What do conservatives fear?

[bigfield]

bigfield,

Yes, I think you're pretty much on the money with this one. However, I'm particularly interested in the 'equality' angle.

The philosopher John Rawls, in his book 'A Theory of Justice' suggested a thought experiment. He imagined that a person could be reincarnated in a society of either 1. Fairness and everyone having enough to get by or 2. Unfairness and a high chance of being rich or destitute. Rawls, a left wing thinker, had the idea that most people would choose 1. However, in my discussions over the years I have found quite a few conservative types who opted for 2.

This implies to me that conservatives, while apparently fearing change, may not fear risk so much. Maybe their fear of equality and liking of inequality leads them to think that they will most likely be the lucky ones, so what the heck? There is certainly something in this thought experiment that gives us a clue to both conservative and liberal thinking. One point is that liberals generally think quite a lot about the suffering of others and hope/try to ameliorate such suffering. This would indicate their choice of 1. which again has been my experience in discussions with liberal types.

A.

This seems to be a common belief - that whatever happens, you will be one of the leading characters, and not a mere extra. Everyone is the star of their own story, so they say things like "Oh, I do wish I had been born in the Middle Ages" - The assumption being that they would be a knight, a princess or a king. The same happens with 'past life regression' - everyone turns out to have been important in their past life. This rather flies in the face of the fact the 99% of medieval humanity were dirt-poor serfs who lived short tedious and grindingly poor lives dominated by hard labour, famine and disease; And that princesses and kings were semi-mythical creatures in their world, that a peasant might, if he was incredibly fortunate, glimpse in the distance once or even twice in his entire miserable life.

This same ego-centric idea that it is others who will play the menial roles in life is what leads poor white Americans to vote republican - so that when they become millionaires, they won't be imposed upon by excessive taxes. It's also the reason why people buy lottery tickets and engage in other forms of gambling with tiny odds of winning. People just cannot bring themselves to truly believe that they are ordinary. But of course, extraordinary people are rare exceptions, so most people are doomed to be disappointed.

There are also the upper-middle-class born-to-rule types, the ones who fill the ranks of the Young Liberals: those "gormless, intolerant little twerps", those cheap Marie Antoinette knockoffs, who imagine themselves as elites.

 

[ryan]

I asked my father this very same question, a staunch republican who is not very religious. He feels that the democrats spend too much money on their pet projects that don't give much in return and not enough on the businesses that bring in the bulk of the tax revenue.

Being mostly a democrat myself, it is hard for me to totally argue this point. I just finished watching a Yale lecture on YouTube about how the Romans fell. So far, historians believe it was just too much bureaucracy from the government getting too big. A university admitting the end of one of the most powerful empires ever was due to too much government and government spending, well, that is quite virtuous.

Balance is the way to go, keep both sides from going too far one way.

 

[bigfield]

Being mostly a democrat myself, it is hard for me to totally argue this point. I just finished watching a Yale lecture on YouTube about how the Romans fell. So far, historians believe it was just too much bureaucracy from the government getting too big.

I recently watched a series of lectures from Open Yale Courses in which Paul Freedman suggests that the Roman Empire fell because it was too large to administer and had to fight on too many fronts. Diocletian reformed the Empire's bureaucracy and created the tetrarchy because the empire could not be effectively administered and defended from Rome.

In particular, the establishment of a capital at Byzantium made it easier to quickly deploy large armies in the eastern provinces. This shift, combined with Diocletian's superior system of bureaucracy strengthened the Eastern Roman Empire and allowed it to outlast the Western Roman Empire by centuries. The Western Roman Empire fell a century later because it couldn't bring enough military might to bear against unprecedented mass migration from the north.

The Roman Empire did not exist in a static world: they had to deal with an increasing number of enemies and they suffered from economic stagnation. The whole empire may have collapsed under these pressures had Diocletian not enacted his reforms.

[YOUTUBE]2B9b9mUPJik[/YOUTUBE]

Diocletian did not set out to be a revolutionary. His aims were conservative. He wanted to save, preserve, restore, the Roman Empire of the pre-235 era. His methods were radical. He was willing to undertake radical measures. And the debate among historians, now somewhat muted. Many historians at one time felt that he had basically destroyed the Empire. By making it so bureaucratic, so militarized, so heavy-handed, in terms of government, it no longer was the Roman Empire. It was something else.

Now the reason this is no longer exactly considered to be a big problem or a big controversy, you'll see when we come to read Wickham. The Empire has an impress on society. There is what he calls “the burden of empire”, but it is, at the same time, not a totalitarian empire that controls everything. Society has an identity that's different from the government.

