The liberal v right wing mentality...

[alexb123]

Are liberals caring and trusting towards other people because they haven't formed good bonds with other people?

Reflecting back on my own life, I was more liberal when I felt I needed other people. So I would, in my view have a naive view of people and the world because I needed people and world.

However, as I formed better personally relationships, I feel it gave me the freedom to view others and the world more accurately and thus I became more right wing.

Can people relate to this?

 

[billvon]

Are liberals caring and trusting towards other people because they haven't formed good bonds with other people?

Liberalism is a political point of view, and does not mean that they are "caring and trusting" towards other people they know. You can be a liberal and be a miserable cur to others; you can even be a conservative and caring to others you know personally. In my experience liberals _tend_ to see other people in a better light than conservatives.

However, as I formed better personally relationships, I feel it gave me the freedom to view others and the world more accurately and thus I became more right wing.

I find that to be a good right winger you have to believe an awful lot of lies - that climate change doesn't exist, that evolution is just a "theory," that Muslim immigrants are coming to kill us all, that a border wall might work, that the Big Bang is just a myth. That's one of the reasons I am more liberal than conservative; I respect science and math more than political blather.

 

[exchemist]

Are liberals caring and trusting towards other people because they haven't formed good bonds with other people?

Reflecting back on my own life, I was more liberal when I felt I needed other people. So I would, in my view have a naive view of people and the world because I needed people and world.

However, as I formed better personally relationships, I feel it gave me the freedom to view others and the world more accurately and thus I became more right wing.

Can people relate to this?

No. What you describe sounds to me like the standard progression from left to right as people get older.

Idealism is always more appealing to the young, who have lots of energy and goodwill but have not yet experienced the grinding difficulty of getting things done and the occasional malice of mankind. I don't think it is right to attribute this left -> right progression to improving quality of human relationships as people get older. I think it is more to do with a more jaundiced approach to humanity, born of bitter experience of life.

Where I do think you have a point is that when one is young one cares greatly about how one is seen by others, whereas when one is older one tends to be more preoccupied with one's own opinion of other people.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Are liberals caring and trusting towards other people because they haven't formed good bonds with other people?

That is totally dumb.

Do you live in a crap environment?

 

[sculptor]

"The liberal v right wing mentality."
Seems too damned simple. This thing ain't got just 2 sides. Think more like sphere, or a chaotic intertwining of strings of charged particles?

 

[iceaura]

No. What you describe sounds to me like the standard progression from left to right as people get older.

Side comment: In my own personal experience, meaning family and friends and surrounding communities and local political stuff and so forth, the progression is just as likely to be in the other direction.

Take the rightwing issue of whether banks and investment firms should be carefully restricted, regulated in various ways, and monitored for compliance by a government agency - a lot of people develop a greater mistrust of unfettered corporate capitalist enterprises, and more leftwing preferences for governing them, as they get older.

But that hardly speaks to the OP, which begins by contrasting "liberal" and "rightwing" as opposed entities, and is unlikely to ever find its way out of that muddle.

 

[origin]

Can people relate to this?

I can't.

 

[sideshowbob]

Are liberals caring and trusting towards other people because they haven't formed good bonds with other people?

I don't think liberals are inherently more caring or trusting than conservatives. The difference has more to do with ways-and-means.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

No. What you describe sounds to me like the standard progression from left to right as people get older.

I have found myself going the other way. I was a conservative when I was barely old enough to understand a bit of politics. Now at age 73, I'm a liberal, and have been for several decades.

Idealism is always more appealing to the young, who have lots of energy and goodwill but have not yet experienced the grinding difficulty of getting things done and the occasional malice of mankind.

As you get older, you become more effective and it can be easier to get things done. As for goodwill, I don't find it to correlate with any particular point in life.

Where I do think you have a point is that when one is young one cares greatly about how one is seen by others, whereas when one is older one tends to be more preoccupied with one's own opinion of other people.

As we get older, we have a larger peer group, and in order to be effective, we need to be seen by others in a better light. My opinions of other people aren't worth much, but other people's opinions of ME are extremely important.

 

[Seattle]

People can tend to be more liberal when they are young and more conservation once they get a job and have to pay taxes. That's just one aspect however.

What is more likely is just that one becomes more discerning after college and when one starts to work, buy a house, start a family etc. It doesn't have to mean that one becomes more conservative just that one is more discerning of liberal policy for example.

Liberals generally think that the government should play a greater role in society and conservatives think that the government should play a smaller role. So a liberal might be OK with taxes being a little higher if it was going to be used wisely and improve society in general.

Maybe that means Social Security, Universal Healthcare or subsidized education and some programs for those in society who have the least.

A Conservative may be more focused in self-reliance, a smaller government, lower taxes, and in some cases a stronger military.

If we are talking about reasonable people and moderates whether liberal or conservative they can both have good ideas and be good leaders for society with policy swinging back and forth between the two.

Today in the U.S. Conservative seems to mean authoritarian, overbearing religious, intolerant and the list goes on.

 

[Randwolf]

I don't think liberals are inherently more caring or trusting than conservatives. The difference has more to do with ways-and-means.

Really?

Why conservatives are more likely than liberals to believe false information about threats

In an electoral season that has blurred the line between fact and fantasy, a team of UCLA researchers is offering new evidence to support a controversial proposition: that when it comes to telling the difference between truth and fiction, not all potential voters are created equal.

When "alternative facts" allege some kind of danger, people whose political beliefs are more conservative are more likely than those who lean liberal to embrace them, says the team's soon-to-be-published study.

Conservatives' vulnerability to accepting untruths didn't apply equally to all false claims: When lies suggested dangerous or apocalyptic outcomes, more conservative participants were more likely to believe them than when the lie suggested a possible benefit.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/why...s-to-believe-false-information-about-threats/​

 

[joepistole]

Are liberals caring and trusting towards other people because they haven't formed good bonds with other people?

Reflecting back on my own life, I was more liberal when I felt I needed other people. So I would, in my view have a naive view of people and the world because I needed people and world.

However, as I formed better personally relationships, I feel it gave me the freedom to view others and the world more accurately and thus I became more right wing.

Can people relate to this?

No. It sounds a little wacky to me. I don't see a causal relationship or correlation between social relationships and party affiliation.

 

[sideshowbob]

Really?

Why conservatives are more likely than liberals to believe false information about threats

In an electoral season that has blurred the line between fact and fantasy, a team of UCLA researchers is offering new evidence to support a controversial proposition: that when it comes to telling the difference between truth and fiction, not all potential voters are created equal.

When "alternative facts" allege some kind of danger, people whose political beliefs are more conservative are more likely than those who lean liberal to embrace them, says the team's soon-to-be-published study.

Conservatives' vulnerability to accepting untruths didn't apply equally to all false claims: When lies suggested dangerous or apocalyptic outcomes, more conservative participants were more likely to believe them than when the lie suggested a possible benefit.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/why...s-to-believe-false-information-about-threats/​

Your quote is about gullibility, not caring or trusting. So yes, I'm sticking with really.

 

[Yazata]

Are liberals caring and trusting towards other people because they haven't formed good bonds with other people?

Maybe sometimes. I think that lots of people on the left feel vulnerable somehow and want the government to be their supporter and protector. Many feminists seem to want the government to play the role of sort of a husband-surrogate, something to turn to in times of need while eliminating their having to deal with that annoying... man. Young twenty-somethings are newly moved away from home and desire something supportive to replace their parents, something that doesn't make parental demands on them. Blacks identify the government as the guarantor of their civil rights and again, as a family surrogate making up for the typically broken single-parent homes in the black community. Gays fear the general public and see government as their champion and protector. Immigrants feel like outsiders in their new country and feel the same way.

Historically, large extended families have been people's support networks all around the world. But extended families have broken down in the West and many other places. The West's anything-goes self-expression ethic has also made families seem judgmental and restrictive to many people. So they look for alternative support networks that don't make as many demands on them. The welfare state promises that.

Reflecting back on my own life, I was more liberal when I felt I needed other people.

Adolescents and young adults want impersonal support without any control of their personal lives, without any strings attached.

However, as I formed better personally relationships, I feel it gave me the freedom to view others and the world more accurately and thus I became more right wing.

Can people relate to this?

I think that it's the trajectory that most people take, at least in the Western world, perhaps everywhere. As people's lives become more stable, as they become more confident in their ability to fend for themselves, they tend to drift rightwards. Youth typically tilt left, older people right. It's nothing new.

 

[billvon]

Maybe sometimes. I think that lots of people on the left feel vulnerable somehow and want the government to be their supporter and protector.

Some of the newer leftists feel this way because for years the government has actively opposed them - from laws against blacks attending white schools, to anti-miscegenation laws, to anti-gay laws. So they feel that they have to demand that the government put laws in place to prevent such abuses in the future, which makes sense.

Many feminists seem to want the government to play the role of sort of a husband-surrogate, something to turn to in times of need while eliminating their having to deal with that annoying... man.

Never met a feminist like that. Perhaps you hang out with a different group than I do.

Right wingers tend to want the government to protect them from more imagined evils - Muslim terrorists from certain countries, the "gay agenda," the evil EPA that is destroying their business. Right wing politicians know that they are more fearful than average, and they use this to their advantage, playing up the threat of foreigners or the threat of man-hating feminists to garner their support.

