I'm surprised (and not in a good way) to read that Ms Tarlin "doesn't get" how someone could be conservative. I am proudly liberal, but it shouldn't be that hard to understand why someone could be conservative. Since I'm not especially eloquent, let me recommend Jonathan Haidt's TED talk on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives

People can have different values, Ms Tarlin.

I don't think she meant "can't possible comprehend" but rather "can't get a feel for".

As an open minded, liberal leaning person, I certaintly understand SOME conservative points of view. However, some I can't even imagine.

As a liberal, surely there must be some issues that you can't see the other side's PoV, right?

I'm a firm believer that in order to really truthfully hold a controversial belief, you need to understand why others are opposed to it. Only then can you truly decide that they are wrong. I try to do this time and time again.... however there are just some times when it's impossible. There are some beliefs I have that I don't believe can be shades of gray, the other side is just plain wrong. It's times like that I wish I had conservative glasses too, because I really wish I could grasp why they think the way they think.

I assume this is what she means.

MariaE, I thinks she has a valid point. I consider myself a conservative (not a republican) and I cannot get a feel for the idiots that hijacked my political view. You might be surprised by some of my views, which would support democratic causes for conservative reasons. My example would be gay marriage. I believe that there is no moral relevance in the argument. Gays should have the right to marry, because frankly, the Gov't has no right to interfere in any persons private life, if a person wants to give half his or her stuff, and add a person of the same sex to his insurance its not the Gov'ts place to act. At any rate, being a conservative means different things to different people, just like being a liberal means different things to different people, very hard to pin it down, because its slightly, or even greatly different to each person in their own minds.

I think that most truly conservative points of view are cohesive and reasonable, given a set of principles. I certainly don't understand positions that are based on lies or deceit, but I've found people all over the ideological spectrum holding them (maybe even myself).

I can't come up with a conservative position where I really don't understand where they are coming from. I just don't agree with their values, which invalidates most everything that follows from them.

Take something I feel really strongly about: abortion. Most conservatives are against abortion based mostly on the fact that they think the fetus has a soul. If that is the case, then of course they'll be against abortion in the case of rape - that doesn't make the soul any less valuable. I happen to think we don't have souls, which kind of negates the whole argument. But I can see where they are coming from.

patron002:

MariaE, I thinks she has a valid point. I consider myself a conservative (not a republican) and I cannot get a feel for the idiots that hijacked my political view. You might be surprised by some of my views, which would support democratic causes for conservative reasons. My example would be gay marriage. I believe that there is no moral relevance in the argument. Gays should have the right to marry, because frankly, the Gov't has no right to interfere in any persons private life, if a person wants to give half his or her stuff, and add a person of the same sex to his insurance its not the Gov'ts place to act. At any rate, being a conservative means different things to different people, just like being a liberal means different things to different people, very hard to pin it down, because its slightly, or even greatly different to each person in their own minds.

This is one of those "very few" cases where I can't see the typical "right-wing" PoV. Glad to see a conservative who agrees.

For the record, I'm from NY and really liked Mayor Giulliani. I disagreed with him on plenty, but I didn't feel like he held any of the conservative views that were just alien to me. The kind you need those glasses for :)

patron002, good points. You sound libertarian to me, and I have many of the same leanings, though I usually vote Green or Dem, ironically I suppose. The confusion about "conservative" has everything to do with what is the focus of conservation in the relevant equation. The watered down--or bastardized, more accurately--form of the word used to describe neocons and the bush "conservatives" has everything to do with conserving the status quo class structure and absolutely nothing to do with conserving the values of the Constitution that hass made this country what it is, for better or worse at times. At core, Bush's is theoretically a "fiscally conservative" viewpoint, as long as you understand whose finances are to be conserved! Obviously, with a record deficit, an ever widening gap between rich and poor, "deregulation" in which the only regulations that remain favor a very few well connected individuals, these thieves are not true conservatives at all, even from a fiscal standpoint. They are outright oligarchs with aspirations to dictatorship (as Bush has quipped, himself).

Then of course, you have the social conservatives, the single issue trip wires who fire on about one brain cell at a time and whose concerns range from gay marriage, to the marriage of church and state, and from abstinence to xenophobia, along with many other cringe-inducing, delusional, and anti-constitutional viewpoints, and who have given the current administration at least enough votes to make their perennial vote thefts marginally close enough to be tolerated by enough Americans that there has not been outright revolution over the electoral coup d'etats in 2000 and 2004.

