Hardkill

Are Liberals More Evolved Than Centrists?

52 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

No one radical will ever be in power, except if that power is taken through top-down authoritarian force.

That will never change. It will always be the case that moderates and centrists will be in power in a democracy. Radicals do not get elected.

And if a person gets elected, they are not radical in the eyes of society.

But what is radical and what is moderate are purely socially constructed and plastic... and public opinion can shift quickly.

So, Nazism was moderate in Nazi Germany. 

Likewise, that which we now consider progressive can also be considered moderate in a future era.

The most important thing is to insist that kindness is normal and moderate... and that cruelty is radical and extreme.

People struggle with that though... even though it's very simple to insist on. People over-complicate things in a way that normalizes needless suffering and hatred... and treats basic human decency and common sense as radical and extreme.

So, America breaking from the British Empire became moderate during the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery and grants some basic rights to blacks became moderate during and after the Civil War, and the New Deal agenda became moderate during the Great Depression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

So, America breaking from the British Empire became moderate during the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery and grants some basic rights to blacks became moderate during and after the Civil War, and the New Deal agenda became moderate during the Great Depression.

Yes to the abolition of slavery AFTER the Civil War... and yes to the New Deal... as these were honored by the presidents in power as the moderate 'normal' position to hold. And time normalized them even more.

The American Revolution was a different story though, as it was a group of radicals that eventually gained enough support from a critical mass of people who were fed up with taxation without representation. 

And that was achieved through force and radicals winning out in battle against the moderate establishment... and not democratically through being accepted as the moderate position by those in the center. 

The moderates of the time were loyal to the British crown. Most people in the Southern colonies during that time were British loyalists. 

Moderates always preserve the powers that be. And moderates of that era wanted to stay under the rule of the king.

But after the American Revolution, American independence became normalized and moderate. And now, it would be considered very extreme to want America to be back under British rule.

But it wasn't moderate to be pro-American independence when the American Revolution was going on.

It's similar to how abolition of slavery was a radical position before the Civil War was fought and won. So, to get that normalization... there was a bit of force required.

But eventually, it was democratically recognized by moderates in power.

Edited by Emerald

Are you struggling with self-sabotage and CONSTANTLY standing in the way of your own success? 

If so, and if you're looking for an experienced coach to help you discover and resolve the root of the issue, you can click this link to schedule a free discovery call with me to see if my program is a good fit for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Yes to the abolition of slavery AFTER the Civil War... and yes to the New Deal... as these were honored by the presidents in power as the moderate 'normal' position to hold. And time normalized them even more.

The American Revolution was a different story though, as it was a group of radicals that eventually gained enough support from a critical mass of people who were fed up with taxation without representation. 

And that was achieved through force and radicals winning out in battle against the moderate establishment... and not democratically through being accepted as the moderate position by those in the center. 

The moderates of the time were loyal to the British crown. Most people in the Southern colonies during that time were British loyalists. 

Moderates always preserve the powers that be. And moderates of that era wanted to stay under the rule of the king.

But after the American Revolution, American independence became normalized and moderate. And now, it would be considered very extreme to want America to be back under British rule.

But it wasn't moderate to be pro-American independence when the American Revolution was going on.

Makes sense.

Actually, I thought that some majority of Americans during the American Revolution were either for Independence from the British empire or were undecided/indifferent to the issue. 
 

Also, I thought that a majority of all of Americans wanted slavery to end towards the end of the Civil War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Makes sense.

Actually, I thought that some majority of Americans during the American Revolution were either for Independence from the British empire or were undecided/indifferent to the issue. 

Also, I thought that a majority of all of Americans wanted slavery to end towards the end of the Civil War.

About 40% wanted independence from Britain and about 20% were British loyalists. So, the plurality of American colonists wanted independence... which is the critical mass.

But those in power are the moderates... which was the crown itself and those in the colonies that were loyal to the crown.

So, American colonists gathered enough support for Americans to fight for independence.


Are you struggling with self-sabotage and CONSTANTLY standing in the way of your own success? 

