(LIBERALS ONLY) Is there a fundamental divide between us and conservatives?

[SnowyMacie]

I've seen this article shared numerous times on Facebook now, and I thought I would share it with you as well. I think it, albeit a bit aggressively, explains that political differences are, if not already have become fundamental differences about about it what means to live in a society. I remember having a conversation with an anti-vaccine friend of mine, explaining to him that not vaccinating your children literally has an impact on others, and his response was basically "That's not my problem, they should have to make accommodations for their health needs." While this article isn't just about this issue, it does bring up that exact line of thinking. Here's the highlight of the article?

I haven’t run out of salient points or evidence for my political perspective, but there is a particular stumbling block I keep running into when trying to reach across the proverbial aisle and have those “difficult conversations” so smugly suggested by think piece after think piece:

I don’t know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people.

Personally, I’m happy to pay an extra 4.3 percent for my fast food burger if it means the person making it for me can afford to feed their own family. If you aren’t willing to fork over an extra 17 cents for a Big Mac, you’re a fundamentally different person than I am.

I’m perfectly content to pay taxes that go toward public schools, even though I’m childless and intend to stay that way, because all children deserve a quality, free education. If this seems unfair or unreasonable to you, we are never going to see eye to eye.

If I have to pay a little more with each paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP. Poverty should not be a death sentence in the richest country in the world. If you’re okay with thousands of people dying of treatable diseases just so the wealthiest among us can hoard still more wealth, there is a divide between our worldviews that can never be bridged.

I don’t know how to convince someone how to experience the basic human emotion of empathy. I cannot have one more conversation with someone who is content to see millions of people suffer needlessly in exchange for a tax cut that statistically they’ll never see (do you make anywhere close to the median American salary? Less? Congrats, this tax break is not for you).

I cannot have political debates with these people. Our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental divide on what it means to live in a society, how to be a good person, and why any of that matters.

I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People | HuffPost

Do you think she's right? Are we passed the point of political differences into fundamental differences about it means to be a member of society? If so, how can we change our discussions and debate to reflect that and begin to work together again?

 

[ExodusMe]

The fundamental divide is what is the best vehicle for caring about other people. Not whether we should care about them or not. Liberals think the government is really good at caring for people. Conservatives do not.

 

[Eryk]

The barrier is the idea that taxation is theft. Strangers aren't taking your money. Our taxes support our country. A real patriot wants to give to their country.

Wealth is being transferred up the social pyramid and the wealthy are hiding it in foreign bank accounts. They just want the satisfaction of a huge net worth. That money should be used for education, health care, infrastructure, and scientific research. The things that make life better for everyone.

 

[Saucy]

I'm posting just to subscribe to this thread. Interested in hearing the responses.

 

[Martinius]

This is not about whether the "government" cares or does anything, it is about whether people care and are willing to do something to help others, even small things, as the article mentions.

One reason that the government has become the fallback for the social safety net is that we, as individuals and a society, have failed. We much prefer exploiting those without political or economic power to line our own pockets than making sure that everyone has access to the basic necessities. More and more I am seeing a big disconnect between what Christians say they believe and how they act toward others. We may not directly harm others through our individual actions, but we harm through through our blindness, ignorance and apathy, and through our shockingly high level off materialism that condemns millions of people to extreme poverty and deplorable living conditions. But: Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Martinius]

The barrier is the idea that taxation is theft. Strangers aren't taking your money. Our taxes support our country. A real patriot wants to give to their country.

Wealth is being transferred up the social pyramid and the wealthy are hiding it in foreign bank accounts. They just want the satisfaction of a huge net worth. That money should be used for education, health care, infrastructure, and scientific research. The things that make life better for everyone.

I have a friend who is on the edge of poverty but a staunch conservative. He is always complaining about high taxes. I asked him if ever actually calculated what percentage of his income he paid in federal income taxes. He figured it was around 25 or 30 percent. I told him not even if we combined both our incomes. With exemptions and standard deductions and more credits the actual tax was under 10%. He paid another 3% to the state. I asked if that was too much to pay to defend our country, aid education, build highways and bridges, fund medical research, provide clean drinking water, etc., etc. He had bought into what others had told him without really determining the truth.

I never begrudge a penny I pay, as long as it is spent wisely. Often it is not the tax but how it is used, misused or abused, that troubles me.

 

[hedrick]

Classically, Republicans felt that government tended to be inefficient and political, and non-government approaches are better. There are clearly cases where that's true. But starting with Clinton, Democrats moved centrist. Starting with Obama, Republicans moved seriously right. At this point I think on the most visible national issues I think it's hard to maintain the conservatives have a case.

That doesn't mean that most conservatives don't care about others. But there have been enough unguarded statements from their national leaders that I think many of the leaders don't. However it's hard to separate what political leaders actually believe and what they say because they can convince voters.

