"Crunchy Cons" and Me

[Leta]

I'm a blueblood- by this, I mean that I am a liberal from a working class family filled with liberals. I am so blue that I am indigo.

When I got married, I gained new a family, peopled mostly by so-called conservatives. This was, for me, confusing, because these people were neither wealthy nor remotely religious.

I began to seek common ground with conservatives, because I was tired of every conversation ending with wounded feelings and discomfort.

And, at the same time, I began seeing blurbs about this "Crunchy Cons" book all over the internet.

So I read the book, to see what all the fuss was about.

And here's the big news: I agree with about 85% of what was in this book. In fact, it's a much shorter list to state the problems and disagreements I have than to list all the commonalities. Those disagreements are as follows:

1) I think that it is silly to try to reduce or compare the post-Katrina New Orleans debacle to a single reason, particularly so nebulous a reason as "lack of community".

2) I cannot think of anything positive to say about Ronald Reagan.

3) I am against legislation dictating medical ethics standards outside of research.

4) I found it intellectually dishonest of the writer to mention gay Americans slightly, and then ignore the gay rights debate.

5) I think that the author engaged in a little too much stereotyping of both major political parties.

6) I thought it was big lapse in reason for the author to ignore the third branch of the religions of Abraham in his chapter on faith.

And that, my friends, is it. I am amazed. I guess I'm so far to the left that I'm to the right.

[kalanamak]

2) I cannot think of anything positive to say about Ronald Reagan.
.

I believe he sincerely loved Nancy and treated her well. Now that I've spoken it, someone will probably disabuse me of this opinion.

[beansprouts]

For one thing, we don't share the liberal faith in the ultimate goodness and perfectibility of mankind. Because we believe in evil and the duty of good men and women to confront it with violence if necessary, we are not pacifists. We don't believe that morality is relative, and that each generation is free to find its own truths, and to adopt a moral code that suits its desires. We object to the idea that there's nothing wrong with our country that a new tax or a government program can't fix.
We don't believe it's the government's job to guarantee social equality, only equality before the law and, within reason, equality of opportunity. Guns don't bother us (unless they're in the hands of criminals), and neither, as a general rule, does capitalism (unless it, too, is in the hands of criminals).


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5256754

This basically summarized my political views. I am a Bible believing Christian who falls somewhere between the hard fundamentalists and the soft liberals.

I try to live naturally, but I do take advantage of some conviences and appreciate technology. I don't want to spend my entire life laboring for our basic needs of food clothing and shelter. We do enjoy some luxuries, like music and art, and I don't think that is a bad thing. I think basically I am a homeschooling, ap, extended breastfeeding, disposable diaper using soccer mom :D

[Plaid Dad]

We live in a very liberal area, and I find that being of the crunchy-con persuasion makes it much easier for me to find common ground with my neighbors (not to mention my wife! ;)) Our underlying assumptions about the world are radically different, but we've ended up making some of the same lifestyle decisions despite that.

[Leta]

But see, that's the thing, it's not just lifestyle decisions for me- it is also the underlying assumptions about the nature of the world that I have in common with this set of ideals.

[beansprouts]

You mean this:

A Crunchy Con Manifesto

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

http://www.amazon.com/Crunchy-Cons-Conservative-Counterculture-Return/dp/1400050650/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209306016&sr=8-1

I suppose I should read the book.

[Jenny in Atl]

I was brought up in a very liberal home (went door-to-door for McGovern as a kid). Dh is from a very conservative home. As I grew I found I had some different views on certain things, compared to my folks. To my surprised, I found I'm more of a Libertarian (left leaning) and so is dh. This has been a bit of a disappointment to my folks.

I read CC and found it interesting (know lots of folks like this) but as usual, I find no home there. As someone said in another thread, my dh and I often feel like the outer ratty fringe of any group, off in left field, really fitting in nowhere. This can make for awkward dinner conversation with family and friends.

[Plaid Dad]

Maybe I'm making some unwarranted assumptions about what "liberal" means to you. The little quote that beansprouts posted sums up what I see at the big philosophical divide between liberals and conservatives: the belief in the "ultimate goodness and perfectibility of mankind." Do you (not necessarily you personally, but any "you") believe that human beings are basically good and are corrupted by social influences, and that the world can therefore be perfected by human beings changing or removing harmful social influences?

