The projected worldviews of Liberals and Conservatives

Roughly categorizing the prevalent mindsets into "Liberal/Left" and "Conservative/Right" it is my observation that they see the world as follows:

1. Conservatives think things were/are good and getting worse.

2. Liberals think things were/are bad and can or will get better.

A right-winger is generally optimistic about the past/present and pessimistic about the future, a liberal is generally optimistic about the future and pessimistic about the past/present.

I have actually tested this theory again and again and again and it so often works that I've made this little prediction out of it. People who are well-fed and comfortable in the present and have been in the past will be more resistant toward "change" and "progress". People who are struggling or uncomfortable in the present or have been in the past will want "change" and "progress".

The rare breed of people who are neither liberal nor conservative are either pessmistic on both sides (I call them conspiracy theorists ), seeing the past, present and future as something dark or optimistic on both sides, seeing the past, present and future in a bright light.

If you think this is nonsense I challenge you to go out and test it. Ask how someone sees their life and whether they are happy (present) and then ask how they see the future (of America, of the World, of their lives) etc. And then find out what their political affiliations are. Having Experimented with this, I believe it works 8 times out of 10.

So if someone is saying "This country is going down the drain" but he appears to be doing alright in the present, there is an 80% chance he is a conservative. And if someone is saying "I have a lot of hope that positive change will eventually come!" but does not to be doing that well in the present, there is an 80% chance he's a liberal.

This also explains why Democrat-Voters are on average much younger and Republican voters on average much older. The young ones are future-oriented, the old-ones past-oriented. One side would like to "conserve" that which worked or was found to be good, the other side would like to progress and make new good things.

From this perspective it is easily seen why both these sides are actually needed for the development of society.

reply to post by Skyfloating

2. Liberals think things were/are bad and can or will get better.

Some of us are liberals who are not having a "hard time" ourselves, but are distraught by how many billions of people in the world ARE struggling, dying, suffering, starving slaves. My upbringing was middle-class American - "WASP" - I am a third generation immigrant on my dad's side, and a 13th generation immigrant on my mom's.

I've never had to worry about having enough to eat, a roof over my head, people who will help me if that roof burns down, etc.
But TOO MANY PEOPLE all over THE WORLD DO have to live with death facing them every day, somehow or another, just as it was in the pre-modern times of the Dark Ages, primitive societies, and Third World countries today. Whether it's a poor child in an urban core slum neighborhood, a Syrian mother, a homeless veteran, too many people are desperate, and that's not okay.

Those people's pain and worry and suffering is why I want Progress.
S/F

reply to post by Skyfloating


I do agree generally. However, I think it's more than that.

I think conservatives, in general, are more concerned with how things are FOR THEM and not so concerned how things are for other people or groups as regards wealth, access, freedom and equality. As long as they and theirs are doing well, they're happy.

I think liberals, in general, are more concerned with how things are FOR EVERYONE as regards wealth, access, freedom and equality, even though they, themselves may be doing fine.

I'm doing just great. I have everything I need and most of what I want as regards finances. I have health insurance, I'm straight, I'm white and we own our home. But I know there are many out there who are not as fortunate, and my political focus is on progressing so that everyone will have better lives.

I am pretty much the very definition of "middle of the road" -- I probably vote Democrat more often than Republican (just barely) -- but I believe that both sides are auguring the country into the ground. In many ways, things were better in the past, but I personally hold out little hope for the future. The more polarized the country becomes, the less likely I think that we'll be able to pull out of this course that we're set upon.

Not sure that this adds to your OP, Sky, sorry

I agree with Wildtimes. I propose this test.
Conservatives worry about themselves. Liberals worry about others. Try that on for size.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

I do agree generally. However, I think it's more than that.

I think conservatives, in general, are more concerned with how things are FOR THEM and not so concerned how things are for other people or groups as regards wealth, access, freedom and equality. As long as they and theirs are doing well, they're happy.

I think liberals, in general, are more concerned with how things are FOR EVERYONE as regards wealth, access, freedom and equality, even though they, themselves may be doing fine.

I'm doing just great. I have everything I need and most of what I want as regards finances. I have health insurance, I'm straight, I'm white and we own our home. But I know there are many out there who are not as fortunate, and my political focus is on progressing so that everyone will have better lives.

This goes ditto for me. I was going to post the exact same sentiment, only not as eloquently, so I'll let BH's post stand for mine.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think conservatives, in general, are more concerned with how things are FOR THEM and not so concerned how things are for other people or groups as regards wealth, access, freedom and equality. As long as they and theirs are doing well, they're happy.

I think that's an overly simplistic generalization -- you're essentially claiming that conservatives are selfish, and liberals are gregarious. If that were the case, there would be no poor conservatives and no rich liberals, and we know that is not the case.

A more reasonable generalization is that conservatives tend to trust in the ability of individuals to accomplish what they want/need to do, while liberals tend to trust in the ability of society to do the same. A good case can be made for either (which is why, as I said, I tend to be "middle of the road",) but once one moves to the extremes, problems arise. On the conservative side, the philosophy begins to marginalize those who really do rely on societal support, while on the liberal side, it can become an overarching "nanny state" which imposes values on all people, unnecessarily.

In the end, I don't know which is worse, but I would personally prefer neither.

I consider myself an optimistic pessimist. I hope for the best, but plan for the worst. I also consider myself to be liberally conservative.

I think that most conservatives do see down the road and see it in a rational manner, whereas many liberals see down the road in a emotional manner.