My impression is that much of this is irrelevant. How people vote doesn't seem to be based on rational thought about what the implications are. As far as I can tell it's based on how much they think the candidates have the same concerns they do. I honestly believe that Democratic support for liberal social issues alienated conservative voters.

Liberals and conservatives both tend to hold the same views as their friends. Conservatives live in communities where the things Obama and Clinton cared about seem alien. I think that's the real problem. I don't think evidence has much effect when your community all believes something. Particularly for conservative communities, since they see themselves as resisting an ungodly world.

 

[Hetta]

I have absolutely nothing to talk about with Conservatives/Republicans any longer. Even my own family members that swing that way talk in terms that I find repugnant, and as they think themselves "Christian" that is even more repugnant. People, I think, are lost in the swamp that their leader has dug (which he promised to drain btw). Now, they have to believe that "all libs are ..." and that list is beyond ridiculous. One family member actually said that "all libs are just looking for a free handout." I took exception and reminded him that myself, my husband (who is his kin), and many other family members who are Liberals have worked our entire lives, and have been fortunate to never need any assistance. There is just silence when you challenge them with realities. When I challenge other Conservatives by telling them how healthcare works in my home country, they can only talk about "communism" (it's not a communist country), and then they suggest that not everyone deserves healthcare anyway. Poor people just don't deserve anything *because poor.* One of the reasons I stopped reading and posting on this website very often was because of the plain, outright hatefulness I see towards the poor and needy. These same people claim that the government shouldn't be taking "their" taxes to feed those people, they should get a job. You can't get across to them that this is simply not an option for many people, and that minimum wage jobs - about all some people can get - don't pay the bills, hence people still need help. The argument follows that they should go to college. Not everyone can go to college! Not just the cost, but they're simply not capable of operating at that level. Or they've tried and failed. There are few, if any, apprenticeships because America long since sold out on such concepts. So what do those millions do who can't achieve a college degree, for whom there are no apprenticeships, who started out in a low income family and don't see any way to rise above that? All the nonsense about rags to riches is just that. Very, very few start with nothing and become wealthy. Your American dream is a joke. It fails at the door to the Foodbank at which my family regularly volunteers, and at the point at which Christians spit on the poor and call them lazy, idle, useless, etc. Or the other big joke - those who say that *they* shouldn't have to pay taxes to help the poor, the church should help the poor, that the government took away somehow the way that the churches and communities were helping the poor. Even I know American history better than that. They don't seem to have heard of The Depression. If the churches truly could help every single person in their community - whether they are Christians or not - then sure, let them have it. Actually, the mega churches could do exactly that, but those leaders choose to enrich themselves instead, and then squawk about the prosperity bible, because if you're just not holy enough then you'll stay poor. Ugh, I need to stop typing. The whole thing disgusts me so much.

 

[Eryk]

Or the other big joke - those who say that *they* shouldn't have to pay taxes to help the poor, the church should help the poor, that the government took away somehow the way that the churches and communities were helping the poor. Even I know American history better than that. They don't seem to have heard of The Depression. If the churches truly could help every single person in their community - whether they are Christians or not - then sure, let them have it. Actually, the mega churches could do exactly that, but those leaders choose to enrich themselves instead, and then squawk about the prosperity bible, because if you're just not holy enough then you'll stay poor. Ugh, I need to stop typing. The whole thing disgusts me so much.

Yes. Social Security was proven necessary when a higher percentage of Americans went to church, compared to today. There never was nor ever will be enough in private charity to cover things like this. Or million dollar hospital bills for cancer or a premature baby. There is no way around the necessity of government and a progressive tax system if we are going to prevent massive suffering. And conservatives love government money. Farm subsidies, medicare, they suck it up.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I totally agree with @Hetta. She summed up some of my own feelings on this subject very well. And like her, I have absolutely nothing to talk about with conservative Republicans anymore either. I hope it's okay for me to say this but I have a particular dislike for evangelical Christians who voted for Trump and who still support him. I'm especially disgusted at the evangelicals who go out of their way to defend him or even praise him, given the kind of person he is. Anyway, I was involved in another thread on religion and bigotry a couple of days ago where I shared more of my thoughts on this issue (my post is here).

 

[ExodusMe]

Yes. Social Security was proven necessary when a higher percentage of Americans went to church, compared to today. There never was nor ever will be enough in private charity to cover things like this. Or million dollar hospital bills for cancer or a premature baby. There is no way around the necessity of government and a progressive tax system if we are going to prevent massive suffering. And conservatives love government money. Farm subsidies, medicare, they suck it up.

