The Different Worlds of Liberals and Conservatives

Welcome friends!

I was just marveling yet again at the mighty chasm that has opened up in what seems like a  very short time indeed between mainstream conservatives and liberals here in the USA.  It’s a commonplace by now or perhaps even already a cliché to say these two halves of the population live in different worlds but that’s really the only way to describe the phenomenon.  Of course, I’m sure we’ve all known or heard of people who inhabit different worlds due typically to mental illness, personality disorders, substance abuse, social isolation, and sometimes even idiosyncratic genius.  Such people appear more or less randomly on the right and left of the political and economic spectrum.  However, this new phenomenon is different.  We’re talking about huge tracts of the country and millions of people one had only a short time before presumed were for the most part reliably inhabiting one’s own world suddenly vanishing and then reappearing as strange unrecognizable denizens of a foreign and distant land.  It’s really like nothing in my experience.  Certainly we had plenty of social divisions and political and economic disagreements during other eras for example the 1960s but this one feels somehow different.  Those earlier social upheavals were gradual, expected, anticipated, even dare I say more or less understood.  The one we’re witnessing now is something I wouldn’t have believed would or could ever happen despite my sincere efforts to follow the twists and turns of conservative ideology over these past several decades.  I’m certainly in no position to try to explain the darkness that has fallen upon us; however, I thought this time out I might at least comment on the characteristics of the chasm itself to just remind future researchers of the mighty dimensions of the issue they may one day think to explain.

One issue that has become increasingly clear is conservatives and liberals hold very, very different values.  Well, OK, I guess we already knew that so I suppose I should say instead the differences between the values of conservatives and liberals are more comprehensive than we previously realized.  Indeed, cataloguing these manifold differences is clearly beyond the scope of a short blog post but maybe I can at least mention a few highlights.  

Liberals support political democracy based on the egalitarian notion of one person one vote.  Conservatives have become very suspicious and critical of this arrangement and appear fascinated with the myriad ways in which democracy may lead to less than ideal results on particular issues at particular moments in time.  They’ve become obsessed with the idea of shrinking the role of democratic government or in the striking imagery of some of their leaders “drowning it in the bathtub” by choking off necessary tax revenue.  Lately when conservatives talk about our democratic government they present it as just one more iteration of some generalized notion of “government” broadly conceived and thus comparable in their eyes to any other iteration such as fascism or totalitarian communism.  

Liberals are very concerned about the corrosive influence on our egalitarian democratic system of government of eminently non-egalitarian big money.  Conservatives leery and disapproving of the egalitarian basis of political democracy see no such problem.  They applaud the ability of wealth to dominate our political system and wish to enhance it as much as possible  

Viewing political systems as valuable mostly in terms of social control to enforce the wishes of a relatively small cadre of economically powerful people conservatives here in the USA like conservatives around the world encourage the idea of combining religion and government thus rejecting one of our traditional core principles: freedom of conscience and the separation of church (or more broadly religion) and state.  Liberals support our traditional values when it comes to the ability of citizens to choose to follow the religion of their choice or indeed no religion at all if they feel so inclined.  

Because American conservatives view government primarily in terms of social control and the legitimization of economic power similarly to other conservatives around the world rather than as a system of public deliberation and debate meant to be distinct from the structures of economic power generated by our interpretation of the market system and our laws governing the distribution and dissemination of wealth they despise the free press because of its ability to criticize and document the failures and shortcomings of their administration.  Liberals supporting the democratic process and taking it seriously consider a free press very important to our way of life and consider critical commentary and debate a sign the press is taking its social obligations seriously.  

Similar considerations apply to education including particular subjects such as critical thinking.  Liberals taking the democratic process seriously consider an educated and informed populace essential to a healthy democracy.  Conservatives are suspicious of education and wax eloquent whenever possible about their ostensible love of the ignorant and uneducated.  They argue vociferously against classes in subject areas like critical thinking, philosophy, logic, history, and the humanities in general.  

