"What Liberals Miss About Conservatives"

Paul Norris, who helps lead Braver Angels' Red Caucus, convenes an all-red panel to discuss what liberals, academia, and the mainstream media miss about conservatives. Featuring Mark Reinecke, Elizabeth Doll, and Barbara Farmer. Join us at braverangels.org

[@mckeekev]

I was really wishing to hear what conservative people wished liberals knew about them and their ideas. Kind of "this is what conservatives believe, and these are places where we are in agreement with liberalism and this is where we differ." Sadly, most of the video consisted of discussing polarization and the left-leaning biases of media and academia. Not a lot of arguments presented, even at the end when they wanted to wrap it up and summarized.

[@edmundschubert4963]

I strongly agree that diversity of thought and ideas s important, especially in academia. I also can’t help but notice that a lot of the media bias these speakers were complaining about is not restricted to left-leaning media; it’s prevalent in media across the board. Calling it a lefty problem undercuts some of their credibility.

[@randyfreeman8970]

Interesting conversation. I liked Ciaran's introduction. The guests were very interesting. My son, when he was in graduate school, could not find a faculty advisor for his masters thesis because they thought it was too "conservative". Someone finally stepped up. It was very upsetting to him. Also found at my Master's degree program for Social Work, that the classes were more indoctrination that actual thinking about different possibilites about social issues. There was definitely not freedom of thought.

[@catsnchords]

What was your son's thesis?

[@TedSeeber]

Well, this was somewhat good- but I notice the majority were still academics, no engineers, and at least one variety of conservative, the social paleoconservative, was conspicuously absent. No pro-lifers allowed? Nobody skeptical of change for the sake of change wanted to be involved?

[@elizabethdoll-BP]

I am both pro-life and skeptical of change for the sake of change. I am also skeptical of tradition for the sake of tradition.

[@TedSeeber]

@@elizabethdoll-BP this is also true, though for the most part, social theories only become tradition because they have a useful purpose in passing on wisdom to later generations. It is not all Grandma cutting the end off the roast. Sometimes, like in traditional heterosexual monogamy, it simply is the best way to achieve generational wealth, and avoiding it creates generational poverty.

[@elizabethdoll-BP]

​@@TedSeeber I didn't say that I generally reject tradition or that I generally reject change. I am generally equally skeptical of both. There is social tradition that is beneficial and there is social tradition (even long-held social tradition) that is not. I tend to evaluate all of it on a case-by-case basis. Research can generally help me decide whether a tradition creates long-term benefits in the same way that it helps me determine whether a change is likely to be an improvement over the status quo-- tradition or not. As someone that grew up being taught severely patriarchal and reactionary social traditions that caused long-term harm, I have learned to discern cautiously between positive and negative traditions. Canonizing children in faith and grounding them in an identity tied to the permanence of faith and family? Great! Teaching kids that domestic violence and coercive control are models for a stable and healthy relationship? Terrible. Change can be good and bad just like tradition. Time is not the only lens through which effectiveness can be or should be measured.

[@jwolfo7]

I was glad to hear many comments about testing against reality, using scientific methods. That’s been one of my best take-aways from Braver Angels, about reds. I was disappointed that there was almost no talk of actual issues that are supported by Reds. I can’t evaluate how academia and media are getting a group wrong, when it’s a diverse group, but specific issues are what are consistently given the negative reactions. For example, “life begins at conception” is not scientifically supported, statistics about the effect of gun regulations are abused and manipulated, and the science of climate change is overridden by the politics of an expanding economy. Without hearing how I’m not understanding the conservative voice on those issues, I don’t see how I can evaluate what academia and media are doing wrong. I would also like to hear more appreciation of history in discussions like this. The comments about the radical Left in the 60s did not mention that the rights being asked for at that time were basic human rights that conservatives had suppressed for a long time, such as blacks getting to vote, or women getting equal pay. The comments about how moderate Republicans are being driven to the radical right look very similar to me. If you analyze the movement to the extreme Right based on suppression of voices, then you should understand the motivation of the protests you have seen from the Left. John Wolforth

[@alannaberger]

I am also disappointed that actual specific instances were not mentioned. "Traditional values" has become a dog whistle for me when my legislators used it to deny same-sex couples the legal rights of marriage. I think all parents, regardless of conservative or liberal, want their children to grow up to be moral and ethical human beings, and do their best to instill appropriate values. But my ex-husband believes "traditional values" include whites not marrying blacks and calls my bi-racial grandsons the "N" word. It's also hard to listen to terms like "antics of the left" when there have been just as many "antics on the right." I use that terminology when talking about misbehaving toddlers and wayward teenagers, and find it insulting when painting a whole category of adults with that language.

[@cala3319]

Disappointed with this discussion or at minimum how this was titled/described to share what is being “missed about conservatives”. Showed the bias of this group of panelists who spent more time dinging liberals, academics and media, than sharing about themselves. Came for understanding and to “test my thought” , to be hit with negativity and disdain for other points of view that only confirmed at least for the four panelists, I’m not missing the self-righteousness.