Conservatives - at least of the sort Dreher is describing - do not believe that. Our perspective could be summed up by this quote from Russell Kirk (http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html):

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

That's what I was referring to when I mentioned radically different underlying assumptions. I know that the people I deal with locally absolutely believe that human beings can create a perfect world. I don't.

[Once]

And all this time I thought I didn't fit in anywhere. Dh always said it is because we think for ourselves about important ideas and that will lead all people to "not fit in" eventually. Oh the joy of freedom from sterotypes and boxes! Timely post. Thanks.

[Caroline]

I was brought up in a very liberal home (went door-to-door for McGovern as a kid). Dh is from a very conservative home. As I grew I found I had some different views on certain things, compared to my folks. To my surprised, I found I'm more of a Libertarian (left leaning) and so is dh. This has been a bit of a disappointment to my folks.

I read CC and found it interesting (know lots of folks like this) but as usual, I find no home there. As someone said in another thread, my dh and I often feel like the outer ratty fringe of any group, off in left field, really fitting in nowhere. This can make for awkward dinner conversation with family and friends.

You can come over to our house for dinner. We are pretty fringe, especially for this area.

[Dana in OR]

2) I cannot think of anything positive to say about Ronald Reagan.


I would like to invite you to do some research on Reagan. I am assuming (forgive me if I am wrong) that you are young and did not live through the cold war years (or perhaps too young to realize it) as many of us did. I believe we all owe a great debt to Reagan for bringing us out of this frigntening time.

[Mama Lynx]

Interesting, Plaid Dad. That much I can agree with - I don't believe that human beings can create a perfect world.

I have never read CC, but my impression from reading *about* it is that it's Christian-focused. True? (Just curious. There has been enough assumption of Christianity in what I've read about CC, that it has turned me off to reading the book. It's tough to be a nonChristian conservative-libertarian ;-) )

[Jenny in Atl]

Interesting, Plaid Dad. That much I can agree with - I don't believe that human beings can create a perfect world.

I have never read CC, but my impression from reading *about* it is that it's Christian-focused. True? (Just curious. There has been enough assumption of Christianity in what I've read about CC, that it has turned me off to reading the book. It's tough to be a nonChristian conservative-libertarian ;-) )

Tell me about it. Some Libs see Government as their God and some Conservatives see Government as a way to enforce their views about God. I tend not to trust the Government, so I tend not to trust too many people. :tongue_smilie:

[OH Kim]

Crunchy Con was written by a homeschooling dad.

His blog is much better than his book.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/

[chiguirre]

I have never read CC, but my impression from reading *about* it is that it's Christian-focused. True? (Just curious. There has been enough assumption of Christianity in what I've read about CC, that it has turned me off to reading the book. It's tough to be a nonChristian conservative-libertarian ;-) )

The author is Byzantine Catholic (basically and loosely, they follow eastern style rites but are part of the Roman Catholic Church). I personally didn't feel that his religion was an obstacle to enjoying the book and finding common ground in certain areas. (Full disclosure: I'm an atheist but I was raised Catholic and lived in Latin America for a long time so my tolerance of Catholic-speak is pretty high.) I agree that man is not perfectable, but I do think we could do an awful lot better, so I don't think I qualify as conservative by Plaid Dad's definition.

I would recommend getting the book from the library and giving it a try. I really enjoyed it even though I didn't agree with everything.

[Fourmother]

I would like to invite you to do some research on Reagan. I am assuming (forgive me if I am wrong) that you are young and did not live through the cold war years (or perhaps too young to realize it) as many of us did. I believe we all owe a great debt to Reagan for bringing us out of this frigntening time.

Wow! I'm not Leta, and I don't presume to speak for her. But Wow!

I lived through the cold war years and consider myself politically informed. (I've even got a degree to prove it.;)) So I can say with every confidence that it is very possible for a person of good sense and experience to strongly disagree with all of Ronald Reagan's policies. Thank goodness we live in a society in which we can agree to disagree.

[Jenny in Atl]

Wow! I'm not Leta, and I don't presume to speak for her. But Wow!

