Actually, although I count myself in the classical conservative tradition, I disagree. In fact, both schools of thought have complex theoretical foundations. Although, liberalism does conduce to the expression of emotion more readily than does conservatism, that being an outgrowth of its' theoretical premises.
To start, liberalism, in its classical and subsequent variants, was a product of the Enlightenment. The idea that man was naturally - read spontaneously - rational and that he was corrupted by society. Things like culture, ethnicity, religion and the like were not core to man's identity and that if these were stripped away and law was made in conformance with man's natural rights, that society (and man) were ultimately perfectible.
Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"
To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs, legitimized by historical usage over time, that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.
Classical conservatives believe in the free market as a tool, rather than an end in itself. They recognize that it is a powerful wealth creator, efficient to some degree, and a guard against an overweening state. However, they believe, as Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."
Consequently, classical conservatives support an ameliorative welfare state. (The welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Disraeli and Bismarck.) The purpose such a welfare state being to reconcile the public to the dynamics of a free market economy by alleviating the negative impact of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.
In this they differ from American liberals who see the welfare state as a lever to engineer social transformation. That is, to restructure society according to some abstract a priori vision. Classical conservatives argue that such a vision is ultimately going to be oversimple and will lead to adverse and unintended consequences.
Suffice to say, given these two constructs, it is relatively easy to see where liberalism might conduce - not always, however - to the expression of emotion. Liberalism sees man as spontaneously good and society as corrupting. Thus when men give expression to their feelings they are merely giving expression to their authenticity and acting in accord with their nature.
Conservatism argues that the control of oneself and conformance to norms that have evolved through history and have been tested by time makes civilization possible. Thus it tends to frown upon the unbridled expression of feelings unchecked by social convention.
Of course, particularly for liberalism, this is inadvertent. Because liberalism believes that it is rooted in a scientific understanding of man and natural rights, it believes that it is conforming society and public policy to those natural rights. Indeed, it tends to look upon conservatism, with its reliance not on empirical science but rather historical experience and cultural conventions, as being the "emotional" philosophy. Untethered to an empirical understanding of the "laws of nature and of nature's God."
This is actually all much more nuanced than the above suggests, and for reasons of space it is not possible to go into greater depth. However, this adequately summarizes things and explains why liberalism TENDS to CONDUCE (emphasis added) to the expression of the individual's feelings and subjective judgments. These feelings being an expression of man's authenticity and thus a surer expression of his inherently rational and social - and perfectible - nature.
It's more the the economic policies (and others) are simplified in a conservative system while to be able to justify weird policies the sorts of which the democratic party in the us proposes sometimes, you have to smart (I don't know how smart but smart) addressing human problems and the things like where the future of humanity should move towards seem like undeniably complex topics. Therefore what you get in the end is a group of people which function on and understand simple principles (and stick to it) while some other people propose concepts they themselves are not sure how they would work to a certain degree, how to sustain a belief which cannot be rationally justified? Be irrational ignorant and suspend the belief of things making sense (and I don't say this in a bad way)... For eg you can see people arguing why a certain team or singer or actors they support is better but to actually be able to quantify and measure it you would need complexity so people tend to argue irrational points. Which might work out better for us in the future? I don't know but that's just my analysis of it.
Conservatism / liberalism is not a political party.. and you will find people of all variety in all groups.
Democratic and Republican Party respectively both lie. Their only true incentive is increasing and maintaining their own personal power and they will put in whatever show required , for their adoring fans to accomplish that. Like any celebrity.
Where In history can you point to a time politicians individually have NOT been obscenely rich, whilst despite clap trap and catchy phrases, effecting small change for the common personal.
They are all or all become, self serving. If they had delusions of grander ( that they will bust into a sleeping self promoting self satisfying self gratifying decadent system of greed and destruction and make waves) prior to being instated, they are quickly disabused of that fancy and learn to play along to get along- I e keep their power and not get kicked out of the rich kids power trip club.
both do and don't. depends on the person and what kind of thing were talking about.
exemples for reps: abortion since conception being bad (yea technically your killing a live creature i get it but still), cult of virginity, anything god related, anything linked to nationalism, tradition and patriotism, exc...
Opinion
37Opinion
Conservatism tends to be closer to reality based while liberalism is abstract based. Liberals always provide to their game plan by accusing the opponent with their own actions already being conducted. Liberalism is about erasing history and deploying their utopia that only exists in their imagination although proven to fail in communism on numerous occasions. Liberals will have you shut down the world to protect from a bug and then instigate close quarter protests/riots via George Soros-Nazi funding and attempting to keep open borders. The feminist government of Sweden imports immigration rape and murder against their own native women population, and pretend to be for rights and protection of women. The thing about liberals is they can never be wrong, as things start going to shit under their utopia, they simply ramp up doing more of the same because they emotionally believe they are right and with more of the same it will work no matter what. It is not until that NWO commissar comes up to them and puts a shovel into their soft air-conditioned moisturized hand and command “dig or die” will they understand and make the transition in their brains.
Well, first of all, your meme is completely the wrong way around, examples at the end.
Secondly, conservatism hasn't led to Trump, but the GOP has. They've been working for decades to prove that government doesn't work for the people (by disrupting it). They paved the way for someone like Trump, with dog-whistles, and packing the courts. They want to take you back to 100 years ago, ignoring all the positive things that happened in the mean time, including from Republican presidents like Nixon (the EPA).
True things that upset "conservatives":
COVID-19 is real, it has killed over 120,000 Americans, and there are three states where it has killed more than one in a thousand residents, worse than any country with more than 50,000 population (the exception being San Marino, with 42 deaths). The US is not doing as much testing per capita as many other countries (not even in the top 20).
Trump's inauguration crowd was smaller than Obama's.
People with nothing to hide don't obstruct investigations.
I voted disagree but am not a huge fan of the qualifier you put on there, as everyone acts primarily based on feelings, and that's a fact! Each truth (or perceived truth) has a different emotional impact on each person who believes it. For example, some people are angry about expensive healthcare while others are appalled by the national deficit. Some are frightened of mass shootings while others are frustrated by steadily increasing restrictions on gun ownership and usage. From how people shop to how they vote, it can clearly be seen time and time again that people respond more to the feelings associated with a fact than anything inherent about the fact itself, across the board.
Knowing this, it's important to understand one's own values in order to prioritize issues and act accordingly rather than blindly following the red team or blue team just because.
Mostly it seems it's the conservatives with "alternative facts". Some things conservatives claim that are dead wrong:
* Climate change isn't happening, or if it is, it's not caused by fossil fuel consumption.
* There is significant voter fraud (and we need voter ID laws to prevent it).
* People choose their sexual orientation and can change it.
* Deficits matter, except under a Republican administration, when they don't.
* President Obama is not a US Citizen.
* Abstinence-only sex education is effective.
There are many others.
Disagree, both parties use emotion to try to whip up support.
Conservatives idealize an imaginary past and fight to cling to it desperately.
Democrats pay lip service to change while simply raising taxes to pay their wealthy donor class.
Now actual liberals where they’re interested in civil rights/liberty aren’t actually in the running these days in the states. Europe has a couple options and Canada kind of has the NDP/greens. But generally you need to limit them with a counterweight if conservatives or too much changes too quickly and people get left behind; or worse yet the change is enforced and you end up with fascism.
At the end of the day I try to vote to increase government accountability and transparency at every opportunity and consider all their promises to be drunk sincerity at best.
Here's my opinion. FISCAL conservatives are more likely to base things on facts. The more fiscally conservative, the more facts. Because think about the person who spends like crazy and doesn't care why, vs somebody who thinks before they spend. Who is more likely to want facts?
Socially, it depends. Social liberals and conservatives have extreme sides both not based on science, reason, logic, etc. The key then, is to find the most logical balance. This of course, is often helped by considering which is the most fiscally beneficial.
Either sides suck at emotions usually. They both want control somehow and feel upset if people don't agree.
Case in point, score 1 for the super center Austrian School, libertarians.
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Yeah, like injected bleach gets rid of Covid-19; like Finland is part of Russia; like vetted edited journalism results in "fake news"; like inaugural crowds are "the biggest ever" when photographic evidence shows the contrary; the list goes on and on.
Conservatives have called the Sandy Hook massacre a "false flag" with "child actors".
Conservatives don't base their opinion on fact.
That's a fact.
Your question is idiotic. :)
Conservatives be like "facts don't care about your feelings" when their entire ideology is basically just ignoring facts because they don't fit their outdated world outlook.
What conservatives mean when they say liberal or left wing views are based around "emotions" is actually that they care about other human beings.
What "fact" speaks for not letting gay people marry? For not providing people with affordable health care? For putting children in cages?
Exactly, none.
Every time I've argued with conservatives and trump cultists all I hear is lies with an unwillingness to prove anything with links to credible sources of information to support their argument. They just like to think they're owning the libs by posting memes. (like someone here)
They immediately dismiss anything they don't want to believe as fake news. Even statistics from the fbi or cbo.
The alternate reality of lies and delusion conservatives / trump cultists live in is mind blowing.
Sort of. The leftist will sometimes deliver a sliver of truth but horribly take it out of context and mess with it. So in that sense you could say it’s a lie because it’s still a kind of deception.
Other times they can cite a truth that simply doesn’t relate to the discussion.
All liberalism classical and contemporary are homosexual and satanic in nature
Contemporary conservatism is just neo-liberalism
It's a shame. Both sides use information to misguide their constituents.
Despite this contemporary conservatives are more logical and rely more on facts
Democrats run on narratives
Narratives win every time
dude i seriously don't think that's a "liberal" vs "democrat" thing. i think both ends of that spectrum have snowflakes that can't handle facts, cause they prefer their delusion... i mean what do you think christianity is still around for?
it's people being shitty weaksauce, not "the political direction" being shit.
If telling a Republican a lie makes them angry, then under normal circumstances there would be a lot of angry Republicans cause Trump has told tens of thousands. Fortunately for them, almost all of them are too stupid to know the difference.
Disagree.
Liberals opinions are based on anarchistic idiocy.
Conservative opinions are based on religious idiocy.
Democracy leads into chaos, because masses of stupid people always outvote minority of smart people.
That's why I support NWO - Global dictatorship of the future: Controlled society is the safe society.
That's what PragerU wants you to think as they tell you all the "facts".
The reality is that both liberals and conservatives think their views are based on facts because in peoples minds, something is "unbiased" by having the RIGHT bias.
Both sides do this. Historically the left have been the intellectuals while the right have been the religious lunatics. Nowadays the left is dumb as a bag of shit, useless and ineffective to stop the right. The right are now slightly more objective but they're still emotional and ignorant.
im liberal by your measure... my mind is both analytical and im capable of empathy. no stupid right wing internet meme is going to alter that
There was a study on this I recall that concluded Republicans are significantly more susceptible to fear, and that makes perfect sense to me because they're mostly reactionaries and reactionaries are scared little bitches
The truth is much closer to the middle. I suppose that it's closer to Ted Cruz that it is to AOC, but both parties are terrible and no one really wants to hear the truth.
No. There is logical thought and emotional impulse on all sides. It just so happens that conservatives are correct on a larger total number of issues than liberals (but still extremely wrong on many).
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions