While we disagree, you kind of agree with me. Liberals are for trying new ideas and conservatives are for not trying new ideas. One tries to push us forward to try to be better while the other tries to pull us back to try to preserve what is better.
Your understanding of the difference is hopelessly simplistic and self-serving. Conservatives aren't against trying new ideas. They're against jettisoning old ideas without a thorough understanding of why they developed in the first place. The parable of
Chesterton's fence illustrates this philosophy well.
Despite our differences of opinion, we at least agree on that bit.
Actually, we don't, and you know it.
Well, that's a pejorative term for supply side stimulation policies. They haven't been proven, scientifically or otherwise, to be worse or better than demand side stimulation policies. In some situations, one type of policy is called for; and in other situations, the other type of policy is called for. It depends where the bottleneck is occurring. Supply side policies will work better if tax rates are so high that there is little incentive to work or to invest in income producing assets. Demand side politics will work if aggregate demand is too low because the average consumer has too little income to consume or has too little confidence in future income.
Tax cuts for the very wealthy have more economic impact than increased food stamps, dollar for dollar.
If by economic impact, you mean an increase in aggregate demand, then I think most conservatives would agree. But increasing aggregate demand is not the only goal, or even the primary goal. Money given to the poor is going to end up in the hands of the wealthy anyway after one or two transactions, so the extra stimulus from increasing private sector financial wealth is rather short-lived. Changing incentives by lower tax rates, however, can have a more meaningful and sustainable impact on the economy.
Evolution, or even the "freedom to not be taught science" if you wish to couch it in such terms.
What does the "freedom to not be taught science" have to do with denying science? It has to do with freedom, not science specifically. If I have the freedom to not be taught French, does that mean I deny the existence of, or truth of, French?
Employment based healthcare over single payer healthcare.
Huh? Both are bad. Conservatives are for a more free market approach, starting with equalizing the tax treatment of employment based insurance and individual insurance. John McCain actually advocated such a policy during his Presidential run, and, if enacted, it would have freed us from employment based healthcare.
Really, the denial that any form of socialist programs can ever work because communism and socialism were defeated by the Greatest Generation. Even though there are several great examples of socialist programs working in our country and in most western democracies.
Bit of a straw man there (as are all of your other examples actually). I've never met anybody who seriously claimed that socialist policies never work. I mean our entire national defense strategy is effectively socialism. I would say instead that conservatives are far more skeptical of socialist paradigms than liberals. They are wary of the government controlling or highly regulating certain areas of the economy because that ends up isolating such areas from competition and the natural consequences of poor performance or utter failure. In a way, socialists are the ones denying evolution, at least when it comes to survival of the fittest among the owners of the means of production.
That seems like a bunch of catch phrases that I'd rather not unpack backed by very little in the realm of actual claims or evidence. If there is something in there that you really want to discuss let me know.
I've discussed it in other posts here. My point is that when it comes to acknowledging and accepting the logical consequences of human evolution - that there may be biological differences between populations that lead to disparate aggregate outcomes, and so using governmental policy to try to eliminate disparate aggregate outcomes might be ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst - that liberals tend to be deniers. The practical effect of evolution denial by religious conservatives is pretty much nil. Not so with liberal evolution denial.
And yet we have found that economies that treat women better are more successful.
Treat them better how? Give them equal rights? Of course. Which conservatives are advocating that women shouldn't have equal rights? The argument is about whether women should be given privileges to counteract any alleged institutional sexism that remains. There is no scientific evidence that I'm aware of that affirmative action programs for women have been beneficial to society. Or affirmative action of any type actually.
So, why does it matter what the biology is if current science tells us that treating women better (through education, birth control and equal pay, among other things) will lead to a more successful economic outcomes?
I'd like to see this "current science" that you're talking about. I don't suppose you have any citations do you?
And really, why do these studies contradict your belief in the patriarchal structure? Is it because reality has a liberal bias?
What studies are you talking about? Also, why do you think I don't believe in the patriarchal structure? I believe it exists, but that causality runs the opposite direction from what most opponents of that structure would claim. The patriarchy probably evolved because of the inherent biological differences between men and women. However, there is no reason do believe it necessarily feeds back to enhance those differences as they are expressed in society. It could just as easily do the opposite. For example, the institution of marriage is arguably a part of the patriarchal structure of society, but marriage equalizes the power between men and women.
To a conservative it makes no sense that legalizing drug usage would decrease usage, but in most cases that is exactly what happens. Therefore, a liberal would say that if you want there to be fewer drug users then you should push for legalization rather than prohibition.
Well, I would be surprised that legalizing drug usage would decrease usage, but I don't think that's because I'm a conservative. I am very pro-legalization. If you can provide a logical explanation or some scientific evidence, I would certainly be willing to change my mind, with respect to any facet of the issue.
Also, you're conflating a single goal - the reduction in the number of drug users - with all possible goals of conservatives. These could include reducing crime, reducing expense to the government, increasing productivity, reducing the number of impaired drivers on the roads. None of these goals are necessarily achieved by reducing the number of drug users.
To a conservative it makes no sense that having more Planned Parenthood clinics would reduce abortion rates, but it does. So, a liberal would say if you want to reduce abortions in your area you should support Planned Parenthood rather than picketing outside their clinics.
Once again, you are conflating a single goal with all possible goals. People who object to abortion do so on moral grounds, and moral calculus doesn't really work like bean counting. You can't just say that I will condone evil in order to reduce the total amount of evil. Or at least some people can't. I probably could actually, but I don't have a moral objection to abortion. Your reasoning would allow for executing an innocent person in order to save 2 innocent people from certain death. The answer is not so obvious.
Conservatives are sure they know how the world works. Liberals are often happy to find out that they don't.
Oh good grief. If this forum is any indication (and I'm not saying it is), then liberals are often happy to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "nanny nanny boo boo, I can't hear you" in order to avoid the unpleasant cognitive dissonance of having their worldview persuasively challenged.
I know someone who thinks Obama was born in Kenya. Despite the birth announcement in the local paper and the Republican Governor of HI saying otherwise. Go figure. And yet the conservative myth persists.
I'm not sure that either of our anecdotes are all that useful.
Well, you missed the point of my anecdote. It wasn't to provide evidence that such people exist (we both know that they do, and we also know that a single anecdote doesn't provide evidence of anything more than that). It's to illustrate my claim that certain differences are biological. Most parents who have multiple children can see how different their children are from each other. This is particularly the case between boys and girls. Not always, there are exceptions. But the exceptions are few and far between.
