The gap between Liberals and conservatives in America is much wider then I ever imagined. While on a club hike today with individuals I had not met previously I happened to hear two hikers talking about relaxation and meditation. My interest perked up when I heard the name Mohammad in the context of peace, relaxation, and meditation. Feeling strongly that Islam has issues which need to be addressed by moderate Muslims regarding how that religion relates to the rest of the world, I calmly said, “You know the Koran guarantees salvation only to those who kill unbelievers or dies doing so. Its the only such guarantee in the Koran though I can't quote the exact verse.” I continued, “Whereas Christianity guarantees salvation to those who accept Jesus and treat others as they would be treated themselves.”
Holy crap, you would have thought I had killed each group member's first born child. An amazingly emotional and aggressive out cry against me from all but two silent group members ensued. I was called a conservative war monger among other things. From my simple statement questioning Islam, the group began assuming I took an extreme right stance on all kinds of domestic issues irrelevant to the Mohammad discussion. Realizing I had mistakenly hiked into a field of land mines ,I decided to spend the walk exploring Liberal ideals by debating with the hikers.
During our discussion I found that the Liberals were very emotional compared to my rational approach. They later admitted to such saying I rationalize everything. I explained for some decisions are rational. They painted with a very broad brush assuming that all conservatives are far right religious fanatics. They seemed confused when I explained that I differ on many issues such as the environment and certain social issues from the Republican party. They appeared not to grasp the idea that one can be conservative without being a Republican per se. It took a significant time for me to successfully (I hope) explain that given the US two party system many citizens are often forced to vote on one or two issues which are significant to that voter because they likely don't agree with a certain party on all issues. I repeatedly explained that for me I feel very strongly about individual self reliance economically. I feel strongly enough on that one issue that I vote Republican because I have few choices which are congruent with that ideal even if I don't necessarily agree with the Republicans on other issues which are less significant to me. They seemed to struggle with this idea. I suspect this is because they tend to agree with whatever the Democrats feed them through the media. However, when you point this out, they insist the media is unbiased.
I found that the Liberals take the party line more precisely then conservatives. There appears to be very little room for diverse views. Keep in mind I am talking about individual voters not elected party members. They could not fathom that a conservative such as myelf could be pro environment. They cannot image diversity amongst conservatives. They could not predict my views on issues aside from support for president Bush and conservative economic policy. At the same time, I was able to predict their views on every issue.I could predict their conspiracies and prejudicies.
What struck me most, aside from their shear emotionalism, was their insolent disrespectful insults of President Bush. They seriously believe he, Cheney, and Rumsfield are evil. The words satanic and Hilter were used in their description. I explained how different that is from how I believe in America. I explained that while I vehemently disagree with Liberalism, I would never say such things about President Clinton for example. I explained that while I disagree with President Clinton on many things, I believed he had America's best interest at heart. I explained that such extreme views on the current administration can easily cause those who do not concur to wonder about one's patriotism.
One Liberal took exception to this. However, he later admitted to not being very patriotic. The Liberal went on to site a conspiracy theory about invading Iraq to assist oil companies. I explained that the difference between him and I appears to be that I believe that while not all of President Bush's decisions have worked out smoothly, there is no conspiracy, just a president being forced to make very difficult decisions during very difficult times. They finally sounded rational when they said that being the case, based on President Bush's poor performance in the war on terror, they want to vote a different party into power. However, it did not take long for the conversation to degenerate back into Bush bashing and emotional conspiracy theories and hate.
I know my hike was not a scientific study, however, from my experience, each Liberal's view seems to be a replica of the next from a disbelief in trickle down economics, to conspiracy theories, their apparent hate for Christianity, insistence that Christianity not Islam is the problem, to their image of conservatives as uncaring prejudiced people. They seemed quite confused by my stance on social and environmental issues. They insisted I was moderating and back pedaling. I reminded them that we originally began our discussion based on my views of Islam and the war on terror. They had made many assumptions about my, views. I reminded them that individual conservatives views often differ from that of the party's. However, we often have to make choices given the limited voting options in the US.
