If Liberals are so empathetic...

Post Reply New Topic

I've suspected this for years, especially for liberals living in heavily liberal areas that don't really interact with average conservatives and get this distorted idea of them from the commentators and such. The analogy I like is that your average conservative is a lot more like the cartoon character Hank Hill than the cartoon character Rush Limbaugh; not that you could tell from the media noise emanating from both sides of the line. The conservative media does themselves no favors in this regard, but since the liberal side so often claims intellectual superiority I tend to hold them to that when it comes to discerning reality through the distortion. My view is that if you're so much smarter than the other guys, show me, don't tell me.

As to why some liberals attach so much import to what conservative commentators have to say, well you got me there. I mean I occasionally participate at ideological sites like DU or RS in order to test my own ability to argue and keep myself from falling into an ideological bubble, but I really don't see the point in getting upset about the opinions of entertainers. They're just political shock jocks; getting mad at them for saying something obnoxious is like getting mad at Howard Stern for being lewd, it's just what they do.

Uggh, I really do wish the religious right would just go away, even if I do understand that they're just doing what they think is the right thing. They've poisoned the whole debate and inextricably linked many otherwise good and reasonable ideas with overbearing social conservatism. I probably have more reason to dislike them politically then most liberals do, but getting, really getting where they're coming from prevents me from hating them.

Sorry to mangle the response, I'm working back through these in a weird order.

To answer this question though; no one is the "good guy" here, I'm just using a provocative study finding to explore some issues that interest me.

I feel that secular, moderate or "Eisenhower" Republicans are a rarity, or at least are not as visible. Perhaps a split in the US right, with the theocrats forming their own party, or the secular ones doing the same, would be a good thing. Removing abortion, gay rights and other religiously prolonged issues from the floor would definitely help change the climate of the divide.

I think moderate Republicans are more discreet than rare, they don't announce their presence in the same way that the more militant factions do. The ones I know in Seattle certainly don't go out of their way to stand out, the local GOP office even used to have a sign in the window that said "you are not alone". There's this funny sort of secret handshake thing that goes on among non-liberals in the area upon meeting for the first time, with topics cautiously broached until both parties are secure in where the other stands. It sounds ridiculous, and really it is pretty ridiculous, but it's hard enough making friends in Seattle without people jumping to conclusions about you because of your politics. There's even a name for it, the "Seattle Freeze".



That's my long game, though I want to see both sides fractured into far and center parties with more clearly defined differences in true agenda. Splitting the progressives off of the Democrats wouldn't create quite as great an impact as severing the evangelicals from the Republicans, but long term I think it would be best for everyone.

If you had seen it, you would have recognised a Scrooge McDuck wannabe, as you put it. He was talking about his personal income and how it would be better in a country which didn't tax the rich so heavily. His moan was about income tax and he spoke of all the riches he could hold on to, if he lived elsewhere. He didn't say how he intended to become one of these rich people, so maybe he just had a pie in the sky idea anyway, who knows. If your income is such that you are paying the higher tax band, you are wealthy. You should be able to afford to pay a little more income tax. That's my objection. I get that some people have dreams of being rich and then some. I personally find that sort of attitude distasteful and it looked like the majority of the audience agreed.

It goes both ways.

I didn't bother reading much of the replies here, but there is one thing I have to say. I have no empathy for social conservatives who are against gay marriage. I will never empathize with them because it is not worth my effort. They are wrong and I am right. Empathy only goes so far.

As for the monetary aspects of conservatism, well, they have some good points, but it is hard to deny that republicans overall tend to be more on the heartless side. I mean, come on, at least the ones you see on tv are.

You know, I don't really feel like debating this, but it really just goes both ways. Liberals are called evil, pathetic, and dumb just as often as conservatives.

Not according to the study. Did you bother reading it before commenting?

You would not give it that definition. That's the whole point of the thought experiment.



What if your family are Nazi party members? What if your religion is the National Reich Church?



But you are routinely given an interpretation of "God's law" that makes it clear that God is an antisemite, and that Jesus is a Nordic superhero.

The problem is that being loyal to something has nothing to do with whether it is a good thing. The moral things that you are in fact loyal to are moral because they are fair, and because they are against oppression. They are not moral because you are loyal to them.