"If you're not a Liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a Conservative at 40 you have no brain." – attributed to Sir Winston Churchill.

But I've noticed that many in their 60's are Socialistic. They want their Medicare, MedicAid and Social Security. Cut everything else but that many of them say.

reply to post by adjensen


This whole thread is based on simplistic generalizations. That's why I felt it was safe and accurate to make the ones I did.

Originally posted by adjensen
If that were the case, there would be no poor conservatives and no rich liberals, and we know that is not the case.

If I had made a blanket statement, that would be true, but as I said, we are speaking generally here.

A more reasonable generalization is that conservatives tend to trust in the ability of individuals to accomplish what they want/need to do, while liberals tend to trust in the ability of society to do the same

I agree that that is another reasonable generalization. I'm not sure how it's "more reasonable" as there are many exceptions to it as well.

I tend to be middle-of-the-road, too, and I think we'd do better without the extremes. I believe in personal responsibility AND helping those in need, when they are unable to do for themselves.

A right-winger is generally optimistic about the past/present and pessimistic about the future, a liberal is generally optimistic about the future and pessimistic about the past/present.

I find this to be generally false, but I live in a dark blue state.

Pretty much everyone I know claims they are liberal, regardless of the criteria listed in the OP.

I do find that both liberals and conservatives think things can or will get better only if their party is in control... which is the really sad thing.

I personally refuse to apply one of these two labels to myself regarding politics. I'd rather discuss individual issues on their respective merits.

reply to post by Skyfloating


That sounds about right, generally. Especially about how people think about the "good ol days" but its nothing but nostalgia, world will no longer be like that, it is ever changing, you die out if you stay stale.

My parents are "conservative" not politically(might be idk anymore) but culturally. I am more liberal(i think, well i know i'm not conservative).

I think the world will be different in about 30 yrs.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


I think conservatives, in general, are more concerned with how things are FOR THEM and not so concerned how things are for other people or groups as regards wealth, access, freedom and equality

Another interesting thing about these sides are of course the polarizing cliches. "Conservatives are selfish", "Liberals are Naive".

Projection means that these particular sides would have difficulty seeing the world (or anything for that matter) objectively because they are seeing it through a prism of their ideology.So from a liberal viewpoint the OP would be "biased pro conservative" and from a conservative viewpoint the OP would be "biased pro liberal". Of course its none of that, but the more extreme the ideology, the more the distortion occurs.

Originally posted by wildtimes


Those people's pain and worry and suffering is why I want Progress.

I know...bless your liberal heart.

Originally posted by damwel

Conservatives worry about themselves. Liberals worry about others. Try that on for size.

And are you aware of what the other side would say to that?

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

I personally refuse to apply one of these two labels to myself regarding politics. I'd rather discuss individual issues on their respective merits.

...which would be the sane way to do it imo...without coming into the discussion with a preconceived ideology.

I think you are mostly right OP however I find it strange that this is really a modern distortion. Conservatives like the republicans were founded on a progressive platform and were concerned about the well being of others despite the statements of some posters (anti-slavery). You even point out that it has become a division based on age and outlook which is funny considering young people are generally naive and formulate ideas based on desires as opposed to wisdom from experience. Not to say conservatives are not being manipulated on the opposite end by scaring older members into fearing radicalized youth.

I find modern liberalism to be radicalized to some extent which probably stems from the ties with anarchist, socialist, communist etc. Most progressives/liberals cant agree on what they want the future to be and have no real plan for getting there. I at least have found substance with some conservative ideas and they generally have a plan that has worked.

Most Americans tend to divide themselves into groups for identity but you would be amazed at the general lack of political knowledge by supporters of both sides. Some people hold liberal social views and conservative fiscal views and the inverse is held as well. The real issue is we have representatives that don't represent the views of their constituents or their party but they keep getting reelected.

I find some of the responses quite funny, especially Wildtimes. She suggest older conservatives are selfish yet they probably give more to charity than the left. Also as far as caring for the well being of others lets not forget that the left supports abortion. which they consider charity

reply to post by NihilistSanta

I find some of the responses quite funny, especially Wildtimes. She suggest older conservatives are selfish yet they probably give more to charity than the left. Also as far as caring for the well being of others lets not forget that the left supports abortion. which they consider charity

Oh. So glad I could give you a laugh, NS.

When did I say that? My parents were not selfish. My dad worked for what he had. I "suggested" that things need to change....because the existing system has stopped working the way it was supposed to.

The older conservatives give "more to charity" than the left? Big whoop. Do they LIVE "charity"? No, they just "give money" so others can do the real work. And they DON'T PAY ATTENTION to how it actually gets 'spent', or to whom it winds up in possession.....

What a load of crapola. DON'T SPEAK FOR ME, EVER.

reply to post by wildtimes


What exactly are you progressing towards and how are you going to get there? Ok we have starving kids in africa, what is Wildtimes progressive idea that fixes that without starving a kid in another part of the world?

I was mistaken I attributed a quote from someone else to you, wildtimes. Dont get your panties in a bunch

reply to post by NihilistSanta

What exactly are you progressing towards and how are you going to get there? Ok we have starving kids in africa, what is Wildtimes progressive idea that fixes that without starving a kid in another part of the world?

We have kids starving in America, too. There is NO REASON that anyone should be starving. WATCH this video, don't just listen to it. My answer lies in the visuals.

(If you don't want my panties in a twist, don't put my name on words I didn't say - in fact, you have time to go back and change it to whoever you meant to 'represent')