Hi, all.
As should be news to no one, polarization and animosity between conservatives and liberals is at one of its all-time highs in America right now. There’s even talk of a second civil war looming. Obviously, there are strong passions and convictions on both sides, and people on both sides have claimed that the other is a grave threat to the integrity of the nation itself. I’m familiar with the views and concerns of my own side: we view Donald Trump’s (and his allies’ and supporters’) statements and actions as being an attack on the democratic process that defines our nation, and are worried that the strategies and tactics he and they are employing will make future elections farcical, paving the way for an authoritarian state (a dictatorship). I am less familiar with why conservatives feel Democrats and liberals are a threat to the nation and its integrity in similar fashion. My best guess is that conservatives buy Trump’s assertions that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, and thus might have similar fears as liberals do, but I also get the sense conservatives have deeper, older concerns than this, and that Trump was/is viewed as a solution to them.
Can you please try to articulate here what those fears are? And, to any liberals reading this, please refrain from answering in conservatives’ stead. I’m interested in their opinions, not your opinions of their opinions.
Gun control, higher taxes, and more regulations are all things I see liberals pretty universally pushing for. Those are all enforced onto people whether they like it or not.
I’m aware this is going to sound pedantic, but really the last “vore on them as a group” is really the only part of that absolutely required for democracy. The reason I bring it up is because most people, regardless of political views, tend to believe some set of values should be protected beyond democratic reach. Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase “democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner”? The idea being that not all results achieved democratically are desirable or acceptable outcomes to all parties involved. For a more real world example (as neither wolves nor lambs participate in a democratic society or hang out together), would you consider a vote that codified race-based slavery to be an acceptable result of democracy?
I bring this up because it’s entirely feasible to have civil discussion and debate over things, even if one or both parties is still going to put their foot down and say they wouldn’t accept a democratic vote to the contrary.
That’s just politics? I’m not voting based on who I think is the chillest bro I’d love to invite for dinner. The specific person matters very little to me as a whole, given our current political system. Rather, I care what policy they will enact (or block) while in office, how the government is leaning in terms of party makeup, and general election strategy.
Okay, I’ll concede gun control is an issue on which liberals are trying to enforce their views on others. However, the tax increases liberals push for are heavily weighted towards corporations and the super-rich; working and middle class people are largely unaffected by them. Furthermore, I don’t consider the tax rate a “way of life;” that’s not what I was referring to in my comment. Similarly, the regulations liberals push for are things like “you can’t dump plastic in the ocean” and “you have to use this slightly more expensive part in your device, because studies have conclusively shown it’s much better for the environment,” and I don’t see those as “ways of life” either. The classic divide about government regulations is that liberals want more of them and conservatives want less, but the regulations themselves are almost always very specific, policy-relevant things that aren’t the same as one sector of society forcing their cultural values on another. The tug of war over regulations is about the freedoms of the private sector vs. the interests of the public. We all agree there should be a balance, just like we all agree taxes are necessary; the only debate is about what that balance should be.
Obviously not one I’d accept, nor I think the population voted on to be slaves, but sure, it could be a product of a democratic process. I’m not sure what your point is here, so maybe I do regard it as a bit pedantic? The original quote of mine you referenced was in the context of me talking about the allure of authoritarianism. I said that, because in my view, conservatives these days are displaying a great deal of approval of/desire for an authoritarian response to democratic processes that don’t go their way. Trump is the most obvious example, but you could look at the Republican reliance of gerrymandering to maintain their own power in the face of popular votes that don’t go their way as another. What is so serious about democrats winning that these sorts of extreme strategies are necessary? I suppose I can see how abortion might justify it to some people, as it’s about saving lives in their view, but “the gay agenda?” “Wokeness?” The “rigged” 2020 election theory that has not a shred of evidence in support of it? If conservatives are willing to give up on democracy over those issues, I just don’t think they’re even really trying anymore.
While I understand your point, I reject your logic on the grounds that Trump is demonstrably not like your garden variety politician. He is mentally disordered in a very extreme and dangerous way, and it’s frankly irresponsible to put him in power over others. And it is this single fact, which conservatives seem to dispute, that makes me think they’ve lost their minds, because this is an extremely important and not particularly difficult distinction to see. I see voting for a psychopath for president as a moral evil, which should be something we all agree on. The fact that it is apparently not is very concerning to me.
The rich are still people, and I believe they share the same rights as everyone else. They aren’t just some free money glitch to bankroll a bunch of shitty government programs. I don’t care how much you make, you’re equally entitled to that money as everyone else and shouldn’t be punished for success.
How so? You can’t just claim that everything you support doing is specific and policy-relevant while everything you don’t isn’t. Why aren’t environmental regulations you forcing your environmentalist values onto others? Why aren’t the massive regulations around employment forcing your values onto others? Because clearly not everyone shares the same values, else there’d be no percieved need for government involvement in the first place.
Which is, fundamentally, a matter of forcing values onto everyone who has a different stance on this topic.
My point is that there’s nothing wrong with authoritarianism when it generates the right results, and that I see no reason to prioritize democracy when it repeatedly fails to achieve anything desirable. Why should I place democracy, which is fundamentally a value-neutral system, over actually ever achieving anything?
Given 4 years of him as president, surely you can point to examples beyond just “he made policy decisions I don’t like”, no? If you want to argue that something is evil, you’re going to actually have to point out how it is evil, because I don’t accept it as a deontological wrong. I consider politics to be a game of results. I’m perfectly fine with whatever actually ends up generating desirable results, regardless of whether someone is going to cry eViL at the end.