Liberals and Conservatives: Frenemies or Enemies?

A personal perspective

Conservative and Liberal Traits, from Braver Angels:

I used to find it easy to say I was a liberal, because when I grew up — in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s being a liberal meant standing against prejudice and discrimination, against the Vietnam War and American militarism, against the draft, which forced young Americans to fight an imperialist war, against the big corporations which enriched themselves at the expense of less wealthy Americans, whom they shamelessly poisoned, and against polluters who recklessly damaged the environment. I even remember Ralph Nader coming to visit my high school. He was deemed a hero for standing up for consumers against the big corporations. The conservatives appeared to be the party of “Archie Bunker” — narrow-minded, prejudiced, possibly cognitively compromised, filled with hatred for what they opposed, defending the big moneyed interests, and evangelically trying to impose their religious values on others. Those who defended the status quo back then by saying, “America, Love It Or Leave It” appeared to be defending racial discrimination and the imperialist Viet Nam war.

How times have changed. I now see Liberals as the party of big money, corporate values, beating the war drum hawkishly for Ukraine, even supporting the Nazi-allied regime there, and supporting mandates for medical procedures of unverified safety and efficacy. They often appear to be filled with hatred and intolerance for those who disagree with their values and they stand up for the status quo against those who would challenge it. Their Keynesian economics have led to a disastrous national debt, threatening the country with economic collapse. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been fighting for human rights, fighting the status quo, avoiding using hateful and derogatory language, opposing the imperial state, and rising up against bad food, bad medicine, and bad agriculture. They have still not entirely renounced their ties to big money and powerful corporations. In many ways, Conservatives appear to have picked up where the Liberals of the 1960’s and 1970’s left off, albeit with a distinctly conservative twist.

My own values haven’t changed one bit. If anything they have become more intensely what they always were. I still am a populist who believes that the only role of government is to protect the people and serve the people’s interests. I continue to be an environmentalist who opposes its despoliation by careless industries. I have no tolerance for lying amongst our government officials, whether it be W. About the “weapons of mass destruction” or Biden about the COVID “vaccine”. I remember hating Nixon for lying about the Viet Nam war (although I now realize Johnson also lied about it) and for lying about the Watergate break-in.

I’ve always been and remain opposed to corporate influence in Washington, whoever the ruling party is. Yet in spite of finding myself more closely aligned with Liberals of the past, I find myself more closely aligned, although not perfectly, with Conservatives of today.

Here’s how I’ve changed: I now see how naive I’ve been for the past 50 years, believing too readily in what the newspapers and television told me. Even books I have read have been filled with lies, when there has been sufficient political motivation. I realize now I’ve been played — misled by rampant lying from government going back to the 1960’s. I realize that the President and the party in Congress who is nominally in power are not the ones running the government. I realize now that nothing that is said by the media or most politicians can be trusted. I have learned that there are a few good eggs in Washington, but even they probably can’t say half of what they would like to without being hammered by the press or their own party. 90% of those in Washington can’t be trusted, except to be less than fully honest with their constituents. I’ve learned that our political system is deeply sick, and that the electoral process is not trustworthy. I’ve learned that we can’t rely on politicians to solve our social problems. We the people, I now believe, must take reform into our own hands, and be the change and make the change we want to see happen. I never would have thought this way 30 years ago.

Core values (from Braver Angels, an organization promoting harmony between differing political factions):

Conservatives:

Individual freedom. They eschew whatever limits individual freedom, defending one’s right to live as one wants in one’s private life, whatever that may be. Oddly enough, this may include defending the rights of social outliers to live “alternative lifestyles” even if they wouldn’t choose to live that way themselves.

Personal responsibility. They prefer people come together to solve their own problems rather than looking towards government to come up with a solution. It is not that they are “anti-government” as much as that they see the limitations of government programs and the dangers of excessive government power and prefer to keep control and power in local hands. They also are independent individuals who pride themselves on being being self-reliant.

Free market capitalism is a good. They tend to look at the free market as bringing prosperity, although they may not be as “hands off” in their beliefs about the role of government as libertarians. They tend to want to limit or avoid regulation of business.

