Conservative vs. Liberal viewpoints

Here's something I've noticed many times. Has anyone noticed the same thing or am I just seeing things.

When a conservative and liberal debate something, the conservative often points to the abstract effect something has on the entire population, while the liberal points to the effect that the policy might have on a specific person.

Here's an example:

In debating a minimum wage law, the conservative will say that having a minimum wage will encourage business owners to higher fewer numbers of entry level workers, therefore hurting a great number of people (i.e. it's better to have 100 people working at $5 per hour than 60 people at $7 per hour).

However, a liberal will look at the same issue and often say, what about the people that I KNOW that work for minimum wage. They need to be paid a higher wage to make ends meet. Liberals are often for a minimum wage because they can point to specific people that it will help, while they can never find someone that was not hired, but WOULD HAVE BEEN if not for the minimum wage law.

Minimum wage is just one example, but I've seen this type of thing very often. Anyone else?

[BCPVP]

Gun control. Look no further than this forum.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's something I've noticed many times. Has anyone noticed the same thing or am I just seeing things.

When a conservative and liberal debate something, the conservative often points to the abstract effect something has on the entire population, while the liberal points to the effect that the policy might have on a specific person.

Here's an example:

In debating a minimum wage law, the conservative will say that having a minimum wage will encourage business owners to higher fewer numbers of entry level workers, therefore hurting a great number of people (i.e. it's better to have 100 people working at $5 per hour than 60 people at $7 per hour).

However, a liberal will look at the same issue and often say, what about the people that I KNOW that work for minimum wage. They need to be paid a higher wage to make ends meet. Liberals are often for a minimum wage because they can point to specific people that it will help, while they can never find someone that was not hired, but WOULD HAVE BEEN if not for the minimum wage law.

Minimum wage is just one example, but I've seen this type of thing very often. Anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attempt at neutrality.

-ptmusic

[ QUOTE ]
Liberals are often for a minimum wage because they can point to specific people that it will help, while they can never find someone that was not hired, but WOULD HAVE BEEN if not for the minimum wage law.


[/ QUOTE ]

maybe this is because, like most people, liberals cannot see into alternate universes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's something I've noticed many times. Has anyone noticed the same thing or am I just seeing things.

When a conservative and liberal debate something, the conservative often points to the abstract effect something has on the entire population, while the liberal points to the effect that the policy might have on a specific person.

Here's an example:

In debating a minimum wage law, the conservative will say that having a minimum wage will encourage business owners to higher fewer numbers of entry level workers, therefore hurting a great number of people (i.e. it's better to have 100 people working at $5 per hour than 60 people at $7 per hour).

However, a liberal will look at the same issue and often say, what about the people that I KNOW that work for minimum wage. They need to be paid a higher wage to make ends meet. Liberals are often for a minimum wage because they can point to specific people that it will help, while they can never find someone that was not hired, but WOULD HAVE BEEN if not for the minimum wage law.

Minimum wage is just one example, but I've seen this type of thing very often. Anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attempt at neutrality.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he is right though, ptmusic. I commented about this same phenomenon before. I said that liberals like to help the "obvious sufferer."

Raising min wage appears to help the obvious low-wager earners. Raising tariffs on car imports helps the obvious struggling US car manufacture. Setting ceiling prices for rent in inner-city apartments is supposed to help the obvious poor tennents.

Most of these policies ignore the problems they cause. Raising the min wage increases unemployment. Increasing tariffs makes cars more expensive to every US consumer. Setting ceiling prices creates the slumiest living conditions. Conservatives generally look at these large scale problems caused by liberal economic policies. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't understand the economics so they favor raising min wage, tariffs, and rent control.

[elwoodblues]

Another example: Liberals will say that racial prejudice has devastated a class of people...Conservatives point to specific examples of people who have overcome the plight to suggest that it isn't a problem.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what your original point was.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
Another example: Liberals will say that racial prejudice has devastated a class of people...Conservatives point to specific examples of people who have overcome the plight to suggest that it isn't a problem.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what your original point was.


[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood's right. Each party will view the issue in the light that makes it look right. They have that in common.

[crookedhat99]

yea but the liberals are always wrong (atleast since the depression)

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
yea but the liberals are always wrong (atleast since the depression)

[/ QUOTE ]



Is that so?

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's something I've noticed many times. Has anyone noticed the same thing or am I just seeing things.

When a conservative and liberal debate something, the conservative often points to the abstract effect something has on the entire population, while the liberal points to the effect that the policy might have on a specific person.

Here's an example:

In debating a minimum wage law, the conservative will say that having a minimum wage will encourage business owners to higher fewer numbers of entry level workers, therefore hurting a great number of people (i.e. it's better to have 100 people working at $5 per hour than 60 people at $7 per hour).

However, a liberal will look at the same issue and often say, what about the people that I KNOW that work for minimum wage. They need to be paid a higher wage to make ends meet. Liberals are often for a minimum wage because they can point to specific people that it will help, while they can never find someone that was not hired, but WOULD HAVE BEEN if not for the minimum wage law.

Minimum wage is just one example, but I've seen this type of thing very often. Anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attempt at neutrality.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he is right though, ptmusic. I commented about this same phenomenon before. I said that liberals like to help the "obvious sufferer."

Raising min wage appears to help the obvious low-wager earners. Raising tariffs on car imports helps the obvious struggling US car manufacture. Setting ceiling prices for rent in inner-city apartments is supposed to help the obvious poor tennents.

Most of these policies ignore the problems they cause. Raising the min wage increases unemployment. Increasing tariffs makes cars more expensive to every US consumer. Setting ceiling prices creates the slumiest living conditions. Conservatives generally look at these large scale problems caused by liberal economic policies. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't understand the economics so they favor raising min wage, tariffs, and rent control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah..

Liberals look at a war waged under false pretenses and see thousands killed and maimed and say..that was wrong.

Conservatives, taking the larger view, say.. 'Well, there were no WMDs, and yes there are worse bad guys than Saddam we don't have the power or the balls to fight, but we may be able to bring democracy to Iraq, not that we cared about that before our other excuses proved false, but we always look at the big picture."

And of course the big picture includes, for the many war mongering chickenhawk Republicans, having others do the bleeding for you. Because it is harder to see that big picture when your blinded by shrapnel.

Shitty, but smart.

Frank