Ideological Incompatability and You

Unless you have been under a rock, you're aware that there are two main ideological camps in the U.S. - Conservatism and Liberalism.

The two are mutually incompatible within any given issue. To understand why, you must understand the difference between a conservative and liberal principle. You'll find many conservatives and liberals don't really understand their own position, but that typically defines the average person with most issues.

A conservative ideal is that of non-interference. To conserve is to apply in a limited and controlled fashion. A government conservative would, thus, apply government in a limited and controlled fashion.

A liberal ideal is that of collective interference. To liberate is to set free and, in the case of liberal, apply heavily. A government liberal would apply government heavily and often.

There's also a key difference in thinking, particularly when it comes to this month's hot topic - demonstrations.

In most rallies for liberal causes, you often hear: "we will not back down until we get [x] from [y]!" In other words - the liberal tends to want something from another group of people, and this is the basis for their demonstration. Be it higher wages, free healthcare, or some form of government service.

On the other hand, most conservative rallies will be along the lines of "We will not lay down and let [x] do [y] to us!" The conservative generally wants to be left alone and to not be bothered by more government programs, more regulations, taxes, etc.

This can often get confusing, as anti-abortion is often considered to be a "conservative" value - when it is really a liberal value. A true conservative would recognize anti-abortion as increased government regulation over personal choices and patient-doctor confidence and not support a ban on abortion from a politically conservative standpoint (they may, however, choose to support it because of other ideological factors that they may consider to outweigh the political consequences and precedents established with a ban on abortion).

Likewise, "legalizing drug x or y" is often considered to be a liberal value, when it is, in fact, a conservative value. A true liberal would push for more government involvement in the sale of all drugs and foods - determining legalities, labeling, manufacturing rights/standards, etc.

Now, at the very core, these two ideals are mutually incompatible within a given issue (two people can agree on how to classify a given drug, but can disagree upon abortion - but you cannot have a conservative and liberal ideal agreeing upon the same issue).

As we see various demonstrations in our own country that fall right across these very exclusive and deeply held ideological differences, it is important to understand what each ideal is, and how it their mutually exclusive natures impact the behavior of society. A conservative, as stated earlier, generally wants to be left alone and to see the government left out of more things than it is involved in. A liberal wants the exact opposite - the government to be involved in everything, and everything to be under the authority of the government - including the conservatives.

This is where the rift really cuts deep. I'm a conservative. I don't take kindly to the idea that someone has made too much money, or that I need to be taxed for choosing not to join some national health insurance plan. In fact, my knee-jerk reaction is a rather violent one that I have to actively suppress.

On the flip side of things - we have demonstrations such as the ones in Wisconsin. Those people are not going to go away until they have the ability to gerrymander better pension plans paid for at the tax payer's expense. If someone in authority shows up to tell them to disperse, or at least get out of the government building and stop impeding the function thereof - it is not all that far fetched to see violence ensue.

I believe we have under-estimated the volatility of our nation, and the importance of understanding our own base ideologies. So long as liberals push for nationalization of interventionist principles, the conservatives will always feel under attack. Similarly, so long as conservatives battle against liberal policies, the liberals will feel oppressed or slighted.

The nation is beginning to lose its ability to peacefully resolve the problems of co-existing with such contrasting ideologies. We may get through this next year or two and douse the flames started by the conflicts such as those in Wisconsin - but both sides have been increasingly tense and unrelenting.

There are two or three general ways this can play out. The first is to take a conservative approach at the national level. This will be one that the liberals have to suck up and take - but it would allow each state more authority and some states could become their own liberal haven while others could become conservative constructs. This would allow separate ways of life but a unified set of nation states - and would, honestly, be similar to the type of environment the Founders would have envisioned (though I get the feeling most would have chosen to live in a more conservative region of the nation - they would not have seen it as appropriate to interfere with another state's right to govern itself).

The second is to actually have two separate nations. Along with this is a relatively 'new' idea of a "virtual nation" - something only possible with the internet, where geographic location has little to do with government jurisdiction. The mechanics of such a thing would be rather tricky - but it is a little more agreeable to those who would want to stay where they are at, but not live in a hippie commune or whatever.

The third is civil war.

This would not be the "old" civil war, where states separated. You might see some states swing one way or the other - but there are more than enough hard-core liberals and conservatives in Missouri to have their own war, regardless of what the state legislature does on an official basis.

This would be an ideological war akin to the tribal conflicts that have been going on in the Middle East for centuries. The killing would go on long after we remembered what we were killing for.

So, it is with this wall of text that I ask everyone to take a step back and think about what is going on. Yeah - I'm a conservative. I think liberals just don't get it. That said - I know a bad situation when I see one coming. I can't tell you how many times I've read and heard someone saying: "This is war" in reference to campaigning against the opposing side of the political aisle.

And I'm telling you - a war along such fronts will tear through our nation and society like nothing we have ever seen before. At the very least - I have friends, whom I love dearly, that are crazy liberals who don't get it. I'd rather not see them turned into rabid little political terrorists that I may one day kill in self-defense. That'd break my capitalist heart of steel.

Originally posted by projectvxn

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Except that Union membership is about 12% of the working population and people who staunchly describe themselves as "Liberal" are only 20% of the electorate.

Since you fail to provide a source I have to assume you are talking about this Poll from June of last year?
www.gallup.com...

I might direct you Rasmussen, a conservative pollster, for a more recent poll that shows 35% to 35%, Democrat vs. Republican.
www.gallup.com...

Or to this recent Poll showing 53% of ALL AMERICANS are opposed to reducing pay and benefits for state workers.
www.gallup.com...

It is not 20% of Americans who describe themselves as "Liberals" who oppose screwing over teachers to pay for the misdeeds of David Koch et al who caused the financial crisis...it is the MAJORITY of Americans who find it outrageous

I will give you a hint how you BSed your way A to Z. You started by assuming that only self defined "liberals" think what Walker is doing is corrupt.

Originally posted by projectvxn
I HOPE I am not alone when I say that letting such a tiny proportion of the overall electorate/workforce undermine the stability of society because they want some kind of stupid socialist "revolution" is ridiculous.

Propaganda fit for a dictatorship....Do what we say or society will crumble and socialists will take over.

It sounds like something Gaddafi would say.


extra DIV