What are the main ideological differences between the “Left” and the “Right”?* Here is a handy chart detailing the primary differences. Please note that I am focusing on ideological differences as opposed to how those ideological differences translate into specific policy differences such as taxes or abortion.
|
Left |
Right |
|
1. Rights come from government |
1. Rights come from God |
|
2. Focuses on rights |
2. Focuses on responsibilities |
|
3. Believes in positive rights |
3. Believes in negative rights |
|
4. Progress beyond traditions |
4. Conserve traditions |
|
5. Views social outcomes in terms of power dynamics |
5. Views social outcomes in terms of personal decisions |
|
6. Sees people as groups |
6. Sees people as individuals |
|
7. Society is the source of evil |
7. Individuals are the source of evil |
|
8. Values equality of outcome |
8. Values equality of opportunity |
|
9. Values equality over liberty |
9. Values liberty over equality |
|
10. Believes life’s problems are best solved by bigger government |
10. Believes life’s problems are best solved by the ingenuity of private citizens |
|
11. Government’s role is to achieve and protect equality |
11. Government’s role is to protect liberty |
|
12. Idealist – Policy decisions based on what feels morally right |
12. Pragmatic – Policy decisions based on what will result in the most good |
|
13. Prefers a regulated market |
13. Prefers a free market |
|
14. The meaning of the law is malleable, and should be interpreted in light of the evolving needs of society |
14. The meaning of the law is fixed, as determined by the words and the intent of those who wrote the law |
|
15. Individualistic |
15. Nationalistic |
|
16. Children belong to the community |
16. Children belong to their parents |
|
17. Feelings determine reality |
17. Reality determines reality |
|
18. Globalists |
18. Nationalists |
If you can think of any additional ideological differences, please share in the comments.
____________________________
* I realize that these categories are not exhaustive, and that people do not always fall neatly into one side or the other. As such, take this as a generalized, if not idealized categorization.
Thinking to Believe 
April 23, 2021 at 6:12 am
Great effort Jason. I certainly cannot improve it of the top of my head. But I suspect that you are being too kind to the left. From what I have been seeing in their method of reporting news and commenting on social, cultural and political issues, there seems to be another dimension to their side that includes intentional misinformation, misrepresentation, lying and “race baiting”. I have compiled many examples but have not yet had the time to piece them all together so people can see how often it is done. I am afraid that the Christian church has again fallen asleep on the level of influence that the anti-American Marxist, Communist and other such groups have infiltrated our educational, governmental, Social and Cultural existence here in America.
LikeLike
April 23, 2021 at 8:35 am
Left: Law is malleable and should evolve with society. Judges can and should circumvent conventional democratic processes for social justice.
Right: Law is fixed and should be only be changed by the People through their elected representatives. Judges are only empowered to interpret the law as understood at the time of its enactment.
LikeLike
April 23, 2021 at 8:36 am
I might add that law shouldn’t be a Left/Right issue, but it sadly is.
LikeLike
April 23, 2021 at 9:21 am
Scalia, I think you will need to define what you mean by “LAW” and “Social Justice”. I think it is the skewing of such terms that has made playing games and confusing matters so easy, and prevents intelligent dialogues and solutions. I agree that “Laws” passed to benefit all should not be Left/Right, and are not. But “Laws” that are created and passed by LEFT or RIGHT to benefit just a select few are the problem.
LikeLike
April 23, 2021 at 9:46 am
that’s the problem —– who defines what liberties and where to draw the line.
we shouldn’t be a theocracy so some laws had to change but the problem is human nature always takes it to the extreme.
LikeLike
April 23, 2021 at 9:54 am
@Dan
Hi, Dan. Thanks for your comment. The list that Jason has put together simply summarizes the divide between the Left and the Right. Jason asks whether anything can be added to the list, so my suggestion merely summarizes the general differences that exist between the two with respect to the law.
I agree with you that there are nuances that should be defined to enable intelligent dialog to proceed.
LikeLike
April 29, 2021 at 2:33 pm
As someone who is decidedly progressive myself, most of your list doesn’t make sense to me. For instance:
“1. Progress beyond traditions 1. Conserve traditions”
This part makes sense, so I agree. Progressives see the problems with society that still need work, and work to improve them. Sometimes that conflicts with conservative traditions. That happened with slavery, the right for women and minorities to vote, civil rights, same-sex marriage, and so on. Conservatives almost always come around eventually, though.