Well, if you look at some polling data over 20% of Republicans support gay marriage and legalization of marijuana. Even more surprising over 20% support raising taxes on the rich. Seriously! Sure, it's only 20% but if you listened to the current discourse you'd think the numbers should be closer to zero percent. Don't quote me on the exact figures as I'm only recalling from a vague recollection.


Well, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of Seattleites are just plain rude and bitchy. I had someone in the grocery line counting my items and telling me to go to a different line. The line was "12 or fewer" and it turned out I had 9 items. My parents also had experiences with irate drivers and cyclists. There are friendlier "liberal" towns. Vermont is nice and they have very liberal gun laws despite being the most left-leaning state in the US. The liberal hippie types and more conservative rural outdoorsman types tend to get along just fine.

Anyone who is worth real money doesn't talk income, they talk net worth. Try to look at it from an entrepreneur's perspective, they are taking the financial risk by starting a company rather than taking a "normal" job. "Investors" are by nature risk averse, so any additional risk must be compensated by a higher return. Furthermore, when you work for yourself you are free to spend as much time as you desire working and billing clients, you can work 100+ hour weeks if you have enough business. Without people doing this, the economy collapses, if the risk isn't compensated entrepreneurs do not start companies.

It seems a big chunk of conservative Americans don't see it that way. They attribute the entire pre-tax income as money that is "rightfully earned" and any non-flat tax rate as "redistribution" and "punishing success". They even make the most ret*d arguments equating income to test scores or academic performance, as if social class is a 100% function of individual aptitude and effort. Luck and being born into a more privileged existence play zero role and if you try to argue with that you get called a "whiner" or "loser". Even if you have the "cred" of being "successful" enough to pay a higher tax bracket, if you state that you are happy to pay a higher rate the argument is "well then, why don't you just voluntarily sent the government a check instead of making other people pay". I've wondered if the solution is just to let the rich people who want to opt out of paying taxes start their own society. They can have the state of Nevada for instance.

Income, rather than net worth, is taxed because it would be ridiculous to force someone to sell off their assets in order to pay their taxes. The tax system is set up so as not to incur risk. I'd even propose giving owners of business start-ups a temporary near zero tax rate and only phase in taxes once they're making a healthy profit. Even as the current system stands, one can write off business expenses against personal income. It simply involves getting through some red tape.

Capital gains tax?

The point of the statement is that you can have a high income and be quite broke, but if you have a high net worth you're far from broke.

Capital gains tax does not incur risk. At most you can argue it disincentives investment, though even that claim is rarely backed up with actual evidence.

In any case we're going way off topic.

Conservative painter Jon McNaughton, as seen on The Colbert Report, clearly shows empathy for "the other side." I think, as McNaughton's examples show, extreme ideologues and partisans from the liberal or Democratic side and the conservative or Republican side often have trouble understanding each other's points of view. I find the themes of his artwork somewhat bizarre and almost comical in their caricature. He seems to take the Tea Party stance that President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are motivated by greed and some comic-book villain desire to destroy the Constitution and enslave all Americans.

To be honest, I don't think all conservatives are as rigid and black and white in their stance against "the opposition" and can, to an extent, see the other side. The Tea Party movement, though, has brought a maelstrom of this extremist thinking on the Right, however. Maybe since I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic school, I can better understand the mindset behind conservatives better than a liberal who grew up in a completely secular environment on the West Coast, I can understand where he's coming from, but I find him to be ludicrously misguided. I doubt he has any friends who identify as liberals, which makes it easy for him to caricature "the leftist professor," the "liberal reporter," and "Mr. Hollywood." The guy grew up in Mormon Utah, so probably all he knows is other observant, conservative Mormons.He doesn't seem to understand that liberals are not motivated to do evil and enslave their compatriots.

I understand that people like Jon McNaughton put preeminent value on their faith, so they feel making secular government subservient to that is good to them, but this is always going to clash with people who don't share those ideals. This is why liberal, secular government came about in the first place: to end civil wars over religion and the like.


"One Nation Under God"


"One Nation Under Socialism"


"Wake Up America"