If so, and if you're looking for an experienced coach to help you discover and resolve the root of the issue, you can click this link to schedule a free discovery call with me to see if my program is a good fit for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MightyMind said:

I think this is an error to see any group (liberal, conservative, centrist, progressive) as being more conscious than the other. It all depends on the context and build up. 

Liberals are broadly more conscious than conservatives. They have more access to empathy and relativistic thinking. Most conservatives are ignorant and entrenched in survival.

Being anti-slavery is a highly progressive stance for instance that isn't concerned with practicality. It is staunchly idealistic, as slavery is highly practical (free labor). You can make some good arguments for why different forms of slavery are beneficial to society, but if you are progressive on this issue, IE. You value liberty and humanism, then any form of slavery is unacceptable.

In politics itself, right-wing parties tend to be a front for corruption ultimately. Conservatives often get into politics with ulterior motives while believing that they are doing is the right thing. They tend to think what is good for them personally is what is good for society, because they are less conscious. Libertarian policy for instance just so happens to not negatively effect the politicians themselves. Very convenient. Tightening of the belt for thee but not for me. Budget cut everything except their pensions. A progressive is more likely to recognize that what is good for society might not be good for them personally, like paying higher taxes. Or regulating big corporations that would otherwise shower you with favors and gifts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can step back. Are you more evolved than the part of yourself you don't like?

It'd be better to ask, is this solution I am preferring to a problem better than another solution and if so, why? This negates ideology or blocking you from accessing solutions because the group (pattern in yourself) you don't like has them.

In this time of increasing tension this can be increasingly difficult, as hatred comes more easily in and around force or violence.

But beyond that, you'd be looking at these two pieces of yourself, and continually integrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Basman said:

Liberals are broadly more conscious than conservatives. They have more access to empathy and relativistic thinking. Most conservatives are ignorant and entrenched in survival.

Being anti-slavery is a highly progressive stance for instance that isn't concerned with practicality. It is staunchly idealistic, as slavery is highly practical (free labor). You can make some good arguments for why different forms of slavery are beneficial to society, but if you are progressive on this issue, IE. You value liberty and humanism, then any form of slavery is unacceptable.

In politics itself, right-wing parties tend to be a front for corruption ultimately. Conservatives often get into politics with ulterior motives while believing that they are doing is the right thing. They tend to think what is good for them personally is what is good for society, because they are less conscious. Libertarian policy for instance just so happens to not negatively effect the politicians themselves. Very convenient. Tightening of the belt for thee but not for me. Budget cut everything except their pensions. A progressive is more likely to recognize that what is good for society might not be good for them personally, like paying higher taxes. Or regulating big corporations that would otherwise shower you with favors and gifts.

I think your working with a theory that's not tethered to reality. Both parties are compromised with representations on both sides who are in it for profit and a lavish lifestyle. I mean, do you really think conservatives are pro slavery? Meanwhile progressives push for green technology which involves slavery in Africa for minerals. Could I make the case that therefore progressives are pro-slavery? Or, would that be a mischaracterization for something that is more complex?

Here in Canada left leaning parties want free clean drugs for drug addicts, and this is there solution. This is an incomplete solution and one that perpetuates addiction which involves one getting high every day which then leaves them in a world of hell once they come down. Day after day, hell, hell, hell, they get to experience. This is mindless compassion which leads to more suffering. I'm not suggesting this is worse than what a standard conservatives would offer, but that an unconscious progressive is no better than any other political leaning

Overall, my point is that all parties are parts of what needs to be brought together a one, a wholly politic of sorts. 

Edited by MightyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MightyMind said:

I think your working with a theory that's not tethered to reality. Both parties are compromised with representations on both sides who are in it for profit and a lavish lifestyle. I mean, do you really think conservatives are pro slavery? Meanwhile progressives push for green technology which involves slavery in Africa for minerals. Could I make the case that therefore progressives are pro-slavery? Or, would that be a mischaracterization for something that is more complex?

Here in Canada left leaning parties want free clean drugs for drug addicts, and this is there solution. This is an incomplete solution and one that perpetuates addiction which involves one getting high every day which then leaves them in a world of hell once they come down. Day after day, hell, hell, hell, they get to experience. This is mindless compassion which leads to more suffering. I'm not suggesting this is better than what a standard conservatives would offer, but that an unconscious progressive is no better than any other political leaning

Overall, my point is that all parties are parts of what needs to be brought together a one, a wholly politic of sorts. 

There's a distinction between conservative/liberal mind and what is realistically feasible politically. The conservative mind is much more driven by fear and finitude while a liberal mind is driven more by love and idealism. A liberal mind is necesarilly going to be relativistically bad for raw survival because survival is selfish. Pure unadulterated survival is just unlimited selfishness, which is pro-slavery, self-dealing, murder and whatever else benefits one individually and can get away with.

I have a liberal mind myself but I tend towards center-left politics because I think it is more realistic. I can see how many liberal ideals are untenable in real life in the way they are sometimes expressed, but the underlying principles counts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basman said:

There's a distinction between conservative/liberal mind and what is realistically feasible politically. The conservative mind is much more driven by fear and finitude while a liberal mind is driven more by love and idealism. A liberal mind is necesarilly going to be relativistically bad for raw survival because survival is selfish. Pure unadulterated survival is just unlimited selfishness, which is pro-slavery, self-dealing, murder and whatever else benefits one individually and can get away with.

I have a liberal mind myself but I tend towards center-left politics because I think it is more realistic. I can see how many liberal ideals are untenable in real life in the way they are sometimes expressed, but the underlying principles counts. 

@Basman While this sounds nice in theory, I think it's an over simplification which when overlayed with reality it creates a false worldview. For example, thinking a conservative mind is more driven by fear...this is false (but I'm open to examining).  The lefts (+ progressives) own fears (media programming, not original thoughts) have them viewing the other side as demonic...simply by association, people are viewed as evil - this is fear driven. Hence forth this why so many people were literally celebrating the death of Kirk and posting it, their fears had them feeling justified in becoming a monster themselves. 

To further emphasize my point of media/entertainment/political programming about the right being like Nazi's/Hitler, consider that Trump was bailed out by the Rothschild (in many cases) and his whole party is filled with Zionists and wealthy jews. And so how is it that they are just like Hitler? I'd suggest they are not. Sure, there may be some similarities that relate, but to then label and classify all who are in association with the right as evil, this is driven by fear.

 

Edited by MightyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MightyMind said:

@Basman While this sounds nice in theory, I think it's an over simplification which when overlayed with reality it creates a false worldview. For example, thinking a conservative mind is more driven by fear...this is false (but I'm open to examining).  The lefts (+ progressives) own fears (media programming, not original thoughts) have them viewing the other side as demonic...simply by association, people are viewed as evil - this is fear driven. Hence forth this why so many people were literally celebrating the death of Kirk and posting it, their fears had them feeling justified in becoming a monster themselves. 

To further emphasize my point of media/entertainment/political programming about the right being like Nazi's/Hitler, consider that Trump was bailed out by the Rothschild (in many cases) and his whole party is filled with Zionists and wealthy jews. And so how is it that they are just like HItler? I'd suggest they are not. Sure, there may be some similarities that relate but to then label and classify all who are in association with the right as evil, this is driven by fear.

 

Conservatism is by definition about maintaining the status quo and ultimately about preserving one's identity. Liberalism is about changing that identity for a more loving vision, which makes it about the annihilation of the self ultimately. The ability to recognize a reality outside of what is good for one self politically makes one more evolved than the alternative because it is a more complex position to hold. It requires relativity and selflessness. Conservatism only requires self interest to operate.

The overton window is relativistic and leftists aren't pure vessels of ideology, but a hodge-podge of different ideas, identities and life situations (like being middle/upper-class). Today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives. The hippies of the 1960s became our modern day suits. 

