Philosophy Now Forum

If Conservatives was kept in power in the 20th century without opposition and pressure from the left, things would look very different from the world we live in today:

* Poor people would never get a vote.
* Welfare benefits would not exist in any form, only labor camps for the poor and sick - workhouses. Essentially labor camps.
* Little to no exemptions at all for the sick and disabled to avoid conscription.
* Eventually we would live in a world with perpetual war.

Yet, poor, sick people still vote conservative.
The only explanation is that the vast majority of world's population like perpetual war and dislike welfare and human rights.

This is just silly.

It's like you've swallowed every trope, every cliche, every silly slander the Left raises, instead of dealing with the differences that exist on substantive issues. If were going to take that sort of absurd propaganda seriously, we've really lost our way.

A better idea: read Jonathan Haidt's book, "The Righteous Mind," that speaks intelligently to the actually psychological differences between Leftism and conservatism.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:59 pm
* Poor people would never get a vote.
* Welfare benefits would not exist in any form, only labor camps for the poor and sick - workhouses. Essentially labor camps.
* Little to no exemptions at all for the sick and disabled to avoid conscription.
* Eventually we would live in a world with perpetual war.

For the sake of balance, let me add this: you paint conservatism with a broad brush, but in all honesty progressives could be painted with a broad brush as well. It’s just a matter of the point of view where one starts (and irrevocably adheres in most cases).

One could passionately argue that benefits and exemptions are sometimes abused, and one way to end the abuse is to end the benefits and exemptions. Another could argue that that’s a heartless solution. Then one could interject that a truly heartfelt solution would completely deplete everyone’s resources.

Someone could argue that war is necessary to protect national interests. Someone else could counter that war comes at too great a cost in human lives or in terms of financial resources.

Immigration v border security, economic growth v environmental protection, and gun ownership v gun control, to name a few, draw passionate arguments from each side.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:59 pm
Yet, poor, sick people still vote conservative.
The only explanation is that the vast majority of world's population like perpetual war and dislike welfare and human rights.

As you probably know, few people like war and dislike rights.

But people make “un-rational” decisions all the time. Someone who is uninformed, or who gets their information from political ads on the internet or on TV, might readily believe the exaggerations and lies about an opposition candidate. The uncritical mind is a gullible one.

Then there’s popularity or charisma or other emotional reasons for deciding how to vote. Faced with no rational basis on which to decide, a voter goes with his gut.

Are there other explanations for voting against one’s self interests? Perhaps.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:25 pm This is just silly.

It's like you've swallowed every trope, every cliche, every silly slander the Left raises, instead of dealing with the differences that exist on substantive issues. If were going to take that sort of absurd propaganda seriously, we've really lost our way.

A better idea: read Jonathan Haidt's book, "The Righteous Mind," that speaks intelligently to the actually psychological differences between Leftism and conservatism.

I like Jon, he has a mind and watched many of his YT talks about the "helicopter parents".

lets talk about what Jon had to say in the book you reference (I've not read it).

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:58 am lets talk about what Jon had to say in the book you reference (I've not read it).

It's worth a read. Basically, he says that the Left misunderstands the Right, and the Right misunderstands the Left. I'm afraid I can't do his full argument justice here. It's significant and complicated. But you can catch a bit of his drift if you look at this, and maybe this will help. It's certainly shorter than reading the book, though I have read it...so if you want to discuss any particulars, I have those too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:19 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:58 am lets talk about what Jon had to say in the book you reference (I've not read it).

It's worth a read. Basically, he says that the Left misunderstands the Right, and the Right misunderstands the Left. I'm afraid I can't do his full argument justice here. It's significant and complicated. But you can catch a bit of his drift if you look at this, and maybe this will help. It's certainly shorter than reading the book, though I have read it...so if you want to discuss any particulars, I have those too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

thanks for link - too drunk to check it out now, but shall later.

i think it is important to clarify what "left" and "right" is today (those terms have changed over time - namely the issue of economic vs social - liberal/conservative). and i personally think that many of the "left" (me) and "right" - who used to be in that camp are now out of both camps via the modern understanding of those terms - namely "right" ecomomically, and "left" socially are denounced and excummunicated from thier camps sadly.

I disagree with the OP here for its simplistically stated argument but here are some thoughts on the political terms involved from my perspective

"Conservative" is the term that merely describes those wanting to not change whatever prior ways exist. Because this represents those who HAVE versus those who don't, then the conservative is fighting to KEEP some state existing. "Progressives" are generally the term meant to represent those who want change and thus are not liking their present condition.

So those with money, which represents power, will prefer a system that conserves this where those without to demand change as a means to 'progress' for themselves and/or those they see in a similar condition.

The term, "right" in politics, relates to the conservative because those often most benefiting lack normal logical justification for why they are successful over others who are "left" behind. Also, given morality is indifferent to Nature, the religious who utilize an extreme justification for keeping what they have reduce to, "because God granted me the right to have what I have". As such, the 'conservative' religions are those that tend to believe in stricter rules of obediance to something literally interpreted. If it is 'written' by some author called, God, than sociey is expected to accept the discrepancy between those who succeed and those who don't.

