How come there is this huge rift between liberals and conservatives here in the USA?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Sorry but I stand by the statement. Nobody other than an imbecile is even able to have one fixed standpoint on every subject all the time. . Its an artificial game created by the media - no real human is like that...with a few sad exceptions who actually parrot the stereotype offered by the show.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Closing your mind on issues every now and then is a side effect of thought.

I'm pretty one-sided when it comes to, oh I dont know, raping children for instance. Hell, I'll extend my closed-mindedness even further and say I'm against raping anything.

Damn my closed mind and black and white opinions.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


The Liberals want to take my hard earned money and throw it at some problem and never look back to see if it was working.

Liberals want to legislate safety, can't be done without severely limiting freedom. Gun control, seat belt laws,etc.

Roper

Originally posted by Roper The Liberals want to take my hard earned money and throw it at some problem and never look back to see if it was working.

Ok, so so how do we factor in your overlooking such Republican high points such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina as examples of precisely what you cite as liberal attributes? Well, yes, there is a theory!!

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse...
Nyhan and Reifler found this "backfire" effect only among conservatives. Refutations had little effect on liberals, but it didn't cause them to actively believe the misleading information even more strongly.

www.motherjones.com...

Ain't science fun?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I think you're throwing labels around. You'd be hard pressed to find any conservatives in Bush's administration.

The two, conservative and republican, are far from synonymous.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I don't really understand why there is this huge rift between liberals and conservatives here.

It's rather simple, really -- it involves two aspects:

The media has covertly sensationalized the rift for the sake of profiteering from an evenly-divided and clearly defined audience.

The "powers that be" have created the very-nearly-equal division of political ideologies to focus attention on how much each "side" dislikes the other "side" so as to avoid actual examination of logical solutions to serious issues.


In summary -- The rift is a creation of the collusion between the "powers that be" and the profit-centric priorities of the mainstream news media.


*typo correction*

[edit on 7-1-2009 by mister.old.school]

Reply to IanMcLean:

I still stand by my statement. The guy with the gitmo-bumper-sticker will not have that opinion all the time. Doubts will sometimes creep up.

Any normal human being questions his opinions and seeks to learn more. Its only in the media that its portrayed as if there are two fixed sides.

While I understand your point...there ARE some fixed opinions on single topics out there, nobody is that way on all topics.

Ive met thousands of people, and not one has really been that way.

I think mr.old school put it in better words than me.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think people's ideologies are all over the place, laid out on a continuum, left to right. It probably looks like a bell curve, with most of the people in or around the center, but that doesn't make those at the ends idiots or imbeciles.

As I think about the OP, I realize the question is about the RIFT, which I take to mean "lack of friendly relations" to put it mildly. In other words, why do they hate each other? And I don't think that's imagined. I think it's real that many people of opposite ideology really hate each other. Regardless where it started, or the fact that the media and government feed the emotional divide, the feeling of disdain is there.

I think the problem is a "you're either with us or against us" mentality that has been fed to our population. It's so rare that people can disagree, especially about politics and religion, without getting upset and many times, as we see here on ATS, resorting to name-calling and other personal attacks, SIMPLY because people disagree.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I think you're throwing labels around. You'd be hard pressed to find any conservatives in Bush's administration.
The two, conservative and republican, are far from synonymous.

You know what? You may well be right in that regard. We now have Neo-Cons and Theo-Cons, and all kinds of hybrids...and I'm sure the Dems have their traditional and their...what? Progressive? Reactionary? Looney? cadres. Seems there's a disconnect between liberal and conservative...and the parties that claim to espouse those principals.

Fact is, though, that there are fundamental differences in political slant, and while the media, etc, can righteously be accused of exploiting that circumstance, we shouldn't dismiss or diminish its existence.

One thing I have found on this site is that I can have conversations with apparently sane, moral people who are diametrically opposed to some notions I hold as no-brainers. Sometimes you just have to accept that they think differently, and it's interesting that there just might be an organic reason for that.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Because (speaking from experience) the conservative's mindset is tied to Christian values, while the Liberal is more open to freedom to all (less emphasis on what is moral, but more emphasis on who is free).

Case in point - Liberals want Gays and Lesbians to have equal rights as everyone else, but Conservatives don't because they view homosexuality as "immoral" or "nontraditional."

[edit on Wed Jan 7th 2009 by DJMessiah]

Serious question: how do you explain Log Cabin Republicans? I asked a few of my gay friends how they could be Republicans, and I was told that the people who "hate gays" don't vote, and that they liked money and the Republicans wanted to make them more of it.

