Liberals and conservatives: Are we really that different?

A few years ago, I received an e-mail from a fellow in southern Oklahoma who was starting an e-mail newsletter called The Texoman, which signifies an area on each side of the Red River in Texas and Oklahoma called Texoma. I happen to live just south of that border in Texas.

His purpose, he said, was to provide a forum for honest debate on the issues. But after reading several issues – and responding to one – I decided that his newsletter was so left-leaning in content I didn’t need to receive any more issues. There didn’t seem to be any debate at all. Besides bashing conservatives in general, most of the newsletter was just repeats from left-wing websites.

So I e-mailed the editor and asked that I be taken off the distribution list because I didn’t find any serious discourse in the content. What I received back shocked me, because in no way did I attempt to denigrate his publication or his right to send it out; I just didn’t want it anymore.

According to this gentleman, because I was a conservative – a term I had never used to describe myself – I was filled with hate and anger. “You and your buddy Rush are going to destroy this country,” he stated. Of course, he had no way of knowing if I ever listened to Rush Limbaugh, let alone that we were friends.

It got me to wondering – once again – what causes this type of reaction from our liberal friends. You know them: instead of really wanting to debate the issues, they attack you personally. While not all liberals are like this, it's been my experience that most are.

The question is what are the differences between conservatives and liberals, besides the supposedly differing political philosophies of more government vs. less government? So I dug into some of the literature, read a couple of books, and while I do have a degree in psychology, I don’t claim to be an expert. But what I found opened my eyes a bit. In general, liberals just have a different world-view, based more on emotion than logic.

According to a book by Peter Schweizer, about 71 percent of conservatives say they have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent, compared with 46 percent for liberals. Asked if they would endure all things for the one they love, 55 percent of conservatives say yes, compared with 26 percent of liberals.

Equally revealing, liberals are far more likely to say they are depressed and to view the world bleakly. Schweizer attributes that to an attitude that they and those around them are victims and helpless unless the government intervenes.

In answer to a question from Newsmax, Schweizer says that may help explain why liberal politicians and reporters tend to see everything with pessimism, from the economy to the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Schweizer says the media and liberal professors have successfully obscured these differences by painting a picture of conservatives as mean-spirited. He quotes one professor as saying that conservatives embrace the “unimpeded pursuit of self-interest” to get what they want and that as children, they were insecure and whiny.

In a NYU study, researchers have found evidence that supports a 2006 PEW Research Center survey. The survey showed that 47 percent of conservative Republicans describe themselves as "very happy" while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats describe themselves similarly.

Conservatives put a much higher value on the role of force and accord a lower priority to multilateralism. In The Hill's polling, 68 percent of conservatives but only 28 percent of liberals identified with the need to take unilateral action for our security regardless of what other countries might think. Pew found one of the most important determinants of Republicanism (and I would wager conservatism) was agreement with the view that military strength is the best way to ensure peace.

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227), according to an article by George Will in Real Clear Politics.

Pollsters asked “Everyone has to decide for themselves what’s right and wrong in particular situations” or “There are absolute standards of right and wrong that apply to everyone in almost every situation.” As befits a country almost evenly divided on cultural issues, 50 percent adopted a position of moral absolutism and 46 percent identified themselves as moral relativists. But only about a third of conservatives embraced relativism, while more than 60 percent believe in moral absolutism.

In response to the exit pollsters’ question, only 28 percent of conservatives wanted the government to do more to solve problems, compared with 69 percent of liberals. In practice, of course, conservatives favor a large number of government programs — from education to health care to aid to the poor. But at the broader level of principle, conservatives are deeply suspicious of government’s ability to solve problems.

So it seems that the differences go beyond mere politics, to encompass a person's worldview.

I could sum it up this way: Liberals view the world through an emotional lens and allow their emotions to rule their thinking, while conservatives view the world less emotionally, and generally don't allow emotions to overrule rational thinking.

Which one is better is still up for debate, but considering the long-term affect of liberal policies over my lifetime, I'll lean conservative.

The price of food and the Missouri River flood

Corn and more corn
Have you noticed the ridiculously high prices at the grocery store lately? Blame it on the Corn Bubble. Reuters reports that earlier this month, "the World Bank and other international organizations called on governments to stop their ethanol subsidies because of concerns they were driving up food prices" – and pushing millions of people worldwide into poverty. Read more...

The environmentalists and the Missoroui River flood
There are many well-publicized examples of absurd obeisance to the demands of radical environmentalists resulting in great economic harm. The Great Missouri River Flood of 2011 is shaping up to be another -- only this time, the price will likely be paid in lives lost as well as treasure. Ayn Rand said, "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Read more...

Both of these examples highlight the law of unintended consequences.

OMG! Glad I don't live in Chicago

This is the epitome of narcissism. My sympathies to the Chicago taxpayer who had to watch their taxes go to pay for their new mayor's ego. Each new sign reportedly costs $15,000 to put up, costing the taxpayer nearly $500,000.

The practice wasn't started by Rahm, and he promised to put an end to vanity signs, so why is this one going up?

Don't need no government, man

What's wrong with this statement?

In California, parents want a new law that 'would allow parents ultimate control over their kids' Facebook pages, including the right to demand the company erase certain content or even delete the whole page within 48 hours of the request.'

If you said nothing, you really need to examine your beliefs. Why do we (or Californians) need a law to do what is actually a parental right? We don't need government to raise our children.

No wonder California is in such trouble.

Reaction to Rep. Weiner's lewdness and lies

In response to a defense of Rep. Anonthy Weiner (it's not so bad; look at all the other, but worse, scandals) in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Weiner will rise again," one poster said it all.

Well of course he should not resign. If his district is full of liberals they will most likely support him. Forgive me if I am inaccurate, but my understanding of the liberal political philosophy is that it is ok for voters to band together to pass laws which enable the government to take money from the people who earned it and give it to them (the liberals). I would view that as stealing and if you are ok with that, what's a little lying.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But to the author of the above article in defense of Weiner, it is NOT OK to send sexual comments and photos to nonconsenting women and then lie about it in front of the American people. Should we not hold our elected officials to high moral and ethical standards?

The thinking of the author of the SFChron oped, a self-proclaimed liberal, is the problem with this country, and will be its moral decay and eventual downfall. If you don't believe me, study Greece and Rome.

One-third of companies to ditch health care

The Health Care Affordability Act, or ObamaCare, just got some not-so-good news. According to a management consulting firm, which surveyed 1,300 companies, about one-third of them will most likely quit offering health care benefits when the law fully kicks in (which is conveniently after the 2012 elections).

For those companies that fully understand the law, the number becomes 50 percent.

Of course, those in Congress -- who aren't affected by the law-- or those who work for the Federal government -- who also aren't affected -- or those thousands of companies (cronies of the Democrats) who got waivers, don't care.

Again, the hard-working American taxpayer is screwed.