Dissonance

[smoothmoniker]

Was working on a record in Sydney a few years back, and got invited down to Melborne to see the Anzac's Day footie. We asked our hosts which team we should "root" for, and got a horified look in response.

Rooting is a vulgar expression for getting your sex on, which would be a very odd way to "barrack" for your team.

Go Bombers.

-sm

[wolf]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Rooting is a vulgar expression for getting your sex on, which would be a very odd way to "barrack" for your team.

Worked jolly well for the rainforests though, didn't it?

[jaguar]

bombers?
Sydney?
*hangs head*

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

Just because two things or ideas are inextricably linked does not mean that you must have the same opinion of both things, even if they are just separate qualities of the same concept. For instance, I can love Wal-Mart's low prices and product selection, but loathe the company itself. There is a logical separation of ideas there, and one is not dependent on the other, so they're not really contradictory. What I mean is, the things that cause me to dislike Wal-Mart are things other than the prices and product selection... such as their business practices and smothering growth.

The same logical separation allows us to support our soldiers, while still condemning the war in Iraq. The soldiers are not the war, they're just one high-profile aspect. The citizens are not the nation.


Extreme conservatives like the ones you describe usually love their country and rich people. That's why they dislike social service programs and the like, but they still love their country.

Yes, I see what you are saying. Kind of like you can "hate the sin and love the sinner" or support the soldier but loathe the government who sent him off to war. That's still not exactly what I'm trying to get at. I don't think its flying in the face of logic to disagree with a politician's decision to wage war while feeling sympathy for the young soldier who puts his life on the line for his country. One can view the politician as older, wiser, and cynically out for some ulterior motive as he stays safely at home while the soldier is young, politically naive, and out there doing the fighting.

Extreme conservatives may love their country and rich people, but they try to convince one that they love everybody when it should be obvious to everyone that they don't.

But the liberal point of view is just as flawed, really. If I as a liberal feel angry with the government for not providing a better educational system or better health care, why do I turn to the very same culprit (the government) seeking redress of these wrongs? As the years go by, I loose ever more confidence in the government. I have come to realize that I have as little faith in the government as most Libertarians seem to have. I guess what it comes down to is that I don't believe that we any longer have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Perhaps, this is where my feeling of dissonance comes from as much as anything. It seems to me that "the people" have given up and become polarized into those "knee jerk" camps we spoke of above. I think "the people" feel pretty powerless to influence civic or political events and this sense of powerlessness, whether acknowledged or not, translates into fear and a type of xenophobia. The white folks are afraid of the brown and black ones, the black folks and the hispanics dislike the white; and we all retreat to our seperate gated communities and hate one another while waving our American flags. But maybe I'm being overly cynical.

[Undertoad]

I have stayed out of it but I know the, uh, compassionate conservative answer to the original question, from having been a compassionate libertarian.

The compassionate conservative believes in people more strongly than the liberal - that people have the ability to overcome problems in their lives, that the individual has the ability to spend his/her money more intelligently than the government, and that in the end the individual's choices will result in a better overall condition.

The compassionate conservative says that when we offer public support to people, we reduce them in spirit, by reducing our expectations of what they are capable of.

The compassionate conservative believes, not that there should be no safety net for people, but that the family and other civic-level groups are capable of providing a far better safety net than the government. And that these entities are losing their footing in the world, because if there are government programs, there is less *need* for the family and other civic-level groups at all. The compassionate conservative says government programs are inevitably full of waste because of their nature and will never do a truly good job of providing for the people.

I offer all this for a level of understanding, not because I am a compassionate conservative.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by marichiko

What I'm asking about is the ability to hold such paradoxial views as the ones I pointed out above in your own mind at the same time, and think nothing of it.

Well I know its possible because it happens in my own head quite a bit and usually it stays there. I sometimes argue with myself too (not out loud, of course ). In my experience though, if there tends to be more emotion involved then it gets harder to move on to other things and see other points of view and easier to want and try to impose your view on someone else.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by marichiko

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.

I think hard left and hard right pretend to respect the individual but when the rubber meets the road neither trusts their fellow citizens to make the most appropriate choices for themselves. More and more we insert law as the lubrication between people where community might suffice. This tendency moderates as you move toward the center where Americans share more values, but it never goes away (ignoring Badnariks <1%). It will be interesting to see how both parties market their positions, from here on out. Bush is in a bad spot with the fiscally responsible and Kerry is only "not Bush" to the anti-war crowd. To some extent they both have problems with their natural base which will lead to tension when they go for the center.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by jaguar

bombers?
Sydney?
*hangs head*

Melborne. Stayed with a gentleman named Colin Carter, who was a league commissioner, he was an essendon fan, so we were essendon fans.

-sm

[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.

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I have stayed out of it but I know the, uh, compassionate conservative answer to the original question, from having been a compassionate libertarian.

The compassionate conservative believes in people more strongly than the liberal - that people have the ability to overcome problems in their lives, that the individual has the ability to spend his/her money more intelligently than the government, and that in the end the individual's choices will result in a better overall condition.

I try not to get into these types of conversations, but this was curious.

Wouldn't the rate of pay for many jobs have to improve greatly in order for individuals to spend/save their money more intelligently? I guess I'm looking at it as better wages, better incentive to save. I don't know of anyone that doesn't like the aspect of a "cushion". Living exactly check to check without hardly anything leftover to save/spend isn't the greatest way to live, IMO. Oh and lower prices for goods and services wouldn't hurt either.

The compassionate conservative believes, not that there should be no safety net for people, but that the family and other civic-level groups are capable of providing a far better safety net than the government. And that these entities are losing their footing in the world, because if there are government programs, there is less *need* for the family and other civic-level groups at all. The compassionate conservative says government programs are inevitably full of waste because of their nature and will never do a truly good job of providing for the people.

Better hope there isn't any major drama in that family that's supposed to provide for those members that are in need. That could put a *slight* damper on receiving any funds/aid. In many cases, "blood" doesn't mean a damn thing, except that you share DNA.

I offer all this for a level of understanding, not because I am a compassionate conservative.

Understood. :thumpsup:

Originally Posted by Griff

I think hard left and hard right pretend to respect the individual but when the rubber meets the road neither trusts their fellow citizens to make the most appropriate choices for themselves. More and more we insert law as the lubrication between people where community might suffice. This tendency moderates as you move toward the center where Americans share more values, but it never goes away (ignoring Badnariks <1%). It will be interesting to see how both parties market their positions, from here on out. Bush is in a bad spot with the fiscally responsible and Kerry is only "not Bush" to the anti-war crowd. To some extent they both have problems with their natural base which will lead to tension when they go for the center.

I think you are correct in your perception that the extremes on either end have little faith in their fellow citizens. I don't consider myself an extremist (I may be a liberal, but I don't believe in socialism, for example). However, I'm afraid I don't have much confidence in the American voter either. The percentage of those who vote continues to drop, and those who do vote seem to be remarkably ill-informed. To quote Yeats' famous lines:

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

This seems to me even more appropriate now then at the time when Yeats first penned those words.

[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.