In my view, the original concept of libertarian style conservativism places its emphasis on conserving the values, freedoms, rights, governmental limitations, and avoidances of imperialistic impulses that are embodied by the constitution of the US, a now thoroughly defunct document. That is the conservatism I can get behind, even as I do not oppose a safety net for society's most vulnerable citizens--which is the core social contract that should be part and parcel of the duties accruing to any governing body. So to recap, I see no problem with regulating corporations that would destroy the environment for private profits, because I don't see capitalism as a political system--it is an economic system that, at times, is directly opposed to the personal freedoms so verbally venerated by our politicians, though rarely practiced. I don't care so much about the freedom to become rich as about the freedom to be safe from surveillance, illegal search and seizure, or the freedom to protest outside of a cyclone fenced "freedom zone," or the freedom to publish facts(another good example wherein a corporation, such as the media has become, is directly opposed to the intent of the Constitution. Anyway, you catch my drift. It is the manipulation of signifiers such as the term "conservative"--and also the question of WHO controls interpretation of the signifier, that provides much of the underpinnings we call "power."

MariaE:

I think that most truly conservative points of view are cohesive and reasonable, given a set of principles. I certainly don't understand positions that are based on lies or deceit, but I've found people all over the ideological spectrum holding them (maybe even myself).

I can't come up with a conservative position where I really don't understand where they are coming from. I just don't agree with their values, which invalidates most everything that follows from them.

Take something I feel really strongly about: abortion. Most conservatives are against abortion based mostly on the fact that they think the fetus has a soul. If that is the case, then of course they'll be against abortion in the case of rape - that doesn't make the soul any less valuable. I happen to think we don't have souls, which kind of negates the whole argument. But I can see where they are coming from.

Abortion is a bad example, because by nature it is gray. You are killing something. Period.

The truth is, we decided somewhere along the way, that my right to eat meat outweighs an animal's right to live.

We decided that a woman's right to her body outweighs a fetus' right to a chance at life.

For the record I do believe fetus' have the right to a chance at life and that animal's have a right to live.

I also eat meat and am staunchly pro-choice because I agree with those 2 conclusions. But that doesn't mean we picked correctly or that the "other side" doesn't have a point. These are always going to be gray.

Even if you believe a fetus has a soul, you can still be pro-choice. I think life does begin at conception. So what? If I needed a kidney transplant should I be able to force you to give me one? Why should the government, on behalf of a fetus, force you to be a portable incubator for 9 months against your will? I think it shouldn't, but these ARE tough choices.

Gay marriage? Stem cell research? Not so much. The post above is a great reason why gay marriage is right and the other side is just wonky. It'd be like saying black people can't marry white people....

As for stem cell research? Is anybody going to force those fertility clinics to use the leftovers? No? They're going to get trashed, instead of saving people.... that's a good thing because.... why? I can't figure it out....

Again, most conservative views come from a set of logic that is flawed (IMHO), but it's still logic. Some things just don't... you throw any amount of logic at them and they crumble.

MadderHattie:

patron002, good points. You sound libertarian to me, and I have many of the same leanings, though I usually vote Green or Dem, ironically I suppose. The confusion about "conservative" has everything to do with what is the focus of conservation in the relevant equation. The watered down--or bastardized, more accurately--form of the word used to describe neocons and the bush "conservatives" has everything to do with conserving the status quo class structure and absolutely nothing to do with conserving the values of the Constitution that hass made this country what it is, for better or worse at times. At core, Bush's is theoretically a "fiscally conservative" viewpoint, as long as you understand whose finances are to be conserved! Obviously, with a record deficit, an ever widening gap between rich and poor, "deregulation" in which the only regulations that remain favor a very few well connected individuals, these thieves are not true conservatives at all, even from a fiscal standpoint. They are outright oligarchs with aspirations to dictatorship (as Bush has quipped, himself).

Then of course, you have the social conservatives, the single issue trip wires who fire on about one brain cell at a time and whose concerns range from gay marriage, to the marriage of church and state, and from abstinence to xenophobia, along with many other cringe-inducing, delusional, and anti-constitutional viewpoints, and who have given the current administration at least enough votes to make their perennial vote thefts marginally close enough to be tolerated by enough Americans that there has not been outright revolution over the electoral coup d'etats in 2000 and 2004.

In my view, the original concept of libertarian style conservativism places its emphasis on conserving the values, freedoms, rights, governmental limitations, and avoidances of imperialistic impulses that are embodied by the constitution of the US, a now thoroughly defunct document. That is the conservatism I can get behind, even as I do not oppose a safety net for society's most vulnerable citizens--which is the core social contract that should be part and parcel of the duties accruing to any governing body. So to recap, I see no problem with regulating corporations that would destroy the environment for private profits, because I don't see capitalism as a political system--it is an economic system that, at times, is directly opposed to the personal freedoms so verbally venerated by our politicians, though rarely practiced. I don't care so much about the freedom to become rich as about the freedom to be safe from surveillance, illegal search and seizure, or the freedom to protest outside of a cyclone fenced "freedom zone," or the freedom to publish facts(another good example wherein a corporation, such as the media has become, is directly opposed to the intent of the Constitution. Anyway, you catch my drift. It is the manipulation of signifiers such as the term "conservative"--and also the question of WHO controls interpretation of the signifier, that provides much of the underpinnings we call "power."

Funny... I become more and more solidly pro-Dem every year, but I'm reluctant to join them and list as an independent.

