Are liberal values harder to acquire?

[SoundMaster]

I was engaged in a debate with a co-worker yesterday at lunch regarding Bush's State of the Union Tuesday night and it finally lead me to accept a conclusion which I was avoiding for some time. First, however, some background: this fellow is a moderate conservative and we usually butt heads often (I call myself a liberal, although some of my liberal friends think I'm too far to the right to earn that label!).

Anyway, at one point during our conversation, it occurred to me that liberalism (without all of the negativity the media gives it) is simply a bit less 'natural' than conservative views. It's views/values take more effort to agree with. By this I mean the following:

Is it not easier to simply say "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out", as some ultra-conservatives think? The tendency on the far right is often to seal up issues/questions in a tight little box, leaving little to no room for the delicate shades of grey that color anything that's not pure math. Contrary to Bush's proclamation that you're "either with us or against us", the reality of the world is that nuance, or push/pull dictates everything. A black and white world is easier to grasp regardless of the fact that it's a world view not consistent with reality.

Is it not easier to say "gee, terrorists hate our freedoms" than it is to actually try to understand the mind-frame of those that want you dead? Bin Laden, for example, has publicly declared more than once that US (and Western) foreign policy is the main reason why he's declared war. Is it not harder to dig deep and attempt to, at least, gain some understanding of where the realities of the confrontation lie?

Was it not easier centuries ago to say "blacks are inferior to me and, therefore, should be enslaved" than it was to accept the reality that they're just as human as any other race with brains just as large, or that the female mind is just as capable of thought and could vote logically in a democracy?

Take a look at the many failed Middle Eastern states of today. Does the concept of "civil rights" even exist there?
Was it not easier for the Taliban to decapitate "sinners" than it is to deeply question their own beliefs and come to realize that there's no such thing as "sin"? The Taliban, the Saudi Royal family, etc., are all examples of conservatism run amok.

Of course, on the flip-side, you have examples of liberalism gone awry, the folks with no sense of reality either, but from the other end of the spectrum: peaceniks. These folks throw the baby out with the bath water. To think that this ball of dirt upon which we live could ever totally exist without some semblance of violence is not practical. The "turn the other cheek" concept leads to enslavement, or worse: genocide. It's simply a detrimental viewpoint.

I'm sure this post will ruffle feathers, but I'd like to hear what others think.

 

[Kenneth R.]

The "turn the other cheek" concept leads to enslavement, or worse: genocide. It's simply a detrimental viewpoint

i disagree.

 

[speed]

I do think it is easier to become conservative/reactionary, because one is always on the attack, and generally argues against change.

Turning the other cheek is an interesting question. Its noble, but in the practical world, i dont know how effective it is.

 

[Kenneth R.]

this seems more of an accurate description to me. It's a great idea, and if a vast majority practiced it, it would be successful in most cases. However, in current society, often it is not viable if one wants to maintain rights and a degree of personal power.

 

[Norsemaiden]

To what extent is being a liberal about not having standards? Or is it a more active thing: championing degeneracy or decadence?

 

[VikingSF]

I agree with you, Norsemaiden. Exteme liberalism is usually based on a morally relativistic philosophy. Do you believe that there is true right and true wrong in this world? Real evil and real good? Or do you believe that everything is relative, and we shouldn't judge? One philosophy leads to decisive action and survival, the other to inaction and decay.

 

[infoterror]

Anyway, at one point during our conversation, it occurred to me that liberalism (without all of the negativity the media gives it) is simply a bit less 'natural' than conservative views.

First, let me say that modern "conservatism" is, philosophically speaking, a form of liberalism. Based on individualistic materialism, it does not at a philosophical level differentiate from liberalism.

Second I'll argue that liberalism is easy to acquire IF one is of a certain mindset, e.g. wanting to revenge oneself on society. Liberalism is putting the individual before the whole, explicitly; this is a defensive strategy.

Finally, let me say this: it depends a lot on who you are and what you're exposed to. The more education people have, the more they tend to be liberal - but they also have higher rates of drug use, homosexuality, believing in ghosts and suicide.

 

[SoundMaster]

this seems more of an accurate description to me. It's a great idea, and if a vast majority practiced it, it would be successful in most cases. However, in current society, often it is not viable if one wants to maintain rights and a degree of personal power.

But is not personal power consistent with human nature? History, current events, the school-yard playground all tell us it is. So, again, as noble as turning the other cheek is, it's not feasible.

Ponder this: if any nation, group of people, etc., simply always turned the other cheek, they'd be eradicated from the globe. As I see it, acting in self-defense is NOT turning the other cheek.

 

[SoundMaster]

Finally, let me say this: it depends a lot on who you are and what you're exposed to. The more education people have, the more they tend to be liberal - but they also have higher rates of drug use, homosexuality, believing in ghosts and suicide.

Regarding your last point, I believe the current (American) examples of liberalism and conservatism prove the opposite. The rise of fundamentalist Christianity and the black/white concept of absolute right & wrong, etc., are much more prevelant of those on the right as opposed to the left (generally speaking, of course).