“2. Views social outcomes in terms of power dynamics 2. Views social outcomes in terms of personal decisions”
Progressives view social outcomes in terms of maximizing social wellbeing, not power dynamics. If people’s personal decisions harm others simply for being different, that’s a problem.
“3. Sees people as groups 3. Sees people as individuals”
The left embraces diversity, which means seeing people as individuals. Racism and white supremacy are all about exclusionary groups, and they are predominantly found on the right, not the left.
“4. Society is the source of evil 4. Individuals are the source of evil”
I’d say both are true. Clearly individuals commit evil behavior (e.g., mass shootings, child abuse, gaslighting, etc.), but so do societies (e.g., systemic religious bigotry, racism, sexism, etc.).
“5. Values equality of outcome 5. Values equality of opportunity”
I think you have that backward. The left strives to help people achieve equal opportunity, whereas the right values the privileged. For example, those in poor communities generally have less access to quality education, healthcare, and home and food security. The left tends to tax the wealthy to help improve access for the poor, giving them an equal opportunity to achieve their life goals rather than perpetuating the cycle of poverty. The right tends to cut taxes on those who are already wealthy, contributing to greater inequality in opportunity.
“6. Values equality over liberty 6. Values liberty over equality”
Again, that appears backward. Generally, the left values social wellbeing, equal opportunity and the liberty to be who you are. It’s the right that has more problems with the liberty to be who you are. After all, which side embraces diversity, whether it’s religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, race, sex or LGBTQ? And which side is overwhelmingly white, Christian and anti-LGBTQ? When you’re used to privilege, equality seems like oppression. So being expected to treat others the way they would like to be treated, rather than treating them as secondary citizens, can seem like an attack on one’s liberty, when it’s really just about treating everyone with common human decency.
“7. Believes life’s problems are best solved by bigger government 7. Believes life’s problems are best solved by the ingenuity of private citizens”
Again, I’d say both are true. An unregulated free market inevitably results in “robber baron” capitalism, where the rich become richer and the poor become poorer (a big problem over a hundred years ago), which requires good government regulation. But excess government regulation can stifle ingenuity. Some projects are too big for private companies, like the original moonshot, fighting wars, dealing with a pandemic, etc. But eventually private industry can take over such projects and become more efficient. Sometimes they need to work together–like private industry vaccine production with government distribution. So it’s not an either or situation at all.
“8. Government’s role is to achieve and protect equality 8. Government’s role is to protect liberty”
Again, I think you have that backward. It’s the right that appears to be more interested in taking away or preventing liberty, like abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, the right to protest, and non-Christian religious rights…all things that the left encourages.
Perhaps you’re confusing different definitions of equality. Nobody on the left is saying everyone should be equal in all respects. Equal opportunity, equal rights, equal access, yes…but that’s not the same thing as saying everyone should be the same.
“9. Idealist – Policy decisions based on what feels morally right 9. Pragmatic – Policy decisions based on what will result in the most good”
Again, that sounds completely backward. Progressives want what results in the most good for the most people (maximizing wellbeing). That happens when people have equal opportunities to succeed, something that requires access to a good education, nutrition, healthcare and a home. You don’t have equal opportunity if you can easily be wiped out by an unforeseen medical emergency or lack a home or have trouble getting enough decent food.
Meanwhile, it’s the right that seems most concerned about what feels morally right. After all, they tend to object to LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, etc. on moral grounds based on their religion.
“10. Prefers a regulated market 10. Prefers a free market”
I think we can agree on this one. Any student of history knows what happens with unregulated markets–like the robber baron example above, and more recently the financial deregulation that caused the Great Recession. Too much regulation can be stifling, true, but the right seems to have an obsession with eliminating regulation to the point of harming the economy, environment and our health.
If I were to add a few points of my own:
11. Rejects fascists and authoritarians 11. Accepts fascists and authoritarians (a point made especially clear by the January 6 insurrection)
12. Generally changes beliefs to fit science 12. Generally changes science to fit beliefs
13. Wants religious freedom for everyone 13. Wants religious freedom primarily just for Christians
LikeLike
April 29, 2021 at 2:44 pm
Thank you for the clarity Scalia
LikeLike
May 11, 2021 at 8:04 pm
Dan, I would love to see your examples. Please email them to me at theosophicalruminations [at] gmail [.]com.
