This article is skewed towards painting conservatives as abberant and liberals as maintaining certain "core" values, since it suggests that Conservatives have extra values that liberals do not share, and it does not suggest that liberals have extra values that conservatives do not share.

Both conservatives and liberals believe in equality of opportunity.

However, it is a distinctly Liberal view that outcomes should be equal (See affirmative action, redistribution of income, social programs that ensure everybody has the same services, etc.). Also distinctly liberal is the view that individuals (and corporations) lack the capacity to make decisions that are in their or society's best interests (ie, see laws deterring gambling, fatty food intake, tobacco consumption, etc.) As a result, liberals believe that the government should make these decisions for the individual (see Socialism etc.)

There are numerous other examples.

By ignoring these extraneous values that liberals have, this article paints conservatives as having values outside of the norm, whereas liberals are viewed as having certain core values, but just with "more forgiving parents."

As such, this article furthers the liberal agenda by painting conservatives as abberants, outside of the core of humanity.

Instead of claiming to have resolved the liberal vs. conservative delimma, you might want to do a bit of self reflection to see if you are subconciously (or conciously) attempting to further your own agenda and political perspective.

Next time, you should equally paint Liberals as having certain values that Conservatives do not share, instead of solely stating that Conservatives have 'extra values.' Your argument is the precurser to the argument that 'because conservatives believe in Purity - or as you call it, loyalty to the ingroup - they can rationalize discrimination, and eventually, possibly, concentration camps, etc.'

As usual, this false attempt at 'bi-partisanship' is merely further rheteric that conservatves are 'too self centered to get above politics' (ie, they have their own values different from regular people), and that they should give in because the issue is 'too important.' This is merely a thinly veiled argument that 'you are wrong, we are right, and since I say this problem is soooo important, I am going to discount your opinion and demand that you give into what I want.'

When someone claims to be neutral on an important issue, we should watch their motives carefully and follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion. Usually, the conclusion is that one perspective on an important issue is correct, and the feigned neutrality was merely an attempt to manipulate the observer by establishing false credibility as a neutral observer who is 'outside' of the debate.

More Posts