If you ever go the popular Atheist/agnostics website, Internet Infidels (www.infidels.org), and take a peak at their "Political Debate/Forum" room, you'll see that the great majority tend to be liberal.

(these comments are made with the current use and understanding of the words liberal/conservative, as opposed to the meanings found in each at the founding of the country....which you touched upon in your post).

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

so...liberal = bad???
hell no!!!
I'm intelligent enough to notice when conservatives are doing something inexplicably stupid and obviously detrimental and trying to justify it by saying "it's what God wants"
I'm not a fucking sheep

 

[mengeloid]

the only reason that conservative values are easier to acquire is that they are lauded in the vast majority of propaganda (be it govt. or media or to a degree educational- not perhaps to arts students, but sciences). when everyone in your comfortable little white village shares reactionary attitudes to gays, asians or arabs, that facilitates conservatism. in short if you're raised with it, it comes natural. on the other hand if you're raised by liberal atheists (like me) it is extremely easy to sympathise with, and eventually surpass (as i did) their leftist perspectives.

One thing that really shits me is appeals made (by both 'sides', but esp. righties) that such-and-such is 'natural'. as in 'marriage between a man and a woman is natural' or 'self-serving lust for control of things is natural' or even 'but we naturally eat animals' etc. etc. etc.
no attitude, philosophy or behavior comes naturally, it is all learned, either through physiological prompts (like breathing) or through environmental education (like liberalism) or through blind indoctrination (like conservatism).
nuff said?


(Currently listening: Revd. Bizzare, slave of satan)

 

[mengeloid]

ps in response to norsemaiden/vikingSF etc. i would say that OF COURSE there is no absolute right or wrong, the Earth is a beleaved/befleshed clot of rocks and water which as a lump of dull matter has no imperatives, moral or otherwise, whatsoever. As social codes and laws are imposed on people by their authorities, of course they are relative (ie. prohibition RELATES to the difference between those who practice a taboo act and those who don't). the suggestion that the nation is or should be a unified, organismic entity is absurd, the nation exists to facilitate and optimise the comfortable and meaningful lives of its inhabitants. that is why we live in our own houses and not in labour camps, ie. so that we can do what we want and not what we are 'supposed' to.

also- presuming that morality is relative does not lead to stagnation/inactivity. Recognising moral relativity does not mean abandoning ethics, it rather lays a foundation on which ethics can be formulated according to the concrete (and diverse) needs of particular situations, rather than abstract rules (which we often find mystically imprinted on stone tablets in the middle east, like, 50 thousand years ago)

 

[Birkenau]

One thing that really shits me is appeals made (by both 'sides', but esp. righties) that such-and-such is 'natural'. as in 'marriage between a man and a woman is natural' or 'self-serving lust for control of things is natural' or even 'but we naturally eat animals' etc. etc. etc.
no attitude, philosophy or behavior comes naturally, it is all learned, either through physiological prompts (like breathing) or through environmental education (like liberalism) or through blind indoctrination (like conservatism).
nuff said?

Isn't the want a man has for a woman a sign of instinct rather then psychological conditioning? If an animal was in an irregular environment then yes you would be correct, however in it's normal environment an animal will always go for the opposite sex. I believe when rightists use that analogy they are using it in relative to our Earth's nature.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I agree with Birkenau on that. Plus I don't think living in houses prevents us from being used and forced into working long hours in an unrewarding job.

 

[Norsemaiden]

so...liberal = bad???
hell no!!!

Actually when you mean "liberal" in the sense of being easy-going then that is quite a different thing from the political liberals who are zealots and intollerant fanatics. I can see you are a liberal in the easy-going sense LRD, and that's fair enough and not bad.

 

[MasterOLightning]

The main difference between liberals and conservatives in America:
Liberal: Sex is okay, violence is not.
Conservative: Violence is okay, sex is not.

 

[SoundMaster]

...political liberals...are zealots and intollerant fanatics.

Just so we're all clear, you do also, of course, recognize that a very intense, intollerant zealotry exists in the radical right, correct?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Actually when you mean "liberal" in the sense of being easy-going then that is quite a different thing from the political liberals who are zealots and intollerant fanatics. I can see you are a liberal in the easy-going sense LRD, and that's fair enough and not bad.

I don't know how it works in the rest of the world, but here in America when a public figure publicly refers to himself as a "conservative" it's almost always a hyper-religious-Christian guy that's doing things that are blatantly contradictory to common sense and then justifying them by saying "this is the way God wants the world to be"

 

[infoterror]

Just so we're all clear, you do also, of course, recognize that a very intense, intollerant zealotry exists in the radical right, correct?

Depends on who you're talking about.

I am not concerned with groups as whole, but the few perceptive thinkers in each. The third position ones make the most sense.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

The third position ones make the most sense.

you mean extreme "right" and extreme "left" and the "third" position of being in the middle, right???