Patriotism: They are loyal to their group, and have a lot of deep emotion and passion for it. They will defend the group as passionately as they will sing its praises

Family and religion: They have strong family values and strong religious faith.

Respect for tradition: They honor the past, elders and the traditional way of doing things. Innovation can make them a bit uncomfortable.

Local initiatives: They believe in their community’s ability to solve things and distrust big government projects where control is ceded to far away bureaucrats.

Local charities: they prefer to give locally, and don’t like being taxed or forced to contribute to big government programs which appear to be handouts to people who lack industriousness.

Liberals:

Inclusiveness: They are very sensitive to people being excluded and want to ensure that all members of society are neither excluded nor feel excluded.

Protective of those on the margins: They have a soft spot for those who are disadvantaged, whether by mental illness, physical illness, or have been discriminated against historically, such as Blacks, women, and Gays.

Diversity: This is the natural extension of inclusiveness. People should be welcomed into society regardless of their idiosyncrasies or culturally discordant peculiarities.

Equal opportunity, especially for the disadvantaged. No group should be economically discriminated against.

Active government, which aids those in need, sustains a healthy environment, ensures fairness, and social justice.

High taxes, especially on the rich, are needed to pay for social programs that make society fairer and juster.

Safe social environments, with respect for language. They favor strong rules protecting themselves and others from emotional hurt, whether deliberate or accidental.

Core concerns:

Conservatives

Protecting people’s individuality. They are afraid of the larger group ignoring the concerns of the minority, in deciding what appears to be best for “everyone”. This is the so-called fear of “tyranny of the majority”.

Concern about being grouped into categories that compromise individuality. They want to preserve their right to have a unique individual opinion.

Big government that limits individual choice. They are afraid of being herded by big government into boondoggle programs that fail to deliver as promised, and limit the ability to opt out.

Skepticism about capability of big government to function well. They tend to look at big government as unavoidably inefficient, or compromised by corruption.

Skeptical of utopian promises, social engineering: They look at “big solutions” to big problems as intrinsically doomed to fail, and prefer a more pluralistic society to one that is more uniform but forces everyone to fit onto the same procrustean bed.

Sensitive to labeling - e.g. “anti-trans”, “anti-gay” or “white supremacist”.

Liberals:

Believe that abuses of free market capitalism inevitably lead to exploitation and inequality. They see free market capitalism as a flawed system that must lead to social and economic inequities. They favor a more centralized economy in the name of economic parity.

Ignoring historical forces of injustice. They see injustices built into the social and economic system that must be addressed to prevent discrimination against disadvantaged groups.

Patriotism not balanced by criticism of country worries them. They have a jaundiced view of patriotism, since the “system” tends to be intrinsically unjust to some groups, from their perspective. Endorsing the status quo symbolizes support for these injustices.

They are sensitive to groups being left out of progress. They are active in defending groups who they see as being disadvantaged.

Sensitive about labels, eg. “Woke”.

Droz’s and Mike Johnson’s Perspective:

Looking at Droz’s work, expanding on Mike Johnson’s core conservative themes, I can see 12 core principles emerge. I offer my own understanding of them and their liberal alternatives in the commentary that follows:

1 - Individual Freedom: liberals are more willing to sacrifice freedoms if it mean the group as a whole benefits. Conservatives tend to have skepticism that sacrificing individual liberties are ever “worth it” because of “the greater good”.

2 - Limited Government: Liberals are more comfortable with big government and feel the benefits to society as a whole outweigh the drawbacks of greater inefficiency and corruption. Conservatives are skeptical that the drawbacks of big government ever make it worth the price paid for its benefits.

3 - The Rule of Law: Liberals tend to be softer on crime, feeling that criminals may be responding to harsh environments growing up, which makes them as much victims as those whom they the criminals victimize. This relativistic view, however much truth behind it, tends to create porous boundaries and send out confusing messages to criminals or aspiring criminals (e.g. you may not be held accountable, and you may not even be wrong). Conservatives may be too rigid at times, but they are certainly not wanting in clear boundaries.

4 - Peace Through Strength: Liberals tend to feel we must spread the “gift” of Democracy” to other countries (although Neo-Cons also appear to have this view) whereas the Droz conservative wants a strong defense with limited offensive action.

