Black and White vs. Grey

[Steely_Dan]

Subject: Black and White vs. Grey
Message:
On a side note...
I was at dinner on Saturday night when one of the dinner guests mentioned that RR had died. I was sort of taken back for a moment. I said something to the effect that I was sorry to hear that. Another guest said...so, you liked RR? I stated that I didn't. Many conservatives at the table were confused. They couldn't understand how I could say that it was a shame that he had died, yet I somehow didn't like the man. I stated that while I didn't agree with RR's politics and I felt that he had done many things that were not beneficial to our country, I still respected the fact that he was a man who had the courage of his convictions.

I'm often confused by (some) conservatives that see the world in such "black and white" terms. Some simply couldn't understand how I could respect someone that I so adamantly disagreed with. It's not unlike my statement to many conservatives that I fully supported Bush once he was in office. The point they miss is that I love my country more than I do my personal politics. I wanted Bush to do well even though I had great reservations about what he might do. Unfortunately, my worst fears were realized.

Generally speaking, I think that one of the things that separate conservatives from liberals is the fact that conservatives do tend to see the world in terms of "black and white." Things in the world are more "absolute" with little or no "grey." A good example is in the arena of morality. There is right and wrong and not much else...as seen in religion. This is not a criticism as much as it is an observation. Anyone else see this simple but (I think) obvious distinction.

-PLA

[NMDemDist2]

1. yeah us Libs are "nuanced" hehehehe eom

[ThreeCatNight]

2. It is easier

to see things in just black and white...your either with us or against us...that sort of retorical crap.
It takes actual thought and sometimes compassion to see that not everything or everyone can be placed in one of two categories.
Logic is lost on most (notice I said most) conservatives. No wonder we have to work extra hard to get our views across to them.

[Az]

3. This is the difference between right and left

Though this certainly is not true of all members of both sides (gosh, there I go being nuanced) it is indicitive of the appeal of both sides for its bulk of members.

Perhaps it can be summed up this way. The right believes it has the truth and that we just have to look at reality the right way to make it all fit. The left believes that we have to look at reality to figure out what the truth is and from there we can determine what the right thing to do is.

These two different views are worlds apart. Thus the right can see someone doing all the right things to build up the economy in its current form while the left sees that the current form may in fact be part of the problem. Free Traders look and see the inevitability of a world wide economic system and they believe that the free trade system has built in balances that won't let anything go wrong. The left looks at the world and realises that yes one day we will all be connected by common systems but that we have to take responsibility for these systemsanc can't just leave it up to a system that may or may not create the path that works best for everyone.

In the end the simplest way you can phrase the difference between the left and the right is Doubt and Certainty. The right believes. It believes in god. It believes in free trade. It believes in moral authority. It believes in its own superiority.

The left meanwhile doubts. It doubts that the absolute truth is known. It doubts that we are the best we can possibly be. It doubts that any one belief system has the right to speak for everyone. It doubts that an economic system can be trusted to pave the way. It doubts that one set of cultural values can determine a societies entire moral system. It doubts that it has the right to proclaim this nation the greatest on Earth.

[Steely_Dan]

4. Excellent Post

Excellent Post! I especially liked the last paragraph.

-PLA

[MallRat]

5. There used to be a time when people were civil.

And your ability to feel compassion for a man whose politics you disagreed with was not uncommon.

Not anymore. Everything, absolutely everything is seen through red or blue lenses today.

I don't know what to be more ashamed of: the fact that the first question that popped into my head was "how can Kerry neutralize the effects of Reagan's death?" or the fact that I even HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Such terrible ugliness. And we didn't start the fire.

-MR

[Steely_Dan]

6. Yep

Damn good point MR. It makes one think about the lack of civil discourse as well. It has been reduced to a game and not necessarily one of ideology.

-PLA

[Az]

8. The loss of willingness to work together (long)

This is part of the legacy of Reagan. Its a rather deep seated battle that has been going on in society for some time now. Basically a couple hundred years ago a nation was founded on the idea that we were through with individuals and institutions telling us how we were to live our lives. We cut ourselves off from Religiously mandated leaders (Kings were annointed by the church). We created a nation of the people, for the people and by the people.

We set as the very first thing mentioned in our Ammendments the notion that there can be no law regarding what a person believes. This is the first thing mentioned as a right. Each person was responsible for what they chose to believe. Freedom.

Yet into this new nation we brought the institutions that had actually created the Kings of old. The religious institutions are not democratic by nature. They favor leaders with authority from god. Thus their message remained in our nation. The hard won ideas of a Secular nation were constantly being eroded by these institutions and their desire to overcome all other beliefs.

