Anyways, I want to clarify that by "liberal" I mean something like "Progressive" or "Whig" -- Whig values dominate society. (More Democracy is good, Discrimination is bad, People are created equal, etc.) These beliefs would have wide acceptance everywhere American today -- there are few bigots around. Republicans, however, are (generally) marginally more willing to disagree with part/all of these ideas than Democrats.
Crissa wrote:But there's some relationships shouldn't have this enter: Employers and businesses can't just expect society to protect their interests if they're picking and choosing which part of society they will allow into their premises.
Without saying I like or dislike this idea (I don't like or dislike it, it's fine), it's not the only one. Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 American businesses and employers could expect this of society. (Society ran fine, even if it's not a society we'd like to live in.) Many civilizations (the French Empire, Polish Kingdoms, Medieval Fiefs, etc.) would have avoided discrimination practices by being relatively homogeneous. India ran, for thousands of years, and still runs, a strict caste system that says exactly which parts of society can expect to enjoy which parts of society. When I was in China, the idea that discrimination was verboten in the US was bizarre (though they will treat you royally if you are white, blond, ginger, or black).
Yeah, we get to cluck our tongues at people who disapprove of atheists or gays or whatever bigotry they have, whether or not we manage to get our legal system to recognize it.
A hundred years ago, this might have read: "We get to cluck our tongues at people who approve of athieths or gays or whatever perversion they have". I think you can replace the idea with its opposite without changing the meaning.
Brace wrote:You're getting dangerously close to "silent majority" rhetoric.
Maybe, but I think of it a little differently. The people who don't care enough to share their opinion generally don't have an opinion that different from the people who do.
Almost switching topics: I can get Conservatives and Liberals to yell loudly about how much they disagree and how the other is destroying the country. But both would probably say they like what we have (well enough): A mixed free market with a democratic government. This is the moderate position we'd mostly agree to.
Go to 1700's Europe and argue for mixed free market with democracy and you will be very radical indeed. Racists occupy about the position we would if we teleported to the 1700's. Liberal values rule our society.
Being a conservative who wants a bit more free market and a bit less mixed is not disputing those ruling values. Being a monarchist is.
Liberals love telling people they're wrong because they think they're the vanguard of the future, socially engineering out all the bad traits of society. Conservatives love being told they're wrong because it reinforces their view that western society has reached a nadir, as well as their persecution complex. Being told to check their privilege on the internet and college campuses makes them feel like they're in Rome being fed to lions. Whenever an LGBT anti-discrimination bill passes, or a public school penalizes a student for expressing their deeply held religious belief that queers are going to hell, conservatives shake their heads and wonder where the world has gone, but they also salivate a bit. Like communism, fundamentalist christianity is a tradition that holds that paradise will be found on the other side of a nightmare, so when the John Birch level conservatives see things they dislike they view them as signs that we're moving forward towards a cleansing fire. There are secular versions of this attitude also, like the stormfront crowd waiting for the great race riot that finally convinces americans that minorities are hazardous to their health.
This is a little stronger than I'd put it, but basically, yeah.
Oh, when I said that conservatives prove themselves right and liberals prove others wrong, I didn't mean that one behavior was better. It is easier to listen to the former, which probably somehow relates to the original topic, maybe.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley