The liberal and conservative mindset.

[Swede]

I have a mindset. It is a liberal mindset. All the arguing in the world will ever change it. I will concede a point of error to a conservative,but he will never shift my point of view.
Now reverse liberal with conservative in what I just wrote and you can see why arguing with them is so frustrating. We cannot change thier point of view.
But we can point out individual errors,and boy are they stacking up right now.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

1. Fair enough, but I think we can convert some. I have.

Some people just don't think about what they're saying, until you (subtly) point out the contradictions. Works best if they think that they came to the conclusion themselves. Tricky, but not impossible.

[HereSince1628]

2. Both conservative and liberal personalities exist

And I'll grant that its pretty hard to change someone's personality.

Conservative personalities, according to recent research on cognitive motivation, dislike ambiguity and uncertainty. To some extent all of us shift toward institutions that provide emotional safe havens when we are threatened.

To the extent that BushRove successfully push perpetual war and insecurity they shift everyone toward conservative, more authoritarian positions. For some conservatives this means pushing for authoritarian if not totalitarian solutions. But many people are affected. Just think about how many liberals would have admitted in 1998 that in 2004 a presidential candidate would have to be "strong" on homeland security.

Since fear is emotional it seems to me that the conservative personality isn't going to rational arguments. Rather to bring souls back toward the left they need to have their anxieties lowered. Until that happens the landscape will remain tilted and like a marble caught in a gravitational field public sentiments will be drawn into that sink. Consequently the left, even to remain in place, must work harder, smarter to stay outside that influence.

BTW I think this can be done. We will fix this mess.

[rucky]

3. Here, Here!, here

We can't hate them and win them over at the same time. We must try to understand the root of their thought patterns.

Great insight!

[ShimokitaJer]

4. You don't need to change their mindset

What you need to do is point out how the current administration does not conform to the ideals of that mindset.

Bush and Co. are NOT "conservative." They are fundamentalist, corporate welfare supporting, big spending, and in favor of government interference in states' rights. In other words, any true conservative who examined the issues would not support them.

The real problem is that people are now equating "conservative" with "Republican" and "liberal" with "Democrat" and voting on that basis. Anyone who thinks Lieberman supports the "liberal mindset" is out of their mindset.

Also, despite the impression the two parties like to foster, few Americans are as set in one single mindset as you are. Most tend to vote one way or the other, but have only a vague idea why they do so, usually relying far more on ill-researched assumptions about candidate personality or party character than on any overriding ideology. Evidence (like that building against Bush) that those assumptions are false can swing them to the other side.

[goddess40]

5. Thoreau

At our peace meeting last night one of the members said Thoreau said the true goal of conservatism is to find a justification for selfishness. It's the old "I got mine screw you" mentality.

[HereSince1628]

6. I'm no longer sure of the existence of a mythic middle

If there is a huge middle of voters that pick and choose based on their feelings, then that group may be rather reactionary, voting on the basis of their circumstance. If an argument can be made to appeal to that group, which seems to be the idea of "third way" candidates, maybe it is a winner. But, my understanding of the polls is that on issues the country is fairly polarized now.

Reality doesn't always take the form of a bell-shaped curve with most events occurring in the middle--even if that is an important assumption of some analyses. If the nation is polarized, if the distribution of sentiments is strongly bimodal, then there may be no massive middle population. Strategies that go either to the left or the right will work better. That may explain the appeal of current democratic candidates perceived to be on the left rather than candidates seeking the center or the center-right.

[ShimokitaJer]

9. The polls show polarization because of the questions they ask

You see polls all the time about gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, etc.

When was the last time you saw a poll asking about a guaranteed living wage?

I'm not suggesting that the people aren't divided on the questions we ask them, but as long as we keep asking them only those questions that conform to the policy points the two parties approve, the parties will be the only ones determining what "left" and "right" mean.

Yes, the Dems are pro-choice and the Repubs are anti-gay marriage. How does any of that help us figure out who is going to reduce poverty in this country, something the general public cares about but has difficulty attributing to either party. Why? Because the fact that the policy points state that "Dems want to give away all our hard-earned money to the poor" and "Repubs only care about the rich" keep our attention diverted from the reality.

[Northwind]

7. False

"All the arguing in the world will ever change it. I will concede a point of error to a conservative,but he will never shift my point of view."

This statement is the antithesis of a liberal mindset. You are no liberal. You might be a "progressive," but not even close to a liberal.

[Swede]

23. Please explain that.

If liberal is between left and right,where does progressive sit.

[RichM]

8. Arianna & David Brock went from right to left. David Horowitz switched

from left to right. Numerous counterexamples to your thesis exist.

[ShimokitaJer]

10. Wrong

Arianna realized the Republican party was not conforming to the ideals she formerly believed it did and switched to an independent... much like Jeffords.

David Brock was and is an opportunist who will say whatever gets him published.

Neither of them changed their core belief system.

[HereSince1628]

11. Have Arianna and Brock ever said why they switched?

I'm not familiary with either of their stories.