I began to mull that over. I am beginning to think that the rift was over "survival of the fittest". It seems to me that the conservative movement of the Reagan era was of that Poor Richard's Almanac (mistakingly thought to be a Bible quote) God helps those that help themselves concept. Republicans believe the myth of the American Dream. All you need is a little gravel in the gut and you will succeed.

That may have been true in a level playing field like the colonies of America, but today most successful people--I'd go so far as to say that 90% or better are either exceptional (high IQ, above average beauty, or extreme talent of some sort) or come from parents that could provide in home learning about money making skills (not money saving, money making) and a college education.

Ooops. Sorry, the point was the rift, yeh?

Okay, I think that the rift was created by external powers that realize that people are easily distracted by bread and circuses, so they created a two-party system with front faces that appear different, knowing that the average person will believe these differences to be true and demonize to the point of hysteria all the while the powers that be rub their greedy hands together and keep making more money.

How cynical was that?

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Rintendo]

Classical Liberals are the conservatives of today. Conservatives believe in Liberty and Freedom.

The Left/Liberals of today are concerned with material equality.

Whereas COnservatives want to be left alone, Liberals want to create a perfect society because they view the current society as imperfect and corrupt.

Liberals are discontent and view the imperfection in society as a moral failing and htey also think they have the solution to all societies ills. They also believe that anyone who doesnt wna to live in their perfect solution must then be a person in favor of the immoral condition and so anyone th eliberal oppose, they view as evill

Conservatives already accept the premise that humanity is imperfect and never will be perfect. That's why the Constitution tried to make the govt as difficult and inefficient and dilluted as possible

Liberals view religion with extereme suspicion and contempt while they understand almost nothing about it. They view religion as just one more obstacle in the way to the perfect solution of a world where everyone is equal.

They want to achieve this equality not by rising people up, but by dragging the successful down.

They think being free from religious moral is a true freedom.. it is not.

Liberty and most of all political and economic liberty is the true freedom.

Without the value of self-restraint that religion instills there can be no long-lasting liberty , tryanny eventualy comes as the society eventually descends into collapse.

[I'll fix the typos later, i'm eating]



[edit on 7-1-2009 by VinceP1974]

You all may see this as completely nuts but I really think this is a conflict based on limitations of words, actions and the meanings we perceive them as having...

Example using Jagpanzer

Todays liberals are more libertine oriented than concerned with actual rights.
They would have you belive that our Founding Fathers fought for the right
to murder unborn children, and allow sexual deviancy to be reclassified as normal.

Notice Jagpanzer mentions "murder unborn children"...what does this mean?
Do we have any idea what his stance is, it is a loaded statement that does not give his stance allowing for an easy back down, but at the same time allows him to stand up for his belief.

I had a very religious cousin who was at the cornerstone festival in Chicago in the mid 90's which is a big Jesus festival. When she got out of her car back at her hotel in a nice part of town a crackhead grabbed her by the hair drug her out of the parking lot kicking and screaming and raped her behind some bushes.

Now, if she had become pregnant from this should she be forced to have a child? Should she have a choice? By all accounts she is a victim...is the unborn child a victim? What about before "quickening" and brain activity?

The Pill form of birth control operate by blocking the fetus from attaching to the uterus, is birth control an Abortion as it kills a fertilized egg/child the same as a medical abortion?

What if both will die by the birth, or only one?

What about rape and incest?

I was at an abortion debate and a Rabbi said a member of his congregation wanted to have a child...in the third trimester they found the child's brain was OUTSIDE of it's skull, it would be fatal the second the child hit the air and would then cry for several minutes as it died. Did the mother "murder" a child cause she figured she couldn't take listening to the screams and dying, the child was alive...was it a mercy killing like on a battlefield, murder?

If we put the screws to JAGPANZER and ask for his views he can then say that, either it is acceptable in some situations, no situations or any time a woman seeks one. If we accuse him of taking any of the above stances he can simply say that he never stated that was his position. Yet he can still shout the phrase "abortion is murder".

A person who is pro choice can state that they believe that it is acceptable in some, or all situations a woman chooses.

If pro-choice has the "some situation view" and pro-life has the some-situation view they both believe the same thing save for some specifics. Still, Partisan Divide.

Why do these sorts of self righteous arguments that Abortion IS murder, or any hotly partisan issue always without fail form?

