How can the paramount good for liberals and conservatives be reconciled?

[Whateverist]

I was inspired by Apo's recent post on Chad's "5 Levels of Faith" thread, particularly, this part:

As most here are likely to left of center, politically, most people will identify with this. Many times you will hear people maligning Republicans as liars and cheats, and suggesting that they are evil people because it's obvious (to the observer) that what they are doing is wrong; there's no way that someone could be stupid enough to do what that Republican is doing without knowing it's wrong. Are there likely Republicans who do fit this profile? I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are, but we tend to generalize about the whole class, not just those few exemplars. I think it would be unreasonable to believe that Republicans are somehow different than liberals (in meaningfully significant ways) such that Republicanism requires a special explanation for why the typical Republican continues to believe and act as they do (in spite of what "any normal person" would know is true). In the end, this appears to be a way of normalizing your own in-group, and explaining away the existence of people that disagree with you as flawed and defective.

Apophenia mentions Republicans but I'd like to focus not on the party but on conservatism (and probably libertarianism too). And I'm not interested in a strawman version but the core beliefs which draw intelligent people to its principles, the kind who go on to accomplish what many would call good things in the world. I know such conservatives exist and I would really like to understand what their core beliefs are as they themselves understand them.

I fall more naturally into the liberal/progressive camp. Social justice, genuine equality of opportunity limited only by ones own gifts, ambition and willingness to take risks - rather than the resources of ones parents - is the paramount social good as I see it.

From my perspective, the essence of conservatism/libertarianism has always seemed to revolve around a respect for tradition, "faith of our fathers", patriotism .. an emphasis on institutions over individuals. From such a point of view, great economic stratification can seem deserved. But from my point of view accepting and promoting such disparity seems at least callous and self serving.

The excess to which my liberal/progressive perspective is susceptible is an emphasis on the even distribution of resources irrespective of effort and risk. This I agree would not be ideal.

This is not my area of expertise so I'd appreciate hearing what others think about this (from both sides) and also welcome recommendations for books or articles people have found helpful to bridging the divide.

[Gilgamesh]

I would be more likely to agree with a liberal about any given topic than a republican, although, this doesn't make me a liberal.

You really shut yourself in when you choose a side. Unfortunately it's human nature to want to belong to a group. When one chooses a side, one tends to become biased towards the ideals of 'their' party. If one wasn't so concerned with belonging to a party, one may find they were taking a lot of positions, not through reason, but because it's a position taken by their party.

But I do think to be a conservative you have to be either a dimwit and/or religious. To me, conservatism in America is only "We want religion in government."

[Minimalist]

It is hard to root for those who cling to the status quo so fiercely.

[Darth]

If I may, as a libertarian, I would disagree with a few of your points. As you say, they are your perspective, but as you say you are interested in understanding my position, they need to be addressed.

From my perspective, the essence of conservatism/libertarianism has always seemed to revolve around a respect for tradition, "faith of our fathers", patriotism .. an emphasis on institutions over individuals.

This part in particular, I feel safe in saying that most libertarians would disagree, that most would say the individual and their liberty is the most important thing (we're all rugged individualists dontcha know ). Individuals are pretty much the focus.

I might talk about how I went from the left to libertarian actually...

[Whateverist]

If I may, as a libertarian, I would disagree with a few of your points. As you say, they are your perspective, but as you say you are interested in understanding my position, they need to be addressed.

From my perspective, the essence of conservatism/libertarianism has always seemed to revolve around a respect for tradition, "faith of our fathers", patriotism .. an emphasis on institutions over individuals.

This part in particular, I feel safe in saying that most libertarians would disagree, that most would say the individual and their liberty is the most important thing (we're all rugged individualists dontcha know ). Individuals are pretty much the focus.

Yes, I've heard that. But where do you stand on inheritance? Do the children of successful individuals deserve greater resources than those of less successful individuals? If the institutions within which one competes stymy upward mobility, is it really about the individual? Or is it about the past, and whose parents enabled what options for you?

It seems to me that this is a challenge for the libertarian position. If it is the ruggedness of the individual which is to justify the disparity in the fruits of ones efforts, how do we make sure that subsequent generations are not insulated from the requirement of developing their ruggedness?

[Darth]

We don't. We let individuals make agreements and spend their wealth as they like. The parent earnt their wealth though hard work and risk (we can get into the corporatism of the current system later, lets assume they did for the moment), they paid tax on it (assuming an income tax), it's theirs to spend as they will. If they chose to leave a large sum to their children fine, that's what they choose to spend it on. If we disallow that particular transaction (which is a transaction many parents wish to make), then they are not free, the money is not theirs, and their hard work was possibly for naught. Sure the child didn't 'earn' the wealth, but their parents did, and this is what they choose to spend it on. Not always the wisest choice I do agree, but it's their choice to make.

It's not an 'all start at the exact same place thing', because the parents (and friends, other family) are also free to form their own associations and make voluntary transactions. It's not past worship, it's a respect for liberty and voluntary transactions (else we might be advocating for an aristocracy where your bloodline and last name entitle you to a 'minimum' standard of living, regardless of whether you squander your money or not ).

[cratehorus]

what was the question again?

[dazzn]

both stances are poor imo.

us liberalism is based on large welfare.

us conservatism is based on ostensible "absolute morals based on what medieval and early modern people devised".

both are to the detriment of society, I feel.

[FlyingNarwhal]

I think ultimately what needs to be kept in mind is that the opposing party, politically ideology, etc is not "evil." Most people in the world are not evil. Some are misguided, yes. Others are assholes, sure. But it really takes a lot of work to be evil. When it comes down to it, each side is simply proposing what they think is best for their country. You could make an argument that those that are proposing ideas and are in a position of power to put them in place (i.e. politicians) aren't exactly proposing what they REALLY think is best for the country, but that's another thread. For the most part though, regular people like the ones on this forum are just trying to do the best they can.

Honestly, the way our American government was set up to work by the founding fathers is incredibly brilliant, if only it was used properly. For example if you were opposed to a bill the option to filibuster allowed you to actually get up and speak about why you opposed the bill. The filibuster was supposed to be a tool for the exchange of ideas in Congress. Now you don't even have to say anything. The problem is that political parties distorted how our government is supposed to run, all for the sake of keeping the party in power or trying to raise it to power.

Essentially we got to stop shouting at each other from across the table and learn how to have a simple conversation. Fact of the matter there are good and bad points that all political ideologies make, we should just do a better job of picking and choosing.

[Tiberius]

...the essence of conservatism/libertarianism has always seemed to revolve around a respect for tradition, "faith of our fathers", patriotism .. an emphasis on institutions over individuals.

Fixed that for you. :-)

Like Stue, I disagree with that assessment of Libertarianism. Tradition? Is that why most Libertarians are either pro gay marriage or think that marriage shouldn't be something decided by the state in the first place? "faith of our fathers"...not sure what that means, but assuming it has something to do with religious views, the majority of Libertarians are for separation of church and state, because religion should be something you choose, not something forced upon you. Patriotism...well, I think most conservatives would call us unpatriotic when we say the military budget should be cut drastically, or that our country is at least partially responsible for the mess in the Middle East, and why so many terrorists attack us.

Libertarianism is all about the individual. I find some aspects of liberalism to be more focusing on the collective (or some collective) rather than the individual.