Conservatives want their government benefits, but at the same time they want smaller government. It's always interesting to see what happens when a conservative is confronted with this dilemma. From an article in 2010:

========
Some [conservatives] defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
========

Lately they have also started to become anti-science. Science occasionally conflicts with religion, and they feel they have to choose one or the other. So they choose creationism over evolution, denial over climate change science and anti-vaxxing over medical science. This is reinforced when they "choose a side" and science tends to weaken their side of the argument, as it does with climate change and carbon emissions. This is one reason that IQ and educational status has become a better and better predictor of political party affiliation.

 

[Dinosaur]

As an admirer of Ayn Rand, I consider right wingers as tending to be fascists & left wingers as being communists. Both being opposite sides of the same coin.

Those opposed to Ayn Rand's view (called Objectivism) back their beliefs with less logic & more emotion. Ayn Rand develops her views with a lot of logical analysis.

Whether you agree with Ayn Rand or not, any rational view of the history of the USA must conclude that the Federal government has become too powerful.

The founding fathers were opposed to a strong federal government & wisely made an income tax contrary to the constitution. The constitution was amended (in 1913, I think) to allow a federal income tax.

The proposed income tax legislation only taxed incomes over $25,000 per year (I think this is the number). At that time a typical factory worker made circa 1000 to 1500 per year (Due not trust my memory on these figures, but they are not far out of wack). The amendment was easily ratified due to the typical voter not being smart enough to realize that the $25,000 figure was not written into the amendment & could be changed by simple acts of congress.

 

[joepistole]

Are liberals caring and trusting towards other people because they haven't formed good bonds with other people?

Reflecting back on my own life, I was more liberal when I felt I needed other people. So I would, in my view have a naive view of people and the world because I needed people and world.

However, as I formed better personally relationships, I feel it gave me the freedom to view others and the world more accurately and th

No.

 

[joepistole]

As an admirer of Ayn Rand, I consider right wingers as tending to be fascists & left wingers as being communists. Both being opposite sides of the same coin.

Those opposed to Ayn Rand's view (called Objectivism) back their beliefs with less logic & more emotion. Ayn Rand develops her views with a lot of logical analysis.

Whether you agree with Ayn Rand or not, any rational view of the history of the USA must conclude that the Federal government has become too powerful.

The founding fathers were opposed to a strong federal government & wisely made an income tax contrary to the constitution. The constitution was amended (in 1913, I think) to allow a federal income tax.

The proposed income tax legislation only taxed incomes over $25,000 per year (I think this is the number). At that time a typical factory worker made circa 1000 to 1500 per year (Due not trust my memory on these figures, but they are not far out of wack). The amendment was easily ratified due to the typical voter not being smart enough to realize that the $25,000 figure was not written into the amendment & could be changed by simple acts of congress.

Right wingers and extreme left wingers (i.e. communists) are more alike than they are different once you get behind the facades. Both ideologies rely upon magic in order to make sense of their ideology. Rand's so called "objectivism" isn't at all objective. It's all emotion. Rand has no logical analysis. In fact she eschews empiricism as do other right wingers like Mises. Both are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human behavior. Both ideologies expect that suddenly and magically people will stop acting like people if you just do x, y, and z. But as long as people are people, they will continue to act like people.

Additionally, the founding fathers didn't make income taxes illegal. Facts matter comrade. Please cite where the portion of the US Constitution you think forbids income taxes. It doesn't exist. I'll be waiting. The Constitution was amended in 1913 to allow income taxes to be levied without apportionment. That doesn't mean that income taxes were illegal prior to that time. The country has a long history of using income taxes. Income taxes were used to finance the Civil War.

And why is it you think the US government has become too powerful? How much is too powerful and why? Please be specific. How powerful is powerful enough and why?

I think you need to read you history again. The founding fathers created the current Constitution because they wanted a more powerful federal government. The original founding documents were the Articles of Confederation. Government under the Articles of Confederation proved to be to weak. Government didn't have enough power. So the founding fathers created our current Constitution to form a stronger federal government. And one of the first acts President Washington did was to raise an army to enforce the Whiskey Tax. Facts matter comrade. Reason matters comrade.

 

[spidergoat]

Are liberals caring and trusting towards other people because they haven't formed good bonds with other people?

Reflecting back on my own life, I was more liberal when I felt I needed other people. So I would, in my view have a naive view of people and the world because I needed people and world.

No. Liberals realize that humans depend on one another, so our society is only as good as the least of us. Conservatives live a fantasy where all they need to depend on is Jesus and their gun.

 

[iceaura]

The founding fathers were opposed to a strong federal government & wisely made an income tax contrary to the constitution. The constitution was amended (in 1913, I think) to allow a federal income tax.

This is not so.

The Amendment to the Constitution was to allow income taxes to be levied by the Federal government against income derived from certain forms of capital - land rents and such.
The States were always permitted to levy income taxes of any kind, and the Federal government was always permitted to tax wage income and similar types.

The problem with the Federal income tax - the reason it and no other is the root of tyranny and the great evil of government - is that rich people have to pay it.