7 ms·

>The left, as I see it, gets and respects human vulnerability, and our need to depend on one another, and wants to build a just, equitable society where we can

>The left, as I see it, gets and respects human vulnerability, and our need to depend on one another, and wants to build a just, equitable society where we can all fluorish. This is what people dislike about the modern left, when it makes the assumption that the intentions of its political opponents are bad just because they disagree on methodology. There are conservatives who genuinely want to build a just, equitable society where everyone can flourish, and believe that strong welfare problems go against this by making people dependent on handouts. There are conservatives who genuinely believe the best way to achieve a flourishing, happy society is by following the tenants of some religion. There are conservatives who believe a just, fair society is one in which people are rewarded in accordance to how others value their work (how much other people are willing to pay them). Two people can want the same outcome but widely differ in belief about the best way to achieve it; assuming that your counterparty has bad intentions just because they disagree on the best way to achieve something or have a different definition of a word like "fair" does not lead to healthy discourse.

unclebucknasty 8y ago
Where is any of that discussion even being had anymore? The once vaulted values of the right you profess have been co-opted by the singular motivating force of demonizing and owning the libs. The old guard of conservatism has been reduced to mumbling around the fringes about this thing or the other. And you do not see any such talk in close proximity to the current power center of that party. In fact, that power center is now a cult of personality. So, seriously, why are we acting like there is any real debate as to the old ideological differences?
- Fellshard 8y ago
  You have isolated the voices from the right you listen to to those that allow you to make those claims. Broaden your listening range.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Who should we be listening to?
    - Fellshard 8y ago
      I've found many of the folks at the National Review, for example, to be quite principled. Folks like Ben Shapiro wobble a bit in this regard from time to time, but tends to make arguments based on principle and not merely on leadership, and it's safe to say he's got a pretty loud bullhorn right now as well.
      - unclebucknasty 8y ago
        Who is carrying the banner for conservatism and has real influence on public discourse? Where are the principles of conservativism being rigorously championed, debated, and defended? When have conservative principles superceded the whims of one man and the cult of personality that now dominates the course of an entire party? 4-6 years ago, Ronald Reagan was the gold standard for conservatives. It was perfunctory to mention his name while running for office. When was the last time you heard him invoked? If it's really conservative principles you care about, then you're not doing yourself any favors by pretending conservatism hasn't been completely co-opted and derailed for other decidedly less-vaunted purposes. In fact, many of these purposes run roughshod over what conservatives claim to hold dear. That movement was killed, and many of its supposed adherents are complicit.
        Fellshard 8y ago
        A good chunk of it has, and I grieve for it, and hope the torch can still burn bright through this current time and co-opted leadership that claims to speak with conservative principles. The sources I cited do still champion it, and seek to discuss it, openly and without malice, with those who are willing to return that courtesy. But from what I can tell, /your/ ears are closed to this feedback. I ask you to open your ears a bit, because right now, you're hearing only exactly what you want people to have said, not what they are actually saying. Not everyone is a mouthpiece for Trump and populism.
ip26 8y ago
Do you view Pruitt or Zinke as having been fundamentally well-intentioned, working to build a more just & equitable society?
- logicchains 8y ago
  Do you understand the difference between "there are conservatives that X" and "all conservatives X"? Do you believe that "worst example I can think of from Y" is representative of "all of Y"? Saying conservatives are ill-intentioned because Pruitt is ill-intentioned makes as much sense as saying all communists are ill-intentioned because Mao was corrupt and killed millions of people.
- burfog 8y ago
  Them being "fundamentally well-intentioned, working to build a more just & equitable society" is a good explanation for why they wiped out lots of job-killing regulations that infringed on private property rights. This might not be your idea of how best to achieve things, but it is consistent with a well-intentioned view that destroying jobs and infringing on private property rights is unjust and inequitable.
  - ip26 8y ago
    I understand people can earnestly believe all regulations are job-killing etc. However the personal enrichment & extreme secrecy made me question their motives.
justin66 8y ago
>>The left, as I see it, gets and respects human vulnerability, and our need to depend on one another, and wants to build a just, equitable society where we can all fluorish. >This is what people dislike about the modern left, when it makes the assumption that the intentions of its political opponents are bad just because they disagree on methodology. The writing of the person you're responding to is so egregiously bad that it makes me want to kick a puppy, but your argument is really off base here. The rather Randian, post-eighties conservatism that's prominent today is antithetical to a recognition of "our need to depend on one another." As Thatcher said: They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. That's not a disagreement about methodology, that's a fundamental difference in outlook, not to mention intentions. It is not helping anything to say "hey, we all want the same thing amirite?"
- logicchains 8y ago
  Recognition of "our need to depend on one another." is not the end goal of the average left-leaning person (or at least those I know), the end goal is for nobody to suffer through poverty/neglect. The average right-leaning person would also like nobody to suffer through poverty/neglect. The right just believes that government intervention won't help poverty, and that it destroys family and community bonds via the government stepping in to fulfil the roles previously played by family and community. The left believes government intervention is needed to fight poverty, and to fix the failures in family and government. I'm sure if you offered the average leftist the chance to live in a world where nobody lived in poverty, albeit one without "a recognition of our need to depend on one another" (whatever that means), they'd happily accept.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Our local political organizations are (legally) reformed every two years. We Democrats have a ritual where we introduce ourselves and say why we're a Democrat. Most people say something like "I believe in the greater good." Which I suppose could be warped into whatever you just described. My answer has been "To help people help themselves and to help those who can't." TLDR: You should probably meet some lefties, in person, before you claim to speak for them. Try meeting some righties too.
rootusrootus 8y ago
Conservatives have nuanced views but 'people dislike the modern left'?

