Maybe it’s that because at least starting in college, we have to confront the biases of our professors, listening to, engaging with and responding to their arguments that we develop the appreciation of opposing arguments.
Yesterday, Bruce alerted me to a poll (which I had also noticed) showing how (compared to Democrats) broad-minded Republicans are:
Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.
On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”
The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.
. . . .
Pew’s new study echoes the results of many other reports and studies that show GOP supporters are better educated, more empathetic and more open to criticism than Democrats.
Emphasis added. In addition, more than twice as many liberals as conservatives “deleted friends from their social networks after disagreeing with their politics.”
And yet the perception persists that conservatives are intolerant troglodytes, lacking the understanding of their arguments of their ideological adversaries or unwilling to associate with those holding views different from their own. Wonder why that is.
There are very straightforward reasons as to why.
Conservativism at its core involves two distinct points:
1) Things are the way that they are for a reason
2) The fact that you may not know, understand, or like that reason does not necessarily mean that it is wrong.
Liberalism on the other hand, has the opposite tack:
1) You are smarter than everyone else is
2) If anyone disagrees with you, they’re racist/sexist/homophobic/ignorant/superstitious/all of the above.
Hence why liberals cannot abide the presence of conservatives. We must remember that liberals literally see us as the manifestation of mass murderers and genocide perpetrators for disagreeing with them. This is why they constantly call Republicans and conservatives Nazis, Klan members, theocrats, homophobes, and so forth; in their deluded minds, disagreement with them is identical to setting up a death camp.
We conservatives sort of have to be smarter and broader minded because we are surrounded by a media, political, and acedemic culture dominated by liberals. We couldn’t seal ourselves off from opposing viewpoints even if we wanted to. It is much easier for the left to do that. They need only avoid FoxNews, talk radio, and conservative blogs. To put ourselves in a bubble would require isolation from all forms of media.
Hi Dan,
One could surmise, as the writer and you did above, that this is because of inherent wonderful characteristics of GOP sympathetic individuals. Who knows, you might be right.
Alternatively, perhaps the folks they asked, looked back at the previous administration, and decided that in terms of action, the GOP didn’t actually behave as a “small government” party. I have no idea, the question they asked didn’t eliminate that possibility. The question asked in the survey is:
. Perhaps they needed to put in something like–“Given the present day behaviour and comments of the two parties, as of today…”
In any case, would you discount the possibility that there might be another reason for why a differential of Democrats might perceive the GOP as a big government spending party, apart from ignorance; i.e., does my suggestion add another possibility to consider?
If you remain cold or lukewarm to that, consider that the survey has a combined sampling error (plus-minus) for Dems and Repubs of 14% (7.5% Rep; 6.5% Dem). If I am right about that, only three questions are statistically significant at 95% confidence–the one above; as well as, who is the most conservative party (and one might argue that the Repubs in the last Administration, didn’t act like “true conservatives”); and, Arctic drilling. That last one is a genuine puzzle, and bodes ill for caribou, I think. 🙂
The good news is that the advantage in question answered by Dems more correctly than Repubs, also disappears. The only category where there is a significant statistical difference is in terms of education. Age was within the sampling error interval for party ideas supported (17% spread oldest-youngest), though older folks do have better history skills. I conclude that we can say, with assurance, that the more educated and older you are, the more likely you are to know your history. Other claims are mostly suggestive.
Yes, that might be an issue! You might be right to triumph the claim you have in your post, Dan, but I do not think the statistics really back it up I am afraid.
Liberals, by definition, can not understand the concept of enough is enough. Change, for a liberal is always bigger and better. And liberals are always pushing things around to suit their notion of how thing ought to be.
Liberals play by special rules which permit the liberal elite (all liberals) to make things “right” for everyone without debate and interference from the weak minded souls who “need” them.
There is no representative democracy envisioned by a liberal. At least not so long as liberals are forced to drag people kicking and screaming into Utopia.
Or, in the case of the EPA, crucifying the ones who won’t get with the program.
If you click on the Daily Caller piece Dan linked to and then you click on the next link at the bottom of the Daily Caller piece (whew!) you get to this:
That has been my understanding and argument all along.
Liberals are married to moral relativism in which they make the hole fit whatever peg they want to force into it. They believe their situation ethics and consensus morality is forward thinking and, well, liberal.
Conservatives see the game and know what wild card is trying to be played and understand that it just more ends justifying the means hocus-pocus writ large.
Liberals look at the conservatives and see knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who can’t get with the program.