I lived through the cold war years and consider myself politically informed. (I've even got a degree to prove it.;)) So I can say with every confidence that it is very possible for a person of good sense and experience to strongly disagree with all of Ronald Reagan's policies. Thank goodness we live in a society in which we can agree to disagree.

:iagree:
I always love to read the Monday morning quarterbacking about past Presidents (Nixon, Ford, Carter, etc).

[Leta]

No, I don't believe that mankind is perfectable. I think that forcing people to strive for utopia actually leads to distopia- like genocide.

That said, I think that, in our fully mortal state, we should all strive to be as good (not perfect, just good) as we can be. And, as someone who thinks government is basically a Good Thing (because I think anarchy is basically a Bad Thing)I think that government can be a part of helping people to be good.

This is not to say that I support all "big government" programs, but I do support many of them. I tend to be not-so-cautious about big government, but VERY cautious about intrusive/destructive government. I think this is a fundamental distinction that separates me (and a lot of others) from Grover Norquist style conservatives who want to shrink government so small that it can be drowned in the bathtub.

And yes, I lived through all eight years of the Reagan administration- though I was kid, LOL. I'm sure that if I knew him as a grandfather or something, I could say many nice things about him, but I'm speaking of him as a president, and, well, I got nuthin', so as my mom says, don't say anything at all.

For that matter, Hoover was, supposedly, a very good and moral man, but he was a rotten president. He definately makes my shortlist of worst presidents ever. Does that mean Hoover and Reagan are terrible people in my eyes? No, just bad presidents. Along with someone like Jimmy Carter, who I think has probably put his post-presidential career to better use than any other president, but was not a good statesman while in office.

Does anybody get what I'm trying to say, or am I just rambling?

[Leta]

beansprouts, thanks for posting the CC manifesto. Other than #1, which I have no beef with, I just don't self identify as a conservative, I agree with the CC manifesto.

[Jenny in Atl]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

This is a fun quiz to take - just to see where your end up.

[Virginia Dawn]

I don't understand the thinking behind number 7, could someone explain it to me?

[Plaid Dad]

I have never read CC, but my impression from reading *about* it is that it's Christian-focused. True?

He does come to the conclusion that the Crunchy Con sensibility rests on a spiritual base in most cases, but that base is not exclusively Christian by any means. He profiles a Jewish woman (baalat teshuva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_teshuva)) and talks about a (now defunct) organic farm in my area that was started by a group of families associated with Chabad at UMass-Amherst. I contacted him when he first started researching the book - I was pagan at the time - and he was open to interviewing me when he came to talk with the farmers in our area. Since their farm project went under before he was able to make the trip, we never met. I returned to Christianity in the interim. One of the regular comboxers at his blog is a fairly well-known pagan (at least I recognized his name ;)).

Dreher and his family converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy over a year ago; he was still Catholic when he wrote the book. So, yes, he's a devout Christian and talks about that some, but I think you might find the book interesting all the same. He definitely does not assume that his readers are Christians or even that they are conservative.

Also, I don't know if the Drehers are homeschooling their younger children (the youngest is still a baby), but their oldest now attends a Christian classical school in Dallas.

Really, when you come down to it, Crunchy Cons are just the younger generation of traditionalist conservatives - Burkean, Kirk-inspired, Tolkien-reading types - as opposed to neocons or pure social or economic libertarians. The fact that people like Jonah Goldberg got their shorts in such a twist over the whole idea of Crunchy Cons demonstrated how deep the split among today's conservatives really goes.

Anyway, if agrarianism, localism, subsidiarity, or new urbanism interest you at all, or if you enjoy writers like Wendell Berry or Russell Kirk, you'd probably find the book worthwhile. The book is part memoir and part journalism; it's a fairly quick and (to me at least!) entertaining read.

[Leta]

Number seven basically is a call to sustain classic architecture and urban cores. It's not just about physical beauty, as best I can tell. It has a lot to do with sprawl and work life issues.

[Plaid Dad]

I don't understand the thinking behind number 7, could someone explain it to me?

I think this fits into Dreher's chapter on architecture and craftsmanship. The point is that human beings need to experience and create beauty to thrive. Huge anonymous apartment buildings are efficient ways to house people; they can also be soul-deadening.

