Why issues cause Libs and Cons to react so strongly against each other?

...
Jacquesne

There are a few issues that I would fight for if put to the test.

The one that strikes a nerve the most is that of abortion rights for women. I loved hearing Rush Limbaugh making a complete b00b of himself on air just today about this very issue. He loses credibility when he chooses to make decisions for others & make judgements on an issue that is so highly personal to individuals. I cannot imagine how any woman in their right mind would be a fan of his as he is absolutely, positively anti-woman.

I am against exploitation of any kind.

I may also have to stand up against the geniuses that want to put tolls back on our highways in my state. Gee, I am a resident of this area & I WANT to pay to drive AND, more importantly, lose significantly more time on the roads every day. Our daily traffic is already insane but with those tolls it will back up the highway through 2 counties. Completely shortsighted individuals right there.

outlaw, if you're looking for a more specific rift within the United States as to the division between "liberal" and "conservative" the Civil War is a good place to start. The Republican Party of the time (which was interestingly the "liberal" party) disagreed with the Democratic party (the "conservative" party) over whether or not each state had the right to decide the legality of slavery. The Republicans believed they had the right to apply their value (slavery is wrong) to the entire country regardless of what an individual state decided. The Democrats believed that each state had the right to decide to make it illegal or legal based on their own vote.

The arguments on the Republican side are more convincing from today's perspective because of our value on the rights of the individual which was clearly being violated by the institution of slavery itself. But from the perspective of the time it was more an argument of whether or not the federal government had the right to make a global social policy decision or not which it had not done previously outside of constitutional amendments. Basically unless the Constitution stated something was forbidden, like the Bill of Rights, the federal government could not interfere with state laws on any issue which did not involve interstate issues. There was no feasible way to create this amendment because the slave states would not support it.

When Lincoln was elected the southern states viewed this as the end of their right to own slaves and make their own state decisions. They believed they had a constitutional right to secede as the "United States" was originally a volunteer union of separate states, not one nation. So they decided to secede and separate themselves from the policy decisions of this new federal government. In hindsight this was a too extreme and the emotional nature of the issue didn't help.

After a bloody war the states were "united" under the federal government and the rest is history. The precedent for federal policy decisions was established and the division between those who still believe this is against the Constitution and those who believe it's for the greater good exists to this day.

Considering an all out "brother vs. brother" war was fought over this exact topic I suppose it shouldn't be that surprising that liberals and conservatives react strongly against each other. Granted this conflict of mentality existed long before the Civil War but it's the one that arguably affects us most today. We think of it as a really long time ago but it's only a few generations back.

Something to think about.

Jacquesne

Liberals and conservatives react so strongly against each other because both believe they know what the "other" group believes and then get mad when they're wrong. Why are they wrong? Because everyone has a different set of political views and different opinions on individual issues. Sure, some people tend towards trends. But the majority of people have both liberal and conservative ideas and when they meet and stereotype it causes a lot of anger.

Likewise many people become accustomed to the assumption that their view is "true." When a "truth" becomes challenged they take it as a personal attack. The problem is that no opinion is true. What do I mean by that? You cannot prove an opinion. If it were provable it's a fact, not an opinion. "The sky is blue" is a fact. You look up and the thing is blue, unless it's night, then it's probably more of a blackish color, but now we're getting into details. "Killing is wrong" is an opinion. It's a statement of value. Statements of value are never facts.

This is a difficult concept. It sounds simple but it's not. Very few things are facts. They're easy to confuse. "The sky is blue" is a fact while "the sky is beautiful" is an opinion. Even if every person on Earth agrees that the sky is beautiful it doesn't make it true. It's why statistics are so often used to argue opinions. They cannot be proven with fact and thus it becomes "most people agree with me so it's true." That doesn't make it true. It just means a whole lot of people share your opinion.

It's really, really hard to admit that all your opinions are not facts. Yes, even for me. Is it hard for me to admit that my belief that abortion is murder is an opinion? I have a million arguments. I can say that a fetus has it's own DNA (a fact) and thus is not part of a woman's body. A kidney is part of her body. You do a DNA test on a kidney, or hair, or fingernail, or any part of a woman's body and it will come back as her DNA. You do that on a fertilized zygote and it comes back as "someone else." I can say that dependence does not equate ownership. An infant is completely reliant on outside care. If you just leave an infant lying there it will die. So is it still part of her body until it can walk and open the refrigerator?

Regardless there are millions of Americans out there who do not share my value. Likely the majority reading this right now do not share my belief. Unfortunately I have to admit that my opinion is a statement of value and that your opinion is valid. I don't agree with it. I don't believe I should be forced to agree with it (and forcing it wouldn't happen anyway). But if you tell me that you believe a fetus is just a collection of flesh there's really nothing I can say that proves you wrong. What defines a life is a statement of value. No fact can prove the value.

Now see how much you likely wanted to argue with my "points?" How you have your list of "facts" that disprove my own? The desire to convince others to share your opinions is strong and creates a lot of hostility when other people just don't "get" your value.

That being said all values are not created equal. While values cannot be proven or really disproved policy is a real construct and can be argued. For instance the majority of people agree that murder is wrong and should be punished. So we have a law against murder. If someone kills someone else and in their opinion it's no big deal that doesn't mean we just sit back and go "OK, well, that's your value so carry on." The basis of democracy is the idea that we put the power to decide such policies in the hands of the majority so that communities are allowed to decide on what values the group shares. Granted it's a bit more complicated than all this. I've already written half a book, not going to actually go through all of it. I guess you could say it's all my opinion anyway .

I can safely assume the majority of people never think about this stuff. They have their worldview, there are the "others" who think otherwise, those people are wrong, and they're happy with that. It's simple, it's easy to categorize, and allows them to do more important things like live their lives. People naturally gravitate towards others who share their values because it makes interaction easier. There's no culture shock, no confusion, and little misunderstanding because the people are coming from the same or similar perspective. It's one of the main reasons why people have always grouped into "ethnic groups" and the basis of nations and communities.

When people of different perspectives meet however they're forced to either admit their values aren't shared and accept that or just choose to believe they have the right way and the other guy is wrong (AKA ethnocentrism). The U.S. is ethnically diverse, in general, and thus these conflicts arise often. In countries where different ethnicities are rare, such as Japan, these conflicts are much less common. As communication becomes more globalized these conflicts become more obvious as people's basic opinions are challenged by more and more people who don't share those opinions.

And if you don't agree with any of that, well, you're completely, totally, one-hundred-percent wrong.

Jacquesne

My strongest issue – and I realize it’s not on your list – is that the political economy be managed in a technically-competent way so as to improve living standards for all, or nearly all, Americans who observe a certain minimum level of personal effort. I feel that the present system gives too much authority to people who possess insufficient expertise in the subjects over which they legislate.

I do believe that a basic level of quality of life can be maintained without undo disruption to personal freedoms and opportunity – and that this baseline is higher than is presently afforded to too many people.

Thereafter, individual rights should triumph over the agendas of interest groups.

I would agree that the power of the US gives it a role in advancing a liberal democratic ideology globally. (Note that “liberal” is meant in the classic sense, and not the sense customarily used in America today.)

Cliffs to posts or shorter ones, please?