...

But the most important change in government is the establishment of what's called the Tetrarchy. The Tetrarchy is the rule of four--four rulers. Diocletian divides the Empire, first in two: East, West. A very significant move that will have consequences for the next 1,200 years. He then appoints a co-emperor to rule in the West, while he rules in the East. And they each appoint a helper, number three and number four. The two emperors are called Augusti, emperors, and the two helpers are Caesars. So they're subordinate to their respective Augusti, and they're supposed to help them. Why this system? This is really to overcome the problems of size, communication, administration. It's a statement that the Empire is too big for one man to rule.

...

But Diocletian is extremely important, and in many respects, extremely successful. He did more than prop up a tottering empire. He did more than just transform a tottering empire into a kind of tottering tyranny. He saved the Roman Empire. He saved the Roman Empire for 100 years. When you take a course like this that goes for 700, 800 years, you start to hurl centuries around and get confused among them. But any polity that exists for 100 years is fairly impressive. Or a polity that looks like it's about to collapse, and then is restored for 100 years.

The Roman Empire, conventionally speaking, is thought to have collapsed in the West in the late fifth century. In the East, however, arguably, Diocletian's reforms last for more on the order of 1,200 years. The Eastern Empire, the Byzantine Empire would fall in 1453. And to its last day, it was modeled on Diocletianic administrative and military forms.

http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/1166/hist-210

Ironically, the US suffers from too much bureaucracy and military, but it's a problem of efficiency: there is too much overlap between federal, state and local government, too much fragmentation (eg. police) and too much redundancy in the military.

 

[Philos]

I asked my father this very same question, a staunch republican who is not very religious. He feels that the democrats spend too much money on their pet projects that don't give much in return and not enough on the businesses that bring in the bulk of the tax revenue.

Being mostly a democrat myself, it is hard for me to totally argue this point. I just finished watching a Yale lecture on YouTube about how the Romans fell. So far, historians believe it was just too much bureaucracy from the government getting too big. A university admitting the end of one of the most powerful empires ever was due to too much government and government spending, well, that is quite virtuous.

Balance is the way to go, keep both sides from going too far one way.

ryan,

Yes, I've heard this story myself. However, if conservatives are afraid of public spending, why have they voted in the biggest spending administrations in modern history, Reagan and Bush 11?

Something doesn't fit.

https://mises.org/blog/if-you-want-bigger-government-vote-republican

There is a similar puzzle here in the UK. After years of attacking Labour government over public spending, the conservatives have doubled national debt and are planning more spending.

What gives ?

A.

 

[bigfield]

There is a similar puzzle here in the UK. After years of attacking Labour government over public spending, the conservatives have doubled national debt and are planning more spending.

That echoes the situation in Australia after Labor (centre-left) lost Government to the Coalition (centre-right):

Has the Government doubled the budget deficit? (Answer: Yes)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-doubled-the-budget-deficit/5423392

Which is also the Government that came to power on a platform of returning to surplus and ending 'intergenerational theft'.

I think their campaign promises must be code for something else, because they clearly do not mean what they say.

 

[Philos]

bigfield,

Thanks for link and analysis. It calls for a reread and further study IMHO. My first thought - too big to fail?

Many people argue that the USSR failed because of an arms race with the USA. The latter country now continues an arms race with itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

With Trillions in public debt the USA is pushing $600 billion tax dollars on arms spending per year and rising. Trump is proposing a massive increase in this spending. Who is he going to fight, the Klingons?

A.

 

[bilby]

There is a similar puzzle here in the UK. After years of attacking Labour government over public spending, the conservatives have doubled national debt and are planning more spending.

That echoes the situation in Australia after Labor (centre-left) lost Government to the Coalition (centre-right):

Has the Government doubled the budget deficit? (Answer: Yes)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-doubled-the-budget-deficit/5423392

Which is also the Government that came to power on a platform of returning to surplus and ending 'intergenerational theft'.

I think their campaign promises must be code for something else, because they clearly do not mean what they say.

The only intergenerational theft I can see is our wealthy great-great-grandchildren stealing all our infrastructure, without paying a brass razoo for it.

The idea that there is something wrong with borrowing money for infrastructure projects, so that future users of that infrastructure can pay their share, is crazy. But very popular.

 

[ryan]

I recently watched a series of lectures from Open Yale Courses in which Paul Freedman suggests that the Roman Empire fell because it was too large to administer and had to fight on too many fronts. Diocletian reformed the Empire's bureaucracy and created the tetrarchy because the empire could not be effectively administered and defended from Rome.