Does that make sense?

[ETA: Leta and I must have been typing at the same time! :)]

[Plaid Dad]

No, I don't believe that mankind is perfectable.[snip]
Does anybody get what I'm trying to say, or am I just rambling?

Yes, it does make sense. Thank you for explaining!

[Virginia Dawn]

I think I understand, but I can't see that as an absolute. Beauty at the expense of efficiency could be exclusionary and even dangerous. I would prefer "Beauty is just as important as efficiency."

[pixelroper]

Beauty is more important than efficiency.

That is too vague for me to agree with. I'm guessing he is against form following function? Or not necessarily? Not at all sure where this is going. Beauty for the sake of beauty doesn't sound compatible with other crunchy con ideas, it is shallow. What am I missing. For the apartment complex example I would argue that its constructors might have been too narrow minded in addressing the whole problem or in even addressing the problem directly, a band-aid for the wound, not a cure for the disease. I guess it depends on the approach.

I find beauty in simplicity all the time. Usually efficiency is simplifying the process. I also prefer form to follow function as a general rule. Convenience maybe more the term I'm looking for. Convenience can be efficient- but that usually addresses the short term. It may not be efficient to be convenient, convenience could lead to more troubles. Oh dear I'm forgetting my points...

From an art history sense there is tons to say. I might be thinking too much. :001_huh:

[Plaid Dad]

That is too vague for me to agree with. I'm guessing he is against form following function? Or not necessarily?

I don't think the manifesto was meant to be anything but a handy set of talking points - and the "talking" happens in the book itself. :) New Urbanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism) and the Arts & Crafts movement are two subjects that I remember him discussing.

In addition to his current blog, there was a book blog (http://crunchycon.nationalreview.com/) hosted by National Review right after the book was released. There were discussions about each chapter that you can access here (http://crunchycon.nationalreview.com/archives/). It's a lot to read through - probably more than the book itself! - but if you're interested, it might give you a sense of what he's on about.

[Karin]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

This is a fun quiz to take - just to see where your end up.

Hmm, I took it but thought there weren't enough questions to get an accurate result. Nevertheless, I came up as Centrist with the dot near the border between Centrist and Libertarianism. Interesting, for sure, since I don't particularly agree with any party completely. I can't say I'm surprised by the large number of centrists, since, as a Canadian, I've always thought that the Democrats and Republicans were fairly close together politically (okay, that was from the POV of a foreigner) but I was surprised at how many score Libertarian when the Libertarians do so hopelessly at the Polls, and Ron Paul, who was ignored by the press and Libertarian leaning, did so poorly. So how much do people really vote their conscience? Or is it the minority of conservatives and liberals who vote? Or is this poll just really inaccurate? Any more questions?

As for Reagan, I was living in Canada then. I don't remember if I liked him or not as I wasn't caught up in American politics then, although I certainly heard a lot about it. But I'm not impressed with most politicians and have to say I'm skeptical.

[pixelroper]

I don't think the manifesto was meant to be anything but a handy set of talking points - and the "talking" happens in the book itself. :) New Urbanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism) and the Arts & Crafts movement are two subjects that I remember him discussing.

In addition to his current blog, there was a book blog (http://crunchycon.nationalreview.com/) hosted by National Review right after the book was released. There were discussions about each chapter that you can access here (http://crunchycon.nationalreview.com/archives/). It's a lot to read through - probably more than the book itself! - but if you're interested, it might give you a sense of what he's on about.

Thank you..:)

As a talking point-it did interest me. I will investigate.

According to the quiz I'm a Libertarian.

[beansprouts]

beansprouts, thanks for posting the CC manifesto. Other than #1, which I have no beef with, I just don't self identify as a conservative, I agree with the CC manifesto.

I am thinking I may be a bit more to the conservative side. I only know that I am more moderate than dh ;)

[beansprouts]

Just took the quiz. I'm a Centrist. Not really surprised.


CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government
control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on
the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention
and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.
Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,
tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what
they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

The RED DOT on the Chart shows where you fit on the political map.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=4&e=7
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 40%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 70%.