So our society progressed. We took our new found freedoms and began examining the things we held to be true. Over time we began overturning long held oppressive attitudes such as slavery and treating women as second class citizens (if that). And our society progressed.

But with this progress came resistance. None of the advances we made came without stress and turmoil. But because of the nature of our laws once a form of oppression was dragged out before the light it had to be dealt with. And at the time the majority found enough merit in the arguments to work with the progress.

During all this time the religious institutions were cautious. Sometimes they would side with an issue and sometimes they would oppose it. Much depended on how the issue impacted their doctrine. But all the while they still maintained the notion that moral truth could only be determined through their doors.

Eventually we found our way to the latter half of the 20th century. Much progress had been made. Progressive attitudes were strong and pushed society ever onward. But with each new advance more and more were added to the resistance. Progress began to eat into doctrinal positions. With the arrival of the Pill and the sexual revolution the positions started to become increasingly entrenched. The resistance had little popular pull but they were becoming increasingly angry.

In 1973 Roe V Wade was passed and more fuel was dumped on the fire. 1975 the Vatican issues the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities. A blueprint to overturn American political positions re Roe V Wade. The Vatican sends clergy out amongst the protestants and they begin recruiting their forces for this case. They show people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson the way in which the abortion issue can raise money like no other issue. This give the dormant voice of religion a focus.

After Nixon was removed from office the right began looking for ways to reinvent itself. They were seriously concerned that the left would decimate their positon. To this end they set about taking over the media. They saw the force with which it could affect Nixon and they learned. But they had another problem. They had no support any longer. They needed a group of people that they could appeal to that would vote in step with their path.

This is where the religious right met up with the economic right. They propelled Ronald Reagan into office and his strong voice declaring the passions they shared gave them cause to rise up. Reagan had the ability to drive the left in circles. They had no idea how to deal with someone that refused to accept their ideas. Reagan showed the religious right that they need not stay silent any longer and that they could shout down the progress of the left.

Along with Reagan came the gay issue. This with abortion gave all the impetus the right needed to refuse to cooperate with any sense of liberal progress. These issues were too against their doctrine and did not affect enough people directly to gather the ovrewhelming support to make a society change. Thus they learned to stop working for progress and instead started working for asserting their doctrine. And it has been effective.

The left has lost much of its focus. Over the years of demonising by the right few are even willing to admit to being liberal now. Many of the issues now championed by the fractuous left are niche issues that while important to those supporting them have little if any immediate impact on those whom they desire to change. It has become increasingly easy to make fun of liberal ideals as fewer support specific issues.

There now exists two camps. One side is braced and ready for war. The other is casting about without any sense of direction. The truths that were hard won are being eroded away by the institutions that we tried to seperate ourselves from over 200 years ago. They are seaking to reassert their dominance on the people once again. And unless we remember why we fought to free ourselves from authoratative rule they will succeed.

[jimbo1220]

7. Sadly, if you'd look at some of the posts here in the last few days

you will see that this doesn't really separate conservatives from liberals. You could say that it separates some liberals from some conservatives, but that is all. DU has its fair share of people with a black-and-white outlook.

[Steely_Dan]

9. Generalizing Generalizations

Of course, I agree with you. However, it is less constructive to deny the use of (flawed) generalizations when attempting to define anything. Just my opinion. For the sake of discussion, we go in with the knowledge that generalizations are flawed. Once you accept that, you can still make "generalized" opinions to further a point.

-PLA

[Az]

10. The left and its loss of focus

The left has for a time now had no visible leadership. The course chosen by the DLC/DNC has abandoned championing left ideas and instead has set a course for the nonprogressive center in a desperate bid for votes.

This has left the left with few visible leaders. The upshot of this is that those on the left often do not have a clear idea of where they are supposed to go. From this all that remains is a basic understanding that the right is wrong with no valid arguments being put forward in the public to defend this. Thus the left has fallen into as much a faith based argument as the right has.

There are valid reasons and logic for the progressive mindset of the left. But there is no one out there defining them. Thus those that make their way to the left do so for wildly varying reasons. With no cohesion they are prey for the right to rip apart individually.

[Steely_Dan]

11. I agree....

Well put.

I must say though that I do believe that there is one person that could be an effective leader of the left...Why this individual has not run for president is beyond me. Is there something in his closet???

I speak of Mario Cuomo. He never fails to move me with his clarity and vision. Why isn't this man leading our party???

-PLA