Skip Navigation
conservative @lemmy.world
Tedesche @lemmy.world
• 77%

Question From a Liberal: How are We Destroying the USA?

Hi, all.

As should be news to no one, polarization and animosity between conservatives and liberals is at one of its all-time highs in America right now. There's even talk of a second civil war looming. Obviously, there are strong passions and convictions on both sides, and people on both sides have claimed that the other is a grave threat to the integrity of the nation itself. I'm familiar with the views and concerns of my own side: we view Donald Trump's (and his allies' and supporters') statements and actions as being an attack on the democratic process that defines our nation, and are worried that the strategies and tactics he and they are employing will make future elections farcical, paving the way for an authoritarian state (a dictatorship). I am less familiar with why conservatives feel Democrats and liberals are a threat to the nation and its integrity in similar fashion. My best guess is that conservatives buy Trump's assertions that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, and thus might have similar fears as liberals do, but I also get the sense conservatives have deeper, older concerns than this, and that Trump was/is viewed as a solution to them.

Can you please try to articulate here what those fears are? And, to any liberals reading this, please refrain from answering in conservatives' stead. I'm interested in their opinions, not your opinions of their opinions.

39
39 comments

  • I'm not a conservative, but I think I can fairly articulate their views. Actual conservatives can correct me where they see fit.

    As many of them are ostensibly concerned with law and order, the Constitution is the bedrock of American law and order. Liberal attacks on the second amendment with gun control laws and on the first amendment, by characterizing hate speech and trying to get social media companies to police it, undermine the representation the Constitution affords every American citizen. Liberals seem willing to undermine the constitutional foundation of the country in order to "push an agenda". That's why Biden is often portrayed as an unlawful government executive that gratuitously overreaches the limits of his office. Similarly, being worried about the strategies and tactics that Trump and other Republican politicians use is fine, but indicting them four times, and throwing people in jail for "inciting violence" is considered much too far for the conservative. Using the law in that way weaponizes it against people earnestly defending their beliefs, and is viewed as a slippery slope into authoritarianism.

    Economic policy is another huge area of concern for the conservative. Dedicated to American free enterprise, which is axiomatically the optimal way to produce and distribute resources unless proven otherwise, economic policies that interfere with the invisible hand actively harm the population. So, for example, sure, a wealth tax would redistribute wealth and maybe provide free school lunches for kids. But what is the opportunity cost? More sophisticated conservative economic analysis (like that from AEI, Cato, the Heritage Foundation, or similar) often focus on the potential of lost benefits of leftist economic policy. Wealth redistribution, for the conservative, is like cutting your foot off to run faster due too lost weight. Leftist economic policy undermines the economic security of the nation.

    And social policy is a huge concern, too. The whole crisis of masculinity is a example, where they believe young boys and men are taught to hate who they intrinsically are. Conversely, transgender people invert and poison the "natural order". Such social policies undermine the United States in multiple ways, but the biggest is cultivating "weakness". Boys and men who are taught that masculinity is toxic won't be there to enact the necessary violence against aggressors in their personal lives, let alone be there for the nation when the time for war comes. They won't have the ability to overcome challenges, which all men face. Instead, they'll lean into their feelings and sulk in depression because the masculinity required, they'll be taught, can hurt them and those around them. That is, for the conservative, social policy is like caring for others at the expense of the self; it's collectivism. And by not encouraging and cultivating the uniquely American individualistic masculinity that's made us a super power in the few centuries we've been a country, it puts the global American hegemony at risk, which could be catastrophic for the world.

    There's more. But those are probably the most salient issues that I can think of off the top of my head.

    22

  • I’d like to know too. To me, liberals want clean air, safe food, livable wages and working conditions. They want to marry who they love, ensure education for all and make healthcare affordable and available. They sound like monsters!

    21

  • I always thought conservative were scared: they're scared that their lifestyle is in danger, because they think that the other side will do like them. This means they are scared that Muslim will force them to do Ramadan or excision. They're scared that lgbt will force them into lgbt. They're scared that they will be poor if the current poor aren't anymore. They're scared that they will have to work if their children aren't working enough.

    Fear is what drives them IMO. And violence and coercion is the only solution they know, which fuel their fear, because they fear the other side is as bad as they are.

    Media will do whatever they can to fuel these fears too. Honestly, I would execute or exile the people leading the far right media. They are traitors who manipulate and lie on a large scale, they are the largest threat to western countries today.

    9

  • Fundamentally for me it's that liberals and socialism in general sees the state as the answer to a lot of problems. Healthcare should be handled by the state (I kind of agree with that one), care of the disabled should be handled by the state, personal defense and protection should be handled by the state (police), education should come from the state (public education), etc. And if you're in favor of the current state then you probably want it in charge of so much of society.

    But imagine a state that you don't want running the country. If you're a liberal, think of Trump and the Federalists new 2025 game plan. Do you want that state to have so much power?

    So in my mind power consolidates and states don't let go of it. But the goodness and badness of states come and go. In my personal history a lot of my family was killed by the state, so I inherently don't trust it that much and don't want it to be large and in charge.

    I have no problem with the hopes and aspirations of liberals as I share them. I just feel that a big beefy state apparatus is one evil ruler away from crushing the citizenry.

    3

    • Thank you for the response!

      I've thought about this--this oft-commented-upon notion that conservatives want small federal government and more power in the hands of the states and/or people--but I continually find it difficult to square this with what conservatives are voting for today. Trump has been very clear about wanting to consolidate power in his own hands, in a manner consistent with authoritarian dictators, and conservatives don't seem to have a problem with it. Similarly, while the conservative cant about abortion for decades has been that they want it in state control rather than federal, now that SCOTUS has put in state control, conservatives are talking about a federal ban. So, I don't really buy this notion that conservatives favor local/state control over federal; I increasingly think that's a facade for "we don't like people different from us enforcing their views on us," but it covers, "we have specific ways we think people should live and we want to enforce those views on other people." The problem I have with this is that liberal policies don't actually enforce their ways of life on conservatives, with the significant exception that said policies do push to have liberal ways of life promoted in public education, which conservatives obviously have a problem with. However, liberals aren't trying to force anyone to get abortions, simply let people who want them have them. Similarly, no one's trying to force people to be gay or trans; simply accept people who are gay as human beings. I honestly don't know what conservatives think the "gay agenda" is. Can you explain this?

      I understand that the allure of an authoritarian government is one that holds to your own policies and tramples any opposition to them--I can understand the appeal of that to anyone, conservative or liberal. But I would think most people are able to wrap their minds around the idea of civil disagreement and the importance of people being able to debate things and vote on them as a group (democracy). I do think the media has overblown the extent to which conservatives think the following, but January 6th really did send the message that Trump supporters don't accept what the rest of us call democracy, and that's a serious problem. Currently, polls indicate most conservatives still support Trump, who is still claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him. Why should liberals regard conservatives as reasonable, rational human beings under these circumstances? Why should I respect the opinions of a person who is willing to vote for a transparent psychopath and liar, just because he parrots what the policies they like to hear? Clearly, liberals vote for politicians who have flaws and simply parrot their views, but Trump is beyond the pale, is he not?

      5

      • The problem I have with this is that liberal policies don’t actually enforce their ways of life on conservatives

        Gun control, higher taxes, and more regulations are all things I see liberals pretty universally pushing for. Those are all enforced onto people whether they like it or not.

        But I would think most people are able to wrap their minds around the idea of civil disagreement and the importance of people being able to debate things and vote on them as a group (democracy)

        I'm aware this is going to sound pedantic, but really the last "vore on them as a group" is really the only part of that absolutely required for democracy. The reason I bring it up is because most people, regardless of political views, tend to believe some set of values should be protected beyond democratic reach. Perhaps you've heard the phrase "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner"? The idea being that not all results achieved democratically are desirable or acceptable outcomes to all parties involved. For a more real world example (as neither wolves nor lambs participate in a democratic society or hang out together), would you consider a vote that codified race-based slavery to be an acceptable result of democracy?

        I bring this up because it's entirely feasible to have civil discussion and debate over things, even if one or both parties is still going to put their foot down and say they wouldn't accept a democratic vote to the contrary.

        Why should I respect the opinions of a person who is willing to vote for a transparent psychopath and liar, just because he parrots what the policies they like to hear? Clearly, liberals vote for politicians who have flaws and simply parrot their views, but Trump is beyond the pale, is he not?

        That's just politics? I'm not voting based on who I think is the chillest bro I'd love to invite for dinner. The specific person matters very little to me as a whole, given our current political system. Rather, I care what policy they will enact (or block) while in office, how the government is leaning in terms of party makeup, and general election strategy.