I doubt any opinions changed as result of our debate. Unfortunately I doubt they learned anything. However, I found our talk very interesting and picked up a few things.
I'm very interested in comments on my experience from Liberals and Conservatives.
Marc
Holy crap, you would have thought I had killed each group member's first born child. An amazingly emotional and aggressive out cry against me from all but two silent group members ensued. I was called a conservative war monger among other things. From my simple statement questioning Islam, the group began assuming I took an extreme right stance on all kinds of domestic issues irrelevant to the Mohammad discussion. Realizing I had mistakenly hiked into a field of land mines ,I decided to spend the walk exploring Liberal ideals by debating with the hikers.
During our discussion I found that the Liberals were very emotional compared to my rational approach. They later admitted to such saying I rationalize everything. I explained for some decisions are rational. They painted with a very broad brush assuming that all conservatives are far right religious fanatics. They seemed confused when I explained that I differ on many issues such as the environment and certain social issues from the Republican party. They appeared not to grasp the idea that one can be conservative without being a Republican per se. It took a significant time for me to successfully (I hope) explain that given the US two party system many citizens are often forced to vote on one or two issues which are significant to that voter because they likely don't agree with a certain party on all issues. I repeatedly explained that for me I feel very strongly about individual self reliance economically. I feel strongly enough on that one issue that I vote Republican because I have few choices which are congruent with that ideal even if I don't necessarily agree with the Republicans on other issues which are less significant to me. They seemed to struggle with this idea. I suspect this is because they tend to agree with whatever the Democrats feed them through the media. However, when you point this out, they insist the media is unbiased.
I found that the Liberals take the party line more precisely then conservatives. There appears to be very little room for diverse views. Keep in mind I am talking about individual voters not elected party members. They could not fathom that a conservative such as myelf could be pro environment. They cannot image diversity amongst conservatives. They could not predict my views on issues aside from support for president Bush and conservative economic policy. At the same time, I was able to predict their views on every issue.I could predict their conspiracies and prejudicies.
What struck me most, aside from their shear emotionalism, was their insolent disrespectful insults of President Bush. They seriously believe he, Cheney, and Rumsfield are evil. The words satanic and Hilter were used in their description. I explained how different that is from how I believe in America. I explained that while I vehemently disagree with Liberalism, I would never say such things about President Clinton for example. I explained that while I disagree with President Clinton on many things, I believed he had America's best interest at heart. I explained that such extreme views on the current administration can easily cause those who do not concur to wonder about one's patriotism.
One Liberal took exception to this. However, he later admitted to not being very patriotic. The Liberal went on to site a conspiracy theory about invading Iraq to assist oil companies. I explained that the difference between him and I appears to be that I believe that while not all of President Bush's decisions have worked out smoothly, there is no conspiracy, just a president being forced to make very difficult decisions during very difficult times. They finally sounded rational when they said that being the case, based on President Bush's poor performance in the war on terror, they want to vote a different party into power. However, it did not take long for the conversation to degenerate back into Bush bashing and emotional conspiracy theories and hate.
I know my hike was not a scientific study, however, from my experience, each Liberal's view seems to be a replica of the next from a disbelief in trickle down economics, to conspiracy theories, their apparent hate for Christianity, insistence that Christianity not Islam is the problem, to their image of conservatives as uncaring prejudiced people. They seemed quite confused by my stance on social and environmental issues. They insisted I was moderating and back pedaling. I reminded them that we originally began our discussion based on my views of Islam and the war on terror. They had made many assumptions about my, views. I reminded them that individual conservatives views often differ from that of the party's. However, we often have to make choices given the limited voting options in the US.
I doubt any opinions changed as result of our debate. Unfortunately I doubt they learned anything. However, I found our talk very interesting and picked up a few things.
I'm very interested in comments on my experience from Liberals and Conservatives.
Marc
Comment