[IronLionZion]

12. there's more than two ideologies out there

liberals and real conservatives are surprisingly similar on a lot of issues. It's no big secret that right-wingers have hijacked the conservative/republican movement the same way the Taliban/Al Qaeda try to hijack Islam. A few bad apples can cause a burning hatred for the whole barrel.

There are many progressive conservatives out there, which is why I am a "progressive" rather than a "liberal".

[rucky]

13. If half the nation is still supporting *

I don't see where the common ground could possibly be.

[ShimokitaJer]

16. Well, you could start by not assuming they're all idiots

People have a wide range of reasons for supporting Bush.

Some support him simply because he's a Republican and they always vote Republican.

Some support him because they are ill-informed and don't see the range of news that we do.

Some support him because he gave them a big tax cut and they believe that Americans should pay less in taxes.


No, these are not completely fleshed-out reasons, but they make just as much sense as a Democrat saying they'll vote for Lieberman if he's the candidate because he's pro-choice.

These people don't need to be told that they're all a bunch of dumbasses and we no better so they should vote for our candidate. They need to be told that they've been sold a president who used to talk a good game, but doesn't really stand for what they thought he did. Many of these people care about a lot of the same issues we do, and it's only the two parties and the media's love for simple dichotomies that makes us seems so completely opposite.

[HereSince1628]

15. Progressive conservatives seems a contradiction in terms

conservatism is traditionally associated with holding to old values and resisting change. Progressives are seen as somewhat the opposite of that

Could you give an example of a progressive conservative policy position?

[Some Moran]

24. Wrong...

The opposite of progressive is regressive. One can be conservative but not be regressive: It would be absurd to argue that people like Joe Clark (who supported marijuana legalisation and worked with the NDP) or Jean Charest (French Quebecker in the political mainstream. 'Nuff said.) are regressive.

Barry Goldwater wasn't regressive either: His opposition to civil rights legislation was based on what he believed to be sound constitutional principles (Arizona could hardly have been called a hotbed of racism.), but at the same time he didn't support slavery or segregation, and he was libertarian on virtually every issue except foreign policy, on which he was hard right. He hated the regressives: The Reicher "Christians" and the neo-con fascists.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Single Biggest Mindset Point That Creates The Disconnect

Conservatives want leaders, liberals want representatives. They want people to TELL them what to do, we want people who do what we tell them to do.

That difference in fundamental need is why there is really no way to fully bridge the gulf.
The Professor

[HereSince1628]

18. Conservatives like black and white resolutions of issues

since it reduces ambiguity and faciliates making choices (even if they aren't well informed). Demeocratic process is messy and unpredictable.

Because authoritarian leaders typically provide issues as stark dichotomy with obvious choices there is an appeal.

Bush uses such dichotomies all the time
with us or against us
support the administration or be unpatriotic
evil vs good

So I agree that authoritarianism is associated with conservatism.

I also point out that this is also one of the problems with discriminating between radical conservatism and fascism. I would argue that authoritarianism is a tendency in most conservative systems, while extreme authoriarianism, in the form of oligarchic or dictatorial rule, is the characteristic that pushes extreme conservatism into the totalitarianisms of the right (well at least anti-liberal) a.k.a. falangism and fascism.

[Speck Tater]

17. I converted a conservative with one question.

If you absolutely had to live in a neighborhood that was mixed Christian and Muslim which of these four possible neighborhoods would you choose to live in?

The neighborhood with:

1. Conservative Christians and conservative Muslims.
2. Conservative Christians and liberal Muslims.
3. Liberal Christians and conservative Muslims.
4. Liberal Christians and liberal Muslims.

It was clear to him that the only neighborhood likely to be safe, peaceful and prosperous is number 4. I merely had to point out to him, after he made that choice, that any time you put conservatives of any kind into a neighborhood you create fear, discord, mistrust, and, as in neighborhood #1 above, violence and death. Thus conservatism is the cause of violence.

He got very quite for a long time. I could tell he was really thinking about it, trying to refute my case.

When I saw him a few weeks later he talked about how excited he was about his new favorite candidate, Howard Dean. Miracles can happen.

[rucky]

19. WOW

there is no refuting that one.

as much as they wish to deny it, we all gotta live together

[HereSince1628]

20. Interesting...your proposition nails the issue of insecurity

a long recognized characteristic of personal conservatism, and typical in ideological conservatism during times of crisis.

[mw]

21. Yes, but Cons have "a mindset". Libs have "many mindsets"

Liberals defend openmindedness. Conservatives defend their closedminded views.

It's not even fair to give "liberals" a name. Liberals arent a group! We agree on nothing! That's why getting Dems together is like herding squirrels.

In reality, it's not "Conservative" versus "Liberal", same and equal sides to the same coin. Nope. It's "conservative" versus "EVERYONE ELSE".

Conservatives are an island of sameness in a sea of difference.

They're the island. Liberals are the sea.

[HereSince1628]

22. Again, liberals tend to see complexity, conservatives shun it

I am sure that people who call themselves conservatives support various "conservative agendas" in varying degree. But they don't see that. They also have done an extremely good job of creating institutions that generate "group think" like AEI and Heritage.

These tanks think for them, generate ideologies and talking points. Liberal think tanks are less common, maybe because liberals don't need others to think for them?