Asymmetry in political thinking

[fskimospy]

I found this paper to be interesting:
http://conference.mpsanet.org/papers/archive.aspx/2011/129807 (it's a downloadable PDF)

Basically the point of the paper is that not only do liberals and conservatives disagree on issues, they don't even think about them in the same way. According to the results of this paper liberals look at what government should do in terms of group benefits. ie: does law X make society better by accomplishing goal Y. Conservatives on the other hand look at things ideologically. ie: more government is intrinsically bad regardless of what it is doing.

The fact that one side values outcomes more and the other values ideological purity more kind of explains why Democrats are more willing to compromise on issues and it also explains why symbolic gestures are so powerful on the right.

It raises an interesting question too of how you work in a divided government when the two sides aren't even talking the same language.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Conservatives on the other hand look at things ideologically. ie: more government is intrinsically bad regardless of what it is doing.

Hmmm, not really.

Because if big government and government involvement is bad, then conservatives would not care about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Furthermore, they would ensure subsidies are scaled back considerably. At the very least, stop giving corporate welfare to profitable businesses.

Opposing views as a-OK, no issues with that. But, when there are opposing views, with one (and even both sides) have conflicting views - on their OWN side - you can't get anywhere.

 

[fskimospy]

Hmmm, not really.

Because if big government and government involvement is bad, then conservatives would not care about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Furthermore, they would ensure subsidies are scaled back considerably. At the very least, stop giving corporate welfare to profitable businesses.

Opposing views as a-OK, no issues with that. But, when there are opposing views, with one (and even both sides) have conflicting views - on their OWN side - you can't get anywhere.

Did you read the paper? I was using government as an example - the thing I was talking about was how conservatives prize ideological purity.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Did you read the paper? I was using government as an example - the thing I was talking about was how conservatives prize ideological purity.

So, this idealogy would NOT be applicable, or lead to how each side governs?

 

[fskimospy]

So, this idealogy would NOT be applicable, or lead to how each side governs?

No, it would be that Republican ideology states that government interference in economic matters is generally bad, but government enforcement of social norms is ok. That broad ideological purity is what is prized.

 

[Newell Steamer]

No, it would be that Republican ideology states that government interference in economic matters is generally bad, but government enforcement of social norms is ok. That broad ideological purity is what is prized.

Isn't that contradictory? Government involvement - only when I say so.

And, if we are talking about social norms, then what measures are in place to prevent someone from abusing said "say so"? Which, has been abused.

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't that contradictory? Government involvement - only when I say so.

And, if we are talking about social norms, then what measures are in place to prevent someone from abusing said "say so"? Which, has been abused.

You could certainly view it that way, but what does this have to do with the paper?

 

[Newell Steamer]

You could certainly view it that way, but what does this have to do with the paper?

The paper states their idealogies - understood.

So, it ends there? No further discussion.

Apologies for the irrelevant tangent then.

 

[Jaskalas]

Did you read the paper? I was using government as an example - the thing I was talking about was how conservatives prize ideological purity.

There's a Hobby Lobby thread next door which displays Democrat ideological purity.

 

[fskimospy]

The paper states their idealogies - understood.

So, it ends there? No further discussion.

Apologies for the irrelevant tangent then.

Sorry, I'm not understanding. The paper speaks to a fundamentally different way of approaching policy, which is a big problem. If one person is prizing outcomes and the other ideology, that's an issue.

 

[cubby1223]

This isn't exactly the first time we've heard arguments that "the left" are problem solvers while "the right" are ideologues.

I skimmed through the pdf and didn't find much of anything new added to the conversation.

To me the important discussion is the level beyond that - why are conservatives conservative, and why are liberals liberal? My best guess is that most all people act in their self interest. For example, if you were born into a strong family, you do not need the government to replace the role of family. But if you were born into a broken family, you need the government to replace the roles that are absent in your life. If you have a secure, sustainable job and blend in with mainstream society, probably be conservative because you do not need what government is offering. If you have a very insecure job and mainstream society rejects you, probably be liberal because you need what only government authority can over-ride.

