5 ms·

"Utah is a deep red state, but its conservatism is notably compassionate" Or maybe conservatives are not ruthless towards the poor ?

ythn 10y ago
A lot of progressives think that if you oppose government welfare programs, then you are being "ruthless" (even if you have a different solution in mind)
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  Not just a lot of progressives, accusing people who oppose "government welfare program to support X" to be against X has been a thing for the left that's been going on for centuries. Frederic Bastiat already said in 1850 in his famous quote: "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
philipodonnell 10y ago
In general, conservatives tend to regard poverty as a self-inflicted state, or at least that remaining in poverty is a failing of the individual by not escaping it, and thus addressing poverty should be left to that individual. Liberals think of poverty more as a systematic social condition that individuals bear little responsibility for, either getting there or remaining there, and thus addressing poverty should be undertaken by formal social support systems. It's not ruthless as much as different views of why poverty exists and how to address it, and like many issues, not all conservatives hold 100% conservative views. It's common to refer to conservatives who have a more liberal view of poverty as "compassionate", but it's just a word, not a judgement.
- r00fus 10y ago
  One of these views is more factually valid and supported by data.
  - tomcam 10y ago
    I would like to see your citations
    - jernfrost 10y ago
      Actually it is rather obvious, that is HAS to be social structures and not the individual. Look at any statistics about any aspect of a persons life, and it is almost always determined by that persons environment or genes. Evidence from the last years point towards that there is no such thing as free will. Studies show e.g. that we make our decisions way before we are conscious of it. Our rational for the choices we make, are most of the time post-rationalization. We makeup reasons after the choice has been made. Put a random person from a bad neighborhood in a good one and they will almost always radically improve. You can look at IQ studies, correlation between IQ and genes is very high for a middle class, but very low for the poor. Hence middle class children reach the full potential of their genes while the environment is holding back the poor. Look at the difference between West-Germany and DDR or North and South Korea. Huge difference in the outcome of each individual, yet it has nothing to do with personal traits but everything to do with the different society structures imposed on the people. Focusing on the individual instead of society is also rather pointless as one can change society through policy but there is no way of changing an individual directly.
      - tomcam 10y ago
        So, no citations
- paulddraper 10y ago
  That is the usual narrative, but conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.

ythn 10y ago

A lot of progressives think that if you oppose government welfare programs, then you are being "ruthless" (even if you have a different solution in mind)

patrickaljord 10y ago
Not just a lot of progressives, accusing people who oppose "government welfare program to support X" to be against X has been a thing for the left that's been going on for centuries. Frederic Bastiat already said in 1850 in his famous quote: "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

philipodonnell 10y ago

In general, conservatives tend to regard poverty as a self-inflicted state, or at least that remaining in poverty is a failing of the individual by not escaping it, and thus addressing poverty should be left to that individual. Liberals think of poverty more as a systematic social condition that individuals bear little responsibility for, either getting there or remaining there, and thus addressing poverty should be undertaken by formal social support systems. It's not ruthless as much as different views of why poverty exists and how to address it, and like many issues, not all conservatives hold 100% conservative views. It's common to refer to conservatives who have a more liberal view of poverty as "compassionate", but it's just a word, not a judgement.

r00fus 10y ago
One of these views is more factually valid and supported by data.
- tomcam 10y ago
  I would like to see your citations
  - jernfrost 10y ago
    Actually it is rather obvious, that is HAS to be social structures and not the individual. Look at any statistics about any aspect of a persons life, and it is almost always determined by that persons environment or genes. Evidence from the last years point towards that there is no such thing as free will. Studies show e.g. that we make our decisions way before we are conscious of it. Our rational for the choices we make, are most of the time post-rationalization. We makeup reasons after the choice has been made. Put a random person from a bad neighborhood in a good one and they will almost always radically improve. You can look at IQ studies, correlation between IQ and genes is very high for a middle class, but very low for the poor. Hence middle class children reach the full potential of their genes while the environment is holding back the poor. Look at the difference between West-Germany and DDR or North and South Korea. Huge difference in the outcome of each individual, yet it has nothing to do with personal traits but everything to do with the different society structures imposed on the people. Focusing on the individual instead of society is also rather pointless as one can change society through policy but there is no way of changing an individual directly.
    - tomcam 10y ago
      So, no citations
paulddraper 10y ago
That is the usual narrative, but conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.