[percytruffle]

I've taken this before, twice. It says I am a Libertarian. I have read the Liberatarian Party literature and while I agree with it in theory, I am not such an idealist now as I was in my youth and have come to the conclusion that this type of government would be chaos!

[beansprouts]

I've taken this before, twice. It says I am a Libertarian. I have read the Liberatarian Party literature and while I agree with it in theory, I am not such an idealist now as I was in my youth and have come to the conclusion that this type of government would be chaos!

I agree. I would have Libertarian leanings also but I don't think the philosophy in its pure form could ever work. It also bothers me that the political platform is usually associated with a relativistic "anything goes" world view.

[Dana in OR]

I agree. I would have Libertarian leanings also but I don't think the philosophy in its pure form could ever work. It also bothers me that the political platform is usually associated with a relativistic "anything goes" world view.

I agree here. I agree with much of Libertarianism except that I cannot in my heart accept the relativism that many espouse. That part puts me too much in conflict with morality and Christianity, which I have to put above this.

[beansprouts]

I've taken this before, twice. It says I am a Libertarian. I have read the Liberatarian Party literature and while I agree with it in theory, I am not such an idealist now as I was in my youth and have come to the conclusion that this type of government would be chaos!

I agree here. I agree with much of Libertarianism except that I cannot in my heart accept the relativism that many espouse. That part puts me too much in conflict with morality and Christianity, which I have to put above this.

Any chance you're a "Moderate Calvinist" as well? :lol:

Ah! The view is always clearer from the top of the fence...

[Jenny in Atl]

I agree here. I agree with much of Libertarianism except that I cannot in my heart accept the relativism that many espouse. That part puts me too much in conflict with morality and Christianity, which I have to put above this.

So you would rather use the power of the government to tell other how they should live? It's always the drug issue folks don't like, I'm guessing that's what you are talking about.

[beansprouts]

So you would rather use the power of the government to tell other how they should live? It's always the drug issue folks don't like, I'm guessing that's what you are talking about.

Yes that, and not to get sticky but the abortion issue is a biggie for me. Neither of these are truly private issues. Drug abuse, for example, affects the entire community.

[percytruffle]

Now see, while I am personally, vehemently against these issues, I do not think government intervention is the way to solve the problem. I am for smaller government and less tax. Period.

The points I disagree with the Libertarians about are more the ideas of open borders and things like that. I am just not idealistic enough for those major jumps of faith.

[Karin]

So you would rather use the power of the government to tell other how they should live? It's always the drug issue folks don't like, I'm guessing that's what you are talking about.

You didn't ask me, but since I think similarly, I'll say that I don't like the government telling me how to live, but I have issues with unchecked pollution controls, unchecked big business. Honestly, I just don't think that enough people would live up to the ideals. As for drugs, I'm not so sure the government is really trying its best to curb that any more than I think it's trying its best to curb illegal aliens living and working here. Would a libertarian government to more? I was for Ron Paul, though, because he's against free trade and a number of other issues, particularly his stance on homeschooling. Not that I agreed with him 100 percent.

[pixelroper]

Yes that, and not to get sticky but the abortion issue is a biggie for me. Neither of these are truly private issues. Drug abuse, for example, affects the entire community.

This is true, however I'm not sure that the government is capable of handling these things, IMO they haven't been very effective- meaning I question in whose interests they are acting-

[percytruffle]

Any chance you're a "Moderate Calvinist" as well? :lol:

Ah! The view is always clearer from the top of the fence...

I agree with some, but not all. :D I guess I'm just destined to be a fence sitter on everything. The view is pretty good from up here, isn't it?! LOL

[Mama Bear]

I often feel like the outer ratty fringe of any group, off in left field, really fitting in nowhere. This can make for awkward dinner conversation with family and friends.

This made me laugh -- it describes me well. This used to really bug me, but I delight in it more and more. The perks of getting older, perhaps? :D

[Mama Lynx]

Well, I always score Libertarian on these quizzes; and while I am libertarian in philosophy, my philosophy doesn't line up with the *Libertarian Party*. So I will not necessarily vote for a Libertarian, nor am I a member of the party, although I normally identify myself as conservative-libertarian. I am not as idealistic or as hardcore libertarian on some issues as the party is, and it's enough that I often cannot vote for a LP candidate.