Liberals taking the democratic exercise seriously believe our society can accommodate and benefit from diversity along dimensions intrinsic to people’s constitution and logically and philosophically irrelevant to their duties as citizens, such as gender, sexual orientation, race, cultural background, and so forth.  Conservatives believe passionately that such diversity weakens the structures of social control that operate through contrived or enforced uniformity of opinion and belief and hence tend to believe any diversity inevitably weakens the nation.  They yearn for a society run by and for wealthy “white” heterosexual males with Christian religious views.  

Economically liberals see any number of potential ethical issues with how economic power is allocated by market systems, which of course goes some way toward explaining the significance they attach to political power generated by egalitarian democracy.  Conservatives see no such issues.  They’re all in when it comes to the basis and implications of our current distribution of economic power.  Indeed a good part of their rationale for opposing democratic government is precisely the fear egalitarian political power might be used to counteract, thwart, or even redistribute the much more ethically reliable economic power.  Under the conservative view if people are homeless, or jobless, or hungry, or even I suppose dying on the street corner, that’s all good and exactly as it should be because that’s what the market decreed and the market is an infallible arbiter of such things.  The conservative mantra is that greed is good; not honesty, not knowledge, not civility, not humane values.  Greed is their one and true objective and wealth the only characteristic they respect.  

These value differences reach even to the level of personal behavior.  Liberals believe the sort of low behaviors demonstrated by President Trump, lying, cheating on one’s wife, paying one’s mistress hush money and later sending people to threaten her, spreading baseless rumors and innuendo, insulting people, trying to enflame low prejudices for personal gain, skipping out on one’s bills, avoiding paying taxes, and so on should preclude him from holding positions of public responsibility.  Conservatives see no problem with that sort of thing and indeed feel it makes Mr. Trump very smart and uniquely suited to be president of the USA.  

When it comes to values conservatives and liberal are poles apart.  At one time in the not so distant past conservatives were cast as uniquely interested in values and referred to as “values voters” but it should now be clear to even the most obtuse of observers both conservatives and liberals take their values seriously but those values are very, very different indeed.

Moving away from the issue of the astonishing differences in values where only a few years ago most people might have suspected to find many points of similarity we arrive at some very stark differences in epistemological beliefs, that is, beliefs relating to how we should evaluate statements as true or false.  When it comes to statements about the physical world liberals tend to support the scientific method.  Conservatives famously believe the scientific method is simply one method of defining what is true among any variety of equally legitimate others including notably religious dogma.  According to their assessment one should be free to declare as true whatever one finds most appealing or consistent with one’s chosen worldview.  Science may say something about the age of the Earth or whatever and the Bible may say something else.  Both are true.  Take your pick.  

When it comes to evaluating claims made in the news media liberals tend to support the prevailing method of checks and balances and the records of reliability that govern serious news media.   They recognize of course that thenews reports both facts as well as opinions and values and endeavor to keep an eye on both by getting their information from a variety of historically reliable sources and referring to expert and academic assessments of claims and counterclaims.  Conservatives have become famous for their penchant for characterizing inconvenient news as “fake” apparently muddling the positive and the normative.  They feel news reported by mainstream media is biased and unreliable preferring to characterize as “true” unsubstantiated, unverified, and impossible to replicate claims from any number of offbeat and generally unevaluated information sources based apparently solely on how they feel about the ostensible facts being presented.  This difference in particular has created enormous communication difficulties as even the basic facts of any number of issues have been transformed into what is now cast as a matter of personal opinion and the mutually agreed starting points for discussions of important social issues have gradually vanished to near zero.

