What are the philosophical differences between conservative and liberals?

[wufan]

I believe the rights and responsibility of the individual are the core fundamentals on which western government was founded. Having winners and losers is important to society, so long as there are buffers to prevent the extreme ends of this dynamic. The creation of a utopian equal outcome society is a dangerous pursuit, yet it seems to be the pursuit of recent infiltrators within the far left wing of the Democratic Party (mainly educators and entertainers). This idea is pushed forward through identity politics...the idea that there is a group/s (community?) of persons that are oppressed, and the soul purpose of this political maneuver is to overthrow the oppressors and make the oppressed community whole. Is there oppression? You bet! Are certain communities feeling more of this burden than other communities? Absolutely. Is there a conscious or unconscious effort by one community to hold down another community? Absolutely not! There are individuals that should be held accountable for their actions. The idea that someone is inherently your enemy because they are white is just as propostorous as the idea that someone is your enemy because they are black. Forcing this divide through ideas such as white fragility, institutionalized racism, and white privledge creates a self-fulfilling ideology in which the oppressed shouldn't speak to the oppressor because the oppressor is not competent to understand the issue. This is further pushed forward through the attempt to shut down free speech by creating safe spaces, claiming everyday language is a microagression, and general PC policing. Thus far, the outcome of this ideology has been the election of Trump.

If we can get past identity politics (where your group is more important than your individuality), and define the boundaries in which we wish to solve problems, then we can come to some middle ground and work on real issues like what to do about the poor, education, economics, and the threat of terrorism. Until that time, the chasm that divides the two party system will continue to be insurmountable.

[wufan]

Excuse me. Conservatives in the House just passed legislation that would take 23 million people who are "less fortunate" and essentially deny them insurance coverage. That is NOT caring about people. Then they had a huge celebration and photo op in the Rose Garden with everybody smiling and giving each other high fives.

After I got hit with cancer, I went from season ticket holder to one of the "less fortunate". I saw first hand how the "less fortunate" are treated. I spent several years with a bit of a cloud hanging over my head. If my wife got sick, we would have several possibilities. Losing our home and facing bankruptcy or she dies were the obvious results of her having any medical problems. Go through a couple years of that and see if your attitude maybe changes a bit about the "less fortunate" and how conservatives care about them.

Conservatives in Kansas refuse to provide insurance to 150,000 "less fortunate" residents, even though the Fed would pay for it and it would keep a bunch of hospitals able to pay their bills.

I'm truly sorry you have suffered. That is a terrible thing to go through and I haven't experienced it in the way you have. Yet, here you are, on the internet, living your life. It seems that the safety nets in place helped you through. Are you owed something more? As I mentioned in what you quoted, it is complex as to where to draw the line on who needs help and who doesn't. There will be disagreements. You stated we should take care of those living in America. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to say, "how dare you!" If you wish to make your case as to who deserves free healthcare and why please do so. Calling any healthcare cut an example that someone doesn't care is not rationale and is disingenuous. There is a boundary and it is up to each of us to define it and argue for it so that we may persuade the masses to buy into the benefit.

[Kel Varnsen]

If the United States government can never discontinue providing a service and doing so equates to letting people die, starve, etc., then we're just biding our time until the government has complete control of every aspect of our lives.

[Aargh]

I'm truly sorry you have suffered. That is a terrible thing to go through and I haven't experienced it in the way you have. Yet, here you are, on the internet, living your life. It seems that the safety nets in place helped you through. Are you owed something more? As I mentioned in what you quoted, it is complex as to where to draw the line on who needs help and who doesn't. There will be disagreements. You stated we should take care of those living in America. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to say, "how dare you!" If you wish to make your case as to who deserves free healthcare and why please do so. Calling any healthcare cut an example that someone doesn't care is not rationale and is disingenuous. There is a boundary and it is up to each of us to define it and argue for it so that we may persuade the masses to buy into the benefit.

Safety net? There was no safety net. The only thing that got me through was good fortune.

Cutting someone's health care is not an indication that they don't care about people? I think that an attitude of "it's OK if you die" is the epitome of an absolute lack of care for someone else.