In particular, the establishment of a capital at Byzantium made it easier to quickly deploy large armies in the eastern provinces. This shift, combined with Diocletian's superior system of bureaucracy strengthened the Eastern Roman Empire and allowed it to outlast the Western Roman Empire by centuries. The Western Roman Empire fell a century later because it couldn't bring enough military might to bear against unprecedented mass migration from the north.

The Roman Empire did not exist in a static world: they had to deal with an increasing number of enemies and they suffered from economic stagnation. The whole empire may have collapsed under these pressures had Diocletian not enacted his reforms.

Right, looking back on the lectures, he definitely avoids blaming all of the problems on bureaucracy even though it is clearly a constant issue throughout his lectures. I shouldn't have made that statement about the lectures themselves, but clearly bureaucracy could have been a major factor leading all the way to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in the 1400's.

Ironically, the US suffers from too much bureaucracy and military, but it's a problem of efficiency: there is too much overlap between federal, state and local government, too much fragmentation (eg. police) and too much redundancy in the military.

Yeah the point was that this is probably a major part of what the right fears.

 

[ryan]

I asked my father this very same question, a staunch republican who is not very religious. He feels that the democrats spend too much money on their pet projects that don't give much in return and not enough on the businesses that bring in the bulk of the tax revenue.

Being mostly a democrat myself, it is hard for me to totally argue this point. I just finished watching a Yale lecture on YouTube about how the Romans fell. So far, historians believe it was just too much bureaucracy from the government getting too big. A university admitting the end of one of the most powerful empires ever was due to too much government and government spending, well, that is quite virtuous.

Balance is the way to go, keep both sides from going too far one way.

ryan,

Yes, I've heard this story myself. However, if conservatives are afraid of public spending, why have they voted in the biggest spending administrations in modern history, Reagan and Bush 11?

Something doesn't fit.

https://mises.org/blog/if-you-want-bigger-government-vote-republican

There is a similar puzzle here in the UK. After years of attacking Labour government over public spending, the conservatives have doubled national debt and are planning more spending.

What gives ?

A.

I think that the right are not totally against debt as long as it is somewhat directed towards helping businesses thrive even though I wonder if they don't understand that money for education, primary and secondary, will help the economy/businesses too. But I am also trying to understand the commonalities of conservatives and their reasoning.

 

[Underseer]

http://ktla.com/2017/02/03/trump-travel-ban-leaves-iranian-babys-heart-surgery-in-limbo/

We denied entry to a baby who needed to come here for surgery and who already has relatives living here because conservatives are such cowards. American conservatives are even terrified of babies.

I think it would be faster and easier to list the things conservatives are not terrified of. As near as I can tell, the only thing on that list is rich white people and lint.

 

[Angry Floof]

http://ktla.com/2017/02/03/trump-travel-ban-leaves-iranian-babys-heart-surgery-in-limbo/

We denied entry to a baby who needed to come here for surgery and who already has relatives living here because conservatives are such cowards. American conservatives are even terrified of babies.

I think it would be faster and easier to list the things conservatives are not terrified of. As near as I can tell, the only thing on that list is rich white people and lint.

This. Inside the ideological circle of wagons, away from all those sinful things that aren't actually hurting anyone, is the only safe place for conservatives.

 

[Bomb#20]

Modern technology is so amazing. Here it is, the 21st century, and I can still listen to a bunch of Christians explaining the Jew -- telling one another how the Jew rejects Christ's love because his dark lord Satan leads him astray, or because his love of money blinds him, or because he's certain Christ will never forgive him for having eaten Christian babies in his black cult's unholy ritual, or all of the above -- and I don't even need a time machine back to the 14th century. All I need is the internet and a few mouse clicks. It almost makes up for not having the jet pack I was promised!

 

[Trausti]

http://https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307455777/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0307455777&linkCode=as2&tag=theindewhig-20&linkId=GTZVOFMIGHDZU4BF

 

[zorq]

<Book quote that isn't necessarilly related to the thread.>

That's a tangent but really quite interesting. For reference Moral Foundations theory suggests that there are 5 moral foundations that typical humans can value. A harm/care foundation, a justice/reciprocity foundation, an ingroup/loyalty foundation, an authrity/respect foundation, and a purity/sanctity foundation. Liberals tend to only value the first two while conservatives tend to value all 5.

