Conservation of self worth. pt2

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

AKA "What my prior post has to do with actual politics".

I have a very low opinion of progressive/left-wing ideology. Please note that this is not the same thing as having a low opinion of progressives as people.

Now I understand that upon reading the above sentence some people will feel compelled to stop reading and bombard the comments section with macros and napalm. However I feel that in order to have a constructive, adult, conversation about an ideology one must first try to understand the underlying assumptions of the person holding it. This was my reasoning behind posting yesterday's piece of exposition.

The question on lips of those progressives/leftists who are still reading is probably something like "How can Sandwich' (and conservatives in general) be such a horrible person(people)? Doesn't he understand that we are trying to make the world a better place?"

I will do my best to answer.

As illustrated in yesterday's story I believe that changing one's circumstances is largely a matter of outlook and applied will. By extension I believe that people have free will. (some may beg to differ that's a topic for another post)

The left side of my brain understands that this is largely a conceit designed to give life meaning and justify a sense of self worth depite being nothing but a random scrap of biological material in a ultimately doomed universe, but the right side of my brain says that as conceits go it's not bad, or particularly uncommon, so just go with it.

That's Great, but what does it have to do with politics?

I have gathered from numerous comments and blog posts that most progressives simply can not wrap their heads around why someone who is not a rich white banker would be conservative. Ironically the answer is in how they frame the argument.

When you say that the government needs to solve problem X or bail-out/support group Y there is an underlying implication/assumption that the people involved are incapable of solving the problem or helping themselves. Some progressives go so far as to make it part of their platform Now I'm not going to goi into whether or not this is in fact true but it is worth noting that implying that someone is weak/incompetent is not the best way to make new friends. Like wise the whole concept of the government as a protector/parent is predicated on the idea that the majority of citizens are unable to function as an adults.

You want the government to forgive student debt or help people who are underwater on their mortgages? That's great and I admire the sentiment. However consider the message this sends to those who lived within their means and paid (or are paying) off their debts.

I freely admit that there are many conservative who are motivated by Greed, Religion, or simple tribalism, but there are just as many if not more who feel that the idea of "personal responsibility as a virtue" is under attack and as such they are not fighting to defend the wealthy or the statis quo so much as they are fighting to conserve their own sense of self worth.


Hat tip to panookah whose journal and comments I raided for provided inspiration.

Comments

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Their. The word is their. Thier doesn't mean anything.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Great point.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I before E excetpt after... oh fuckit good catch, I'll fix it.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

"However consider the message this sends to those who lived within their means and paid (or are paying) off their debts."

You have a false dichotomy there. It requires the assumption that both parties have the same start and equal opportunities, that person A is somehow irresponsible while person B is responsible, this however does not follow in real life, where people have different starts, and different opportunities, person A may be merely screwed by an issue person B doesn't have.

Responsibility isn't the issue, it's the belief that people who need help are automatically irresponsible that is the problem. If person B doesn't need help, great for them, but it doesn't mean they're automatically a better person and more responsible than person A.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You have a false dichotomy there. It requires the assumption that both parties have the same start and equal opportunities...

I disagree. If you start from the assertion (as stated in the OP) that success is largly a matter of outlook/will, starting position and opprotunities are secondary to what you do with them.

Everthing else follows naturaly from this.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Oh boy, the whole government as protector thing. It has been argued that Canada is a nanny state. Our government provides excellent social programs. But that doesn't mean that we're not still behaving like adults. Just because they are there does not mean everyone is using them. We still get up and go to work, we pay our bills, we live responsibly, we just know there is a safety net there if we fall. And that is a good thing. Look at our housing market, it barely dipped at all during the past 2 years, especially in comparison to the US.

Of course there are some people who take advantage of our generous programs but the majority are just people in a temporary bad state who need a little help. And most of us, even those of us who live within our means and live responsibly do not begrudge that in the slightest as we know that there may come a day when we ourselves need that help.

I fully agree with the first part though, someones political ideologies do not make up the sum of a person and while I may not always agree with those of you on the right it doesn't mean I think badly of you.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Look how low my self worth is!

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I think the conservatives who claim this type of statement have fundamental misunderstanding of the progressive ideology in general (as opposed to individuals)

Personal responsibility is taken by the majority of individuals every day, people of all affiliations try their best quite often, because they know that efforts sometimes get rewarded, while the opposite of effort most often doesn't. This is as basic as the training of Pavlov's dog.