5 - Fiscal Responsibility: Liberals tend to be more Keynesian, allowing for greater fiscal flexibility, whereas conservatives tend to fear what seem to them to be more speculative fiscal policies, and they tend to favor a balanced budget.

6 - Free Markets: Liberals tend to emphasize the way powerful monopolistic powers break or bend the rules to create an unequal playing field. Conservatives tend to emphasize the boons of the free market (to the extent it its truly free). They see the free market leading to innovation, growth and betterment of society, and by contrast, controlled economies leading to economic stagnation and a lack of innovation and prosperity.

7 - Human Dignity: Conservatives look at individuals as having intrinsic dignity and value. This dignity derives from God, who is not recognized as an authority by most Liberals. Liberals thus find dignity a negotiable precept — not in itself flawed, but subject to possibly being over-ruled by other higher values in certain circumstances. Conservatives view human dignity as basic and inviolable, and nothing government does can be permitted to compromise it.

8 - Our technical policies should be based on real Science, not political science. Conservatives tend to more narrowly define what science is, and are less tolerant of its being tailored to fit political needs. Liberals tend to view this as overly rigid, and trust “experts” more, even when politically biased, whereas conservatives tend to view this as establishing appropriate boundaries.

9 - Conservatives advocate equal opportunity, not equal results. Liberals are more uncomfortable with inequities in society, whereas conservatives feel that merit must be the basis of wealth, and that while unfortunate, attempts to rig the system to create more equity create new and worse problems, so disparities in material wealth must be tolerated, even if regretted. Charity is thought to be the better solution to economic imbalances than government intervention.

10-Election integrity means easy to vote, hard to cheat, with verifiable results. Conservatives tend to want more concrete evidence of election integrity, whereas liberals are satisfied with government reports that elections were not compromised. In short, conservatives trust government about election integrity less than liberals (although there are some liberals I know how are certain that cheating is rife, and systematic and that it is primarily conservatives who do it).

11-Conservatives believe our education system should prioritize teaching the ability to do, and instill the interest in, critical thinking. This may include instilling religious ideas and values into children. Liberals emphasize that education should instill a liberal perspective on the world separate from religious beliefs. This perspective reflects liberal beliefs and values, which are more atheistic in origin.

12-Conservative’s value system is more often God-centered, not based in subjectivity or relativism. Liberalism is more atheistic and relativistic.

Critique of liberalism and conservatism: Conservatives and liberals both excel in their strong values, but conservatives tend to uphold more traditional values while liberals tend to be more concerned about social injustices and inequities. Conservatives can have a hard time with the liberal values of inclusion and sensitivity to discrimination because they are not themselves by nature exclusive or discriminatory. They feel accused of being insensitive to these issues when in fact they are just one of many values they support. The Liberal mindset appears to them to have exaggerated sensitivity to these issues, compared to other value systems, which they don’t disagree with in principle, but only in emphasis.

Liberals tend to view those who do not share their ardor for protecting vulnerable groups and enhancing the fairness and equality of groups as supporting injustice, or at least being less sensitive than they ought to be to injustice. Conservatives seem to them to be too concerned with values that are not as important, such as religion, family, and protecting tradition. Liberals may feel a bit threatened by the religious mindset itself, since they sometimes tend to equate religiosity with lack of rigorous thinking. This has been encouraged by a certain contingent of Liberal intellectuals including people like Richard Dawkins, and evolutionary biologist who wrote a book condescendingly called The God Delusion, where he claims to prove religious people are basically insane.

Conservatives tend to trust government less than Liberals, who not only trust it more, but wish to empower it more as a tool of social and economic justice. Conservatives tend to believe that however honorable the goals of government may be, the inefficiencies and tendencies to corruption of government make it fundamentally untrustworthy. Liberals seem to minimize these failings, and spurred on by the desire to see justice served, tend to forgive or overlook government failings. Liberals and conservatives need to sit down together and figure out how we can have a better government, one which works for the people, and not one which is beset with inefficiencies, corruption or even anti-populist programs.

