Why Liberals Don’t Understand Conservatives

[JohnEngelman]

IOW, you let AI do it for you.

What matters is that what I posted is true.

You claimed that the New Deal deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. I pointed out that life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Roosevelt was inaugurated. They were more likely to have a job. They benefitted from growth in the per capital gross domestic product. They also benefitted from New Deal reforms, like Social Security, the minimum wage, and laws to protect labor unions.

These benefits are why Roosevelt was reelected three times.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes. An emergency administrative stay could be placed within a short time after the ruling is made. Faster if the lower court refuses to stay their decision while that administrative stay is sought because of the irreparable harm aspect.

We'll see. If the higher court doesn't intervene the dems win. What ever happened to SCOTUS ruling on limiting District court judges?

 

[ll74]

And yet there's this bit about early, pre-religion, man creating a moral and just society in which property rights were enforced.

Lol
Neat...who relies on that for their moral compass?

Or do you believe you could just waltz up and steal his food or his mate without repercussion unless he prayed to a god he hadn't envisioned yet?

Religion is modern society's compass.flr moral.values.

You can try to argue against that with some stupid shit, as you've done her...and you're just being pedantic and stupid just to win an argument

 

[Hel_Books]

Conservatism is dead.
Republicans are now fascist authoritarians.
Also, you’re a liar and I can prove it.

It is sad that the old conservatives, the Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan types have been supplanted by the . . .

In 2020, Steve Bannon called for beheading Dr. Anthony Fauci and then-FBI director Christopher Wray. Before she was elected to the House, Marjorie Taylor Greene endorsed social media posts that urged murdering Rep. Nancy Pelosi and FBI agents, and she expressed support for hanging Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The current FBI director, Kash Patel, reposted a video of himself taking a chainsaw to Trump’s political enemies, including former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff. (When he was asked about this hideous social media post at his confirmation hearing, Patel replied, “Senator, I had nothing to do with the creation of that meme”—a weaselly statement that did not address his amplification of the violent imagery.) In 2023, Trump suggested that Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, deserved to be executed. GOP Rep. Paul Gosar did the same.

 

[HisArpy]

We'll see. If the higher court doesn't intervene the dems win. What ever happened to SCOTUS ruling on limiting District court judges?

The district courts have gone totally rogue and unless SCOTUS puts its collective foot down about it we're going to have judicial anarchy.

Which might necessitate a declaration of Martial Law. Which will probably result in those judges who are removed declaring that Trump didn't have a good enough reason to declare Martial Law.

All I can say to them about that is; please violently resist the nice MP Corporal with the handcuffs who is waiting on you to step away from the bench. Please? With sugar on top? There's a special surprise for you if you do.

 

[YDB95]

It is sad that the old conservatives, the Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan types have been supplanted by the . . .

In 2020, Steve Bannon called for beheading Dr. Anthony Fauci and then-FBI director Christopher Wray. Before she was elected to the House, Marjorie Taylor Greene endorsed social media posts that urged murdering Rep. Nancy Pelosi and FBI agents, and she expressed support for hanging Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The current FBI director, Kash Patel, reposted a video of himself taking a chainsaw to Trump’s political enemies, including former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff. (When he was asked about this hideous social media post at his confirmation hearing, Patel replied, “Senator, I had nothing to do with the creation of that meme”—a weaselly statement that did not address his amplification of the violent imagery.) In 2023, Trump suggested that Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, deserved to be executed. GOP Rep. Paul Gosar did the same.

Is it really, though? Sad, I mean?

Look, Reagan and Thatcher most likely never would have said things like this (in public). But the policies they advocated for were no less heartless or selfish. They just got away with selling them to the public because they seemed nonthreatening. Trump and his ilk have simply removed the mask. In the long run, that's probably a good thing for the rest of us.

You know what is sad? What's sad is that in this day and age, this...

A fucking Massachusetts judge is ruling that snap payments have to be made regardless of shutdown.

...is how some Americans react to the possibility that children might not go hungry next week. It's one thing to disagree with the Senate Dems not caving in on the budget - I don't agree, but you're entitled to your opinion - but to be angry that children won't starve is just plain disgusting.

 

[HisArpy]

Is it really, though? Sad, I mean?

Look, Reagan and Thatcher most likely never would have said things like this (in public). But the policies they advocated for were no less heartless or selfish. They just got away with selling them to the public because they seemed nonthreatening. Trump and his ilk have simply removed the mask. In the long run, that's probably a good thing for the rest of us.

You know what is sad? What's sad is that in this day and age, this...



...is how some Americans react to the possibility that children might not go hungry next week. It's one thing to disagree with the Senate Dems not caving in on the budget - I don't agree, but you're entitled to your opinion - but to be angry that children won't starve is just plain disgusting.

If there's no money then the payments can't be made. Which brings a famous quote to mind; the judge has made his order, let's see him enforce it.

 

[Hel_Books]

Is it really, though? Sad, I mean?

Look, Reagan and Thatcher most likely never would have said things like this (in public). But the policies they advocated for were no less heartless or selfish. They just got away with selling them to the public because they seemed nonthreatening. Trump and his ilk have simply removed the mask. In the long run, that's probably a good thing for the rest of us.

You know what is sad? What's sad is that in this day and age, this...

...is how some Americans react to the possibility that children might not go hungry next week. It's one thing to disagree with the Senate Dems not caving in on the budget - I don't agree, but you're entitled to your opinion - but to be angry that children won't starve is just plain disgusting.

I think there's a difference here. Reagan and Thatcher were optimistic, forward-thinking people. They could see the problems of the world and sincerely wanted to do something. They weren't perfect, but they left things in better shape than they found them.

Trump and the nutters like him, from Viktor Orbán to Nayib Bukele, they're just grifters who want to enrich themselves while giving the shaft to anyone they don't like or who speaks up in disagreement to them. When they leave, their countries (and the world) will be worse off.

 

[SkyBubble]

We do now.

It went like this:

2016: They really want a restart, and to "drain the swamp".

2020: Wait...

2024: Their primary goal is to have their bigotry not only justified, but celebrated.

Your post shows that you totally don't. Next.

 

[SkyBubble]

I understand that you are relying on a piece of literature that says that religion isn't involved on moral discourse.

No moral analysis can ignore religion in a.credoe fashion.

Once again, you're totally missing the point in order to argue a straw version of a study you don't like. This has been explained to you more than once.

 

[SkyBubble]

What matters is that what I posted is true.

You claimed that the New Deal deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. I pointed out that life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as Roosevelt was inaugurated. They were more likely to have a job. They benefitted from growth in the per capital gross domestic product. They also benefitted from New Deal reforms, like Social Security, the minimum wage, and laws to protect labor unions.

These benefits are why Roosevelt was reelected three times.

The New Deal absolutely deepened and lengthened the Depression. Your claims are simply wrong.

 

[SkyBubble]

I’m calling you out as a fraud and a liar because my claim is and has been that I DO KNOW YOU.

You can’t even answer what’s 2 + 2. Already proving me right before you’re out the starting gate.
You POS.

Your entire post is a lie and you know it.

 

[SkyBubble]

You claimed that the New Deal deepened and prolonged the Great Depression.

Your claim is incorrect.

In their 2004 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy, UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian used a general equilibrium model to argue that New Deal policies—specifically the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933, which allowed industries to form cartels, fix prices, and raise wages above market levels, and later labor laws like the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)—suppressed competition and kept wages artificially high (about 25% above what they would have been in key industries). This, they calculated, short-circuited natural market corrections, prolonging the Depression by at least seven years; without these interventions, recovery might have begun by 1936 instead of persisting until the early 1940s.

In FDR's Folly, author Jim Powell showed that the New Deal's interventions created unintended consequences like reduced investment.

In their seminal book Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway show that government interventions—especially wage-supporting policies under Hoover and Roosevelt (e.g., NIRA, NLRA, minimum wages)—kept real wages artificially high, preventing market clearing and prolonging high unemployment. They estimate New Deal-era policies added 8 percentage points to 1940 unemployment and that, absent them, the Depression's joblessness could have ended by 1936.

These are but a few cases.

Ther was a depression in 1920-21. It lasted form January 1920 to June 1921. Industrial production fell 31.6%, wholesale prices dropped 37%, and unemployment peaked around 11-12% (estimates vary due to poor data). The administration slashed federal spending ~65% from wartime highs, ran surpluses, and avoided stimulus; the Fed raised rates to curb inflation, then let deflation purge malinvestments from WWI. This "liquidationist" approach aligned with classical economics, allowing rapid wage/price adjustments. By 1923, unemployment was ~2.4%, ushering in the Roaring Twenties.