Edited by Basman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Left and right is a oversimplification. In my country liberal is right wing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Basman said:

Conservatism is by definition about maintaining the status quo and ultimately about preserving one's identity. Liberalism is about changing that identity for a more loving vision, which makes it about the annihilation of the self ultimately. The ability to recognize a reality outside of what is good for one self politically makes one more evolved than the alternative because it is a more complex position to hold. It requires relativity and selflessness. Conservatism only requires self interest to operate.

The overton window is relativistic and leftists aren't pure vessels of ideology, but a hodge-podge of different ideas, identities and life situations (like being middle/upper-class). Today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives. The hippies of the 1960s became our modern day suits. 

"Conservatism is by definition about maintaining the status quo and ultimately about preserving one's identity" - I think you could argue it's more about preserving and conserving culture and current ideas that benefit the people and which would be better for all people, not just themselves. That is, if you had conscious human being who leaned more right, the ideas they put forth could be very beneficial. 

"leftists aren't pure vessels of ideology, but a hodge-podge of different ideas, identities and life situations (like being middle/upper-class)." I've see no shortage of ideological driven people on the left with many parroting group talking points which they have not questioned and sifted through. You could also find that in the "right". And on the right, there is no shortage of examples of people who are not aligned with each other. You're about perceiving the nuances that come with the left but then are strawmanning the right, which I think is an example of how spiral dynamics can be used in a way which does not adequately overlay with reality. 

Know though, I have not studied spiral dynamics and so maybe I'm missing something. Years ago I did listen to various talks and I have put in my hours of listening to Wilbur, but again, in how I see people on this site use the framework, it seems to be used in a way which over simplifies that which is much more complex.  

Edited by MightyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be conservative is the sense that you carefully and slowly alter society. Even if that is in a progressive direction.

Alternatively you can be progressive, in that you quickly change society in any direction, at a speed some would consider irresponsible. This can lead to backlash and be counterproductive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MightyMind said:

"Conservatism is by definition about maintaining the status quo and ultimately about preserving one's identity" - I think you could argue it's more about preserving and conserving culture and current ideas that benefit the people and which would be better for all people, not just themselves. That is, if you had conscious human being who leaned more right, the ideas they put forth could be very beneficial. 

"leftists aren't pure vessels of ideology, but a hodge-podge of different ideas, identities and life situations (like being middle/upper-class)." I'm see no shortage of ideological driven people on the left with many parroting group talking points which they have not questioned and sifted through. You could also find that in the "right". And on the right, there is no shortage of examples of people who are not aligned with each other. You're about perceiving the nuances that come with the left but then are strawmanning the right, which I think is an example of how spiral dynamics can be used in a way which does not adequate overlay with reality. 

Conservatism is necessary because we need to survive. But in the grand scheme of things, there is no real rational reason for why "you" need to exist (and by "you" I'm really pointing at one particular kind of identity). Conservatism has both healthy and unhealthy manifestations, and the healthy manifestation is deeply necessary for a functioning society. That is something many progressive don't tend to appreciate. But society itself is not a given.

There are like-wise unhealthy manifestations of leftists, primarily in how they are bad at survival and therefor will lead to societal failure and death. It is frustrating because it is well meant but also sorely ignorant. Those "unhealthy" leftists are still marginally more evolved and conscious than the average conservative, who's largely on autopilot and takes life for granted. Note, at no point am I saying that current leftists are at all perfect. They are quiet flawed in fact. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The predicament of many conservatives is having genuine issues with society and their current living standards but lacking the understanding of why or being able to put it into words and being captured in cultural normativity. It's the tragedy of kind of being idiots. They are easily manipulated to vote against their interests by authoritarians like Trump or Farage.

Conservatism is the default state for humans because it doesn't require an education. Just having a decent grasp on reading and writing is fundamental. I believe the reading comprehension of the average American is equivalent to about a fourth or a fifth grader. They are not going to spend much time reading and learning about how society works, even if they did the have the time for it when they are not busy working. They are not going to stomach some moderately difficult to read nuanced text, especially if they ideologically disagree. Their tolerance for ideological vagueness is going to be low. 