LikeLike
May 11, 2021 at 8:04 pm
Scalia, yes, the view on the law is a good one. I will add it to the chart.
LikeLike
May 11, 2021 at 8:05 pm
Derek,
Too much to respond to, but let me hit a couple.
(1) I should clarify that conservatives aren’t always conserving and never progressing, and progressives aren’t always trying to progress and never conserve. They are simply strongly bent in one direction or the other.
At least for one item on your list, slavery, it wasn’t the progressives who fought against slavery, but the conservatives. Yes, fighting against slavery was a progressive issue, but the otherwise progressive camp did not see this as progress. They wanted to conserve slavery. Democrats were always the party of slavery, while Republicans were anti-slavery. That’s not to say there weren’t any outliers, but it holds true generally speaking. I don’t know enough about the political history of voting et al to comment on this.
(3) I couldn’t disagree more. Critical race theory is the best example of this. Group identity matters more than personal character. As for diversity, yes, they prize that, because they prize the group. They want the group to be diverse.
(5) There’s too much to say on this one. Let me just clarify something. I’m not saying that the Left opposes equal opportunity (although they do, in a sense, which I’ll explain in a moment). They want equal opportunity because equal opportunity is necessary for something they value even more: equal outcomes. In other words, for the Left, equal opportunity is a means to an end.
So in what sense do they oppose equal opportunity, then? If equal opportunities do not produce equal outcomes, then the Left is all for making the opportunities unequal in order to ensure that the results are equal. For example, schools are changing enrollment standards because Asians are disproportionately doing better than all other races. So instead, they make the opportunities unequal to make sure the results (admissions) are equal.
Conservatives, on the other hand, value equal opportunity as an end in itself. If equal opportunity does not result in equal outcome, so be it. We understand that outcome is based on more than opportunity. It is based on hard work, skill, and sometimes just good luck or who you know.
(6) This is related to #5. If the Left has to take away someone’s freedom in order to ensure equality of outcome, they will do it. Because the Right does not expect equality of outcome even when opportunities are equal, they are not about to take away someone’s freedom to ensure equality. Let me give you an example. Mask mandates take away our liberty to go maskless (our normal way of living). Why is it that Democrats say the vaccinated must continue to mask? It’s not because there is any evidence that the vaccinated can still transmit Covid to others or that they can die from Covid (literally, only 1 in 1,000,000 vaccinated go on to die from Covid). The (unspoken) reason the Left won’t lift the mask mandate for the vaccinated is practical: it would be too hard to determine who is vaccinated and who is not, and thus too hard to enforce the mask mandate for the unvaccinated. To avoid this practical problem, the Left would rather continue to make everyone wear masks (equality) than give the vaccinated the freedom to go maskless. Perhaps there are better examples, but that’s the only thing I can think of right now, and I’ve been away for 36 hours, so cut me some slack.
(8) Prohibiting certain behaviors is not antithetical to “liberty” because “liberty” is not the same thing as libertine. No one thinks people should have the liberty to commit acts of evil that bring harm to society. The Left and Right simply disagree on what acts bring harm to society. Now, it is true that the Left tends to allow more things than the Right, but that’s because we have different moral philosophies. The Left tends to adopt a minimalist ethic. However, I am being too gracious to the Left. They love to pass laws, and all laws restrict liberty in one way or the other. While the Right may want to deny same-sex couples the right to marriage because they believe this is contrary to the nature of marriage, the left wants to pass laws that take away conservative’s ability to act on their conscience in regards to this issue (I’m thinking about demands that bakers, florists, and photographers provide their services for same-sex celebrations that violate their conscience).
(11) What happened on Jan 6 was despicable, but calling it an insurrection is just a misnomer. And I would love to see any evidence that the Right is fascist or authoritarian. Those are features of the far Left.
LikeLike
May 20, 2021 at 5:36 pm
“At least for one item on your list, slavery, it wasn’t the progressives who fought against slavery, but the conservatives. Yes, fighting against slavery was a progressive issue, but the otherwise progressive camp did not see this as progress.”
Yes, there are progressive Christians, that’s true. They’re the ones who don’t consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. But it’s the biblical literalists–Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, etc.–who SUPPORTED slavery…because the Bible endorses it: https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/why-christians-supported-slavery.html
“Democrats were always the party of slavery, while Republicans were anti-slavery.”