And on and on it goes. At least until some liberal calls Godwin’s Law as a special rule and orders the silence (censorship) of the conservative.
NDT #1 – Love the matrix. You left out a couple options though.
Libertarianism:
1) Things are the way that they are for a reason
1) You are smarter than everyone else is
Pure authoritarianism:
2) The fact that you may not know, understand, or like that reason does not necessarily mean that it is wrong.
2) If anyone disagrees with you, they’re racist/sexist/homophobic/ignorant/superstitious/all of the above.
🙂
Meh. You’d have to class me with the liberals there (and indeed, I don’t claim to be a conservative), and yet I oppose leftism with all my might. So, my first anecdotal data point (myself) is enough to complicate the theory.
Mine as well, although it would be more accurate to say that I fit in with neither group. “Aiding victims” sounds like charity, and I’m not a charitable person. I have no idea what “fairness” means in this instance (it seems to me that fairness according to liberals is antithetical to fairness according to conservatives). I’m also not sure exactly what “sanctity” is supposed to mean, but whatever the case, it is not a value I hold in very high regard. I call myself a conservative because I tend to agree with conservative positions on issues, and I sort of doubt that ideologies can be simplified to these values. Having said that, I suppose it is likely that these values represent a significant portion of their respective ideologies’ adherents.
I just think it should be voluntary. If it’s coerced (i.e. governmental), then it’s not from the heart… and it is theft. As two wrongs don’t make a right, ends don’t justify means, crime causes practical harm, etc., the harm caused by the theft generally outweighs whatever good it was supposed to have done.
I don’t know either. I would have brought in “tradition”. Conservatives have an important insight, that traditions evolve for reasons, usually to stabilize society and protect large numbers of people from harm. For me though, that’s an intellectual issue; tradition does not make my breast swell with emotion. I’m willing to look at the reasons that tradition X evolved, but I don’t usually feel any emotional attachment to keeping it.
Demanding that the Government take money from other people to spend in ways you find compassionate is not charity.
ILC,
Let me understand, you don’t associate yourself with loyalty, authority and sanctity? The quote from the author (Haidt) does not layout how these three areas are defined and assessed, but it is those three areas witch separate the conservatives from the liberals in the lines quoted.
In my experience, “moderates” tend to be more based than liberals in the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic and belief in law and order as a basic role of government and have a measurable faith in the existing order.
The more progressive the ideology, the more confident the person is that society can be reformed through the power of government.
I don’t particularly agree with that interpretation.
Liberals believe in aiding victims with other peoples’ money, not their own. Hence why Nanzi Pelosi, Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy, and John FU Kerry demanded massive outlayers of taxpayer dollars while simultaneously dodging taxes.
Liberals believe that “fairness” involves them getting what they think is fair, regardless of how unfair it is to anyone else. Hence why OWS Obama Party supporters want everyone but them to have to pay for their own educations.
Liberals believe in individual liberty for themselves, especially to have sex with whatever they want at government expense, but that the nanny state needs to tell everyone else what to do. Hence why gay-sex liberals demand “freedom to marry” while simultaneously demanding state crackdowns on freedom of speech and religious belief.
In short, conservatives must by their very own philosophy recognize that other people have worth. Liberals cannot acknowledge the worth of anyone that is not their subordinate or in total agreement with them.
I agree with this completely.
Well, of course you don’t, Cas; you’re a liberal. Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong by definition; your post is, as Heliotrope so elegantly put it, “just more ends justifying the means hocus-pocus writ large”.
There is no reason for anyone to waste logic or effort on you because, frankly, you are a bigoted imbecile trying to perpetuate the delusion of your own superiority.
NDT,
I take your point, but I have not read the book and I am operating off the quote provided. Naturally, that means I am reading into it what I suppose I want to find.
I take away from the quote that liberals lack a firm set of principles (likely) based on the Judeo-Christian ethic and therefore, their “feelings” are not grounded by any sort of rules. They can make things up on the fly and discard them at will.
Conservatives, on the other hand are bound to the “authority” of an ethic and morality and must work things out (including aiding victims, fairness, and individual liberty) within the ethic and morality.
Liberals don’t understand conservatives, because they have no binding ethic or morality.
Conservatives see liberals as blowing right past a binding ethic and morality.
That is my understanding of the thing…….
Well said, Heliotrope. You have a very good way with words!
ummmm….your link is to a conservative website interpreting the studies, not to the studies themselves. How’s about the link to the actual studies?
Love the number of false conclusions here that were arrived at by false logic / incorrect premises.