[@jimmellander5922]

I moved this comment from a previous location. I found the presentation a bit highbrow, and like some previous commenters, lacking in specifics, especially since this video is purporting to describe what liberals get wrong about conservatives. Fortunately, a previous comment thankfully provides some examples: The statement that “life begins at conception” not being scientifically supported seems to indicate a belief that those who support that understanding are ignorant of “the latest science”. As a counterpoint, I would argue that the question of when a human life begins does not even belong in the realm of science, but is a matter of values, ethics and/or morality. Similarly, the statement about gun regulation statistics being “abused and manipulated” seems similarly weak, firstly because almost anything can be demonstrated by statistics (“lies, damned lies, and statistics”), and also because it intrudes, as above, on the wrong domain. Conservatives believe that self-defense is a fundamental human right, and thus responsible gun ownership is a value to be protected. The third statement: “the science of climate change is overridden by the politics of an expanding economy” is one of those thumb-on-the-scale statements. Without debating any of the pros and cons, it should be clear that science is never settled - there are many instances of scientific beliefs in past times that have been proven incorrect in the light of further developments. It seems a bit hubristic to believe that “now we have it right”. Also, the statement assumes that concern about climate initiatives is driven by desire for economic expansion, which although containing a kernel of truth, cannot be supported in general. These type of errors of understanding and appreciation of conservative values and thinking encapsulate “What Liberals Miss About Conservatives”. Conservatives (talking here about the mainstream) are keenly interested in solving real-life problems, and finding workable solutions, understanding that every initiative needs checks and balances along the way, and a willingness to change course, if the program is failing to accomplish its goals (Case in point: Gun Control in Chicago). Additionally, unintended consequences cannot, by their nature, be anticipated, but should be acknowledged when discovered, as they provide valuable feedback to possibly change course (Case in point: Welfare programs for unwed mothers causing the fathers to flee, contributing to the demise of the nuclear family). It seems intellectually sloppy to misconstrue the far right as representative of conservative thought. There often seems to be an undercurrent (often not so under…) of hostility by liberals towards conservative values, assuming that they are haters, and driven by greed or other darker motives. Having grown up in Berkeley, I have had the privilege of living on both sides, and can assure you that it is an incorrect understanding.

[@jwolfo7]

I didn’t “misconstrue the far right as representative of conservative thought”, I used a few examples of things I would like to discuss with conservatives, but the conversation often gets sidetracked into who is not listening, or who is a hater, or what some other politician did somewhere. The people in this discussion support science, and I accept that they do, so that should be applied to a person’s right to choose and discuss procedures with their doctor. It’s about values, and so is how we treat young pregnant girls. They did not even touch on that. With guns, yes, liberals also abuse statistics, this was some conservatives’ chance to open a reasonable discussion, but they didn’t. There is no “thumb on the scale” with climate change, we have been studying it for 100 years and predictions have been proven true and are now quite obvious. What you said here, is exactly what I think "liberal media" says about conservatives in general, and why you don't see as much debate about AGW on the news as much, they consider the debate pretty well over. I would love it if you and I, or anybody could find a way to reword this in way that we agree on the science, and the values that go with it, and find a way to set policy that keeps the planet producing enough for the population. I know my statements were brief, but I’m not the one who had 4 people on my side for an hour, with the topic specifically about having the chance to set the record straight.

[@Darhan62]

Universal Basic Income! I sense that some of the people in this podcast would be against it, because they presumably believe it would "disincentivize work." If it was $3,000 a month, enough to comfortably live on in many parts of the country, it probably would disincentivize work for some portion of the population. However, if it was at a sweet spot of perhaps $500 to $1,000 a month it would more likely strengthen the economy and the fabric of society. It's poverty and the plight of the working poor that's behind many of the nation's problems, from crime to environmental degradation. A little bit more income to help people make ends meet -- afford health insurance, rent or mortgage, childcare, education, job mobility, groceries, emergency car repairs, etc. would go a long way to solving these problems. The mechanism to pay for UBI could be built into the economy, like a tax or something else, so that it wouldn't increase inflation. We need to face the fact that "trickle down economics" hasn't worked, and instead create a system that works reasonably well for the vast majority of Americans. If the gap between rich and poor continues to increase, eventually the pitch forks (or flag poles and bear spray) will come out. UBI, perhaps called the "freedom dividend" per Andrew Yang, or some kind of tax credit, might be the only way to keep our country from going off the rails.

[@hustler3of4culture3]

The left is worried that UBI would be used to get rid of social security and Medicare and Medicaid.

[@Darhan62]

@@hustler3of4culture3, eventually, perhaps it would, but I doubt that would happen right away or all at once.

[@hustler3of4culture3]

@@Darhan62 well getting rid of those AT ALL is a bad idea

[@Darhan62]

@@hustler3of4culture3, for the foreseeable future they are needed. Something will likely always be needed in additiona to UBI. But UBI will change the game in important ways.

[@hustler3of4culture3]

@@Darhan62 yang specifically said his ubi would replace them, btw

[@daidrivejil4950]

Its hard not to lose hope.