unclebucknasty 8y ago

Where is any of that discussion even being had anymore? The once vaulted values of the right you profess have been co-opted by the singular motivating force of demonizing and owning the libs. The old guard of conservatism has been reduced to mumbling around the fringes about this thing or the other. And you do not see any such talk in close proximity to the current power center of that party. In fact, that power center is now a cult of personality. So, seriously, why are we acting like there is any real debate as to the old ideological differences?

Fellshard 8y ago
You have isolated the voices from the right you listen to to those that allow you to make those claims. Broaden your listening range.
- specialist 8y ago
  Who should we be listening to?
  - Fellshard 8y ago
    I've found many of the folks at the National Review, for example, to be quite principled. Folks like Ben Shapiro wobble a bit in this regard from time to time, but tends to make arguments based on principle and not merely on leadership, and it's safe to say he's got a pretty loud bullhorn right now as well.
    - unclebucknasty 8y ago
      Who is carrying the banner for conservatism and has real influence on public discourse? Where are the principles of conservativism being rigorously championed, debated, and defended? When have conservative principles superceded the whims of one man and the cult of personality that now dominates the course of an entire party? 4-6 years ago, Ronald Reagan was the gold standard for conservatives. It was perfunctory to mention his name while running for office. When was the last time you heard him invoked? If it's really conservative principles you care about, then you're not doing yourself any favors by pretending conservatism hasn't been completely co-opted and derailed for other decidedly less-vaunted purposes. In fact, many of these purposes run roughshod over what conservatives claim to hold dear. That movement was killed, and many of its supposed adherents are complicit.
      - Fellshard 8y ago
        A good chunk of it has, and I grieve for it, and hope the torch can still burn bright through this current time and co-opted leadership that claims to speak with conservative principles. The sources I cited do still champion it, and seek to discuss it, openly and without malice, with those who are willing to return that courtesy. But from what I can tell, /your/ ears are closed to this feedback. I ask you to open your ears a bit, because right now, you're hearing only exactly what you want people to have said, not what they are actually saying. Not everyone is a mouthpiece for Trump and populism.

ip26 8y ago

Do you view Pruitt or Zinke as having been fundamentally well-intentioned, working to build a more just & equitable society?

logicchains 8y ago
Do you understand the difference between "there are conservatives that X" and "all conservatives X"? Do you believe that "worst example I can think of from Y" is representative of "all of Y"? Saying conservatives are ill-intentioned because Pruitt is ill-intentioned makes as much sense as saying all communists are ill-intentioned because Mao was corrupt and killed millions of people.
burfog 8y ago
Them being "fundamentally well-intentioned, working to build a more just & equitable society" is a good explanation for why they wiped out lots of job-killing regulations that infringed on private property rights. This might not be your idea of how best to achieve things, but it is consistent with a well-intentioned view that destroying jobs and infringing on private property rights is unjust and inequitable.
- ip26 8y ago
  I understand people can earnestly believe all regulations are job-killing etc. However the personal enrichment & extreme secrecy made me question their motives.

justin66 8y ago

>>The left, as I see it, gets and respects human vulnerability, and our need to depend on one another, and wants to build a just, equitable society where we can all fluorish. >This is what people dislike about the modern left, when it makes the assumption that the intentions of its political opponents are bad just because they disagree on methodology. The writing of the person you're responding to is so egregiously bad that it makes me want to kick a puppy, but your argument is really off base here. The rather Randian, post-eighties conservatism that's prominent today is antithetical to a recognition of "our need to depend on one another." As Thatcher said: They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. That's not a disagreement about methodology, that's a fundamental difference in outlook, not to mention intentions. It is not helping anything to say "hey, we all want the same thing amirite?"

logicchains 8y ago
Recognition of "our need to depend on one another." is not the end goal of the average left-leaning person (or at least those I know), the end goal is for nobody to suffer through poverty/neglect. The average right-leaning person would also like nobody to suffer through poverty/neglect. The right just believes that government intervention won't help poverty, and that it destroys family and community bonds via the government stepping in to fulfil the roles previously played by family and community. The left believes government intervention is needed to fight poverty, and to fix the failures in family and government. I'm sure if you offered the average leftist the chance to live in a world where nobody lived in poverty, albeit one without "a recognition of our need to depend on one another" (whatever that means), they'd happily accept.
- specialist 8y ago
  Our local political organizations are (legally) reformed every two years. We Democrats have a ritual where we introduce ourselves and say why we're a Democrat. Most people say something like "I believe in the greater good." Which I suppose could be warped into whatever you just described. My answer has been "To help people help themselves and to help those who can't." TLDR: You should probably meet some lefties, in person, before you claim to speak for them. Try meeting some righties too.

rootusrootus 8y ago

Conservatives have nuanced views but 'people dislike the modern left'?