        2

      • In regards to your first point, I absolutely agree that it's bullshit for a "small government conservative", which I often consider myself, to be hypocritical as hell and use the state to enforce their viewpoint on others. In a larger sense, it's another reason I simply don't trust the state that much. Because in the final analysis I think most people don't actually want democracy and they're more than happy to smash the opposition if they think it's for the greater good. If you think guns are a net negative then ignoring the second amendment is just a necassary broken egg in the omlette of a safer society. If you think that trans people are a net negative then restricting access to books and medical care is likewise a net-positive because of the greater good. In both of those cases it's people with an agenda using the state's ability to force people.

        The eyerolling part for me about the woke left is that there is a sea of injustices in this world that they don't give a shit about at all, but they pick a few as the topics-du-jour and use that for virtue signaling. Like I haven't met a single woke-left person who genuinely gives a shit about ~40 veterans a day committing suicide. Or janiweed militia still actively raping and murdering in south sudan. I mean if you ask them, sure, they care. But do they actually make it a priority like they do anything else? Do they post about it on reddit like they do JK Rowling's latest shit? Do they organize or write letters about it? Hell no. And for me, I like to think that I'm aware of the fact that I'm not truly in touch with all the world's issues and therefore I shouldn't sit around lecture other people about what they should care about and what they shouldn't. I'm no moral exemplar, I'm just some guy trying to do the right thing and I'm not holding you accountable for paying attention to all the things that I am because holy-shit maybe, just maybe, you are aware of things that I'm not? But the woke-left feels that it has The List of Injustices and if you do not prioritize those you are an absolute piece of shit who is mentally and morally flawed, never bothering to realize that there are many other Lists of Injustices that they conveniently ignore.

        And I think the left does attempt to make others follow their path. Think of how up in arms the left (generally) gets about the "under god" line in the pledge, or the pledge in general. Sure you can sit down through it, you can just not say under god, but the fact that it's there drives people absolutely nuts. Flip it around to pronouns in email signatures and you have something similar whereby you can simply ignore it, but it's a cultural value and norm that's being foisted upon you. No one's going to arrest you for sitting down during the pledge or using the wrong pronouns, but it will potentially hurt you socially and job-wise.

        Regarding Trump, yes, he is a terrible person who I wouldn't want to be my neighbor let alone president. I never voted for him and never would in the future. The best way I see the republican party now is sort of like the democrats from 1850->1930. During that 80 year time frame they went from being the party of white southern slave owners to FDR. It was a radical shift and the republican party is going through a transformation of the same. Democrats too: it used to be a party of working class people but that shifted and now it's more the educated-coastals who love nothing more than nasal gazing at "people who hold onto their bibles and guns" (obama) or "deplorables" (h. clinton). But I'm here on r/conservative (or whatever it is on lemmy), never would I be on r/republican because that party is a mid-transition mess. I'm happy with adjusting my values because of my own experience and learning, but I'm not going to follow a party around wherever it may lead me.

        I really don't find anyone left or right that wants to truly discuss anything. My buddy is in a group called better angels (https://www.thebetterangelssociety.org) where they specifically have tough conversations across the political spectrum and I love that. But liberals are kidding themselves if they see themselves as the open minded thoughtful types and everyone else is just some grunting rube who's alternating between a klan hood and a maga hat.

        I'm in Nevada, and my congressman is a Steven Horsford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Horsford). He had an 11 year affair with a subordinate and funneled campaign money to her (federal crime). He was roundly re-elected I'm assuming because however objectionable his personal (and criminal) behavior is, at least he's not a republican! I bring that up because the mechanism by which people will elect a bad person because he's at least going to vote the way we want is common across all parties. Is Trump worse? Sure, definitely, no doubt. But for real: imagine a democrat who would break the law to truly alter climate change and provide for universal health care, do you think a lot of liberals would be aghast at the abuse of power? Or do you think, similar to Horsford, that people will walk through hip-deep shit if it means getting the country that they want. They'll do it by hook or by crook.

        So to your question of "Why should liberals regard conservatives as reasonable, rational human beings under these circumstances? Why should I respect the opinions of a person who is willing to vote for a transparent psychopath and liar, just because he parrots what the policies they like to hear?" my answer would be because they're no better. Trump's worse, sure, but there is zero evidence to suggest that liberals would somehow act differently if they had a chance to put their own Trump in office. So instead I would take the very uncomfortable position that none of us are nearly as smart and on solid footing as we'd like to think we are.

        2

  • Permanently Deleted

    1

  • I used to be a liberal too.

    Right up until the evergreen college strangeness. I didn’t understand why those students were acting the way they were. So I started looking into it.