Clear as mud?

[Colleen]

...what I see at the big philosophical divide between liberals and conservatives: the belief in the "ultimate goodness and perfectibility of mankind." Do you...believe that human beings are basically good and are corrupted by social influences, and that the world can therefore be perfected [my bolding]by human beings changing or removing harmful social influences? Conservatives - at least of the sort Dreher is describing - do not believe that.

Interesting. So you think bottom-line, that's the philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives? Hmmm...that may be. Or not. I'll have to ponder that, from my "liberal with a dose of signficant conservativism" point of view. Most liberals I know would, I think, replace the bold-faced "perfected" with "bettered".

[Colleen]

I would like to invite you to do some research on Reagan. I am assuming (forgive me if I am wrong) that you are young and did not live through the cold war years (or perhaps too young to realize it) as many of us did. I believe we all owe a great debt to Reagan for bringing us out of this frigntening time.

What you're really assuming is that anyone who has nothing positive to say about Ronald Reagan is uninformed. Interesting. (For the record, I can think of positive things to say about him.)

[beansprouts]

Now see, while I am personally, vehemently against these issues, I do not think government intervention is the way to solve the problem. I am for smaller government and less tax. Period.


But it requires more intervention to legalize and regulate and become a third party participant in certain issues than it does to simply keep them illegal.

Not to mention that none of us lives on an island, and our personal choices *do* have consequences and in many cases *do* violate the rights of others.

[Plaid Dad]

Most liberals I know would, I think, replace the bold-faced "perfected" with "bettered".

Yes, I can see that. When someone like Russell Kirk uses that language, it's with an eye toward leftist ideologues who believe that their political system will bring about an ideal society. Of course not all contemporary American liberals are that extreme.

[Virginia Dawn]

My result was right leaning Libertarian. :-)

Really, I would call myself a Constitutionalist, which was not on the results. This is also Ron Paul's philosophy of government. I would not call him a strict Libertarian.

A Constitutionalist believes that the limits to our federal government have already been laid out in the constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that the government needs to follow those limits period. All other concerns belong to the states to regulate as they see fit.

[Leta]

On that quiz, I am smack in the middle of the Liberal quadrant. Which is not remotely surprising to me, but it continues to puzzle me how I can be a liberal and stand in such agreement with so many of these conservative principles.

I guess that while I do think society can be bettered, I also think that if what we're doing isn't working, change it! A good example is immigration. No matter where you come down on this issue, the current situation is not making anyone happy because the system in place is broken.

Now, I'm a liberal because my policy idea is to crack down on companies that hire undocumented workers. I think this is the most logical way of doing things, because fines add to the bottom line, to whereas jail takes away from the bottom line; and because if people can't get work, their incentive for coming here illegally is vastly diminished. But I'd be willing to hear other ideas, for sure. I just think that the whole notion of "blanket amnesty" is a silly one. Why even have a border, then?

[Virginia Dawn]

I can't find anything in the constitution, just skimming, that refers to protecting our borders except during invasion. Would we define illegal immigration as invasion? If so, the Constitution calls for the National Guard to be utilized. The problem right now is that much of our National Guard is illegally in Iraq. :confused:

As for undocumented workers, because of the Federal government not making a decision, some states are stepping up to the plate and making decisions on this issue for themselves. Imagine that.

[GretaLynne]

Most liberals I know would, I think, replace the bold-faced "perfected" with "bettered".

Yes, absolutely! I'm not sure there is any such thing as perfection except in the human imagination. It isn't something I strive for (in politics or elsewhere) because I believe that can only lead to frustration. Excellence, yes. Perfection, no.

But I read your theory yesterday, PlaidDad, about the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals and I found it very interesting. I intend to "ask around" and see if it bears out among my friends and family. My personal feelings about the nature of people are informed by my Buddhist beliefs, and I know THAT is certainly not typical of American liberals! But I do consider myself quite solidly liberal; and I do believe that all sentient beings are imbued with Buddha-nature, and that it is only our delusions and attachments which bring us harm, and cause us to harm others. There are some subtle differences, but I think that's pretty similar to the general idea you stated.