For one"philosophy" is profitable. Take a look at any political section of a bookstore, it is profitable for both sides. You can find Limbaugh laughing, Coulter hurling insults, Franken calling names, Jon stewart mocking. This form of politics does not inform us beyond giving the players names and caricatures of their actions.

Perhaps one of the greatest epiphany moments I ever had was the moment I realized people advocate philosophy not actions. One of the funnest things to do is to call someone out on what SHOULD happen. It is virtually always, people should act a different way...but it is never an action or systemic change that will get to that action. Actions speaks louder than words...words make a crapload more money and are a hell of a lot safer.

Look at my and Jagpanzer's arguing about 'dissent'(link below). He says all disagreement with the war is treason. I ask what actions should be taken. In the end their is no actual advocation for action from either, only that people should behave differently without change.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Additionally, some people just have a need to feel self-righteous. I'm one of those, that's why I argue on these boards with other people who have this same need.

That was a great post, SonOfChaos!

I just wanted to add that phrases like these:

Originally posted by SonOfChaos
"murder unborn children"...
all disagreement with the war is treason.

are so incendiary because they label anyone who disagrees, a "murderer" and "traitor"... That doesn't lead to harmonious discourse or good feelings.

If, instead, the person said, "I don't approve of abortion because I don't think it's right to take the life of an unborn child", instead of labeling those who disagree, he is at least owning his own opinions instead of using them to lash out at the other person.

If he said, "I support the war because I think we need to protect ourselves and support our government" instead of labeling those who don't, there would be more chance of discourse and even acceptance of views.

Great point about action and words, too. I had never thought of that angle.

Thanks for the recognition Benevolent Heretic. You clearly get the whole problem of labeling preventing discourse.

One of my other post is completely mired in it right now oddly enough.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course I'm not sure what to do about it. How do you bridge this barrier?

It is becoming clearer that some people are unreachable and I am looking for ways to break these barriers. Intelligent discourse is a dying form as everything has to be sound byte ready or condensed into 4000 word post.

The main problem I have with liberals is, abortion, other then that I am pretty centered,

For the life of me I will never understand why abortion tops the list of issues.

However, is there any such thing as an anti-abortion liberal?

I know there are pro-abortion conservatives.

Yes their are Pro-life liberals Stormdancer777.

media.www.bcheights.com...

media.www.thegeorgetownindependent.com... t.To.Change-848717.shtml

I believe that peoples political views are just as varied as people.

I would recommend that you do read up on "abortion" issues however as they are quite complicated cause it is not a cut and dry issue for many people. Rape, Incest, cost, possible death of the mother, babies that will die when born due to defects...their are very good reasons why so many people have such strong feelings.

Benevolent Heretic pointed out that it is the devil in the details that makes these discussions so sticky.

Originally posted by SonOfChaos
Of course I'm not sure what to do about it. How do you bridge this barrier?

Some barriers cannot be bridged. It takes intention on both parts. When I can realize that intention, it's worth it to me to stay around and keep trying. But sometimes it's more of a priority for some to disparage their opponent rather than have real communication, which comes in a distant second. At those times, it might be best to choose to walk away.

There is a rift between liberals and conservatives because they have two different ideas about how to fix problems in a society. Liberals seem to think that government can solve everything and should use the force of law to force their idealogy on everyone else. Whereas Conservatives protest that private individuals and private businesses can solve problems much better and much quicker than government.

In Canada, privatization is almost a swear word. Yet it is the only way to get better healthcare, better roads, lower taxes, better retirement, better education, lower unemployment etc.

It is my opinion in the future Government will have to get out of these businesses. Why? Because people are finally starting to realize how incredibly inefficient and how limiting government run monopolies are.

ETA:

With regards to the poor. Liberals like to believe that welfare programs help poor people get off their feet. Conservatives like to note that these programs have the opposite effect because you are making people dependant on government rather than on their own abilities. The more you subsidize something the more you get of it.

If you need evidence that government subisidizing the poor has the opposite effect of its intent, look no futher to the areas in any city in North America that have government subsidized housing. I rest my case.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by Cool Hand Luke]

[edit on 8-1-2009 by Cool Hand Luke]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
For the life of me I will never understand why abortion tops the list of issues.

Now, this one I WILL agree is totally pumped up by the media. We are told that this (and gay marriage and gun control) are the "important issues", when really, we should be looking at other issues that are important to our country.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
So the conservative friends of mine who are atheist and Buddhist dont count?

Do they share the same values as Christians? If so, then yes, they do count as republicans.