If there are so many false conclusions arrived at my false logic, it should be easy, Kevin, for you to demolish them one by one.
Let’s say that on a personal level, I associate myself with loyalty, and whatever sanctity that comes with respecting others’ rights and being above-board.
But in public policy matters, those words ‘in themselves’ don’t resonate with me. In the public square, I see them only as means to greater ends. For example, a citizen should be loyal to the truth; but the central value there is truth, not loyalty per se. One should respect just authority; but the central value there is justice, not obedience to authority in itself. And so on.
At least, that’s how I think about it. I think it may be different from how conservatives think about it, hence, I should not really call myself one.
Yeah, me neither. I am afraid I brought a fair amount of bumper sticker philosophy to this thread. That is not usually my style.
I will have to read the work.
We are on the same page, Heliotrope.
My contention is that one cannot say that liberals are “focused on aiding victims, fairness and individual liberty” because that implies that they have a fixed set of principles centered on such things that would outweigh their feelings. I think you are far more correct to state that liberals do NOT have a firm set of principles and driven by whatever “feeling” they have at the moment — which means that they only “(focus) on aiding victims, fairness and individual liberty” when it suits their feelings/need of the moment.
There are innumerable examples. Liberals whine about the need to protect victims of Wall Street until it would involve prosecuting and punishing Obama bundler and Wall Street rep Jon Corzine. Liberals whine about making the rich pay more out of “fairness” until it hits Rangel’s villa, Kerry’s yacht, McCaskill’s plane, Pelosi’s insider-trading games, Obama’s house purchase, Buffett’s billion-dollar bill, and so forth. Liberals believe in your individual liberty to rape a thirteen-year-old, get her pregnant, and then have the abortion done without her parents or the police ever having to know about it, but demand that you present multiple forms of ID and medical evaluations to own your grandfather’s Colt .45.
Consistency and repeatability are the key to almost anything that makes the world go ’round. The danger of inconsistency can be seen in the US economy, where we have a clownish buffoon in charge picking winners and losers based on donations, randomly selecting companies to “crucify”, and operating under the belief that it is better to reward the lazy and punish the productive since the former are easier to control and assure votes.
Liberals live in a fantasy world that they often create themselves, but, ironically, do not see the fake world as artificial. Therefore, when they try to implement their Utopia–such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, & President Obama–implented ObamaCare, Porkulus, & Dodd-Frank–they did not think there would be negative consequences.
ObamaCare is the most obvious negative. Obama lost all of his political capital with ObamaCare & his crediblity & trust was forever shattered. He remains a Lame Duck president since 2010. Nancy Pelosi–who was Obama’s stand-in for POTUS–although removed from Speaker, the Democrats could not get rid of her. She remains in the delusion she will be speaker again. And the Democrat-lead Senate has done nothing since the House changed hands to Republicans.
Worse, Democrats remain so transfixed by their fantasy, they cannot see their world is crumbling. They are in deep denial. Even another electoral bloodbath won’t wake them up. It’s just the people, according to the Democrats, are just too stupid & the Democrats have a messaging problem.
Liberals will create new victims too when they think they need them. Hence the “War on Women” meme that has backfired so many times, yet they are so desperate to resurrect it anyway.
Liberals have gone way beyond the old Liberalism that once permeated the Democrat Party. They’ve embraced SOCIALISM and all of the intollerance, bigotry and HATRED that goes with it. Old time Liberals tolerated other views. Liberal Socialists do not and can not tolerate any views other than theirs. Liberals have morphed into Liberal Socialists and have adopted much of Adolf Hitler’s ideas and policies toward nonbelievers. Liberal Socialism, which now plagues our nation is the First Cousin of Hitler’s old National Socialism. While Liberal Socialists PRETEND to defend the rights of Gays and Lesbians, they only want their MONEY as a means to achieve LS goals. Liberal Socialists will turn their backs on Gays, just as the National Socialists did in Germany, once it no longer suits their goals. Liberal Socialists have already turned their backs on Blacks as they have their votes and know that they will keep them. Look at the antipath toward achievers, perpetrated by LS Democrats. Look at the anti-Capitalism that Liberal Socialists embrace. They are using the National Socialist PLAYBOOK more and more everyday. Stirring up Blacks and Hispanics against Whites is another one of Hitler’s ideas, modernized for the Liberal Socialist movement. 0bama may yet seize complete control of the government in a coup, enabled by a trumped-up national “crisis.” With a willing Senior Leadership of the Armed Forces, 0bama can pull it off.