 

[rudder]

Well this is promising. It is good to know that all liberals think the same and that all conservatives think the same. I was under the mistaken impression that there was a lot of individuality involved. At least this makes it easier for the overlords to rule us.

 

[shady28]

I found this paper to be interesting:
http://conference.mpsanet.org/papers/archive.aspx/2011/129807 (it's a downloadable PDF)

Basically the point of the paper is that not only do liberals and conservatives disagree on issues, they don't even think about them in the same way. According to the results of this paper liberals look at what government should do in terms of group benefits. ie: does law X make society better by accomplishing goal Y. Conservatives on the other hand look at things ideologically. ie: more government is intrinsically bad regardless of what it is doing.

The fact that one side values outcomes more and the other values ideological purity more kind of explains why Democrats are more willing to compromise on issues and it also explains why symbolic gestures are so powerful on the right.

It raises an interesting question too of how you work in a divided government when the two sides aren't even talking the same language.

Your characterization of the paper is a bit dubious.

I would also point out, that the surveys it relies on calls conservatives concerned with "ideology" and the other part of the survey "group benefits" (not "outcomes").

To whit, the paper says this :

"The American left, in contrast, is less an ideologically unified movement than a looser
coalition of social groups whose interests are served by government activity of one form or another and who have found a political home under the big tent of the Democratic Party"

"... liberals are more divided by specific issue concerns"



And of the right :

"... a self-identified conservative movement whose members are united by a devotion to the principles of small government and cultural traditionalism."

In other words -

The left is a loose coalition of special interest groups that want special "group benefits" for themselves through political (gov't) legislation.

The right is a closer knit group who generally reject the idea of special "group benefits" and prefer not to have the gov't interfere in any more aspects of their life.


Summary :

Someone spent a shitload of time writing a 40 page paper to come to a conclusion that anyone with a brain has known for at least 30 years.

 

[Dannar26]

I didn't read the document, but your summary (or the paper's conclusion?) seems a bit high handed. What's being said is that those on the left are logical, while those on the right are out of touch with reality, chasing instead esoteric ideals.

Surely if the left offered solutions to problems that work, we wouldn't be in this present mess. The world has never been more liberal. Why do things always seem like they're getting worse?

 

[cubby1223]

When you try and make grand statements like "the left" are problem solvers while "the right" are ideologues, it's just silly because there are plenty of examples that go against that, when the right try to solve problems while the left are ideologues.

After 9/11 Republicans had a problem they needed to solve, and the federal government took actions it felt necessary to achieve desired outcomes. I know of no "small government" ideology that dictated the war in Iraq.

And it was the left that grew louder in proclaiming that the things the Republican Party was doing to "solve" the problem of global terror should not be done, and fell back on ideologies. The President should not have the power to do such things under any circumstances.


One side's problem solving is viewed by the other side as ideology, regardless of left vs. right.

"The left" has basic ideologies that the government should strive for certain outcomes and can use a range of tools to solve the problems along the way. "The right" is the same, it has a basic desired outcome, and a range of tools to solve the problems along the way.

 

[chucky2]

EDIT: Changed the analogy around, made more sense. Pretty sure if someone is going to get raped, they'd rather have the raper use a condom...

Well...

...if you rape my wife and daughter, but argue that using a condom violates your rights and thus shouldn't be using one, we're probably not going to get along too well, even though you denounce me for my unwillingness to support you on your lack of condom usage.

Some things are ideological before you get into solving the issue. Witness illegal invasion, "starving/needy" welfare recipients buying Pepsi and Cheetos, etc. etc. Take the illegal invasion issue: There are a lot of Righties I know that are all for immigration reform - they are happy to fix expired visa issues, look at balancing real need for guest workers, etc. Not a one has any interest in that reform happening until the border is locked down for real, because they know precisely what will happen: We'll give people here illegally a bunch of concessions (even though we don't need to give them sh1t), and more will just stream across the border - as we know is exactly the plan from the Left and Right Leadership.

So now we get back to this study: Righties are lambasted for being ideological, Lefties are seen as poor stymied "problem solving" victims. Did we need a study to tell us that Righties aren't interested in debating the condom usage of the guy raping their wife and daughter? Probably not...

