Why Liberals and Conservatives Clash offers an explanation for the extreme polarization between liberal and conservative that is the hallmark of the American political landscape today. It suggests that liberal thought is intrinsically different from conservative thought, and that each constitutes a self-subsistent world-view with its specific qualities and rules. The book offers a set of guidelines to predict a person's views based on other views s/he holds, given that each world-view is what it is for structural reasons, and is more than merely a sum of discrete positions. It explains, for example, why people who support gay marriage also typically support the woman's right to an early-term abortion, and why people who demand that citizens "support the military" understand this as meaning, support putting members of the military in harm's way. Because liberal thought and conservative thought each constitutes a closed world-view, neither side will ever convince the other in an argument. The most we can hope for is an acknowledgment by each side of the usefulness of the other, a goal Fleming proposes as the most reasonable one for our times. Why Liberals and Conservatives Clash makes logical the most striking, and hitherto puzzling feature of the contemporary American political landscape: its acrimony, its air of being an argument between the deaf: neither side understands the other. Fleming suggests this is so because neither side accepts the bases underlying the other's particular positions. We can, however, understand that they are different, and that trying to force the other side into submission won't work. We need to go beyond liberals dismissing conservatives with horror and conservatives dismissing liberals with disgust. Conservatives aren't merely imperfect liberals, they're something else entirely. Liberals aren't merely potential conservatives, they actually think differently.
This book reveals inner dynamics in our unconscious mind that mirror the political clash between liberals and conservatives.
This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human ...
How civilians and the military can better understand each other
Drawing on the thought of Norbert Elias and using as a thread a purposely apolitical example of cruelty to animals to focus on changes in attitudes, this book explores the ways in which we deal with a past that we now abhor.
This is Freedom Station Occoquan.
One estimate suggested that Limbaugh's campaign against the Affordable Care Act led to over 40,000 calls per hour to the congressional switchboard.155 The power of talk radio in general, and Limbaugh in particular, within the Republican ...
Eindić, “Ko je suveren u Jugoslaviji?,” in Jugoslavija, 111–27. Bindić, “Parlament i reprezentacija,” in Jugoslavija, 91–109. Bindić, “Ko je Čuvar ustava?,” in Jugoslavija, 129–53. Bindić, “Demokratija kao uspostavljena saglasnost?
Bad manners -- Woody -- Past produces present -- Slavery -- Explanations -- Rituals -- The modern age -- Democracy -- Durkheim -- Groupthink -- The polyglot West -- Changes -- People and pets -- Reparations -- Forty years in the wilderness.
This is The New Tractatus: it sympathizes with Wittgenstein's impatience with the endless cycle of argument, but reacts to this impatience and takes it in different directions than Wittgenstein did.
THE LIBERAL - CONSERVATIVE DEBATES OF THE 1960s Michael W. Flamm n January 1961 , less than a week before the inauguration of John Kennedy , at of servative movement , hailed a development unnoticed by most Americans .