That’s true about the NAMES of the parties, but the MEMBERS are not the same. During the Civil War, the Democrats were generally pro-slavery while the Republicans were generally anti-slavery. But by the 1930s, their positions on many issues had essentially completely switched (for various reasons, detailed here: https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html). But it wasn’t until the passing of the Civil Rights in 1964 that the white supremacists and other racists left the Democratic party and became Republicans: https://www.history.com/news/how-the-party-of-lincoln-won-over-the-once-democratic-south. That’s why the vast majority of racists are Republicans now: the two parties switched sides.
“Critical race theory is the best example of this. Group identity matters more than personal character.”
That is a complete misunderstanding of critical race theory. All it is is a legal examination of how race and racism impact social and cultural issues. Our previous discussion is a good example of this: you evidently weren’t aware of how hundreds of years of inability for blacks to accumulate wealth during slavery, and the subsequent social and legal policies that set the scale heavily against black advancement for many decades after that, resulted in severe disadvantages for blacks financially. In fact, most white Americans aren’t aware of this. Critical race theory is about educating people in important race and racism issues they aren’t aware of. So this isn’t about group identity mattering more than personal character, it’s about learning about the disenfranchisement of certain races throughout history and figuring out how to rectify it.
“They want equal opportunity because equal opportunity is necessary for something they value even more: equal outcomes. In other words, for the Left, equal opportunity is a means to an end.”
As a left-winger myself, I can say that’s not true at all. Virtually NOBODY wants equal outcomes! What we want is minimum basic services for everyone (such as healthcare, housing, food security, etc.), which gives people the basic conditions needed to grow and succeed. And we want those who have massive advantages (especially the uber-wealthy) to help pay for those services. When multi-billion dollar corporations can pay zero state taxes, while someone struggling with multiple jobs to make a living wage pays a significant portion of his income in taxes, that’s not equal opportunity. The objective is to lift all boats, not allow a tiny fraction of people at the top to take advantage of multiple opportunities to become wealthier at the expense of the poor and middle class.
The ideal model for this is the Scandinavian democracies, which have plenty of rich people, but virtually no poverty. Taxes are higher there, but not onerous: https://www.europeanceo.com/finance/why-scandinavian-entrepreneurs-are-flourishing-in-high-tax-environments/. In fact, businesses thrive there and their citizens have great healthcare and other services, low crime rates, great standards of living…and they are the happiest nations in the world. We could learn a thing or two from them.
But so many conservatives in the US are opposed to such improvements. As the saying goes, conservatism is the intense fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is inferior is being treated as your equal.
“If equal opportunities do not produce equal outcomes, then the Left is all for making the opportunities unequal in order to ensure that the results are equal.”
When certain people have difficulty getting ahead because of systemic disadvantages (e.g., low income resulting in worse education opportunity), the decent thing to do is to help those people overcome those disadvantages by providing them with special dispensation. Conservatives perpetuate the claim that the poor have equal opportunity, but they rarely do. Progressives want those who are struggling for the American Dream to have ACTUAL equal opportunity to succeed. This is NOT the same as believing that all the results must be equal. Those who want more than the basics still have to work for them…but at least they don’t have to start out with a deficit that puts them at a severe disadvantage.
“Conservatives, on the other hand, value equal opportunity as an end in itself.”
But they don’t. Time and time again they give tax breaks to the rich and more than generous financing for the military, while cutting services for the poor. It’s the progressives who keep trying to provide equal opportunity.
“Mask mandates take away our liberty to go maskless (our normal way of living). Why is it that Democrats say the vaccinated must continue to mask?”
There are multiple good reasons for mask mandates. First, we KNOW there are variants to the coronavirus, and whenever a new species evolves, it’s impossible to know initially whether existing vaccines are effective. Until the virus is nearly wiped out by herd immunity, there’s always the opportunity for new variants to evolve and spread.
Second, we know that some people who have been vaccinated can still catch the virus (96% effective is not 100% effective) and that some people cannot be vaccinated, so until the virus is essentially eradicated, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.
Third, COVID is a lot more dangerous than you think. COVID deaths have been seriously undercounted, with the real number of deaths close to 1 million in the US alone: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/05/06/994287048/new-study-estimates-more-than-900-000-people-have-died-of-covid-19-in-u-s. Furthermore, 40% of diagnosed COVID patients with at least one underlying health condition are hospitalized: https://www.tfah.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVIDunderlyingconditions040320.pdf, and 76 percent of people who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 experienced at least one lingering symptom 6 months after recovering: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/over-75-percent-of-people-hospitalized-with-covid-19-have-symptoms-months-later. Thus, the damaging effects of COVID go well beyond the relatively small overall death rate.