Healthcare is a great beginning to determine one of the watershed differences between a fiscal conservative and a socialist. Socialized medical care does not 'prevent massive suffering'. Having socialized medical care does not make cancer go away. There are private enterprises (e.g. insurance companies) who take on the medical risk of insured persons. Socialized medical care inflates the cost of healthcare because there is an increased demand and in most cases it is not necessary to be treated. The U.S. healthcare system is in a bad position at the moment because health care providers have a legal responsibility to treat each and every qualm a person has when they come into their office. Your neck hurts? Get an X-Ray. You feel tired? Get your blood work done. The average person just keeps going to the doctor for each and every problem and the cost is never realized to them. The government has always subsidized the healthcare industry in America and it has resulted in a culture where people think it is normal to go to the doctor if they get a fever or feel bad. If people had to actually pay their medical bills we would see the cost go down as people might think twice about going to urgent care for their fever & headache.

The alternative is the Canadian healthcare system where they ration healthcare by putting people on waiting lists. You essentially end up with non-medical professionals making medically significant decisions which has been directly linked to the deaths of a number of citizens.

In each case, you never end up with an 'equal' system. Nobody ever gets the medical care 'they deserve'. There will always be a way to supplement coverage or travel to a country with better coverage (if you are rich enough). Subsidized healthcare also causes a displacement of doctors as the better doctors go to places with better wages.

There are so many variables in this and so you cannot use these blanket statements of "fiscal conservatives do not care about people" when in reality they do.

 

[Hetta]

I totally agree with @Hetta. She summed up some of my own feelings on this subject very well. And like her, I have absolutely nothing to talk about with conservative Republicans anymore either. I hope it's okay for me to say this but I have a particular dislike for evangelical Christians who voted for Trump and who still support him. I'm especially disgusted at the evangelicals who go out of their way to defend him or even praise him, given the kind of person he is. Anyway, I was involved in another thread on religion and bigotry a couple of days ago where I shared more of my thoughts on this issue (my post is here).

The image I saw in the media today of "evangelical leaders" laying their hands on Trump and praying with him - and talking about the special relationship they have with this two time adulterer (two times known about for sure) and pharisee made me sick to my stomach.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

The image I saw in the media today of "evangelical leaders" laying their hands on Trump and praying with him - and talking about the special relationship they have with this two time adulterer (two times known about for sure) and pharisee made me sick to my stomach.

I felt the same way. I was especially disgusted with how quickly these "evangelical leaders" changed their mind concerning Christian morality when it concerned Trump too. One such leader was Dr. James Dobson. He condemned Bill Clinton in 1998 for the sexual scandals and said: "Character does matter. You can't run a family, let alone a country without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world" (Source). But in 2016, he publicly endorsed Trump and said: "I’m not under any illusions that he is an outstanding moral example. It’s a cliché but true: We are electing a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief” (Source). He sure changed his mind with Trump concerning a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity. I suppose it would be fair to point out the fact that Dr. Dobson apparently described himself as foolish because Trump lacks both honesty and moral integrity. It seems he gave a self-fulfilling prophecy of himself.

The two older articles I linked below also discuss the apparent change of heart for evangelical Christians supporting Trump after the sexual scandals of Bill Clinton. It's interesting to see their change of heart.

Evangelical convictions for sale

The Politics of the Evangelical Right, and Their Very Public Sin

 

[hedrick]

Healthcare is a great beginning to determine one of the watershed differences between a fiscal conservative and a socialist.

Your analysis sounds reasonable, but probably isn't. There's probably no reasonable way to avoid at least insurance. The cost of something like cancer is something most people can't handle. I agree that if we paid costs directly, we might make better choices. But we'd also likely not be able to get care for serious cases, and many people wouldn't be able to get it at all.

So I don't think there's any reasonable alternative to some kind of 3rd party payments. That does have the problems you mention. That's why most policies have co-pays, and require approvals for many kinds of treatment. Good plans also emphasize preventive care.

Now the question becomes how to pay for the insurance. For people like me it's not an issue. But for many it is. At this point it becomes an issue of what kind of country we want to be. For better or worse, we've decided that everyone should get at least some health care, at least in emergency rooms. We could say that poor people don't get care, but I don't think most people would accept that. Even Republicans understand that their new plan is going to be judged by how many people they cover.

If you accept the concept that everyone should get coverage, and that it probably has to take the form of insurance, I believe it would be easier to do it in a uniform way. How socialized it is is a matter for congress.

Why do we treat health care differently from other things? I think the answer is that costs aren't uniform. Many churches (including mine) have food banks. There are private efforts at homeless shelters. But I'm not aware of equivalent efforts for health care. I think that's because the kind of low-cost efforts of building a food bank just won't work for cancer patients or even older people with lots of prescriptions.

I've heard suggestions that somehow churches could sponsor health coverage for all their members. But I'm not aware of it except as hypothetical. And that doesn't help people outside those churches.

As far as I know, there's no realistic alternative to providing health care for everyone that doesn't involve a large government role. And I don't think anyone other than conservative Christians is prepared to say that we shouldn't provide care for everyone.