This post really speaks to me as to everything the Repubs should be and aren't.

disclosure: I am a tree hugging, unapologetic liberal.

A friend posed a question the other day. She asked my husband and I why we were Democrats. We both gave answers along the lines of "I believe that the gvt. should level the playing field in terms of access to education etc/the gvt. should protect civil liberties, rule of law etc." She said that she routinely asked this question to her Repub and Dem friends. All of her Dem friends gave an answer that emphasized gvt. working for the common good-betterment of society. All of her Repub friends gave answers that started with "I" and emphasized "my/mine." "I want to keep the money that I earn. "I don't want to pay taxes."

I don't mean this to be an insult. I think though it does offer some insight. We "dems" are convinced that the greater good will come through collective action. Repubs are convinced that the greater good comes through individual action.

The social conservative stuff is another ball of wax. It comes down to fear and control.

patron, I agree that what some politicians want to pass for conservatism is just indefensible. But she was talking about Rachael's points of view - someone she says she respects in every way.

I may be wrong in my initial understanding of what she meant, I guess. I thought she meant that even though she respects Rachael's conservatism, she doesn't understand where it comes from. In other words (again: this is my interpretaion) she doesn't see how anyone could hold some conservative viewpoints. I pointed to that TED talk because I thought it was illuminating in pointing out certain axes that guide most of our moral judgments, and how once you frame ideology in those terms, it's relatively simple to see why people disagree. It doesn't say that any set of values is preferable to others. It points out how divergences come about.

Conservatism's good name is being used by bad people. How anyone can equate the RepubliCON's core of racists, fearful gun nuts and fundamentalist imbeciles all resting on a tax evading/pass the cost on to future generations lifestyle is beyond me? They are closer to Nazism. Didn't Hitler pass on the costs of his regime to the post 1945 German?

As a true conservative - one supporting a responsible and tolerant society - I am continuously embarrassed by the rantings of these cretins.

i agree with you. i am more conservative than not in the sense that i do not want the govt to interfere in my life...or anyone else's. so, i am pro choice, because how dare the govt tell me what my morals should be and what to do with my body, i don't care about gay marriage because how dare the govt interfere in someone's personal life..and so on and so forth...

as far as a level playing feild...i don't think it is possible...being created equal is a given, but performing equally, or even getting the same opportunities...that is just life...i know the poor are disadvantaged, but i don't believe the govt can save them...and i do give to the poor and encourage my children to do so as our moral obligation, but i don't think social policies have been or will ever be very successful in eradicating poverty, as it is a constant throughout history.

take early childhood ed...i sit at the kitchen table with my daughter and go over her spelling words and help her understand tthe day's lesson, i take my children to cultural events and zoos and museums and parks and beaches etc...she will reap the benefits of an engaged and concerned mother( i hope)...i am very fortunate to have the time and money to do this....the govt cannot replicate this with a social program...they cannot even approximate it...does this mean"don't help the poor"?, no, but head start will not level the field, my daughter has this advantage by luck of birth.

I think it is important to understand what I and most liberals mean by a "level playing field." In operational terms, we mostly mean education and health care. Implicit in your response (and I am not trying to be critical here) is the idea that the reason that your daughter will do well is because you spend time with her-make her do her homework and people who are poor fail to do those things. I don't deny that that distinction is true in many cases. However, it is also true that schools are just plain different in poor inner city communities than they are in more affluent communities (For a stark comparison, watch the excellent doccumentary Hoop Dreams). We can do much better for schools than we are doing now. The "no child" program was ostensibly designed to identify good schools. However, I would argue that was not the real intent. No Child was designed as a mechanism to pull money out of poor communities and public education in general. Conservatives always argue that there is no correlation between money spent and the quality of education. That is crap. All money is not the same. Money spent wisely can be used to improve educational quality. Lack of funds will destroy it.

No liberal denys that "luck" has a hell of a lot to do with how life works out for you. Nor do we think that everyone should be rewarded the same for unequal performance (a common conservative cannard). But, we do understand that there are some basic building blocks that everyone needs to succeed and that gvt has a legitimate role in ensuring that they are in place.

full disclosure: i am a teacher.

all the money i see going into education to " level the playing field" goes into teacher training ( which are 99% jargonese bs) and new administrative positions...all of which teach not one child one damn thing. this has been my experience with over ten years of teaching...so, throwing money at education is not the answer. i don't have an answer, but i know more bs is not it.

and i do know that the poor want the same things for their children that i want for mine...happiness and personal success, and i would never presume that they do not make the same efforts i do to ensure those things...but it is my good fortune to have the time and money to offer my children more and greater opportunities than someone who has to work 6 or 7 days a week 12 months a year.

as far as no child...meet the new boss, same as the old boss...i cringe at any federal interference in education. it would be awesome to hear a school board refuse federal money and tell them to stick it. i would be scanning the skies for flying pigs...but i can dream.