (frankly unlikely) choice betweeen saving my daughter or someone else, I'll always chose her.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, this is purely hypothetical. I can come up with a Spiderman type of scenario where I must, but immediate action or inaction, make that choice.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
How about a situation where your child and another are in a fight. Do you automatically and publicly side with yours? What if you saw what happens, and your child hit first? What if you're the only adult figure?
Your kid feels loved and knows they'll always have someone on their side - is that worth reinforcing to the other one that there's no chance of justice or humanity unless you're the one with the power?
Choices are rarely, rarely as extreme as "who gets to live." They are often, however, of the slightly lesser but more common "who gets defended."
I still don't really see the difference. In the Spiderman scenario, you are put in the situation where you must either save your daughter or save thousands of other people.
In the second scenario, your daughter is dying and someone comes to you and says "I can save her, but I will have kill a child to do. You decide"
In both cases you are forced to choose. How is the one so different from the other?
Perhaps that is the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And perhaps a more common scenario -- There is a ballot initiative to raise taxes to support the local school. You know that the local schools are desperately short of money.
Will your vote be different if you have children who attend the local school?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in Texas... we Robin-Hood finance our districts. But no, it wouldn't matter whether my kids were in the district... it would matter whether the district were doing an effective job.
quote: How about a situation where your child and another are in a fight. Do you automatically and publicly side with yours?
Nope. I yank her aside and sit her down firmly, then investigate.
quote:What if you saw what happens, and your child hit first?
Then she is in deep shit.
quote:What if you're the only adult figure?
Doesn't matter... I have no problem holding her responsible no matter the audience.
quote: Your kid feels loved and knows they'll always have someone on their side - is that worth reinforcing to the other one that there's no chance of justice or humanity unless you're the one with the power?
Nope. You'll hear no argument from me on this count.
quote:Choices are rarely, rarely as extreme as "who gets to live." They are often, however, of the slightly lesser but more common "who gets defended."
Yes, this is true. Remember, Rabbit is the one who brought this comment of mine up, taken (only slightly) out of context.
But I'll bite. The biggest problem with where liberals want to go with this is that it leads to a situation in which certain groups are brainwashed into believing there can be NO justice for them, no fair shake at life, no real excellence or success, unless they are being aided at every turn, and every obstacle that history has laid in their path is removed by the government. Such a philosophy destroys self-worth and perpetuates a cult of victimology that gradually balkanizes disadvantaged groups and cheapens their accomplishments.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole thread is, as already admitted, very biased. Of course such an obviously biased statement is going to seem like the absolute truth to self-identifying "liberals" while being obviously disingenuous to.... well, pretty much everyone else. People are social creatures, yes, but they are usually more emotionally connected to either family or very close friends. People who have such ties are going to see that they will usually choose that closer person over a total stranger. People who either have weak ties or even bad relations with family, and possibly few "close" friends (mostly acquaintences) will obviously look at those who choose family over strangers as if they are quite mad. This isn't a conservative versus liberal issue, it's an example of how one's experiences color their social outlook.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the problem that we're having here is that I figure there are really at least three political axes, and the phenomenon kat is describing -- in a word, self-interest -- is one of them.
Here are my three axes:
1) Self-interest: do you often sacrifice for strangers, or do you look after your own? Do you think globally, act locally, or not act at all?
2) Authoritarianism: do you believe we have the right to tell people what to do, even if it's for their own good, or should everyone be free to fail? Do people need to be defended from other people, or must they protect themselves?
3) Iconoclasm: is there a group with strong ideals and/or traditions to which you claim membership and to which you have subsumed your own philosophies, or do you judge every idea on its individual merits and reject everything you don't understand?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