Fourth, yeah, it’s hard to tell who is vaccinated and who isn’t, and we know that those who are least likely to get vaccinated are also the least likely to wear masks. This isn’t about taking away rights, it’s about following the science for public safety.
And finally, who said anyone has the inherent right to go maskless? There’s nothing in the Constitution to support that. Even rights that ARE in the Constitution aren’t absolute. For instance, we have the right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn’t mean you can randomly fire rounds into the air in a crowded city, because people could die from such irresponsible behavior. Those who refuse to wear masks are very much like those who would randomly shoot bullets into the air–sure, there’s a good chance your bullets won’t kill anyone…but they might. Same thing with masks, and we don’t even have any particular right not to wear them.
“No one thinks people should have the liberty to commit acts of evil that bring harm to society. The Left and Right simply disagree on what acts bring harm to society.”
That’s what science is for. We have expert epidemiologists and virologists who study the research and provide us with the best recommendations as the data come in. There isn’t any “right” or “left” science; there’s only the best evidence available, and changing policy to fit the evidence as it comes in.
“Now, it is true that the Left tends to allow more things than the Right, but that’s because we have different moral philosophies. The Left tends to adopt a minimalist ethic. However, I am being too gracious to the Left. They love to pass laws, and all laws restrict liberty in one way or the other. While the Right may want to deny same-sex couples the right to marriage because they believe this is contrary to the nature of marriage, the left wants to pass laws that take away conservative’s ability to act on their conscience in regards to this issue (I’m thinking about demands that bakers, florists, and photographers provide their services for same-sex celebrations that violate their conscience).”
In other words, the right wants the right to openly discriminate against other Americans just because they’re different, is that it? Hiding behind “religious liberty” as an excuse to justify bigotry isn’t something that America should tolerate. We should be better than that.
And think of the potential consequences. What if someone claims their religious convictions require them to abuse Christians? Should that be tolerated? Of course not. People shouldn’t be discriminated against because they happen to hold different beliefs or–especially–have characteristics they were born with…unless those beliefs are bigoted.
“What happened on Jan 6 was despicable, but calling it an insurrection is just a misnomer. And I would love to see any evidence that the Right is fascist or authoritarian. Those are features of the far Left.”
Have you not watched the footage??? Literally HUNDREDS of Trump supporters assaulted and invaded the Capitol building. They smashed through doors and windows and assaulted police with spears, baseball bats, bear spray, even fire extinguishers. They killed cops. They hung up a noose and chanted to hang the vice president for not overthrowing the election results. They smeared feces in the halls, broke into offices, and stole items. And some even carried zip ties and hunted for congresspersons in order to take them hostage. Their stated objective was to overthrow the results of the democratic election. If that wasn’t an insurrection…what is?
Insurrection: “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/insurrection
LikeLike
September 12, 2021 at 3:31 pm
Ruminator, Sorry for the delay in reply. Been crazy busy. I will send you the requested examples. This is a great topic as it is a big divide these days. I noticed that many Progressives will auto reject what Conservatives say just because they are Progressives, without bothering to even evaluate and directly respond to the argument being made. The same is true of some Conservatives, but from my experience, at a lesser rate. I have been meaning to compile many of my encounters with progressives, so your request helps to motivate me. I will put together just the brief list of comments that gives the essence of their tactics. I would be interested in your comments. Thanks
LikeLike
September 14, 2021 at 8:59 am
My reply to derekmathias April 23, 2021 9:54 AM
“1. Progress beyond traditions 1. Conserve traditions”
DM- I am not sure how you are defining “conservative”, but “Conserve traditions” does not mean stuck in traditional views that were and are wrong. Nor does it mean avoid working to improve problems. Conserve traditions has to do with preserving good traditions, not bad ones. There is nothing in conservatism that requires us not to progress. I also noticed that you had to inject long past bad “traditions” that are not related to current Conservatism –Slavery, Women’s rights and “Minority vote and Civil rights, to make your point. But only Homosexuality, (Same Sex marriage) is a cause that current true conservatives would justly appose. So time jumping is not an appropriate way to compare the two views. Additionally, there are a verity of types of Conservatives and “Progressives” who do not always agree with the group thought on a number of issues, and so defining just what kind of Conservative and progressives you are referring to is important. A modern Christian Conservative is different from an atheist Conservative. There are homosexuals who claim to be Conservatives, and “Christian” who often side with progressives. If you knew all of this and still injected Slavery, Women’s rights and “Minority vote and Civil rights into your reply, it is deceptive, dishonest and crafty. If you did not know this, then perhaps this forum is not the place for you to practice in.