Then there is yet a third area which I think liberals and conservatives face very stark differences.  I’m referring now to their use of language.  Liberals consistent with their respect for democracy, freedom of speech, science, education, and the power of human reason tend to use language as an honest attempt to express and discuss ideas and values.  It has gradually become clear that conservatives think of language very differently and in rather more practical terms as primarily a tool one can use to manipulate others into doing one’s bidding.  This was very clearly demonstrated during Mr. Trump’s campaign for the presidency in which liberals found themselves constantly pointing out the falsehoods and inconsistencies in Mr. Trump’s utterances only to find indignant conservatives explaining they knew the man was not speaking honestly and they understood he was not to be taken literally.  In their assessment liberals were missing the whole point.  Mr. Trump was using language not to express what he really thought about issues but to establish emotional bonds with his listeners.  His emphasis was on expressing humor, anger, and resentment in an entertaining way (or what passes for an entertaining way for our less educated and intelligent comrades) to ingratiate himself with his political base.  Factual accuracy and even honesty had nothing to do with it.  

This manner of communicating that was never meant to be taken either literally or seriously has famously continued on into Mr. Trump’s presidency with the man spewing out seemingly randomly all manner of outlandish and inconsistent claims with a smirking disregard for the norms of normal mature conversation.  It’s largely this feature of contemporary conservatism that has made many liberals who may have previously attempted to engage conservatives seriously and honestly determine we are now too far apart intellectually for such an effort to be useful.  Liberals talk to one another honestly and reasonably and try to preserve the integrity and point of democracy. Conservatives lie and pose and try to manipulate other conservatives into doing whatever provides them with economic power, preserves their economic power, and weakens political democracy.  

I would suggest a good part of this may be a natural outgrowth of the differences in education, training, and experience of liberals and conservatives.  Liberals of course tend to be better educated and understand and respect the power of human reason and sensible discourse.  They often work in academia and the sciences.  Conservatives tend to have more practical backgrounds with an emphasis on such business related fields as marketing, advertising, and other forms of consumer deception and manipulation.  

Thus on top of the gigantic differences in values and the striking differences in epistemological beliefs we have the awkward reality that conservatives and liberals are not even using language the same way and in particular conservatives are not using language to engage with liberals in good faith to discuss and explain their beliefs and values.  Not surprisingly the level of public discourse in this country has fallen to new lows of stupidity, rudeness, and pointlessness.

Will American democracy be able to withstand the dire intellectual and moral threat posed by contemporary conservatism as expressed by the Republican Party and its legion of supporters?  Wait.  Didn’t I just ask that same question last time?  Well, it’s an important question so I suppose it’s fine to pose it again.  Will American democracy be able to withstand the dire intellectual and moral threat posed by contemporary conservatism as expressed by the Republican Party and its legion of supporters?  I don’t know.  We’ve seen many other cultures and systems around the world and throughout history devolve into mindlessness, greed, violence, and dysfunction, and there is no reason to suppose the USA is immune to the forces that have dragged these other nations inexorably to their dooms.  But fretting about the future is such a tiresome and unproductive exercise isn’t it?  All we really have to do now is resolve to argue against the intellectual and moral rot of conservative ideology to the best of our abilities.  The future of the nation may well depend upon it.  Long live the liberal ethos!  Long live democracy!

The Big Problem with Democracy

Welcome friends!

I was leafing through a magazine the other day and saw a small piece on the 1998 election of populist politician Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  Interesting stuff but what really caught my attention was the picture of his fans wearing their signature red berets.  Here in the USA fans of faux populist politician Donald Trump also have signature red hats in the form of All-American baseball caps with his tongue-in-cheek political logo, Make American Great Again, emblazoned on the front in case one fails to make the connection and confuses it for just any old red baseball cap.  I can’t say I’ve noticed a lot of people wearing plain red baseball caps where I live so the wordplay seems a bit unnecessary but maybe out in the countryside they’re sufficiently common the additional branding makes sense.  Something a bit odd about the color red isn’t there?  The Nazi flag was a big red banner with a swastika.  The flag of the old USSR was a big red banner with a hammer and sickle.  The flag of communist China was and still is a big red banner with some stars.  It seems whenever politicians want to play populist the appearance of the color red cannot be far behind.  Well, I suppose it makes some sort of sense psychologically speaking.  Red is an exciting and angry sort of color that really shows people one is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.  What happens once the red appears is, well, a bit more indeterminate.  Anyway contemplating the ever hopeful crimson clad mobs of the world got me thinking a bit about the drawbacks of market economies, the awkward fit between market economies and political democracy, and the funny paths populism of both the real and fake varieties may take.  Maybe this week I’ll keep it short and look at just the Big Problem with democracy: the ability of the wealthy elite of a nation to dominate a nominally democratic political system and use it for their own purposes.