 

[SkyBubble]

https://bakadesuyo.com/2012/05/whos-better-at-pretending-to-be-the-other-sid/
Conservatives and moderates understand liberals better than liberals understand them.

Those who identified as “very liberal” performed notably worse than anyone else.

In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.”

 

[OralAllOver]

https://agoodreason.net/2018/04/why-liberals-dont-understand-conservatives/

Many liberals, though, have trouble comprehending conservatives. In his studies of liberals and conservatives reported in The Righteous Mind, NYU-Stern Business School professor Jonathan Haidt found that liberals – particularly the “very” liberal – were consistently worse than conservatives at predicting how the other side would respond to various moral questions. “When faced with questions such as ‘One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal’ or “Justice is the most important requirement for a society,’ liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.”

This failure to “get” conservatives may be due to the liberal suspicion that selfishness and bigotry are the real motivations behind conservatism. That unsympathetic perception creates a communication blockage. If the liberal is hearing nothing more than an attempt to justify selfishness and bigotry, why continue listening? What more is there to “get”? As the New York Times book review of The Righteous Mind explained:


This hostility to conservatism is apparent in almost any liberal attempt to explain it. “Conservatism is a type of motivated social cognition,” explains Salon magazine, “that by its very nature is hostile to members of groups on the lower rungs of the social hierarchy.” A PolicusUSA headline declared in 2013 (ie, pre-Trump) “Today’s Republicans are Yesterday’s Fascists.”

Writer George Lakoff, in an article entitled “Why the Conservative Worldview Exalts Selfishness,” explains that conservatives believe being rich is a reflection of moral superiority, while poverty is a sign of morally inferiority; in other words, that the poor deserve their poverty. Which is an argument I’ve heard before, but never from an actual conservative.

Maybe he didn’t intend to be taken literally, but prominent New York theater critic Michael Feingold (formerly of the Village Voice) has this to say about Republicans:


These angry liberals think they do “get” conservatives: Conservatives are selfish bigots. This perception not only stands in the way of comprehending conservatives, it leads almost inevitably to the current nationwide “shut down conservatives” movement. It is why libertarian writer Charles Murray was shouted down and roughed up at Middlebury College in 2017, and why colleges continually “disinvite” such speakers as columnist George Will, writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and anyone else who deviates from the liberal narrative.

In fact, most libertarians and conservatives care about the poor, about minorities, about the environment, about education. There are non-selfish, non-bigoted, non-stupid reasons for holding conservative views. Most conservatives are decent people with whom liberals are simply in disagreement. It would help if at least that much was understood.​

Conveniently overlooked in your opus was the (effective) elimination of health insurance for the working poor (and thelr children!) to partially pay for tax cuts to uber rich.

It's always been similar BS. "Trickle down" theory in words; in deeds, subsidies to oil companies

The former republican party was robber-baron propaganda. The current republican party exhibits a hypocrisy and immortality that "being misunderstood" is a cruel joke that our grandchildren will NOT understand

 

[ll74]

Once again, you're totally missing the point in order to argue a straw version of a study you don't like. This has been explained to you more than once.

Religion drives morals.

Not a straw man...a simple fact. One that stands out fairly obviously from those who oppose Islan as a religion (and Islamism) There's no evidence driving religion. There is belief based on books

This has been explained to you more than once.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The New Deal absolutely deepened and lengthened the Depression. Your claims are simply wrong.

Document your assertion. We can't know if the New Deal lengthened the Great Depression, because we cannot know what would have happened if Republicans had continued to dominate the government. I have pointed out that by two important criteria the New Deal lessened the severity of the Great Depression: the unemployment rate declined; per capita gross domestic product rose.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your claim is incorrect.

In their 2004 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy, UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian used a general equilibrium model to argue that New Deal policies—specifically the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933, which allowed industries to form cartels, fix prices, and raise wages above market levels, and later labor laws like the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)—suppressed competition and kept wages artificially high (about 25% above what they would have been in key industries). This, they calculated, short-circuited natural market corrections, prolonging the Depression by at least seven years; without these interventions, recovery might have begun by 1936 instead of persisting until the early 1940s.

In FDR's Folly, author Jim Powell showed that the New Deal's interventions created unintended consequences like reduced investment.

