Dissonance

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Here's something I've been wondering about (I have too much unwanted free time on my hands, I know). It seems to me that people who identify with the conservative end of the political spectrum claim great patriotism and love for their country while at the same time evincing a great dislike of a sizable number of their fellow Americans - like we shouldn't have social service programs because everybody will just jump on board the government "gravy train" and never do a lick of work again. Or they say, "Let's get tough on crime and throw everybody in jail and execute 'em all."

On the other hand, people who gravitate toward the other end of the political spectrum seem to be pretty free in their criticisms of the country, but more concerned about the well-being of its individual citizens. Like we should have better governmental security nets for the old folks or people who get sick or who need help because they're had a run of misfortunes in their lives.

How can you love your country and dislike its people? If this is a government by the people and you love that concept, how can you at the same time be so suspicious of your fellow countrymen? By that logic, wouldn't you as a conservative, have to hate your country, as well? If you as a liberal dislike your government, how can you feel that it will do a good job helping our people? I don't want to get in some big debate about welfare, we've done that already. What I'm curious about is the dissonance going on in both groups. Do you see this too? And if so, why do you think it's possible for people to hold such contradictory ideas in their head without even being troubled by it? (I am really glad Radar no longer reads my posts on this one!)

Let's not forget doublethink.

[jaguar]

I was wondering about the sydney bit, there still isn't much footy up that way, more rugby country. I don't really follow aussie rules anymore but last I check the bombers were still one of the strongest teams.

[jaguar]

Wow, too true.

The US is a bit different but I know that in many countries 'labour' or left wing parties underwent a dramatic change over the last 20 odd years and moved away from their union power bases. It was the rational thing to do but it moved them to the right and made both parties very similar, while both have their stigmas they are becoming less and less true.

I feel it's one of the biggest sources of voter apathy, both major parties are just too damn similar, this problem is even more extreme in the US where both are massively beholden to *ahem* external interests and fighting over a very narrow patch of political ground. Plato got it right in republic, soldiers, businessmen and politicians and never the twain shall meet.

The similarity runs deeper than that though, economic policy has matured to a point where there isn't much room for variation outside dodgy political moves like Bush's tax cuts. Protectionism is out and in most cases downright illegal and health and education policy seems more driven by budgetary realities than ideology.

The death of the nation state has ben predicted for a very long time, we're nowhere near there yet but maybe it'll be though stagnation, inaction and the resulting irrelevancy, merely filling out certain functions without variation rather than working to change the face of a nation.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by jaguar

... merely filling out certain functions without variation rather than working to change the face of a nation.

And therein lies the fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberal ideology holds that it is the function of the state to change the face of the nation. They believe that social engineering is a valid function of the government. Conservative ideology holds that it is the function of the state to serve the limited universal goals of the nation as efficiently as possible. Justice, common defense, education.

It is more difficult to chance the face of the nation by changing the hearts and minds of the people within it, but it is ultimately more effective, and more just.

Mari, it’s quite a jump to go from opposing a welfare state to “hating poor people.” Yes, I love this country, no I don’t hate its people. My brother can’t hold down a job. I love him dearly, but I don’t give him money. Does that mean I hate him? Is it possible that I can see an “enlightened self-interest” (to hijack a phrase) for him in being self-reliant rather than knowing that he can hit up his younger brother for a check whenever things get tight

-sm

[jaguar]

Well bush can't be very concervative then can he?
Show me a government that doesn't. By it's very nature it does, for a government wields great power and power exists only to be weilded. A state will do what is in it's interest, whether that be accepting immigrants and massively changing the ethnic makup of the population or providing education that will change the socioeconomic landscape, the examples are endless. Like a giant, every footfall leaves an imprint.