Liberal vs. Conservative Puts the Focus on
Differences
From Tom in response to Thinking Different about
Liberal vs. Conservative Mac Users:
Hi Charles,
It seems that whenever people talk "politics", or more precisely
political philosophies, the emphasis seems to be on totaling up the
"differences", which may well help to explain the sorry state of
political dialog in America today.
As I believe you were trying to point out in your article (and I
hope this is correct, and that people see it), there is more overlap
than absolute divide in the so-called liberal vs. conservative
"debate", whatever the issue might be. I would gladly have William F.
Buckley as an email correspondent (if he would have me as one), because
I think a potential exchange of ideas between the great conservative
and myself (a political liberal) might be interesting for me and maybe
even for him.
Might we conclude the whole issue by saying that discerning liberals
and discerning conservatives can and do find virtues in the Mac
software and hardware, and prefer to go that way rather than brave the
pitfalls of MS Vista? Perhaps the particular things liberals and
conservatives appreciate about Apple are different . . . but
perhaps not! Let's just say that all of us are onto something good with
our Macs, for our own reasons, and intend to stay with them. In a small
and minor way, this is much like what we may think about our form of
government - nobody's come up with anything else as good (let alone
better), so we're stickin' with it! Apple Computer is a great example
of what can be achieved in a free society, and surely that is something
everyone can appreciate.
Anyway, I applaud your take on the whole subject and would, if I
knew you personally, count you as a friend and a civilized, intelligent
ally or opponent (depending on the issue at hand) without drawing any
battle lines because of what either of us consider our respective
political philosophy.
Let none of us forget that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston
Churchill, liberal and conservative, worked together with great respect
and real friendship to bring the world through the greatest world war
of the twentieth century with dedication and purpose.
We're better together than separate.
Thanks and God Bless,
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis of the article and
topic.
Yes, I have found over the years of politically
engaged discussion and debate that self-perceived conservatives (me,
for example), and liberals (I have many liberal friends) very often
agree on what's wrong, but differ on formulae for fixing it.
That's not to say that there are not some profound
dissonances, and they can't be successfully wallpapered over, but good
will and respect for the dialectical opponent, if not for his political
ideas, will go a long way to helping discern and build on whatever
common ground exists, and at minimum respectfully hearing out what the
other guy has to say will enhance the climate of civility.
Charles
Clearing the Air on Liberal vs. Conservative Mac
Users
From Bill in response to Thinking Different about
Liberal vs. Conservative Mac Users:
Charles,
Great article! Thanks for doing this. Clears the air where it needed
to be cleared.
Bill
Hi Bill,
Thanks! Glad you liked it.
Charles
Good Work on Liberal vs. Conservative Mac
Users
From John:
Bravo, Charles! Well said. Keep up the good work.
Thanks John. :-)
Charles
Conservatives and Macs
From Charles W.:
Charles W.,
Go get 'em, Charlie!
Government of the duds, for the duds, and by the
duds.
- Winston Churchill (on socialism)
Yet another Charles W.
(Mac user for almost twenty years, but a National Review subscriber
since the seventies.)
Thanks CW.
Good W.S.C. quote. I've always been fond of this
one:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the
uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is
the equal division of misery."
Charles
Politeness and Humility vs. Political
Correctness
From John
Greetings Charles,
"I wonder if it ever occurs to these doofuses how
superciliously insulting the implied caricature is?"
It doesn't. Conservatives have been making similar objections to
yours for many years. The objections are mostly pointless. Politeness
and humility are conservative traits; political correctness is the
liberal's poor substitute.
Remember that this is a survey of purchasers, likely weighted to new
purchases of new machines, and also a survey of self-image, not a
scientific study of actual behaviors. In fairness to Mindset Media, one
can reasonably claim that the caricature is not theirs, but that of
respondents.
In light of the mean group behaviors of academics, generation Y, and
the pre-internet media, I think the results are a no-brainer.
Best Regards,
John
Hi John,
Good points.
At the philosophical/worldview level, because of their
relatively modest expectations regarding human potential, conservatives
tend to be more charitable and forgiving with respect to their liberal
dialectical opponents' motives than obtains in the reciprocal.
Conservatives incline to regard liberals as well-meaning but mistaken
or sentimentally unrealistic in their conclusions, rather than morally
deficient, seeing them as misguided idealists rather then deliberate
opponents of the common good.
Conversely, insinuations of bad faith, selfishness,
and unworthy motives are much more commonly articulated by liberals in
reference to conservatives than vice versa. Liberals are ideologically
conditioned to regard non-liberals as morally challenged. Given their
faith in the unlimited possibilities of man and nature, poverty or
other sources of human dissatisfaction must surely be a result of
selfish intentions or blindness to readily available solutions, so they
beat the bushes for reasons why things are so frequently unpleasant and
difficult, and seek to identify culprits to whom blame may be assigned.
