As a conservative or right or republican, can you state something that progressives or the left or democrats get right?
As a progressive or left or democrat, can you state something that conservatives or the right or republicans get right?
It is frustrating to (watch hypocrites) shame polluters for mutating animals while at the same time, (these same hypocrites) celebrate polluters when the mutation induces unconventional hermaphodite genital shapes.
Every polluter was in love with Alex Jones when he promoted polluters but these same polluters cancelled him and took his children away when he talked about the secret of how #GayFrogs happen in nature in the first place. ( Also the " free market" is not going to fix this because you have seen how much resistance is coming from consumers who are forced to breathe clean air during a dirty air pandemic ).
Speaking as a libertarian, I'll attempt to do both, along with what I believe each would say in response to the accusation.
Progressives have the right of it when they say that conservatives do not care about the poor.
I think the conservative response to that charge would be that it isn't that conservatives don't care about the poor, but that they do not think it's the government's job to lift people out of poverty - under the theory that it is better to teach a man to fish than to provide him with fish - and that a robust economy raises the standard of living for everyone in that economy (i.e. even the poorest in the U.S are among the wealthiest in the world in terms of standard of living).
Conservatives have the right of it when they say that progressives put more stock in emotional narratives than they do facts.(1)
I think the progressive response to that is that facts in isolation do not tell the whole story. Every fact, every statistic, is someone's lived experience that does not get its story told. Because of this, conclusions drawn from facts are too often incorrect, because they lack a full understanding of the bigger picture.(2)
(1) For example, facts state that 14 unarmed black people were killed in encounters by police in over a million police encounters in 2019; even the Washington Post admits this figure. However, the progressive narrative is that police are a racist entity that is intentionally hunting and killing black people and needs to be defunded if not done away with entirely.
(2) For example, to say only 14 unarmed black people were killed - the implication that it's a statistically insignificant number - ignores the fact that there are 14 more people who didn't need to die, to add to the running total of black people that didn't need to die the previous year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and so forth. And because authorities are treating it as a statistically insignificant number, there will be more in the years that follow. Then you want to tell people - with a straight face -that the police aren't racist, when they don't see a problem with unarmed black people being killed by the police year after year and aren't planning on making any changes to resolve this?
Most conservatives support the concept of capitalism and free markets. There are some good things about capitalism - the right to try your hand at things and build something useful and self-fulfilling. However, the modern conservative tends to treat capitalism as a sacred cow. Any suggestion that the system is in need of modification is met with disdain. It's "captitalism" good, Socialism bad. Trying to carry on a rational discussion with people harboring this kind of unforgiving dogma is virtually impossible.
Progressive look around the world and see virtually every advanced country having significant social programs that benefit all. And they wonder that if these program are so undesirable, then why do most advanced countries support them? Many of the world's survival issues could be eradicated with the proper management of resources. And it is patently obvious to them that it is crucial since there are so many people in the world now. Conservatives don't seem to see it that way.
I found this question difficult to answer.
It is primarily because the whole political spectrum moved left the past 200 years.
For example equal rights for all, originally a classical liberal concept is now a right wing concept and in the left it has been replaced with equity (equal outcomes for all).
I strongly support equality and strongly opposed equity.
That would make me far left progressive when I grew up, yet today I am considered conservative.
To me the Achilles heel of the conservatives has always been religion, or rather the over dependence on it.
And with that as Tracy stated, the right to marry whoever you want etc etc that contradict the main religions.
Then I support a progressive wealth tax in exchange for a reduced or flat income tax.
However, the devil is in the details and every left wing party application of that has been flawed to such an extent that it will either not work or never get accepted in a democracy.
Leftists policies end up in disaster with the right of the population having to clean it up, basically politics in a nutshell. What drives the leftist mind is only God can answer. May be off topic but the divide is so big now anything the left wants is the opposite of the right mostly in spite and an inherent focus on being evil
As pointed out "right" is subjective, right for whom? For example who benefits from open borders and cheap imports if you think it is just the Globalists and Corporatists you would be wrong. The entire soft underbelly of society benefits. The lazy security fixated Millennials, the professional class, academia, the political class, the military industrial complex, lazy intellectuals.
The moral panic as represented by the cult of Wokeness is as much a symptom as a cause. This idea that there is some happy middle ground is actually highly destructive. It's a way of hiding the systemic problems. What is important is not the ideology so much as it's disconnection from physical reality. Both sides have created edifices that either can't be tested or when they fail are blamed on the abstractions of the other side.
Abstractions are powerful tools but are subject to spiraling out of control as seen with the modern theoretical physics industry. Anything not grounded in practical experimentation and open to critique based on it will become corrupt. It leads to a kind of societal insanity.
Complex chaotic systems such as societies are irreducible. Everything effects everything else. Unless some new kind of science is developed unintended consequences will continue to dominate social engineering from both the left and right. If we don't get a handle on it fast our AI masters may take over.
As I try to think of an answer to this question, I find that I have to go back to Democrats such as JFK to find any significant point of agreement (such as his tax policies and his strong stand against Communism). As they have moved more and more to the Left, I find I can't really think of any position on which I agree at the moment. Perhaps someone else will point out an issue that I can agree with them about, but looking over stances on issues as outlined, for example, by the Progressive Policy Institute (https://www.progressivepolicy.org/issues/), I am currently at a loss.
Although there are a few issues on which I might have agreed, such as genuine concern for the environment, for example, I find that their approach to handling the matter cannot gain my support.
All I can think of is civil rights movement of 1960s Affirmative Action and stuff. Women's rights, yet women owned more property than a men in a man's world then. All of it got twisted and manipulated from its original context/purpose.
1980s had a strong current of bipartianship of Congress, denying raising minimum wage for the working poor yet gave themselves a cost of living increase that was far beyond what most people made in a year, on top of all the other incentives and privileges they delegate themselves.
Legal immigration vs. illegal. Take El Salvadoran refugees for example. The law abiding spent years in Canada obeying and respecting the process. The scofflaws did not. Who got rewarded? Then you expect people to revere the law?
Same for gun control. Look at Chicago for example. Don't forget the gun confiscating alderman who got busted with all those guns in his personal possession either.
Its all a plutocracy.
The liberal-left notion of multiple subjective perspectives being required to better comprehend reality is valid, but the illiberal-left view that personal "truth" is the only reality available to us...not so much. On the other hand, the illiberal-left has some valid criticisms of social systems and structures that the liberal-left struggles to extract from their authoritarian-left bedmates to help make the ideas helpful and useful in conversation with a liberal-right that might be willing to still do traditional politics.