Of all the schisms that cleave contemporary America, few are more stark than the divide between those who consider themselves to be victims of US history and those who fear they will be casualties of its future.
Of all the schisms that cleave contemporary America, few are more stark than the divide between those who consider themselves to be victims of US history and those who fear they will be casualties of its future.
Based on op comment, I thought it was going to be an objective assessment of different views and perspectives, but it obviously isn’t. Maybe that was my bad assumption.
In what way? The article mainly presents historical facts, not ideological theories. And when it does present theories, it does so within the historical context surrounding it. That was the whole point of the article, that one’s view of history directly relates to their political leaning. If you want to be fair and balanced but refuse to acknowledge that one side is clearly doing more criminal/immoral acts and/or just straight up lying than the other party, then you’re not being fair at all; you’re giving false credibility to an obvious conman simply because you don’t want to admit you’ve been played
I don’t believe in putting the worst possible spin and interpretation on one person or party and giving the other a complete pass. I was hoping for an objective assessment of conservatives motives and beliefs, but it was pretty much the same old “conservatives are racist”. Trying to distill it down to racism is ignorant at best, but is more likely just another opinion piece with an agenda. Is Trump tapping into nationalist tendencies? Well yeah, but that’s not what characterizes conservatives in general, and it’s not racist in and of itself. Nationalism isn’t necessarily racist (though it can be, and to some it is), specifically it’s pride in what the nation stands for and what is required to maintain the nation the way it is. Or at least the essence that makes the nation. Again, to some this has racism at its roots, but to most (in my experience), it’s about ideals and values that are irrelevant of race. What do you think are the core differences between progressives and conservatives? What is the true, fundamental difference in world view between one who is conservative and one who is progressive?
One believes government can be leveraged to encourage/enact positive change, that a lot of people need to be coerced into doing what’s right (read: business owners) and that a population doesn’t need to reenforce or retain one race as their majority, that a diverse population breeds creativity and growth is inspired by such.
The other believes that government shouldn’t be responsible for anything other than the defense of the country, that the society of that nation is almost entirely decided by the race and culture of a given majority and that it should always remain as such. (Read: there’s your racism) and that might makes right (money = power. You gained that money however you did and therefore what you do with it is always morally correct.)
Thanks for actually answering the question! I would distill it down a little further though, and say that the difference between conservative and progressive is that progressives believe that human nature is malleable and that the system can be used to drive humanity in a positive direction. On the other hand, conservatives believe that human nature cannot be fundamentally changed and that attempts to do so will result in dystopia of some kind, or an overall decrease in happiness as humankind strays further from it’s nature. Obviously there are people within either of these camps who take things way too far. I don’t remember where I read this theory, but it’s the only one that has held up over the years and in various contexts.
Human nature has nothing to do with it, and whoever gave you that theory was selling something.
“Progressives” are a form of liberal that seek to preserve the status quo by allowing minor alterations to relieve the pressure of the system’s internal contradictions. “Conservatives”, in contrast, are liberals who want to preserve the status quo by enforcing its hierarchies against whoever they perceive as being an outside influence.
Classical Liberals, the whole lot of them.
I suppose the third type of person is a revolutionary, who wants to throw it away and start over. But then what, continue the cycle of revolution once the next generation arrives? Or is there an end point? Do you think it can actually be achieved? From a practical perspective, does human nature allow that?
Yeah. It seems to me that a society that reinvents itself for each new generation would be more dynamic and responsive to the needs of the people it serves than the ten plus generations of stagnation we’ve had in the USA.