“2. Views social outcomes in terms of power dynamics 2. Views social outcomes in terms of personal decisions”
But how do you define social wellbeing? The way progressives addresses the homosexuality and abortion issues, can hardly be called maximizing social wellbeing.
“3. Sees people as groups 3. Sees people as individuals”
Again, it depends on how you define your terms. While progressives may indeed “embrace diversity”, it is the way they do so that defines the problem. Progressives embrace diversity by celebrating and promoting depravity,(Homosexuality) and murder (Abortion), while using the claim of “embracing diversity” to give the impression that they are being kinder and more reasonable. Conservatives on the other hand also “embrace diversity”; only they do so by simply acknowledging that people are different and have different taste, and generally respect those differences. But we do not agree that acknowledging and respecting such differences requires us to support and defend those differences that are harmful to society, devious, perverted or just wrong. Putting lipstick on a donkey does not make it a woman, and celebrating and defending homosexuality or abortion does not make you “progressive”.
“4. Society is the source of evil 4. Individuals are the source of evil”
But Progressives do tend to intentionally generalize issues as “institutional evils” rather than deal with individuals who are the actual culprits. They will call “America” Racists when in truth it is not, there are only many people in America who still suffer from that condition, and they are not all “White”. But “White” racism is what progressives focus on. “Systemic Religious Bigotry?” How do you define that? Any group that believes they alone have the correct religious teachings? Or a group that treats everyone outside their religion as enemies? The latter I would say, but that does not make “society evil”, just such groups, which can hardly be viewed as “society”.
“5. Values equality of outcome 5. Values equality of opportunity”
Again, you are being dishonest here. Your claim that the “left” strives to help people achieve equality is a simplistic generalization that ignores their harmful methods of doing so. And it falsely claims that the “right” does nothing to help the poor. In doing this, it seems that your goal is not to be honest and fair, but to intentionally deceive. You should know that both sides and even the poor themselves play a role in their poverty. And the solution does not rest solely in taxing or not taxing the wealthy. Cutting taxes on the wealthy does not contribute to inequality in opportunity. Not punishing the wealthy for having wealth, incentivizes their continual presence in communities where they provide jobs for the poor who want to succeed. Continual Welfare handouts with no obligation to improve only encourage dependency. I lived in a welfare community, trust me, I have seen this first hand. I have also seen the effect of driving successful businesses out of communities by unfairly targeting them because they have money. I would suggest that you look up the works of Thomas Sowell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS5WYp5xmvI
“6. Values equality over liberty 6. Values liberty over equality”
I noticed how you placed your narrow leftist interpretation on the term “liberty” to mean “to be who you are”. You do see how you address issues in general terms and groups don’t you.
The point of 6 is that you tend to force an equality on people in violation of a person’s freedom, placing “equality” over freedom. Your entire comment indicates that you are not interested in “Liberty” as intended by point 6. You see things as “diversity freedom” which you then force on those who do not agree with your insistence on interpreting “diversity freedom” as supporting even that which is deprived (homosexuality) and evil (abortion). Conservatives do not forbid “equal opportunity, yet you say they do, that is dishonest. Conservatives value social wellbeing, but you insinuate we do not, that is dishonest. Conservatives value the right to be who you are, you say we don’t, that is dishonest. The right to “be who you are” is not the same as having the right to force others to “support” “who you are, when” who you are” is defined by a perverted act that you practice. I can accept who you are without having to like or support what you do. Progressives don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge this. What does being “overwhelmingly White” have to do with anything? And the fact that you acknowledge that the “right” is overwhelmingly Christian speaks in our favor, not against us. And the fact that your side Embraces Atheism-“the lack thereof”, is also in our favor. And since we Conservatives “embrace” ethnicity, and sex, your point on them is moot. Calling us “anti-LGBTQ” is misleading, we object to homosexuality and to homosexual activism that seeks to force acceptance of homosexuality as something good. That is not “anti-LGBTQ”
LikeLike
September 14, 2021 at 9:00 am
“7. Believes life’s problems are best solved by bigger government 7. Believes life’s problems are best solved by the ingenuity of private citizens”
You totally ignored the danger that big government poses and shifted to Capitalism, the need for government regulation on some matters, and only acknowledge that excess government regulations can stifle ingenuity. Why? You avoided the massive government size that encourages government to attempt to micro manage our nation, intruding into areas they should not be and costing taxpayers money they should not have to spend to maintain massive government. The founders warned against massive government and even put checks and balances in place to prevent it. But greedy and power hungry politicians have bypassed those constitutional block. My guess is that progressives like big government because they use it to force those who do not agree with them to submit.