The "Left" is also misleading of WHO they are consisting of depending upon different times and places. Today's cultural ideals are promoted from those on the Left but from the wealthier who exist there, in kind to the wealthier who speaks for the "Right". The difference is that today's command of the left comes from "culture" supremacists who are as intolerant as the extremes on the right. The both agree to 'culture' as being the means to control politics. The traditional "Right" cultural supremacists are just MONO-culturalists relative to those on the "Left" who are MULTI-culturalist. The term 'multicultural" is merely coincidental. If you have even two or three such cults you want to conserve, then by rhetorical technicality, the "Muli-" is true but falsely give the presentation that it is universal. As such, today's "Left" are controlled by CONSERVATIVES who want change: ....PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES might be the term to describe this but is often stolen by those on the "Right" who also want to appear as though they are "left-friendly".

We are screwed if we are independent minded people NOT aligned to some 'cult' or other. Today's war is against the unaffiliated individuals NOT belonging to some official cult or other. It thus makes all the politics more 'conservative' of their specific cultural biases. Those "left" out, are not represented and are forced to often select which extremes are LESS offensive to their own personal conditions REGARDLESS of their political views. So we tend to sit out on elections for them being so contradictory of our interests regardless of who is in power.

We need a counter-revolution against governments permitted to make laws regarding specific supports for or against specific cultural ideals.

In the end "conservatism" is just a label with all the limitations and definitional problems that come with labels. I tend to think that if we could get around all these labels we would find that people generally tend to share similar cares and concerns on a near-universal basis. The real rub I think comes with competition over finite resources, most dramatically in cases where it seems to be a zero-sum game (such as with social statuses like power and affluence). As Scott points out, there is a tendency in some cases for the haves to want to preserve the status quo and the have nots to want to change it--depending on whatever degree the status quo can be shown to represent a justified state of affairs versus an unjustified one.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:08 am As Scott points out, there is a tendency in some cases for the haves to want to preserve the status quo and the have nots to want to change it--depending on whatever degree the status quo can be shown to represent a justified state of affairs versus an unjustified one.

Too simplistic, Gary. If what you were saying is true, then rich people would always be conservatives, and poor ones would be progressives. But New York and Hollywood are two of the most Progressivist places in the US...and neither of the Progressivists groups there is reputedly poor. Likewise, how does one explain that the "flyover states," as the Progressives derisively term them, are mostly poorer than the states that call them that?

I think J. Haidt's analysis is better. He says "conservative" is a term describing a cluster of traits, but one among them is the tendency to recognize the value of social stability, law and order, rules, the Constitution, and so on. And the Progressivists or Leftists tend to be drawn to change and instability, seeing it as a sign of renewal. Both are partly right, but partly can be wrong. And neither finds the other easy to understand.

Improvement? I think the key value is free speech. The open exchange of ideas, particularly without hatred, prejudging, name calling, and constraints is the only way an understanding can be built. It doesn't imply agreement is required: it only implies that understanding a position, even if one disagrees with it, is better than not understanding it. And that's what makes our present doxing, bullying, hate-speech indicting, virtu-signalling, censorious, politically correct culture such a horribly bad thing. And it's why politics are presently so polarized.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:05 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:08 am As Scott points out, there is a tendency in some cases for the haves to want to preserve the status quo and the have nots to want to change it--depending on whatever degree the status quo can be shown to represent a justified state of affairs versus an unjustified one.

Too simplistic, Gary. If what you were saying is true, then rich people would always be conservatives, and poor ones would be progressives. But New York and Hollywood are two of the most Progressivist places in the US...and neither of the Progressivists groups there is reputedly poor. Likewise, how does one explain that the "flyover states," as the Progressives derisively term them, are mostly poorer than the states that call them that?

I think J. Haidt's analysis is better. He says "conservative" is a term describing a cluster of traits, but one among them is the tendency to recognize the value of social stability, law and order, rules, the Constitution, and so on. And the Progressivists or Leftists tend to be drawn to change and instability, seeing it as a sign of renewal. Both are partly right, but partly can be wrong. And neither finds the other easy to understand.

Improvement? I think the key value is free speech. The open exchange of ideas, particularly without hatred, prejudging, name calling, and constraints is the only way an understanding can be built. It doesn't imply agreement is required: it only implies that understanding a position, even if one disagrees with it, is better than not understanding it. And that's what makes our present doxing, bullying, hate-speech indicting, virtu-signalling, censorious, politically correct culture such a horribly bad thing. And it's why politics are presently so polarized.

As I said, there is a tendency in some cases... I didn't say all the time in all cases. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Trump phenomena could very well even be described as a case of have nots wanting to change the status quo. A lot of ordinary Americans in "flyover" country are upset about their economic situations and they blame it on things like regulation, climate science, etc. Trump is very much an "upstart" in that sense. So my point still holds.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:16 pm I would go so far as to say that the Trump phenomena could very well even be described as a case of have nots wanting to change the status quo.

Well, I'm not an American, but from where I sit, I'd say that's an ironclad certainty.

"the Trump phenomena could very well even be described as a case of have nots wanting to change the status quo"

No doubt that applies to some Trump voters, but I don't think it defines all of them.

Some folks, like me, hired Trump to begin disabling and dismantling an increasingly burdensome state.

We didn't hire a savior; we installed a weapon.