To me, it seems Conservatives need to better understand the Liberal passion for social justice, whereas Liberals need to better understand that other moral systems, particularly religious and traditional systems have continued relevance, and should not be minimized in the zeal to engineer a more socially just world. Conservatives would profit from acknowledging the Liberals’ observations about the ongoing existence of discrimination but Liberals would profit from recognizing Conservatives observations about the detrimental effects that the decay of traditional moral values has had on society, as with DEI, the child trans movement, and the attempt to minimize or extinguish traditional and family values. Liberals and Conservatives need to come together to acknowledge the validity of each other’s moral perspectives, and to figure out a way for all forms of moral sensitivity to have a seat at the table, in creating public policy.

Conservatives would do well to acknowledge that there may indeed be a role for government in creating a more socially just society. Liberals would do well to acknowledge the immense failures of government in providing for the popular welfare. It would be helpful for Liberals and Conservatives to come together and look at where government must of necessity play a role in aiding social justice, how and why it has failed, and how it may be possible for government to become an agent for popular good and not just for wealthy and powerful interest groups.

Conservatives would do well to acknowledge that industry’s history of irresponsible behavior requires some kind of regulatory authority to keep these behaviors in check. Liberals would do well to acknowledge that the current regulatory system has been captured by the industries that are intended to be regulated, and as such has become of no social utility. Both sides need to work together towards regulatory reform.

It is is easy for conservatives to dismiss liberals’ wish to have a place for safe conversation, free from inflammatory language. Given recent history, this interest is extremely relevant, as dialogue between opposing sides has all too often degenerated into name-calling, ad-hominem attacks, character assassination, bad-jacketing, and slander, deployed to defame or discredit people in order to avoid having to deal with their sometimes quite valid arguments. There needs to be order and respect in the public square. That being said, I believe many Liberals go too far, in that sometimes the mere act of disagreement leads to claims of “giving offense” or “micro-aggressions.” These imagined “assaults” are anything but, in most cases. Claims of needing a safe space by liberals have sometimes been used an excuse to opt out of dialogue because they lack the skill to debate. The victim cry can be deployed as a form of aggression and has no place in the public square. Conservatives have tended to dismiss liberal sensitivity, which however over the top it may appear, needs to be dealt with as a reality. Liberals have sometimes tended to look down their nose at conservatives. Hillary Clinton’s comment that conservatives were “deplorable” captured the condescension many conservatives sometimes feel coming from liberals. This attitude, where it exists, is counterproductive, and must be replaced by open-minded respect. Both sides need to bring their best sides to the table in discussing issues where their perspectives differ, keeping a sharp eye out for areas of agreement or at least overlap.

I know conservatives and liberals whom I consider to be extremely good people. Jonathan Haidt, in his seminal book on the subject of political psychology, The Righteous Mind, reports similar experiences. Within the larger groups, one can find examples of individuals who appear to carry ideology too far, espouse it in obnoxious ways, or at least represent the best of these differing perspectives poorly. The great majority of liberals and conservatives, from my experience appear to be sincere, decent people who genuinely want the best for others. They are skeptical of the opposite group’s ideas, but not entirely close-minded when it comes to listening to them and giving them a fair hearing. I have found that conservatives have a much greater trust, for whatever reason, possibly related to basic personality structure with more spiritual ways of understanding reality. I have found that liberals have, again for unclear reasons, possibly related to basic personality structure, more trust in rational systems of analysis. What liberals sometimes fail to see is that they can be very irrational and emotional even while professing to be following “good sense” and “logic”. What conservatives can fail to see is that those who are espousing irreligious viewpoints still feel the need to have their perspectives taken seriously and honored fully. Resolving differences in political views seems to me to be not so much about searching for who is right and who is wrong, but about trying to find compromises with others whose fundamental ways of understanding the world are different from our own, while maintaining one’s humanity. This process can be quite challenging at times, because of our own human limitations, which can occasionally make us wrong in ways it is hard for us to see, and because there are a small percentage of individuals who fail miserably in speaking with us to maintain fundamental sensitivity and compassion for others in their communication style. Deep emotional hurts about things we care deeply about are not easily forgotten or forgiven. We must try to persevere and create bridges with those who share a common sense of decency with us. Those who cannot maintaining civility in their discourse do not deserve a seat at the table, although they are still deserving of humane treatment in spite of their at times reprehensible behavior.