So where do you stand on someone whose employment doesn't offer health care when they face a medical emergency? Someone facing a $10,000 medical procedure (and that's not much of a medical emergency), but they don't have $10,000 and have little or no hope of ever having that amount of discretionary income (not required for food, shelter, or clothing)?

Do you deny them medical coverage and condemn them to death? Anything other than that leaves you paying for their medical bills. If they go to the ER and get treated that way,which is required of many hospitals, you pay because those costs have to be transferred to those who have insurance through higher charges for everything covered by insurance.

The only actual choice is either "let them die" or "I will pay for it". The way you pay for it is either through universal health coverage or through inflated insurance premiums.

[wufan]

Safety net? There was no safety net. The only thing that got me through was good fortune.

Cutting someone's health care is not an indication that they don't care about people? I think that an attitude of "it's OK if you die" is the epitome of an absolute lack of care for someone else.

So where do you stand on someone whose employment doesn't offer health care when they face a medical emergency? Someone facing a $10,000 medical procedure (and that's not much of a medical emergency), but they don't have $10,000 and have little or no hope of ever having that amount of discretionary income (not required for food, shelter, or clothing)?

Do you deny them medical coverage and condemn them to death? Anything other than that leaves you paying for their medical bills. If they go to the ER and get treated that way,which is required of many hospitals, you pay because those costs have to be transferred to those who have insurance through higher charges for everything covered by insurance.

The only actual choice is either "let them die" or "I will pay for it". The way you pay for it is either through universal health coverage or through inflated insurance premiums.

Lack of healthcare insurance is not the same as death by neglect. If we took away health insurance from Senators, would they all be sentenced to death? What if we took away birth control coverage? Is that a death sentence? What if we took birth control coverage from men? Until you understand that a cut to health insurance isn't always a lack of compassion, your argument will always be flawed, and there are plenty of reasons to argue for universal coverage, you just aren't presenting one.

For those not covered by insurance, yes they can go to the ER and are mandated to be treated for life or limb issues regardless of their ability to pay. Health care should absolutely not be denied in those situations, and yes tax payers will still cover the burden. That's a real issue that needs to be addressed. Should these people pay nothing? Maybe based on their circumstance. If I make less than my neighbor, should I have to pay? Maybe, depending on my circumstance. Defining what circumstances should be granted free coverage is exceedingly important to fixing the issue.

Also, because your life events were particularly traumatic to the point you believed you were going to die due to a lack of healthcare, please explain what fortune you encountered that got you through.

[CBB_Fan]

I would define the differences as such:

Religious vs Secular:

This is a development of the last 60-70 years or so. In the past, most major political issues were fought on both sides by churches. For instance, the arguments for both slavery and abolition came primarily from scripture, and the religious civil war that happened because of that caused many of schisms and separations in American denominations we still see today.

But over the past 20, 30, 60 years that has changed. The more liberal churches have declined both in membership and political influence, being replaced by more secular groups. On the other hand conservative Christians, particularly evangelicals, dedicated resources and political capital towards the new medium of TV and were able to stay alive not only with shows like the 700 Club but through a consistent moral message on talk radio and conservative news. This has led to a social split between religious conservatives and secular liberals.

One interesting aspect of this split is that two prominently liberal minorities are among the most religious demographics in the country. 87% in the black community are affiliated with a religion (about half being Baptist) while Latinos hit 88% affiliation, most being Catholic. There are various reasons such minority groups vote Democratic, but the interesting note is that they do so in opposition to many of their deeply held beliefs (support for abortion and gay rights is actually fairly low among such groups).

The Rule of of Government

Liberals believe the rule of government is to act to further the common good. Conservatives believe the rule of government is to secure the country's personal safety and individual liberty. These two may sound similar, but they couldn't be farther about in practice. The first requires government to be as large as necessary, while the second wants government to be as small as possible.

Furthermore, liberals tend to think more on the federal level. If they believe an idea is in the common interest, they feel it should be enforced in every state by the federal government. Conservatives tend to give more autonomy to the states, and feel that the purpose of "fulfilling the common good" should be left to that level and to the individual needs and desires of local populations.