They believe peace, prosperity, justice, fairness, comfort, etc., are
natural rights and that there is something wrong with the system when
circumstances are otherwise.
William Godwin argued in his "Inquiry Concerning
Political Justice" (1793), that moral improvement has no fixed limits
and human nature is essentially "generous and magnanimous". Godwin
believed that man are inherently capable of Justice and virtue.
Conservatives have a much more tragic perception of
the human condition, noting that the reason for government is that
human nature will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice
without restraint, and they give the peace and order of society a
higher priority than even the relief of the miserable. Conservatives
see human moral potential as seriously limited, subject to selfish and
dangerous impulses that can be contained only by social restraint. The
conservative project is therefore largely focused on reestablishing
more limited definitions of terms like freedom and equality,
endeavoring to explain explain how much discipline, denial of immediate
gratification, and plain hard work it took to achieve the modest levels
of civilization, comfort and prosperity that we have.
These dissonances of vision are demonstrated, for
example, in respective attitudes toward "sincerity." For liberals,
sincerity is a powerful ideal, and an almost unalloyed virtue. For
conservatives, sincerity is a characteristic of minor moral importance,
which in particular cases may be either virtue or vice. Conservatives
readily concede the sincerity of liberals, but the latter are usually
loath to reciprocate, and more likely to imply the existence of hidden
agendas that must be exposed, or where conservative sincerity is
grudgingly conceded, it will be qualified by references to blindness,
prejudice, or narrow mindedness.
This essential conflict of visions goes a long way
toward explaining the dialogue of the deaf between liberals and
conservatives.
Charles
Loved the Politics Column Today
From John:
Very thoughtful and well-done. As a right-of-center Mac user, I too
bristle at such absurd characterizations of conservatives as
Neanderthals/fascists/etc.
Keep up the great work,
-John
Thank you John. Glad you enjoyed it.
Charles
Liberals, Conservatives, and the Green
Debate
From Gerald Wilson:
Charles,
Look at this for another take on Lib/Con versus Mac/PC values:
Your
Views on the Green Debate (The Register)
regards,
Gerald
Hi Gerald,
Fascinating stats.
As I noted in the column, I'm something of a green
conservative, although I do believe there is an awful lot of
insupportable hype, and some of the purported "green" solutions like
making ethanol from grain crops are making things substantially worse
rather than better (e.g.: higher food prices causing major hardship for
poorer people), increased fertilizer pollution and runoff poisoning
watercourses, accelerated topsoil erosion (we are losing soil at ten
time the rate it's being replaced), and net carbon release may actually
be worse with ethanol when you count the emissions from agricultural
machinery and transportation. Just one of many examples of unfortunate
consequences when fixes are not well-thought out.
I also have to say that while I agree with the dictum
"Even if you know the world ends tomorrow, you still plant a tree"
(attributed to Martin Luther, probably erroneously), I do have to say I
have a sense that things have gone too far for us to recover ecological
sustainability.
I'm no climate change denier. It's increasingly
obvious that Arctic ice is melting, so is snow in the European Alps,
our summers are getting hotter and drier and weather events more
violent and volatile year-round. What I'm skeptical about is realistic
possibility of doing much about it given the dynamics in play, notably
population growth ("explosion" is no longer a fashionable term, but
still accurately descriptive), combined with consumer culture
aspirations of the developing world and lack of serious public will to
do anything really substantive about our prodigal consumption habits in
the developed world.
As The Register's piece notes: "Some countries have
been watching others build huge economies with fantastic living
standards and, not surprisingly, they would like some of this for
themselves. China, for example, has something like nine motor vehicles
per thousand head of population while North America has 1148."
Auto sales in China are in double-digit growth, and
they're building thousands of miles of superhighways, not to mention
their industrial pollution.
In a nutshell, I think we're cooked. The remedies
required to reverse global warming run contrary to human nature. A Pew
Research study last year found the average North American's definition
of "necessities" now include energy hogs like cars (91%), washers
(90%), dryers (83%), home air conditioning (!) (83%), microwaves (68%),
TV (64%), car air conditioning (59%), and home computers (51%). Hey,
are you willing to forego or cut back radically on the use of those
things, plus stuff like daily showers, and nonessential air travel? Be
honest. I thought so.
"Binding carbon emissions targets" may sound noble and
high-minded, but the above examples, and much more besides, is the
practical reality of what it would take, presuming we can persuade the
Chinese and Indians et al. to forego those conveniences and comforts
too, now that they're beginning to be able to afford some of them. Good
luck with that.
Charles
Kudos from the Left
From Andrew:
Great article Charles, and this coming from a left-leaning Atheist
Democrat!
Cheers,
Andrew
Well, thank you kindly, Andrew. :-)
Charles
Rush Limbaugh Is a Demagogue
From Robert:
Hi Charles!
It is a common misconception that Rush Limbaugh is a
conservative.
His listeners certainly are, but Rush himself is a demagogue.
Robert
Hi Robert,
Good point. ;-)
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
