Dismissing People as Liberal or Conservative is Unwise

Dismissing people as liberal or conservative is unwise. Our political discourse in the U.S. is going through a bit of a rough patch, to state the case mildly. We have a breakdown in our ability to have civil political conversations. One of the greatest factors contributing to the current breakdown in political discourse is the way we label and dismiss one another as liberal, conservative, etc.

Careless Labels

Our careless and divisive use of these labels erodes our understanding of the things that connect us as human beings. So does our as well as our increased hostility towards people who hold political beliefs different from us,

It is also makes it near impossible in some cases for us to have productive conversations about issues that pertain to the heart of our nation.

“Psyche’s Wedding”, Edward Burne-Jones

I could discuss the way in which talk shows, media stereotypes, and distorted religious and philosophical ideas have fueled this problem. Instead I will focus on why I believe that labeling and dismissing people as liberal or conservative is unreasonable and politically and morally unwise.

Why Is it Unreasonable?

At its most basic level, labeling and dismissing people according to political labels is unreasonable and based on poor logic.

When we do this, we suggest that all liberals believe and act in a certain way or that all conservatives believe in act in a certain way.

Umbrella Terms

This is patently false. The terms liberal and conservative are umbrella terms that pertain to a wide range of political and social theories.

A Range of Liberal Beliefs

For example, the term liberal  generally refers today to people who (among other things) tend to . . .

Hold individual liberty and autonomy as a supreme value.

Believe in some or a great deal of government intervention in society for the sake of greater equality.

Are highly critical of unregulated markets because of their purported negative effect on communities and the environment.

Believe in a looser interpretation of the Constitution in order to apply its principles in a more nuanced way to contemporary culture.

Support higher rates of taxation to help level the social playing field through institutions like public schools, universal healthcare, and public museums and parks.

“Regenbogen”–Adrianus Eversen

A Range of Conservative Beliefs

The term conservative is often used today to refer to people who (among other things) tend to . . .

Value traditional institutions and social patterns over ideas and practices considered radical or revolutionary.

Tend to interpret the Constitution more strictly and literally in order to uphold the rule of law and the foundational principles of our nation.

Want greater market deregulation in order to stimulate economic growth.

Believe that the government’s primary purpose is protection of private property and defense of the nation and that a big government interferes with individual liberty.

Or believe that inequality is natural, inevitable, and not really something the government should try to fix.

Or believe that privatization is generally a good solution to quality control.

A Few Other Connotations

There is also a common idea today that conservatives are more religious and against things like abortion and LGTBQIA rights. Or that liberals are less religious and more in favor of abortion and LGTBQIA rights.

This article outlines some of the basic differences between liberal and conservative political theory.

You can read more at length about conservative and liberal political theory here and here.

The Varieties of Liberal and Conservative Experience

While there are certain things that liberals or conservatives are more likely to believe, they actually hold a wide range of differing beliefs.**

For example . . .

There are liberals who hold socialist and communist views but are pro-life and pro- traditional marriage.

And there are conservatives who are members of the LGTBQIA community. Such folks actively campaign for LGTBQIA rights but are completely supportive of market deregulation and increased military spending.

“The Syndics”, Rembrandt

There are liberals who believe that the government needs to regulate the market heavily but also  generally believe in low taxation rates.

And there are conservatives who believe the government should protect the environment but generally believe in minimal government interference.

Some More Examples

There are liberals who hate abortion but believe it should be legal for the sake of women’s physical and mental health. Such people also often work to decrease abortion rates by promoting birth control and education (both of which can reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy).

And there are conservatives who are against abortion but know how childbearing and child-rearing can take a disproportionate toll on women. Thereofore, they favor higher rates of taxation for extended, payed maternity leave, free childcare, and free college tuition for mothers (and everyone else).

There are Christian liberals, and there are agnostic and atheistic conservatives.

By the way, these descriptions of liberals and conservatives above are all based on people I know personally or professionally. They are just a small sample of the variety of different beliefs that conservatives and liberals hold.

Hasty Generalization

To suggest that all liberals and all conservatives believe and act a certain way is patently untrue. It is a hasty generalization based on stereotypes of liberals and conservatives. Hasty generalizations represent distorted and ineffective thinking patterns, and it is really hard to make good political judgments (or any kind of judgment) when our thinking suffers these distortions.

Labeling and dismissing people according to their political beliefs is not only an instance of hasty generalization, it is also an instance of ad hominem. This is the fallacy of attacking the person instead of the argument.

Ad Hominem–Attacking the Person Instead of the Argument

The ad hominem fallacy is a thinking problem because a person’s argument is never wrong because of who the person is. An argument is only wrong because the evidence supporting the argument is insufficient or untrue.

Here is an example that illustrates why ad hominem arguments demonstrate poor thinking. Let’s say you are in a building, and someone runs in and yells, “There’s a fire! You need to get out!”. The proper response is not, “Wait, a minute. Are you a conservative or a liberal?”

You might look outside or down the hall to assess if there really is a fire. Or you might ask the person how he knows there is a fire. But you recognize in this instance that the person’s political beliefs are irrelevant to the claim that you should get out the building. All that is important is whether there is actually a fire or not.

As another example, if someone said, “Hey, there is a burglar planning to break into your house at midnight tonight”, the proper response is not “Are you liberal or conservative?” The proper response is “How do you know?” or “Why do you think that?”

What Makes a Belief Right or Wrong

In the same way, a person’s sincerely held beliefs about taxation, abortion, military spending, or market regulation are not right or wrong because they are liberal or conservative. They are right or wrong depending on the accuracy and sufficiency of the evidence or logic used to support the argument.

Someone might say, “Well, I don’t care if I am committing hasty generalization and ad hominem attacks. And I don’t care about logic.”

I would suggest that everyone should care about using good logic and argumentation. When we use poor logic and argumentation, it clouds our thinking and makes it difficult to be politically wise.

“Une Cause Celebre”, Honore Daumier

Why is Labeling and Dismissing Politically Unwise?

Most of us understand the value of trying to be politically wise. If we are not politically wise, we are politically unwise, foolish, imprudent, ill-considered, and reckless. These are just of a few of the problems we fall into when we stray from or abandon political wisdom.

What does it take to be politically wise? Among other things, it takes the following attributes:

One: The humility to know that no matter who we are, we don’t know everything because the world is complicated.

It doesn’t matter if we are Christian, atheist/agnostic, a scientist, and/or a person with a PhD. We still have a lot to learn.

Two: The humility to recognize that it takes a lot of input from various and differing sources to make well-informed decisions.

If we only carefully consider the political opinions of people who look like us, think like us, and worship like us, we are missing really important pieces of the puzzle.

Three: A commitment to clear and careful thinking about facts and theories (political beliefs are based on these two things, more or less)

Four: A commitment to treating people with dignity, compassion, and respect, no matter if we agree with them or not.

Five: A recognition that people who are very different from us might know something or a lot of things that we don’t.

The implication of this is that we cannot make wise political decisions in a democracy if

We think we know everything.

And we think that we only need input from people who are like us and think like us.

Or we don’t care about thinking clearly or carefully about facts and theories.

And we don’t care about respecting others or treating them with dignity.

Or we think we don’t have anything else to learn.

What Logic and Careful Argumentation Require

And this is why logic and argumentation are important. Logic and careful argumentation require us to practice #1-#5. The more we practice these habits, the wiser we are. Wisdom is not really a matter of book-smarts (although that can be involved) but a result of living carefully and thoughtfully in the world. It is also a matter of learning from each other and our mistakes in the spirit of virtue.

And the idea of virtue brings me to my last point.

Why is Labeling and Dismissing Morally Unwise?

When we label and dismiss people, we fail to be moral, virtuous people. Labeling and dismissing people is arrogant, condescending, unkind, uncompassionate, and ignorant.

There is no major system of ethics, nor is there any major religion, that holds these character traits as virtues or good states of character. And there is a good reason why. The more we display arrogance, condescension, unkindness, etc. the more we erode our ability to demonstrate virtuous character traits. These are traits like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. that are at the heart of every religious and ethical system. Such traits bring us closer to God (if we believe in God) and to each other.

End Justifies the Means Thinking

Someone might say, “Well this is just the way politics is. Politics is different from morality.” That is “ends justifies the means” thinking, and there is also no major ethical or religious system that condones this kind of thinking. It is easy to see why. If the end justifies the means, this justifies basically any behavior. That’s not really a world anyone wants to live in.

What is the Alternative?

Luckily, there is an alternative to labeling and dismissing.

It is being humble.

And it is being willing to listen to and learn from others.

It is wanting to understand first instead of wanting to be understood first.

“The Founding Fathers”, John Trumball

And it is practicing faith that we have more in common than we think we do and that this commonality can lead us to discover good solutions together.

It is hope that we can find answers together.

And it is loving each other enough to try even when it is hard and we are scared and uncomfortable and angry.

An Example from the Founding Fathers

And by the way, our Founding Fathers frequently demonstrated these virtues of humility, listening, understanding, faith, hope, and love.

The Founding Fathers held really different beliefs.

While many of them were Christian, some of them diverged significantly in their beliefs from orthodox Christianity (You can read about this here.)

Our Founding Fathers also held really different political views, views as sharply opposed as those of liberals and conservatives today. (If you would like to read more about this, you might enjoy reading about the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate, which you can read about here.)

Nevertheless, despite these significant differences in beliefs and political views, the Founding Fathers (in their best moments) believed that through discussion, civility, and careful and moral deliberation, they could create a thriving nation.***

Reclaiming this spirit is the right way to make America great again.

*****

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it on social media.

You might also like this post:
Peaceful Political Discussions: How Not to Be an Idiot in Six Easy Steps

And you might also like these posts:

What Does It Mean to Think Well and Why Is It Hard Sometimes?

Why Thinking Well is Worth It

Postscript:

I taught a class last semester on theories of economic justice which covered basic conservative, libertarian, liberal, socialist, and Marxist views. My goal was for my students to understand the basic premises underlying these different political viewpoints.

Here are some book you might enjoy reading to help you gain a solid understanding of these different political views. And, by the way, it is important to note that both Christian and non-Christian, religious and atheist folks can be found holding to every single one of the above-mentioned political views.

No Salvation Outside the Poor by Jon Sobrino

Justice: An Anthology by Louis Pojman

The Conservative Mind by Russel Kirk

*****

Footnotes

*I am not arguing in this post that we tolerate all views as equal and deserving of respect. For instance, racist and white supremacist views should not be tolerated and do not deserve respect. There is a difference between taking a firm stand against views that lead to radical dehumanization and dismissing everyone who holds different political beliefs from the beliefs you hold. The second problem is the problem I am addressing in this post.

**Here are some books I have read or been exposed to that show the diversity of beliefs liberals and conservatives can hold:

Crunchy Con by Rod Dreher

Faith Unraveled by Rachel Held Evans

Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals by Shane Claiborne

What are People For? By Wendell Berry

No Salvation Outside the Poor by Jon Sobrino

***I do not intend to excuse the shortcomings of either the Founding Fathers or our country in my praise of them here. The founding of our country is inextricably intertwined with slavery, native-American genocide, and other atrocities and monstrous errors. We must own up both to the U.S.’s revolutionary principles of liberty, as well as its failure to apply these principles consistently.