This has a fair bit of historical background. Liberals are right when they claim that such compartmentalization has been used to deny civil rights. They have a great deal of skepticism towards the good faith of conservatives and believe conservative states would use greater autonomy to deny the liberal view on civil rights (whatever that is at the time). They don't feel this trade-off is worth the more individualized and targeted legislation the state-level can provide.

Conservatives typically believe that the government is not necessary or even desired to maximize the common good, rather than not caring about it at all. They believe that private market forces, charities, and churches would do a better job than the government and that handing off these duties will prevent government overreach on individual liberty. Liberals likewise tend to think that in absence of government these issues will go largely unaddressed and that private or nonprofit organizations aren't up to the task.

Interactions with the World

This has swung back and forth a few times. In the Reagan years, conservatives were the ones preaching free trade and global economics. But now the cycle is back to where it was early on in the 20th century (before WWI and WWII), where conservatives advocated isolationism.

Conservatives have come to the belief that the USA wastes time and money abroad instead of spending that money on America (infrastructure improvements are of the few common good projects conservatives typically support). They view America's culture as something to be protected, and believe that stability comes from a consistent language, culture, and border.

In contrast, liberals believe that the US benefits tremendously from its trade, aid, and even military efforts overseas (the last by far the least). They are far more willing to accept changes in culture from incoming immigrants or just from generational change and believe that the country will adapt and immigrants will assimilate.

Conservatives in general tend to value stability and safety most in interacting with the rest of the world and with immigrants. They are willing to let in fewer immigrants and reduce our aid and trade if it will maximize those two values. Liberals instead to think in humanistic terms, often wanting to maximize the benefits and minimize the suffering both in the USA and outside of it.

Role of the legal system

Conservatives tend to have two competing ideas on law and the legal system. First, they believe the goal of the legal system is to protect the public. Second, they believe that the interpretation of the law should be primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text rather than interpreted to fit the situation. Conservatives tend to believe that harsher punishments deter criminals and give better redress to victims and that "the punishment should match the crime."

Liberals tend to view the legal system as a mechanism for social good. They give greater credence to interpretations of the law that match their idea of that common good. They are much more likely to see sentencing as a social service, a vessel for rehabilitation rather than punishment. Liberals typically believe that longer sentences and harsher prisons serve to create hardened criminals, and that victimless crimes (read: drugs) should go unpunished.

Other

There are a few other issues driving division currently, including interpretations on free speech protections and tactics to fight terrorism. Racial issues are also a hotbed topic. But I think from a philosophical standpoint the above is a decent summary that isn't too unfair to either side.

[wufan]

@CBB_Fan:, I think that was an exceptional summary on beliefs for both parties and what they think, as well it gave some background to those beliefs that made them rationally understandable to most anyone. What things do they agree on? How do the opposing views come together to solve real problems?

[jcdshocker]

Who decided that government is responsible for providing health insurance? Medicare is a little different as we all pay into the system for coverage when we hit a certain age. I don't understand why people think our government should control healthcare and if you don't support this imitative you are a cold hearted non caring person.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

In full disclosure, I'm a registered Republican who became disgruntled under the George W. Bush administration. During and after his second term I have explored the differences between liberalism and conservatism and found myself just to the left of the dividing line, largely due to my beliefs on environmentalism and the role of government.

I think we all--Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, whatever--want the same things. I think more than anytime in my memory, though, we tend to demonize those who disagree with our points of view. Republicans call liberals snowflakes, libtards, or ******* because Democrats tend to approach issues with greater focus on the impacts to society and people. Democrats think Republicans are heartless bastards who long ago sold their souls to the devil because Republicans tend to approach issues more pragmatically. To generalize, Republicans solve problems like accountants, Democrats solve problems like social workers. I think our polarization simply comes from the fact that fringe groups and extreme points of view are more accessible and consumable thanks to the internet. Literally everyone has a voice--which is not a bad thing--but our society has not yet adjusted to being able to place all those voices in context and discern fringe from mainstream. In a nutshell, we are all more gullible than ever. Breitbart is just as nonreputable and "fake news" as Politico, but both organizations' readers refuse to believe that.