Edited by Basman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Basman said:

Conservatism is necessary because we need to survive. But in the grand scheme of things, there is no real rational reason for why "you" need to exist (and by "you" I'm really pointing at one particular kind of identity). Conservatism has both healthy and unhealthy manifestations, and the healthy manifestation is deeply necessary for a functioning society. That is something many progressive don't tend to appreciate. But society itself is not a given.

There are like-wise unhealthy manifestations of leftists, primarily in how they are bad at survival and therefor will lead to societal failure and death. It is frustrating because it is well meant but also sorely ignorant. Those "unhealthy" leftists are still marginally more evolved and conscious than the average conservative, who's largely on autopilot and takes life for granted. Note, at no point am I saying that current leftists are at all perfect. They are quiet flawed in fact. 

 

Thank you for staying focused and putting forth thoughtful replies!

"Those "unhealthy" leftists are still marginally more evolved and conscious than the average conservative, who's largely on autopilot and takes life for granted." - This is what I find problematic and it seems like an oversimplification where there are more layers and complexity. How does one qualify and grade that an "unhealthy" leftists is more evolved and conscious than the average conservative? They may be more conscious of certain realities that the average conservative is not aware of but I guarantee you could find that the average conservative is more aware of certain realities that the "unhealthy leftist" is unconscious of. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MightyMind said:

Thank you for staying focused and putting forth thoughtful replies!

"Those "unhealthy" leftists are still marginally more evolved and conscious than the average conservative, who's largely on autopilot and takes life for granted." - This is what I find problematic and it seems like an oversimplification where there are more layers and complexity. How does one qualify and grade that an "unhealthy" leftists is more evolved and conscious than the average conservative? They may be more conscious of certain realities that the average conservative is not aware of but I guarantee you could find that the average conservative is more aware of certain realities that the "unhealthy leftist" is unconscious of. 

I think many progressive tend to be more "elite" than the average conservative and therefor much more open to liberal ideas and have access to more education, travel, etc. The average trans activist is likely going to be middle-class at least. Conservatism is much more survival oriented and poorer. Conservatives tend to be too busy with paying bills to care about ideas that rock the boat too much, even if they might agree on certain kinds of policy on an individual level (like free health-care). They don't have the same opportunities to develop themselves as thinkers. 

Because many liberals tend to be wealthier (among other reasons), they tend to not have the same "common sense" that many conservatives possess. They are bad at reading the room and it hurts them politically, like being uncompromising with their ideals. Like for example demanding completely free access to abortion as opposed to trimester-based access to abortion. You can argue for which one is most correct ideologically but only one of them is something a conservative could at least try to stomach.

Read my previous reply above yours about the tragedy that many conservatives are in. Education is fundamental to a democratic society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Emerald said:

About 40% wanted independence from Britain and about 20% were British loyalists. So, the plurality of American colonists wanted independence... which is the critical mass.

But those in power are the moderates... which was the crown itself and those in the colonies that were loyal to the crown.

So, American colonists gathered enough support for Americans to fight for independence.

Wait, are you sure that all of those in power and were loyal to the crown were moderates?

Imperial power (the Crown/Parliament) was, of course, the incumbent. But in the colonies, power was split: many Patriot leaders were also local elites (planters, merchants, lawyers, officeholders).

“Moderate” in 1775–76 often meant reconciliationist (stay in the empire but with reforms). Some of these moderates later drifted Patriot once reconciliation died; others stayed neutral or Loyalist.

Across both eras, conservatives generally favored less and slower change than moderates, who were more open to positive reforms short of radical rupture.

Edited by Hardkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way to view politics is traumatized vs. non traumatized.   Both the progressives on the left and the reactionaries on the right are traumatized groups.  That’s why their politics tend towards extremism, operate from an attack mode, and create such negative disturbance and conflicts in society.   Centrism focuses on balance and harmony – something naturally sought out by a non traumatized individual.   That’s another reason I think Governor Newsom would be a good president at this moment in history because he appears to be an untraumatized person.  He seeks reconciliation and bringing people together.

Here is a video from someone who was a progressive activist, but moved to the center after he healed his trauma.

 

 

 


Vincit omnia Veritas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now