In their seminal book Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway show that government interventions—especially wage-supporting policies under Hoover and Roosevelt (e.g., NIRA, NLRA, minimum wages)—kept real wages artificially high, preventing market clearing and prolonging high unemployment. They estimate New Deal-era policies added 8 percentage points to 1940 unemployment and that, absent them, the Depression's joblessness could have ended by 1936.

These are but a few cases.

Ther was a depression in 1920-21. It lasted form January 1920 to June 1921. Industrial production fell 31.6%, wholesale prices dropped 37%, and unemployment peaked around 11-12% (estimates vary due to poor data). The administration slashed federal spending ~65% from wartime highs, ran surpluses, and avoided stimulus; the Fed raised rates to curb inflation, then let deflation purge malinvestments from WWI. This "liquidationist" approach aligned with classical economics, allowing rapid wage/price adjustments. By 1923, unemployment was ~2.4%, ushering in the Roaring Twenties.

If I had been an unemployed factory worker in 1932, I would have appreciated getting a job after the inauguration of Roosevelt with artificially high wages. Factory workers did appreciate that, and reelected Roosevelt three times. Labor unions and minimum wage laws cause blue collar incomes to rise higher than they would by the law of supply and demand. That is what they are supposed to do.

The New Deal shifted wealth, power, and prestige from the business community to the government. That is what most Americans wanted.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your claim is incorrect.

In their 2004 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy, UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian used a general equilibrium model to argue that New Deal policies—specifically the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933, which allowed industries to form cartels, fix prices, and raise wages above market levels, and later labor laws like the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)—suppressed competition and kept wages artificially high (about 25% above what they would have been in key industries). This, they calculated, short-circuited natural market corrections, prolonging the Depression by at least seven years; without these interventions, recovery might have begun by 1936 instead of persisting until the early 1940s.

In FDR's Folly, author Jim Powell showed that the New Deal's interventions created unintended consequences like reduced investment.

In their seminal book Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway show that government interventions—especially wage-supporting policies under Hoover and Roosevelt (e.g., NIRA, NLRA, minimum wages)—kept real wages artificially high, preventing market clearing and prolonging high unemployment. They estimate New Deal-era policies added 8 percentage points to 1940 unemployment and that, absent them, the Depression's joblessness could have ended by 1936.

These are but a few cases.

Ther was a depression in 1920-21. It lasted form January 1920 to June 1921. Industrial production fell 31.6%, wholesale prices dropped 37%, and unemployment peaked around 11-12% (estimates vary due to poor data). The administration slashed federal spending ~65% from wartime highs, ran surpluses, and avoided stimulus; the Fed raised rates to curb inflation, then let deflation purge malinvestments from WWI. This "liquidationist" approach aligned with classical economics, allowing rapid wage/price adjustments. By 1923, unemployment was ~2.4%, ushering in the Roaring Twenties.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Economists cannot prove their theories with controlled, repeatable experiments the way chemists and physicists can. We cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results. We can see what did happen after policies were adopted. Soon after the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt unemployment declined and the per capita gross domestic product rose. This is what continued to happen.

Economists evaluate an economy by what it does to the people they care about. I evaluate an economy by how it treats the working poor. They play the game by the rules, but they win none of the prizes.

It is not always the case that what benefits employes harms employers. When it is the case, I am in favor of what benefits employees, especially low income employees.

 

[JohnEngelman]

There are conservative aspects to my thinking. Like Edmund Burke I believe that there is often wisdom in tradition. Like E.O. Wilson I am pessimistic about human nature. Like Charles Murray I am pessimistic about human potential.

Nevertheless, I am without concern for the economic wellbeing of the rich.

 

[HisArpy]

This has been explained to you more than once.

And every time you try, you fail because it's not "us," it's you.

You get told this EVERY DAY and like clockwork you discard it because you believe the fantasies you create in your head are real.

 

[ll74]

And every time you try, you fail because it's not "us," it's you.

Neat

You get told this EVERY DAY and like clockwork you discard it because you believe the fantasies you create in your head are real.

Neat

 

[HisArpy]

Neat


Neat

^still failing to understand it's not "us."

 

[ll74]

^still failing to understand it's not "us."

^^still failing to understand your opinion of me doesn't matter to me

But please, keep telling me about it....it's really valuable to someone, I'm sure.