Oh heck.  I meant to do a big reveal just then.  Oh well, doesn’t matter.  Let’s just move on shall we?  Yes, what generates the ever hopeful, optimistic, steadying influence of political democracy is that everyone is or at least could potentially get involved to some degree.  Everyone is responsible to some extent for whatever we choose to do.  Instead of falling on one another with rocks and tree limbs and so on we have this notion it may be worthwhile to sit down and argue about things or at least take a few moments from our busy schedules to post ostensibly pithy but often rather insane sounding quips and bon mots on comment boards and so on.  Of course everyone who lives under a real democracy understands the egalitarian ethos of the one person one vote principle that lies at the heart of political democracy is frequently undercut and often all but obscured by that great principle of market economies: Money Talks.  In a democracy like the one we have here in the USA money talks so much it’s nearly impossible for anyone else to get a word in edgewise.  Money fuels academic research, media empires, political campaigns, popular culture.  Our politicians come from money and when finished playing politics return to money.  They represent money or at least require the acquiescence of money to be effective or even to survive politically.  Money, money, money.  That’s what we’re all about here in the USA.

We could of course do quite a lot to overcome the corrosive influence of big money on politics in a numbers of ways such as for example revising our campaign finance laws, changing how politicians are compensated, putting in place legal penalties for disseminating fake news, changing how we fund and credential institutions of higher education, and so on and so forth but the problem with all those ideas is that most of the people we actually elect not surprisingly like the system as it is and have no intention of upsetting the proverbial apple cart.  Indeed one cannot help but notice here in the USA all trends are going in exactly the opposite direction.  Our Supreme Court has famously expanded the power of big money in politics, irresponsible big money funded media empires peddling fake news proliferate, our president is a multi-millionaire with an administration composed nearly entirely of Wall Street traders, CEOs, and the like.  Indeed one has the notion the only real qualification right now is to have a boatload of money and be willing to swear an oath of personal fealty to Mr. Trump with any kissing of rings purely optional.  So at least here in this country one can forget about any official attempt to confront the influence of money in politics.

Now when would-be autocrats wielding vast economic power also capture political power in a democracy some funny things are liable to happen.  If they reach for too much too fast voters might rebel and overcome even the awesome power of the almighty dollar or peso or any other comparable unit of currency.  One may get a true populist along the lines of Mr. Chavez and we all know the paroxysms of rage and resentment that swept over the moneyed class of Venezuela and indeed the rest of the world when that happened.  Of course sometimes the wealthy can ride the wave so to speak.  If the wealthy elite is clever they can turn real populism into the sort of fake populism we saw many years ago with Mr. Hitler in Germany or more recently with Donald Trump here in the USA.

Even here things can get a bit tricky.  One important decision is whether to pretend one is standing up to the moneyed elite on behalf of the little guy or be candid about representing the moneyed elite but pretend pandering to the moneyed elite is good for everyone.  Mr. Hitler famously railed in public against capitalism as a vast Jewish conspiracy and carefully cultivated the false impression he was a simple man of the people and not really one of those rich fat cats all the while living like a medieval king and fawning over and currying favor with said fat cats at society cocktail parties every chance he got.  Mr. Trump has taken a rather different approach in proudly proclaiming and displaying his allegiance to the moneyed class while attempting to establish helping the moneyed class helps everyone else at the same time.  However, he has hedged his bets by successfully speaking such an endless stream of rot many of his followers appear to have gotten the risible notion he’s meant to be the champion of the little guy.  When it comes to being a conservative politician it pays to talk nonsense.  One can apparently have one’s cake and eat it too after all.

