I've always had this deep curiosity to find out what makes a group of people react the way they do. I immediately ruled out spontaneous because their actions are predictable. Pick any subject and it's pretty easy to determine on what side of the issue a liberal, conservative, libertarian or moderate will fall on.
People will often tell me that they are conservative, but they don't think that way just to prove the fallacy of stereotyping. Perhaps, but did they answer the questioner consciously or subconsciously? There's always an exception to the rule.
I've already read several books about liberalism and libertarianism and the only change I have found is that modern-day liberals are calling themselves Progressives. The liberals allowed the conservatives to define them as tree hugging, Latte- loving, Volvo driving, antiwar hippies whose philosophy of " anything goes" was leading to the destruction of American values. Today's liberal- progressives are not as vocal as their counterparts and are not comfortable at adopting a label. That’s just it; there is not a liberal think tank to define our values.
I've written a couple of blogs about this subject, but I've come across new information after reading a book titled “The Reactionary Mind" by Corey Robin. The author explained that conservatism is a 24/7 mindset. While everyone is asleep, conservatives are developing "Think Tanks" to come up to with solutions on how to destroy their moral enemy; the Liberal. The liberal thinks that government does have a role the play, so that must be challenged with well crafted words such as " smaller government; no new taxes, wealth distribution, spending other people's money, welfare state, shared sacrifice and any private and public venture." The conservatives will demand transparency, so they can gather enough information to create doubt and incompetency. Transparency will magically disappear when conservative return to power. That's not to say that the average conservative hates liberals but by adopting that ideology, it gives them a small sense of superiority, which is usually enough to sway votes. Who doesn't want their politician to be prudent with taxpayer money? Liberals have let conservatives hijack the word prudent (Careful and sensible; marked by sound judgment) to mean" no new spending or taxes." They have also given up ownership to the word “wealth distribution" because that word again has two meanings. Since taxation comes from a general fund; tax incentives that favor the rich are also a form of wealth distribution. That is why I will continue to say,” conservatives are great campaigners, but they can't govern." The Republicans will never find another Ronald Reagan, so the next-best thing is to adopt an ideology the underlings will follow. Most Republicans will run on the philosophy that Washington (any type of government) is bad and 90% of its duties are either unconstitutional or need to be run by the private sector. That's the reason conservatives are against unions, social programs, and regulations because, if the people ever start to trust the government; their goal is doomed.
Social conservatives believe that rights are unalienable, and that they come from God. It's their guiding principle in governing. When they come across a law, they don't like, they will often revert to Nature's Law. Modern day social conservatives have left out the poor in their dealings with the government because they believe in “voluntary associations." I have often wanted to ask our self-professed Christians why is it that they never talk about the poor although it's mentioned over 2000 times in the bible. They only come out to condemn gay marriage or a pro-choice stance.
A conservative poster once asked me (thinking they could trick me) how big the government should be. I promptly said that it should be large or small enough to be efficient.
I've learned a lot, but I still have that guiltiness of reading material that fits what I have already come to believe. Does anyone care to challenge?