Regarding the article, it is understandable that the liberals are confused by conservatives who insist that they value the harm/care moral foundation and the justice/reciprocity moral foundation, (the two questions liberals missed the most according to that snippit.) Because it's true that conservatives do claim that they care about these things (and a more pensive liberals in that study likely guessed that) but their implementation of these two foundations in the real world is so sloppy that to outside observers Conservatives genuinely look like they don't care about the suffering on others and equal treatment.

The reason for this is that their values for the other moral pillars often overrule the two that liberals champion. They over-rule them A LOT. When a typical conservative is confronted with a homosexual family member, they have a choice. They can prioritize their harm/care moral foundation and continue to love and support that family member or they can prioritize their purity/sanctitiy moral pillar and be revolted by the revelation and reject/ostracize the family member. Depending on the conservative it can and often does go both ways. But to a liberal, the ostracism is a common observance and a total violation of the harm/care moral pillar the liberal would always prioritize.

In other words, it isn't that the liberals were necessarily wrong in their guesses to conservative answers, it's that the conservatives likely were wrong about their own answers. Because the real world is often more complicated than a quiz that asks you if you think "One of the worst things you could do is hurt a defenseless animal." Every animal is different and the answer varies depending on the animal and the circumstances. Suppose the animal is your lifelong loyal friend but it is suffering from a painful disease and you also just found out that it bit your sister's hand sending her to the hospital, but your father, whom you respect, made you promise to keep the animal alive until he can come visit to say last farewells in 6 months. Then the decision to end the life of the defenseless animal becomes more complicated. Which moral pillars will a person prioritize when making that decision?

Anyway as I was saying it was the conservatives who (kind of) got those answers wrong about themselves because with 5 moral pillars to choose from when making decisions in every day life, the probability that the conservative decides NOT to prioritize the harm/care and justice/reciprocity moral pillars is huge compared to the probability that liberals will violate those pillars with only 2 to choose from. Conservatives say they value these moral pillars and think they value these pillars, but conservatives toss them aside all the time in favor of one or more of the other moral pillars they value. Of course that's true of the other 3 moral pillars they value too, but to liberals, the conflict on the first two is much more apparent and egregious.

 

[zorq]

Speaking of the moral foundations theory, I'm going to use it as a guide to guess the thing that Conservatives fear the most.

Conservatives fear that they will get the news that they are descended from at least 50% outgroup ethnicity from a stranger on the street who will also unmask a hidden attribute in themselves they can not suppress or personally accept which is both proscribed in the tenants of their preferred superstition and despised by other members of their family who reject them, get them fired from their employment, and take all of their money, but for arbitrary reasons unrelated to the unmasked hidden attribute mentioned above. Then penniless, alone, reviled, despoiled they are forced to take advantage of government services they had unsuccessfully voted to abolish in the last election.

 

[OLDMAN]

I think they are just more pragmatic when it comes to government involvement. Everything else is personal gravy.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think they are just more pragmatic when it comes to government involvement. Everything else is personal gravy.

If only!

 

[Tigers!]

I am not at all certain that 'fear' is the right word. Wary might be a better substitute.

Conservatives do not assume that change is of itself good or necessary.The new or different might not be better that the current. Hasten slowly is still a good pointer.

Also conservatism is not adestination or a terminus, it is the way to get there. It is a means, not an end.

 

[Valjean]

I am not at all certain that 'fear' is the right word. Wary might be a better substitute.

Conservatives do not assume that change is of itself good or necessary.The new or different might not be better that the current. Hasten slowly is still a good pointer.

Also conservatism is not adestination or a terminus, it is the way to get there. It is a means, not an end.

And yet it corresponds to visible anatomic and physiological differences in the brain. You can usually pick out conservatives with MRIs or CAT scans alone.

 

[abaddon]

And yet it corresponds to visible anatomic and physiological differences in the brain. You can usually pick out conservatives with MRIs or CAT scans alone.

Yes. It doesn't mean they're born conservative though. The experience of living can change the brain. If someone uses their amygdala (threat response) more than their insula (monitoring of emotions), that could to some extent be a learned trait. If a little town was largely conservative, there'd have to be a reason for it other than "they're born to be that way in this town"... even if it was found their brains all had come to look the same from their insular lifestyle.

Conservatives tend to notice danger in their environment and emphasize it more than liberals do. Not just fear of change but of outsiders or people different from oneself too. Anything that threatens the stable-sameness.

There's a positive thing to loving stable sameness over change though. You're more likely to be a contented person, so long as things stay more the same than not. Which is generally the case.

Then there's some indication liberals are a bit more neurotic. Makes sense if a person is eager for change and it doesn't happen, and if the fear or worry is over how things are. Where conservatives justify "how it is", liberals justify "how it should be".