    It’s a lot of very dense reading to actually understand how liberals and their values have changed. A lot of Derrida, Foucault, Marx, etc has crept into the liberal idea of society.

    Conservatives value freedom and the individual. Liberals have begun to go backwards, treating people as part of social groups. So instead of you just being you, and having the ability to succeed or fail on your own merits (the things that we all used to agree on), have become twisted.

    This is where the left really lost someone like me. I was having a conversation about people and individualism with a friend of mine and she said “have you ever heard of intersectionality?” Well, yes of course. But you intersect everyone enough and you’re just left with a perfectly unique human. Skin color, religion, education, preferences, you add them all up and no one is the same as anyone else.

    So that’s a bit of the social ways that liberals are moving us away from a capitalist democracy. I’d suggest reading Stephen hicks “understanding postmodernism” to kind of start to see why conservatives don’t like the social direction liberals want to take the west.

    And as far as policy, a lot of liberal solutions to problems is just to throw money at shit. And bloating government to make up more programs to throw money at.

    The government is incompetent, and liberals want to keep giving government more control over peoples lives. But the government will never make better decisions for your life than you will.

    That’s basically what taxes are. You find the government with your tax dollars, and they decided how to spend it. But that money is always going to be better spent by you directly. You’ll always make better financial decisions for yourself and your family than the government ever will.

    And since the government isn’t an actual expert in any field, and are completely incompetent, they will actually make resoundingly terrible decisions with your money.

    If you want to help people, give money yourself through charities of your choice, you don’t need to hand it to the government and hope they spend it in a way you would support. If you had that 30% in your pocket, you could spend it exactly how you feel is best to help people.

    Obviously this is very high-level and not detailed, but a little overview, broad strokes.

    The feeling of inevitable violence is because the leftists have decided that anyone who isn’t a leftist is a bigoted nazi. I mean, those are pretty obviously fighting words.

    If you call someone a nazi, that’s extremely insulting and people will defend themselves. It’s dehumanizing. There are very few nazis or white supremacists in the world. But the left thinks there are 80 million of them in just the US alone

    1

    • I was a lifelong conservative until I developed a chronic illness and realized that conservatives have nothing but cruelty to offer in this regard. It broadened my empathy for others and made me more liberal. For instance when you talk about people failing or succeeding on their own merits, I realize that it is indeed possible for the scales of failure and success to be so drastically skewed so as to almost guarantee a particular result. If one person for example is spending more than half their time managing an illness which creates profound life limitations and another doesn't have to deal with that, who is more likely to find success?

      Why then should that person's maximal prosperity be favored over the other person's ability to do anything more than scrape along in poverty? Why shouldn't that person prefer a political philosophy which still treats them like a human being and not simply a loser, a failure or whatever other word one might want to put to it? And to be clear, I've been doing the bootstrap thing for a long time. I've built businesses to try to create opportunities for myself when everything else was closed off. It's not laziness or apathy or anything of the sort. It is however clear to me that conservatives don't think about people in my situation at all and they see me as having no place in society.

      2

    • There are very few nazis or white supremacists in the world. But the left thinks there are 80 million of them in just the US alone

      i think the number is a bit higher. anyone who says "i'm white" is a white supremacist, as whiteness is an ideology of supremacy over people who are indigenous or black.

      that doesn't make them nazis though.

      but nazis aren't the only fascists: fascism is an ideology favoring the state above all else, and bringing every institution in line to serve the state. mussolini made the trains run on time, but they trains were run by corporations. now we have airlines that buttigieg is supposed to make run on time. wall street, the pentagon, langley, capital hill, and the whitehouse are all run by fascists, and people vote for them. they support the police that take your guns. they support the politicians who take your rights.

      so the usa is a white supremacist, fascist country, and the only people who can see it and want to fight against it are derided as "woke" and "backwards".

      i also want to say its great that you read a bit about intersectionality, but maybe you need to read a little more. it's about systems of oppression, and you don't seem to believe those exist.

      0

  • Forget Trump for the purpose of this question, because he's divisive, and many conservatives don't fully support him.

    The general answer to your question is that Progressivism is designed to destroy the USA by gradually eroding traditional values, and then progressively moving on to erode more. That's the entire point of Progressivism.

    I'll spare you the book-length answer that unpacks that idea into a long list of examples.

    -10

  • Conservatives can read? Think you're going to have to ask this in person. Head to the deep south. They are brainwashed AF thanks to lack of education and fox being their only source of news.

    -18
You've viewed 39 comments.