After blogging for years on conservative sites I had certain pre-conceptions about liberals that my short time reading and commenting on DailyKos has forced me to re-assess. On conservative sites, it becomes easy to assume all liberals are "commies" and "moonbats". On liberal sites I have visited, (I guess you guys call it 'snarking'), the same seems to be true as I've read remarks about "Nazi's" and "wing-nuts". I don't consider myself a "Nazi" or a "wing-nut" and the people here who have taken the time to exchange opinions with me can hardly be called "commies" or "moonbats". For the most part, people here have received me fairly. For that you have my thanks.
The following is my opinion only, folks. I have given it quite a bit of thought, between comments and replies, and through long boring shifts at work this last week, and have modified my opinions in, I hope, a fair and equitable direction, as such;
As I see it, the main difference between liberals and conservatives,
true liberalism and
true conservativism, is small. When examined broadly, the overwhelming majority of liberals and conservatives want many of the same things. We are all Americans, most of us
good Americans, and the overwhelming majority of Americans want equality, comfort and freedom for all. There are differences in the way we think these things should be attained, but until recently (a few decades, at most), those differences had not attained the dangerous degree I feel they are at.
The degree of difference appears to increase as each group is increasingly fractioned and specialized, as it were, into more and more diverse and radical, and more and more vocal, 'special interest' groups. Radicalism attracts radical personalities, prone to narcissism, extreme tribalism (no insult intended for our indigenous peoples) and elitism within their own groups. Radicals are more prone to using less-than-fair tactics to advance their point and get their way, tactics such as wild accusations, less-than-truthful rhetoric and in some cases, violence, (citing instances of arson claimed by the Ecology Liberation Front (ELF) and the shooting of doctors at abortion clinics).
One example of fractioning in both directions; Gun control, opposed by conservatives and favored by liberals (and I hope I'm not over-simplifying, here).
On the conservative side, we see those who are against gun control because the Constitution says we have a right to bear arms. As a non-hunter and non-collector, I fall into that broad group. Of that group are the avid hunters with understandably stronger feelings about gun ownership. Then we have the gun enthusiasts, (collectors and shooters) and 'trophy hunters' (a practice I abhor). The broad group keeps fractioning, more and more radical groups emerge, until we have Neo-Nazi's and other white-supremacist's (which incidentally, can fall on either side of the ideological aisle).
On the other side of the ideological coin, the liberals. Of the main group, who sees gun control as good for safety or crime-prevention reasons, we get those who have lost loved ones to accident or crime violence. The broad group splits into radical anti-gun special interest groups, just as easily as their opponents, until we end up with extreme 'peace' groups who are as likely to spit at a soldier (ignoring the inherent 'violence' of such an act) as preach brotherly love.
Incidentally, I feel that our right to bear arms is not provided for in the Constitution so much in order for us to protect us from criminals, but for us to protect ourselves from our own government, in the event it goes too far in the direction of despotism. This argument puts a different light on issues of the 'Nazi-ism', 'Dictatorship' and USSR-style 'Socialism' rhetoric being tossed around recently. Just a thought.
On some issues, the disposition for the perpetrator of some heinous crime for example, similar ends are promoted by both sides of the aisle. On the death-sentence debate, conservatives prefer it while liberals mostly prefer, at worst, life in prison. Both ideologies seem to want the same result, that of keeping the criminal away from the public and keeping him from repeating his crimes.
Unfortunately, the split between the ideologies causes the radical proponents of each to refuse to see this similarity and so refuse to entertain the other's viewpoint. Non-radical conservatives worry about the expense of keeping a person in prison for decades as well as what they see as 'cruel and inhumane' punishment of decades of incarceration. Non-radical liberals worry about too quickly putting to death a possibly innocent person (a valid concern. Our justice system is full of holes), as well as the concept of equating ourselves with the perpetrator by taking a life.
The template is nearly universal; Those who love their pets to PETA, soldiers and pro-military to vigilante-ism.
Also, both groups have their political pundits who, in order to secure a voting block, profess to support the issues that liberals and conservatives care about and whose rhetoric advances from mild through passionate to radical, according to their audience. Their rhetoric is magnified and repeated, by the MSM and AM talk, until even non-radicals know little more than the talking points, the black and the white, the love and the hate.
'Band-wagon' tactics for both sides are promoted by the MSM, AM talk-radio and internet specialty sites, the lines blurring and the groups coalescing and breaking up, until the actual reasons for the differences are lost in the general disdain, in many cases, devolving to hatred, with the loudest voices dominating. That's how we get more and more conservatives calling all liberals "commies" and "moon-bats" and more and more liberals calling all conservatives "Nazis" and "wing-nuts".
The radicals on both sides are at the same time the smallest component and the most vocal, the most apt to demonstration, including violence and visceral rhetoric. They are the 'squeaky wheels'. At the radical level, neither side is loath to slanting polls, twisting statistics and propagating lies, and even violence, to advance what they see as 'the better good'. As a result of constant radical rhetoric from both sides, all proponents of either side seem to see, not the 'radicals' alone, but the entirety of the other camp as anathema to their cause.
The end result is that ultimately both sides are wrong and neither extreme ideology is good for America.