The fundamental idea of what you probably refer to as progressive ideas, is that hard times may come to anyone, and sometimes even to many at the same time. In such cases the idea is that there should be a pool to help from, and to not leave it up to the whims or capability levels of individuals. Societies that have these systems have a majority of well functioning individuals who do well and some who don't, just like other places, but those who don't do not starve. This means that recovery from temporary bad times into productiveness anew is relatively high.

One can discuss the details for this ad nauseam. Conservatives/libertarians think think this is a violation of freedom rights, or that *some* collective efforts are violations, but not other.

My point is that people *understand* all this. There is no mystery, no envy, no dark secret. Just a fundamental difference in opinion on how a society best should function, for both groups and individuals.

This whole post is not much better than when people write posts about the "conservative brain" and how they are callous, greedy and paranoid etc etc, blah blah.

I dislike those posts too. You are more polite on the surface, but god the assumptions and the condescending tone to a whole group.

I'm no a genius, but already yesterday, I could see exactly what you were going to write.

I assure you, these thoughts are extremely pedestrian, just like some lefties have extremely pedestrian thoughts on the "nature" or "culture" of conservatism.

There is no universal one trick pony answer which pats one side on the back and points finger at the other. Just different opinions and ideas combined with individuals.

Some anvils need to be dropped...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I actually agree with most of what you're saying here, and I never amde any special claims to being original or clever.

That said I've seen enough examples on this forum in the last month of people "talking past each other" each other that I felt it had to be said.

As pani said "we're forgetting that the other side is human to" and as such I endevoured to put a human face on all those horrible people who oppose the righteous cause.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Like wise the whole concept of the government as a protector/parent is predicated on the idea that the majority of citizens are unable to function as an adults.

People are stupid. The less their stupidity can ruin it for the rest of us, the better.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I freely admit that there are many conservative who are motivated by Greed, Religion, or simple tribalism, but there are just as many if not more who feel that the idea of "personal responsibility as a virtue" is under attack and as such they are not fighting to defend the wealthy or the statis quo so much as they are fighting to conserve their own sense of self worth.
What do people's sense of self worth have to do with anything? Are you just flat admitting that people are tilting at windmills because they've been roped into a rhetorical game that makes them feel oh-so-good about themselves?

You've parodied conservatives far more than you've parodied "progressives". Your entire post is one giant insult to conservatives everywhere.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

What do people's sense of self worth have to do with anything?

Everything, people fight all the harder when the stakes are intangible.

Are you just flat admitting that people are tilting at windmills because they've been roped into a rhetorical game that makes them feel oh-so-good about themselves?

Yes.

The idea that human life has meaning or value is not some quantifiable scientific fact. It is simply something that we have all collectively decided to believe.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I read this, swore and then went and watched Sportscenter. Given the amount of corporate welfare along with the subsidization red states receive, I find the ideology of personal responsibility claimed by conservatives to be myopic at best. True social darwinism would turn this country into a wasteland.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

So people can overcome institutionalized oppression and corporate criminality if they just exercise their will a little more?

Once again, a self-styled defender of capitalism presents an excellent argument for killing the privileged in their sleep.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Once again, a self-styled defender of capitalism presents an excellent argument for killing the privileged in their sleep.

Killing the privileged in their sleep is a perfectly rational course of action. Fortunatly (or unfortunatly depending on your worldview) the social contract discourages such behavior.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Sooo. . . . You overcame your fears and learning to swim well. That's good, of course.

By your logic, however, what of the person who tries exactly what you did and drowns? Is he or she a loser? Your example suffers from an overly selective sample group.

Might I also point out that some people are some pretty evil pricks in the world who set out to rob blind everyone they can sucker into a pretty good-looking but secretly impossible situation. They (sometimes) go into banking or real estate (but of course can be found in all walks of life). These pricks will do anything to work the system, to find loopholes that exploit the unwary and to translate these system loopholes into profit at the expense of others.

Your big nemesis, large globs of water, is just a bunch of wet. Bunches of wet might well be described as collectives of dihydrogen oxide, but (despite the word "collective") water isn't out to cheat you of your life.

I hope your next anecdote involves a donkey ride with your pal Sancho and the dragon you slew windmill you vandalized.

Tilting at windmills...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Funny you bring that up. (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1213833.html?thread=96520073#t96520073)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

That was rather enlightening (I am referring to the comments) but predictable. To paraphrase one who commented I kinda knew what was going to written just by who was replying ;)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Then technically, it wasn't enlightening at all, but rather just confirmed your bias.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I believe that changing one's circumstances is largely a matter of outlook and applied will.

While a poor mental outlook can indeed fuck you over, a good one is not a cure all.