As far as I can tell, the Canadian system is the way it is because of explicit decisions. They've decided not to spend as much as we do, and to accept delays for many services. I'd be happy to see a system like that as a minimum, with a way for people who can afford it and want to spend money on it to get faster care. That would leave some element of choice.

Indeed it's the most likely direction for the US to take. The most likely scenario is that we expand Medicare as a baseline service, but still have many people covered by private plans.

 

[hedrick]

Health savings accounts have been proposed as an alternative. It's another of those things that makes sense on paper but not reality. Will all those young people who are supposedly complaining that Obamacare forces them to pay for insurance really put their money into health savings accounts? I doubt it. So what happens when they get older and need the money that should have been in the accounts? Are we prepared to let them die? I don't think so, and I wouldn't want to live in a country that made that decision. Maybe you would.

I'm afraid taking payments in taxes is the only thing that's going to work, though as noted, I'd be happy to provide only a minimal level of coverage and let people choose a higher level.

 

[hedrick]

I did not mean to suggest we shouldn't have insurance. My post was to show that there is much more to debate than just "conservatives do not care about people". @Hetta and @Emerald Flame are comfortable citing their hypocrite families as a way to show that all conservatives are unsympathetic to the poor & needy or how disgusted they are with conservatives. This topic requires intelligent civilized discussion if there is to be made any progress in providing equal and affordable healthcare to U.S. citizens.

Maybe. I think the alternatives to widespread Medicaid are either unworkable or not something a Christian would support, after careful examination. (I think Obamacare is less than ideal, but that is largely because it's the best they could get through Congress.) But I can't accuse people of not caring because they don't understand the analysis, particularly when their leaders are feeding them all kinds of propaganda. (Remember how many people opposed Obamacare in polls, but when you gave them its major provisions one by one, they supported them.)

I do, however blame leadership. The Republican leadership are currently putting together a plan that adds no significant degree of freedom or any other reasonable goal. If you are opposed to the government mandating that you help others, this still does it. It's only significant effect will be removing insurance from people. Fortunately the amount they can get away with is a lot less than they originally hoped.

I don't suspect them of actually setting out to damage people. Rather, it seems that they feel their political future is tied to doing something that can be claimed as repealing Obamacare. But harming people for one's political gain is seriously unethical.

 

[*Starlight*]

I'm a moderate liberal and I disagree with the article, because I don't think it's a good idea to divide people in such a black and white way. Unfortunately it's really common for politicians, media, etc. to divide people into "conservatives" and "liberals", "left wing" and "right wing", or "our party which is good" and "the other party which is bad", without any nuances. It's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, because it actually causes people to divide themselves. This article is a case in point. I think it's better to look for common ground, in order to reverse that trend.

 

[ExodusMe]

@*Starlight* impressive response and I commend you for standing out from among the elitists. This is the much needed reasonableness that we need in politics.

 

[ubicaritas]

It's beyond your original question... but I actually believe there's a huge divide among Christians for similar reasons. Religion in our country has become politics by other means. And some of the politics used is just bad. So yeah, there is a fundamental divide.

 

[mnphysicist]

Politics and religion both derive a fair bit of their respective conservative and liberal value sets based upon their respective members moral foundations. Jonathan Haidt's built a good chunk of his career around analyzing this type of thing. Here is his Ted Talk from 2008.

The moral roots of liberals and conservatives

This graph is pretty informative, where in it breaks down moral value sets into harm, fairness, authority, ingroup, and purity as a function of self political identification..

I've referenced Haidt's work a great deal over the last 10 years, and time and time again, it provides some answers as to why a given problem is approached by different groups. Consider that its not that conservatives don't care about the sick and poor, its that the do care, but other factors make care less of a priority than it is for liberals.

That being said, their are outliers... liberal anti-vaxxers elevate their views of purity and ingroup (family/tribe) beyond the needs of the greater population. In a related vein, conservative physicians will often sacrifice the needs of their family to attend to the sick and poor, in some cases putting their entire families lives at risk (consider folks from Franklin Graham's org who volunteered to work with Ebola patients).

That being said, the model is helpful when trying to communicate. Its very easy for those of us on the left to throw purity,authority,and in group foundations under the bus in the pursuit of care (reducing harm)... and when we do that, our messaging, fact filled or not, often doesn't register with conservative individuals. However, if messaging is reframed in a way to bolster those other foundations, without too much dilution of the harm foundation, more than a few time's I've noticed light bulbs going on.

Another aspect of this, is that its a whole lot easier to get folks to work together as a team when you fire up 4-5 moral foundations, even amongst liberal groups... when one primarily focuses on only the first two, team work becomes very strained, providing credence to the statement in my liberal circle that dem's can't even lead themselves out of a paper bag.