The danger of course and what keeps thinking people always a bit worried for the future is what happens when inevitably the wealthy class ends up doing quite well indeed and everyone else starts to circle the proverbial drain?  How long can a politician like Mr. Trump keep the charade going and what happens when he fails?  Well, that’s an interesting question.  Over the years we’ve seen various approaches to handling just this phenomenon.  One could always try to keep everything on an even keel using propaganda alone.  The conservative media machine seems well set up to give it the old college try.  Many of the people who follow their wacky fake news sites have apparently ceased to use any other source of information and are basically like putty in their hands.  However, other countries have given that approach a go only to find over time things can start to get a bit wobbly.  Fortunately bullshit is not the only weapon in their arsenal.  They also have weapons in their arsenal.  Yes, wars certainly help not only to goose the economy of course but to get people thinking about things other than their own economic and political impotency.  It’s hardly surprising the first thing on the mind of every unscrupulous politician wanting to keep people on board has always been to start a war or two.  Of course clever politicians can create some of the same psychological benefits and sometimes even some of the same economic benefits for at least some subset of the population by starting virtual wars with divisive commentary designed to get what is hopefully a bit more than half the population fighting everyone else.  Lots of potential booty to spread around if one plays it right.  Mr. Hitler appeared to base his entire political existence on this sort of thing but even Mr. Trump has wasted no time taking up the banner of racism, sexism, nativism, ethnic and cultural purity, religious intolerance, hatred of sexual minorities, and so on and so forth.  Indeed there doesn’t appear to be a potential source of social division he has not attempted to exploit to further his own ends.

What happens when that fails to do the trick?  Well now we’re setting out on same very shaky ice indeed.  In that case I suppose the wealthy elite could not fail to reach the conclusion democracy must go. Conservative pundits and intellectuals have been busy for many years now laying out their criticisms of democracy if not setting out explicitly their vision of an authoritarian oligarchy that would better concentrate economic and political power in the hands of the moneyed class.  The project appears to be going quite well at least in rural areas of the nation.  I read a story the other day about a billboard someone had put up in a small town in the state of Maryland suggesting liberals arm themselves if politicians pursue impeachment proceedings against President Trump for the unstated but contextually obvious reason conservatives would attempt to murder them.  One would have thought the implied threat of violence and rejection of our traditional democratic norms would prove anathema to freedom-loving Americans of all political persuasions but alas that does not appear to have been the case at all.  The local police chief noted about half the community supported the sign.  The long-term conservative project of laying down the foundations for finally ending democracy here in the USA seems to be proceeding right on schedule.

Can American democracy survive the threat represented by conservatives and the Republican Party?  That’s anyone’s guess right now.  The democracy loving elements of the US population may yet rally and fight them back but the way things are going right now I’m not particularly optimistic.  On the bright side whatever happens on our benighted shores the ideals of political democracy can never truly be defeated.  If American democracy fails as well it may somewhere someone will surely take up the banner if not now then soon.  (Well, yes, now you mention it I do realize there are other thriving democracies but I’m trying to be dramatic.  Maybe they fail one day as well and for the same reasons.)  To those future democrats let me just say find a way to make it work and you will have a thing of power and beauty and stability.  It served the USA well for a long time before the corrosive power of money, greed, and ignorance brought it down.  A word to the wise if I might?  If you cannot create a society in which economic power is distributed in an egalitarian way then be sure to put firewalls between economic power and political power.  Keep your democracy powerful and you will have a system that will serve you well for many years.  Allow it to become the plaything of self-serving rich people and I’m afraid you may have set out on the same path we have found ourselves on here in the USA.  I wish you good luck my future brothers and sisters!  Long live democracy!

References

‘Hey liberals better get your guns if you try to impeach’: This pro-Trump sign outside Washington is coming down.  Justin Moyer.  May 9, 2018.  Washington Post.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/05/09/hey-liberals-better-get-your-guns-if-you-try-to-impeach-this-pro-trump-sign-outside-washington-is-coming-down/?utm_term=.b0f50c6c234e.