Explaining the Liberal/ConservativeDivide In America

(Aimed at American Liberals & Conservatives)

MUST-READ CLICK

• To understand America one must first understand the liberal/conservative divide in America.

• Discovering the underlying reason for the liberal/conservative divide in America requires the satisfaction of four adequacy conditions.

• The adequacy conditions ensure that any suggested causative theory of the liberal/conservative divide is logically plausible. The adequacy conditions are based on the results of observed patterns of thinking. If a theory does not meet all of the requirements of the adequacy conditions, that theory must be dismissed as inadequate.

1. A plausible solution must allow for a natural switching of sides. Some liberals become conservative, and some conservatives become liberal, some slowly over time, and some quite abruptly.

2. A plausible solution must not also be identifiable as only a symptom. This rules out emotional reactions.

3. A plausible solution must not be applicable to both sides. Liberals and conservatives cannot share the same trait that is supposed to differentiate them.

4. A plausible solution must explain the persistent contrasts between the ideological beliefs and attitudes of liberals and conservatives.

• A single plausible conclusion that explains the liberal/conservative divide in America must satisfy each of the four adequacy conditions. Any proposed solution that does not meet all four conditions must be considered illogical and inadequate.

• Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are negative adequacy conditions that rule out possibilities by themselves. If a plausible solution can pass through the first three conditions, it must then satisfy the fourth. Number 4 is an affirmative condition which identifies the solution when it satisfies the dichotomies within this condition.

• Condition number 1 immediately eliminates many possibilities. All prospective solutions that stem from an inborn disposition, or a one-off historic occurrence that cannot be reversed by an equal, opposite action are ruled out by adequacy condition number 1.

• This would include parental upbringing (seen in isolation), whether the mother/nurture – father/discipline proposition, or where parents overtly teach their children either liberalism or conservatism.

• Others include genetic traits, inherent cognitive abilities or disabilities, rational and irrational mindsets, intelligent and unintelligent function, mental defects (related to both intelligence and rationality levels), or brain discrepancies.

• Since none of these can be reversed (without treatment), thus allowing for a natural switching of sides both slowly over time or abruptly, all must be considered inadequate explanations. The solution must be something that can last indefinitely, but end at any moment.

• Condition number 2 negates all emotional reactions as symptoms rather than causes, e.g. bitterness, hate, cruelty, anger, contempt, greed, pride, envy, hope, happiness, love, etc. Symptoms result from a cause, but are not the cause itself.

• Condition number 3 eliminates claims of superiority by one side or the other. Both sides can exhibit intelligence and unintelligence, caring and aloofness, honesty and dishonesty, evil and good, etc. The solution must be one-sided.

• A currently fashionable catchphrase is the low-information voter. Each side accuses the other of fitting this description, but in fact, neither side is immune to having members with this condition.

• One last idea suggests that rural upbringing encourages conservatism, while urban upbringing encourages liberalism. Again, this is a one-off proposal which is precluded by condition number 1, and it is not universal, so it is also eliminated by condition number 3.

• But it does, in fact, come closer to the actual solution as an influencing factor more so than any of the other possibilities so far noted. One other exception would be parental influence not taken in isolation, but also as an influencing factor. Others might be education, culture, employment, peers, etc.

• However, no single influencing factor can be in and of itself a direct cause. The single cause must therefore be the result of an accumulation of these influencing factors. Here it is:

• With very rare exceptions, all Americans are born with an innate desire to direct their own life as a core belief. A person who grows up with a balance of influencing factors that support that core belief develops into a conservative. But when an attitude of fear of directing one’s own life is conditioned into a person’s life, they develop into a liberal.

• So let’s apply the first three adequacy conditions to our proposed solution:

1. A plausible solution must allow for a natural switching of sides. Some liberals become conservative, and some conservatives become liberal, some slowly over time, and some quite abruptly.

• Obviously, we all develop an overall attitude early in life. It may last a very long time, but this does not preclude it from changing – perhaps more than once.

2. A plausible solution must not also be identifiable as only a symptom. This rules out emotional reactions.

• While an emotional reaction of fear is a symptom, a willful attitude that is determined to be fearful is not. It is the result of conviction – in this case, a conviction resulting from a societal programming.

3. A plausible solution must not be applicable to both sides. Liberals and conservatives cannot share the same trait that is supposed to differentiate them.

• If this attitude of fear is the result of a societal programming, then obviously, if one has not been programmed one will not possess this attitude of fear, thus providing the possibility of a second side unlike the first.

• So this new-found proposition of a willful and determined attitude of fear does satisfy our first three negative adequacy conditions. What about the fourth?

4. A plausible solution must explain the persistent contrasts between the ideological beliefs and attitudes of liberals and conservatives. There are three contrasting areas between liberals and conservatives that must be examined.

A. Ideological issues: The proposed solution must reconcile why liberals universally line up with a certain set of ideological beliefs, while conservatives universally line up with a set of opposite beliefs.

• For instance, liberal paranoia views large government as a way to overcome the fear of directing one's own life. Conservatives see government as a hindrance to directing one's own life.

B. How each views themselves and each other: Liberals view themselves and conservatives through shaded lenses of paranoia. It taints everything they see – everywhere liberals look they see obstacles.

• Conservatives do not see obstacles – they see opportunities, however they do clearly see liberals as affected by something detrimental, but have not been able to pin it down – until now. It turns out to be paranoia.

C. How each communicate their beliefs: Liberals define and use words through a filter of paranoia and conservatives do not.

• Liberal paranoia views opposition to liberal policies as evil, whereas conservatives view opposition to conservative policies as simply wrong (and maybe a little stupid – OK, sometimes a lot).

• A person who grows up with a fear of directing their own life being conditioned into them will develop into a liberal. However, if that fear is removed and replaced with a security of being, that liberal will be transformed into a conservative.

• The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is all about removing the fear of directing one’s own life from American liberals and American society. To develop a complete understanding of this ideological process it is advisable to read the essays in their numbered order.

• A presentation by deprogrammingliberalism.com

• Deprogramming Liberalism Slideshow Series © 2013