If I may be blunt for a moment, and believe me I mean no offense but I am only trying to understand, the alternative seems quite depressing to me. If you believe people are fundamentally bad or fallen or sinful or whatever word is appropriate here, it must be hard not to fear them and automatically suspect the worst of them. It is my fervent belief that empathy is the foundation of morality. But it seems that it would be much harder to treat people with empathy if you believe they are inherently bad. If you believe people are basically good but, being people, make mistakes, I think it is much easier to put yourself in that person's shoes, thus feeling compassion for them, thus treating them as you would wish to be treated yourself, following the Golden Rule, which is in my opinion the one and only "moral absolute" I have ever found. (Showing off my grammar skills with a terrible endless sentence!) This is just my mental ramblings and I'm not sure how it's coming across. I'm not trying to accuse anyone of immorality, I'm really just exploring this new idea you presented. Trying to figure it out. When I attempt to imagine your worldview, it leaves me feeling pretty bleak, hopeless, fearful, and suspicious. I'm hoping it doesn't have that effect on you!

[Dana in OR]

What you're really assuming is that anyone who has nothing positive to say about Ronald Reagan is uninformed. Interesting. (For the record, I can think of positive things to say about him.)


Yes I'd have to agree with this statement.

[percytruffle]

Not Plaid Dad, but may I offer my own views? Thank you for sharing yours. It's wonderful to have some perspective from other faiths.

When I speak of people as being inherently bad I mean that everyone has the potential for evil in them to some degree and some will choose to act on it. Others will no doubt act on it unknowingly. It is rather a condition of imperfection. But, there is another side of that same coin. The Judeo-Christian basis for this system also states that people are made in the image of their Creator. Thus, they are also inherently good and capable of great good, compassion, and empathy. Our Christian "golden rule" is basically the same as yours.

I suspect that the point of view derived from our ability to "perfect" mankind stems from Evolutionary Theory, and at that point in history views changed from a fairly universal "man is comprised of both good and evil" to "man is basically good and society changes him to evil", ie: the noble savage.

And, I agree with Colleen that liberals strive for betterment, not perfection. I would also state that conservatives strive for betterment as well. The difference lies in who makes the decisions about what betterment is: the individual or the state.

[KidsHappen]

This was no surprise to me. :)

[Colleen]

Yes I'd have to agree with this statement [that anyone who can't think of positive aspects to Ronald Reagan is uninformed].

How do you decide when those who disagree with you lack of information versus...merely disagree with you? I'm not trying to pick on you, Dana; just considering how we (all of us) sometimes react to those who don't share our point of view.

[GretaLynne]

Not Plaid Dad, but may I offer my own views?

Of course! I love opportunities like this to hear different perspectives!

When I speak of people as being inherently bad I mean that everyone has the potential for evil in them to some degree and some will choose to act on it. Others will no doubt act on it unknowingly. It is rather a condition of imperfection.

Ah, okay, well I think we agree on that then. I definitely believe people have the potential for either good or bad. I thought the claim was that the tendency to bad outweighed the tendency to good.

But, there is another side of that same coin. The Judeo-Christian basis for this system also states that people are made in the image of their Creator. Thus, they are also inherently good and capable of great good, compassion, and empathy.

That is beautiful. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Our Christian "golden rule" is basically the same as yours.

Oh, yes, I know and that's the beauty of it! Every religion in this world, and every secular philosophical system that I have ever heard of, they have ALL come up with this rule. Obviously it is stated somewhat different in each, but the idea is very clearly the same. While I do not believe morality is an issue decided by a majority vote, I do also think it is quite telling that so many human thinkers from cultures so vastly different have all arrived at this same conclusion. But I'm getting a big off-topic, I think.

I suspect that the point of view derived from our ability to "perfect" mankind stems from Evolutionary Theory, and at that point in history views changed from a fairly universal "man is comprised of both good and evil" to "man is basically good and society changes him to evil", ie: the noble savage.

Interesting, I had not considered that. It may be so, but it is only a misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory that could lead one to believe that evolution is driving towards some perfect ideal. But misconceptions about evolution abound, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Interesting stuff -- I'm really enjoying the conversation.