Working with sick people at Maitree taught me that much. So, your conclusion is correct when there are no external factors. But there are, so some compassion is also required.

Like wise the whole concept of the government as a protector/parent is predicated on the idea that the majority of citizens are unable to function as an adults.

Specialization requires cooperation.

consider the message this sends to those who lived within their means and paid (or are paying) off their debts.

Curing an illness need not discourage the healthy.

the idea of "personal responsibility as a virtue" is under attack

If we're not here to help each other, what else is life about? Wanking?

Dare you attack Wanking?!?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Careful. That's a dangerous past time to attack.

Especially in this forum. *rimshot*

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

the message this sends to those who lived within their means and paid (or are paying) off their debts
... is that freeloading is good, that responsible people will be forced to pay for others' reckless borrowing, that hard work and thrift are for suckers and that the government is cruel and perverse. It also provides justification for tax evasion, black market dealings and various other means of resisting the government's predatory income "redistribution" schemes.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Exactly

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As someone who is neither Left-Wing nor Right-Wing, my primary objection to the Left as it is in the USA today is that there is precious little where it disagrees with the Right in practice, whatever it claims in theory. The Left claims to be against rule of the USA by corporations or against wars of aggression abroad, and then Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as ol' JC from Georgia all engage in plenty of foreign adventurism. The Left claims to oppose use of the government's powers to coerce over those that do good but in practice alters nothing that the Right does.

The Right, by contrast, to me relies primarily on conspiracy theories instead of actual concepts, and where it does have them such as with trickle-down economics it's right up with the Left in the meaningless Sound and Fury with nothing real behind it sweepstakes. The Right's ideas when not advocating the endless perpetuation of the status quo often involve attempts to recreate a romanticized vision of the past, the Left by contrast claims to break from the past and has almost always produced a new and improved version of the existing system though where one finds the improvement is not necessarily what benefits the masses.

To me the biggest problem with both wings of the spectrum is they claim to represent the masses but really neither of them actually do this. Both are representative of the same elite, and I've taken to dubbing the Right the Optimates and the Left the Populares. Like those earlier factions each is alike in most ways the same, it is only in rhetoric they differ vaguely.

The same applies with other spectra. The flaw in socialism is that when it claims to transfer the means of production to labor, it again is long on promise and short on delivery. With capitalism the promise that equality of opportunity exists, at least in the United States is a great big lie and privilege is the elephant in the room where that statement is concerned.

With the next spectrum, Communism promises a state which favors the masses but produces a totalitarian state dependent on murder as an acceptable means to an end. Fascism unifies a state on the basis of what I call Khorne politics, and Blood for the Blood God doesn't even work well in 40K as a satire. Anarchism/libertarianism requires humankind to be good as in communism without being Orcs as in fascism, and for this reason I reject it also. In short, false dichotomy is false.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That's retty much it.

Lucky me!

[oportet.livejournal.com]

As a conservative (or semi-conservative {something closer to conservative that left [I finally got to use the []'s!]}), I can see a problem with forgiving all student loans.

On the other hand, I have student loans. The economy is shit anyway, so if they really want to forgive them, I won't argue.

Re: Lucky me!

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

We could just declare a Jubilee Year, where all debts are forgiven for everyone....but not until I go out and get a new truck with no money down, I mean I need some debt to be forgive too for it to be fair ;)

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Personally, as one who tends to favor so-called "progressive" solutions to social problems, what motivates my political preferences is a simple question: What works? I don't really care about "personal responsibility" or whatever morality tales you or anyone else wants to tell about modern social problems. What I care about is how to structure a modern society such as ours in a way that maximizes human well-being given limited resources. If fetishizing "personal responsibility" is the best way to do this, then I'm all for it. I have yet to encounter any evidence that such a fetish is, actually, the best way to maximize human well-being, though.

I mean - here's a good example. Take something like the mortgage crisis. I don't care so much about people losing their houses or people who pay their mortgages on time and have to live next to people who get bailed out. What I care about is what gets municipal economies and governments back on their feet sooner. It seems to me that letting people who are underwater on their mortgages drown has an impact beyond just the family that loses their home - it depresses property valuations in the area, it depresses prices for homes (particularly where foreclosures are widespread), it negatively impacts consumer confidence, etc. So if it turns out that we can avoid a lot of those negative outcomes and help to buoy local economies by propping up homeowners, or if we can manage those outcomes better by propping up some homeowners for a while and controlling foreclosure rates, then it makes sense to me to do that instead of letting the market just sort of do what it wants, resulting in an avoidably large hit to the economy.