“8. Government’s role is to achieve and protect equality 8. Government’s role is to protect liberty”
Again you misinterpret what “liberty” is. You seem to insist that liberty is having the right to kill unborn babies, and force acceptance of depravity as a normal and good thing, when Liberty as used here is freedom from tyranny. That liberty is for voting rights, the right to protest, and for non-Christian rights to not be religious. Those things are not only encouraged by the left. And it is deceptive to pretend they are.
And since Conservatives are for “equal opportunity”, “equal rights”, and “equal access” your point is moot. The problem is that progressives use these terms while tweaking them to mean things other than what they actually mean. Take “equal rights” for instance, they apply it to the desire for two males to marry when marriage does not apply to same sex. It never has and never will. You see, they pretend that homosexual rights are being attacked when in truth, homosexuals are seeking to make something that is not normal or even rational, right. And then claim it as their “special right”. They use the words “Equal Opportunity”, but they really mean unequal privilege. They use the words “Equal access” when they really mean special access.
“9. Idealist – Policy decisions based on what feels morally right 9. Pragmatic – Policy decisions based on what will result in the most good”
This is another example of how unwilling progressives are to be honest. Notice what you left out of your examples, personal accountability, good education is the responsibility of parents and communities, not a cultural group or political party. Good nutrition is the responsibility of parents and communities, not political parties or cultural groups. Healthcare and homes are the responsibilities of parents and communities, not political parties and cultural groups. No equal opportunity if you can be wiped out by unforeseen medical emergency, no home or no decent food? Just how do you define “equal Opportunity? People have been wiped out who had homes, good food, good education and good healthcare, by making too many bad decisions. Was it because they did not have equal opportunity?
“10. Prefers a regulated market 10. Prefers a free market”
I don’t agree with this point 10. Since Conservatives are not for regulation free- free market, as it seems to indicate. A balance is the key as you seem to suggest.
Your Additions:
11. Rejects fascists and authoritarians 11. Accepts fascists and authoritarians (a point made especially clear by the January 6 insurrection)
Again you prove my point about your tendency to be dishonest. You know full well that conservatives do not accept or support fascists and authoritarians. And to point to the January 6 riot at the Capital as your proof, is a great evidence that you are not interested in being honest. You know that many of those involved in instigating and participating in it were fascist like antifa. Also, leftists anti- Trump FBI was involved. Given the actions of the current Biden administration, Vaccines Mandates etc., your accusation against conservatives is laughable.
12. Generally changes beliefs to fit science 12. Generally changes science to fit beliefs.
Like Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian Evolution? Like mandating wearing unhealthy masks? Like pushing new vaccines over known successful medical treatment? Like ignoring or downplaying human natural immunity? Like shutting down cities and businesses? Please defend your honesty here.
13. Wants religious freedom for everyone 13. Wants religious freedom primarily just for Christians.
Again, dishonest, and this is intentional. You know full well that progressives do not support “Religious freedom” for Christians when it comes to their right to refuse to hire homosexuals, or make a homosexual themed cake. Or teach Christian ideas in school that do not support homosexuality. And to say that Christians want religious freedom PRIMARILY, for Christians as if not for non-Christians, is just untrue.
LikeLike
September 14, 2021 at 1:32 pm
Derekmathias, While I have tried to rise to the occasion in responding to your poses here, it is clear to me that you are not here to have a dialogue to establish truth. From your jamming tactics here in which you intentionally post extremely large comments so that it would be next to impossible to respond to them all, you seem to be here to simply overwhelm us with your data and comments, not honestly dialogue to determine which views are more true or accurate. If you were truly interested in a healthy dialogue, you would be rational in your approach here and keep things brief and direct. But that does not seem to be your intention. So rather than continuing to attempt to compete with your jamming tactic, I will try to just point out your errors and false statement with links of my own and brief comments, and the readers can decide if they want to follow the links. That is unfortunate, since having a decent dialogue here is preferred.