[pixelroper]

This has been interesting. While I was growing up, my parents confused the heck out of people. We moved from the suburbs to a farm (70's), raised most of our food(meat, veggies & grain), they tended to vote Democratic. People were forever asking if we were hippies. My parents weren't, in fact they were very conservative and traditional Christian, I was taught conservation from a Biblical viewpoint, that we are stewards of the earth. In fact they had huge issues w/big business, I remember many table conversations about irresponsible polluting, money being the root of all evil, etc. The company my dad worked for at the time would just dump their waste in the lake and pay the fines, it was cheaper to do so, this drove him batty. From what I've read thus far it seems that my parents were/are "crunchy cons," I had assumed this from the name but now I'm fairly sure. Of course as a product of that environment I have these leanings myself. And since then, my parents have pretty much abandoned the Democratic party and probably are voting Republican now, though I doubt they are registered as such.
As much of what I've just glanced over talks of it being a younger gen movement- Is an older generation of "crunchy cons" noted?

[Dana in OR]

How do you decide when those who disagree with you lack of information versus...merely disagree with you? I'm not trying to pick on you, Dana; just considering how we (all of us) sometimes react to those who don't share our point of view.

Good question. It's just that to me a blanket statement like that about Reagan is akin to saying something similar about, say, Lincoln. If someone really feels that way I would invite them to do some more research. Or not.

I probably shouldn't get into it on the boards, anyway, since talking politics is probably still taboo. Although I am not sure if this is political or historical territory.

[pixelroper]

The difference lies in who makes the decisions about what betterment is: the individual or the state.

:iagree:

There are too many assumptions(IMO) about what is better.

[beansprouts]

Well, I appreciate this discussion. I have learned that I may be a bit too conservative for the "crunchy-con" label.

And here, I thought there actually was a box that would fit me. :D Oh well!!

[Heather in NC]

If you believe people are fundamentally bad or fallen or sinful or whatever word is appropriate here, it must be hard not to fear them and automatically suspect the worst of them. It is my fervent belief that empathy is the foundation of morality. But it seems that it would be much harder to treat people with empathy if you believe they are inherently bad. If you believe people are basically good but, being people, make mistakes, I think it is much easier to put yourself in that person's shoes, thus feeling compassion for them, thus treating them as you would wish to be treated yourself, following the Golden Rule, which is in my opinion the one and only "moral absolute" I have ever found.

I have been reading through this whole discussion and have really enjoyed it! I wanted to comment real quick on the "are people inherently good or bad" issue.

I believe we were originally good, created in God's image. Due to the "fall" we are now born with original sin which means we have a tendency towards sinning over not sinning. Humankind is not perfectable until we are in our glorified state with God.

BUT, just because I believe that people have original sin does not mean I am suspicious or fearful of others. In fact, that is contrary to what the Christian faith espouses. The greatest commandments are to love God and LOVE OTHERS. So even though I think people are inherently "bad" I strive to empathize with them, love them, care for them, etc. just as Christ did. And let's not forget that I am also a person and therefore inherently "bad" and I would want others to treat me the same way...the Golden rule.

[beansprouts]

Well, if anyone has questions about what lurks in the hearts and minds of people when they think themselves "invisible" I would encourage you to visit a Yahoo! news message board :eek:

[GretaLynne]

The greatest commandments are to love God and LOVE OTHERS. So even though I think people are inherently "bad" I strive to empathize with them, love them, care for them, etc. just as Christ did. And let's not forget that I am also a person and therefore inherently "bad" and I would want others to treat me the same way...the Golden rule.

Thank you very much for explaining this for me Heather. It is very hard for me to wrap my head around this notion that people are more "bad" than "good". I find it difficult and uncomfortable, so I'm sure that's why it led me to conclusions that it wouldn't necessarily lead others to. I was aware of that possibility even as I was drawing the conclusions! I am not oblivious to the fact that there is great evil in the world. It truly stuns and saddens me just how horrible people can be. And, I don't know, maybe this sounds cheesy, but I really believe that good will triumph over evil. I believe we *all* have a basic desire to be happy and to do good, but we sometimes get lost along the way.

Thank you so much for the perspective!