I feel the same way about fiscal policy. Conservative Republicans are committed to rejecting any fiscal policy that attempts to close deficits by increasing revenues. It doesn't matter to them, apparently, if increasing revenues could in fact help prompt economic growth.

It seems to me that conservatives are far more likely that progressives to put ideology ahead of practical solutions to problems that everyone agrees are problems. That's not universally the case, but it's hard to avoid that conclusion when you're on the side whose political representatives are constantly taking pages out of the other side's playbook, while the other side is constantly ripping pages out of their own copy.

So, to put it succinctly - It's not about you. Or your silly morality plays.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Yes exactly. It's been driving me nuts lately. Can't have a damn conversation about policy without somebody launching into their personal testimony like its an AA meeting or a tent revival.

Circumstances > Will

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

As illustrated in yesterday's story I believe that changing one's circumstances is largely a matter of outlook and applied will.

I wish to take a contrary point of view, even if on a pro-forma basis. I am prepared to make the case that circumstances are more important than individual will.

For example, consider murders. Now you would agree that engaging in murder certainly appears to an act of conscious and individual will, and I will not disagree with that.

However, if this is the case, then surely the rate of murder per country would be fairly uniform. However it most certainly is not (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita). The chance of a person engaging in murder in Turkey is 235 times a great than it is in Spain.

This variation is far greater than anything that can be explained by differences in individual will.

[michael barnett (from livejournal.com)]

I, for one, want to hear more about your interesting life. Don't start yet. Wait til I get a pillow and blanket.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It's mainly just a compliation of the stuff I post here plus whatever happens to amuse me but feel free to lurk.

http://sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com/

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

I believe that changing one's circumstances is largely a matter of outlook and applied will.

While this statement may on it's face be true, it is deceptive if used as a basis to form an opinion. The reason is that while outlook and applied will may be significant factors, there are other significant factors which haven't been taken into account. One can derive an opinion solely from this assumption but it would be faulty because the initial premise is incomplete. The same is true on the left if one were to consider only social status. In science we would say that you have unaccounted-for variables. If I'm not mistaken, in philosophy this is inductive reasoning which, at best, is dicey.

The view from the right that one's station in life is due solely to merit is absurdly illogical. A better way to think of it is to start with the problem, look for significant factors leading to it and mitigate those within ones power to control (aka deduction). Affirmative action is a perfect example. It removes impediments and is thus enabling, but it does not guarantee the outcome for any given individual or institution.

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

The question on lips of those progressives/leftists who are still reading is probably something like "How can Sandwich' (and conservatives in general) be such a horrible person(people)? Doesn't he understand that we are trying to make the world a better place?"

Not horrible. Just mistaken. ;)

I have gathered from numerous comments and blog posts that most progressives simply can not wrap their heads around why someone who is not a rich white banker would be conservative. Ironically the answer is in how they frame the argument.

That's an easy one. Identity politics. Us vs. them.

When you say that the government needs to solve problem X or bail-out/support group Y there is an underlying implication/assumption that the people involved are incapable of solving the problem or helping themselves.

Not necessarily. It might just be a better to do X together as a society than to force everyone to do it for themselves. Group Y may need some help. If we're in a position to help them, why be shits and not do it?

You want the government to forgive student debt or help people who are underwater on their mortgages? That's great and I admire the sentiment.

I don't know too many liberals that actually want to forgive student debt. I'm sure there are some. The "underwater on their mortgages" bit is more complicated because manipulations of a poorly regulated financial sector in the housing market caused a great deal of people to be the victim of circumstances beyond their control. It's kind of like giving emergency financial aid to flood victims. They made the decision to build their homes inside the 100 year flood plain, but we usually help them out anyway.

However consider the message this sends to those who lived within their means and paid (or are paying) off their debts.

I don't think you and I would interpret the message the same way. The message I would get is, "Some people needed help and we helped them. Awesome." What message do you think it sends?

so much as they are fighting to conserve their own sense of self worth.

This is very evident. Especially in situations like the whole "defense of marriage" debate. But, as in that debate, I would argue that they are using the wrong metric to define their self worth.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

The message it sends is "Congratulations on being self-sufficient; you are teh awesome. Please stand by while we help out those who are not as fortunate as you."

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

But are you really helping them out? The US has been fighting a War on Poverty since LBJ. Nothing has changed. If it were helping, why are there more poor than ever before?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You should learn Spiral Dynamics. I think you'd find it interesting and it would let you understand everything.