“The ideal model for this is the Scandinavian democracies, which have plenty of rich people, but virtually no poverty. Taxes are higher there, but not onerous:”
That view is addressed by Dinesh D’Souza here.
LikeLike
September 14, 2021 at 1:41 pm
For the Above video, if you want to just hear his response to Scandinavian democracies go to the 22. minute point. You see, I am trying to be kinder than you.
LikeLike
September 15, 2021 at 4:51 am
derekmathias this is my reply to your May 20, 2021 at 5:36 pm reply to this statement:
“Critical race theory is the best example of this. Group identity matters more than personal character.”
you replied:
“That is a complete misunderstanding of critical race theory. All it is is a legal examination of how race and racism impact social and cultural issues.”
Derek, you should be ashamed to just parrot such comments:
LikeLike
September 28, 2021 at 6:21 pm
derekmathias I will be responding to your May 20, 2021 at 5:36 pm post as soon as I am able. Because it is just another effort on your part to jam this thread with so much material that you hope no one will bother to reply to. It seems to me that you are one of those leftist trolls who are paid by leftist organizations to search out any conservative platform you can find and jam it with your leftist rhetoric. You clearly are not interested in an intelligent and truth establishing dialogue. The sheer size of your posts are a dead give away, and the substance even more so. I don’t expect a reasonable reply from you but I do hope that Jason sees your agenda for what it is. Just looking at your defense for masks is proof that you are not interested in getting at truth but just spouting as much leftist foolishness as you can get out. The only benefit from your tactics here is that you have given me plenty of material to use in my efforts to train other conservatives on your leftists tactics.
LikeLike
October 1, 2021 at 6:59 pm
Sorry, preacherteacher, but you’re wrong on all accounts here. I have made no attempt to hide any agenda–I’m clearly not a conservative and I’ve never claimed to be. And I’m certainly not a “leftist troll,” nor am I paid to do any of my posts. I do this because I see claims made on this blog that are demonstrably false, and I simply want to correct them with the facts. And the reason I provide so much information is not to overwhelm anyone, but because the answers are far more nuanced than a simple talking point and I strive to be as accurate and reasonable as possible. To do that requires evidence. And to provide credible evidence, that means using references from fact checkers (who have to provide the original documents, video, etc. that support their conclusions) and media sources that rate highest on reliability and lowest on bias.
I have no problem if you reasonably disagree with my politics, but I don’t understand your problem with my methods. What BETTER method is there to refute claims by providing evidence? Would you prefer me to just make unsupported claims?
But instead of addressing my points with credible counter-evidence, you used your entire post to attack my character rather than my claims. That is what is known as an ad hominem fallacy, which is an invalid argument that does nothing to refute my claims.
I see there are several other posts here directed at me. Unfortunately, I’m in the process of moving, leaving me almost no free time, so they’ll have to wait before I can even read them.
LikeLike
October 1, 2021 at 7:35 pm
derekmathias, If I have indeed misjudged you, I have no problem making an apology, but I did state my reasons for saying what you “seem” to be. You claim you are not doing this for someone, fine. But your claim to be using highly reliable sources is justly questionable, since I have viewed your sources and many are clearly not reliable. And your arguments are not accurate or sound. Which is why I have forced myself to take time that I really did not have to respond to as much of your comments as I could. I ask you to please forgive me if indeed you are acting on your own. But still, that does not excuse your often blatant untruths and use of sources that either you have not bothered to verify or you did a poor job fact checking. AS for fact Checking, I prefer to do my own as so many “fact Checker” groups are leftist and paid by leftists. And others while being leftists, are not even qualified to be fact checkers. I hope you do get the time to reply to my response to your many long posts. I am truly interested in how you will respond. Meanwhile I am going over your reply to Ruminator, as I saw several things there that was clearly not true, not carefully thought out, and sources that were unreliable. But again, please accept my apology for anything that seems to be an “attack” on your character, that was not my intent. I was expressing what I suspected having dealt with such people on the left in the past. If you are not such a person, I stand corrected. But you are going to have to do much better, if you want me to believe that you are sincere about the things you are claiming and attempting to defend here. if truth and accuracy is your goal, I am willing to reason with you. But you can’t just throw anything up as proof. Agreed?
LikeLike