To me, the approach to solving problems is the main difference between conservatives and liberals, not ultimately what either of us believe at the end of the day. Sadly, right now we're more caught up in our differences than in our common ground.

[wufan]

Good take @ Rocky Mountain Shock! When you get down to it, everyone is trying to solve the same problems; Poverty, health, unemployment, safety, etc. it's all the same fundamental argument...left believes more gov solves problems and the more people we work for the better. Right believes economy solves problems, and the less people the better.

Give me any problem and I can site theory (and possibly real world examples) of how that worked and failed for both types ideologies. Neither is correct or wrong in all situations.

[wu_shizzle]

Who decided that government is responsible for providing health insurance? Medicare is a little different as we all pay into the system for coverage when we hit a certain age. I don't understand why people think our government should control healthcare and if you don't support this imitative you are a cold hearted non caring person.

Because our Federal model for Healthcare and Education was designed for the Industrial revolution and a post-war manufacturing economy.

The interest groups for maintaining a 20th century economy are still very strong. There is no reason for health insurance to still be coupled to employment, and be regulated as much as it is.

[wufan]

Because our Federal model for Healthcare and Education was designed for the Industrial revolution and a post-war manufacturing economy.

The interest groups for maintaining a 20th century economy are still very strong. There is no reason for health insurance to still be coupled to employment, and be regulated as much as it is.

There's an argument to be made that healthcare cost would drop on its own in a competitive market place. Look at elective surgeries such as plastic surgery and lasiks have come down in price as the popularity has increased. Meanwhile regulated things like drugs and MRIs have sky-rocketed in price.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

...left believes more gov solves problems and the more people we work for the better. Right believes economy solves problems, and the less people the better.

Give me any problem and I can site theory (and possibly real world examples) of how that worked and failed for both types ideologies. Neither is correct or wrong in all situations.

That is not entirely true, but it is a common misconception. Republicans do not necessarily believe in small government and free market solutions. That's the Libertarian point of view. Democrats do not necessarily believe in big government, but that narrative gets shoved down our throats and Democrats do a piss poor job of refuting it.

One example of this is social policy. Republicans want government heavily involved in what some consider very private personal matters. Abortion? The platform advocates a government ban. Gay marriage? Most Republicans support a government ban. In these select instances, Democrats are actually the party of small and uninvolved government.

In economic matters, Republicans tend to view government as an impediment to economic growth and that the fundamental aim of economic policy is to provide goods and services in the cheapest and most efficient manner possible. Democrats tend to believe there are certain societal concerns that sometimes overrule industry's ability to provide things cheaply and efficiently. So there are some fundamental differences there that support your argument.

But don't fall into the false narrative that Dems want more government and Republicans want less government. It's not that simple, and it's not true.

[wufan]

That is not entirely true, but it is a common misconception. Republicans do not necessarily believe in small government and free market solutions. That's the Libertarian point of view. Democrats do not necessarily believe in big government, but that narrative gets shoved down our throats and Democrats do a piss poor job of refuting it.

One example of this is social policy. Republicans want government heavily involved in what some consider very private personal matters. Abortion? The platform advocates a government ban. Gay marriage? Most Republicans support a government ban. In these select instances, Democrats are actually the party of small and uninvolved government.

In economic matters, Republicans tend to view government as an impediment to economic growth and that the fundamental aim of economic policy is to provide goods and services in the cheapest and most efficient manner possible. Democrats tend to believe there are certain societal concerns that sometimes overrule industry's ability to provide things cheaply and efficiently. So there are some fundamental differences there that support your argument.

But don't fall into the false narrative that Dems want more government and Republicans want less government. It's not that simple, and it's not true.

I don't really disagree with you. Please note that I chose the terms left and right intentionally over the terms Republicans and Democrats. The right would include the libertarians and libertarian leaning republicans, and the left would include socialists and socialist leaning democrats.

[wufan]

Here's a great 10 minute video that everyone should watch: https://youtu.be/zwkheFc-KWI