 

[SMOGZINN]

We'll give people here illegally a bunch of concessions (even though we don't need to give them sh1t), and more will just stream across the border - as we know is exactly the plan from the Left and Right Leadership.

You see the ideology is that immigrants are bad, which you espouse with out even knowing it is a ideology that is not shared.
The left see that we have had this same argument about ever wave of immigrants for the last 200 years. The Irish did not destroy America and take away all our jobs, neither will the Mexicans.

 

[nehalem256]

You see the ideology is that immigrants are bad, which you espouse with out even knowing it is a ideology that is not shared.
The left see that we have had this same argument about ever wave of immigrants for the last 200 years. The Irish did not destroy America and take away all our jobs, neither will the Mexicans.

No, the ideology is that ILLEGAL immigrants are bad.

Your distortion is basically the same as someone twisting saying that rape is bad means they think sex is bad.

 

[chucky2]

You see the ideology is that immigrants are bad, which you espouse with out even knowing it is a ideology that is not shared.
The left see that we have had this same argument about ever wave of immigrants for the last 200 years. The Irish did not destroy America and take away all our jobs, neither will the Mexicans.

Do you see now the problem eskimospy with the Right leaving an ideological stance and entertaining this? In the space of one post, we've gone from people here illegally, plus bringing/having children here illegally (and Yes, I know having a kid here is not illegal, but, the kid would never have been here had the parent not been here illegally, so it's the same affect), to 'Horrible Righty, you're not a Native American, so who are you to say your established country should take exception and - gasp - take action to prevent itself from being illegally invaded by a neighboring country?'

Instead of starting from what should be, and then working back towards it with realistic compromises to get as close to what should be as possible, the line has already been drawn that if you don't support "immigrants" (notice how the word illegal got dropped off there), you're basically xenophobic. How does one compromise with the other side when the other side has already misconstrued where you stand and insulted you?

 

[ivwshane]

This chart basically says it all:

http://primarycolors.net/proof-republican-party-cant-be-moderate-in-one-graph/

Basically republicans don't compromise no matter who they represent and stick to their ideology while democrats will. This I think further strengthens the papers point.

 

[cubby1223]

This chart basically says it all:

Not really.

The chart just calculates how often the representative votes on the side of the Republican Party versus with the Democrats.

But the chart doesn't say anything about the merits of the bill, whether the content of the legislation is "far right" or "far left", nor does it take into account the dynamics of which party is in control of the house, if you're in the party with the minority of the house, there isn't the same pressure to stand strong in unity.

It's a chart designed by progressives to tell a narrative for progressives.

 

[ivwshane]

Not really.

The chart just calculates how often the representative votes on the side of the Republican Party versus with the Democrats.

But the chart doesn't say anything about the merits of the bill, whether the content of the legislation is "far right" or "far left", nor does it take into account the dynamics of which party is in control of the house, if you're in the party with the minority of the house, there isn't the same pressure to stand strong in unity.

Next time read the article first before commenting.

 

[Knowing]

I'll get around to reading the OP, but I also recommend this $2 ebook: The Three languages of politics. You can find more media on Kling's thoughts if you google for it.

tl;dr-
Progressives think in terms of oppressors vs oppressed
Conservatives think in terms of civilization vs barbarism
Libertarians think in terms of coercion vs freedom

 

[cubby1223]

Next time read the article first before commenting.

I read it.

The final score incorporated is based on party-line votes. Largely, progressive votes follow Democratic legislation and conservative votes follow Republican legislation

Or are you going to go on your usual pattern of continuously making shit up out of thin air to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with you? We've been down this path before. Want to go another round? Quite honestly, I prefer not to, I have more valuable things to do with my time than to continually refute your nonsense.

 

[BUnit1701]

You see the ideology is that immigrants are bad, which you espouse with out even knowing it is a ideology that is not shared.
The left see that we have had this same argument about ever wave of immigrants for the last 200 years. The Irish did not destroy America and take away all our jobs, neither will the Mexicans.

There is an established and proper method for immigrating to this country. Leaping a river and crossing a desert are not part of it.