A question about the differences between conservatives and liberals

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SpencerH
In what respect? I'd agree with Jessups statement. It explains the basis for his decision to order the code red depite his knowledge that it was illegal (that and his arrogance of course).

As with Ben's earlier statement that Col. Jessups thought he was above the law. Having a greater responsibility doesn't mean you can chuck the law when you want.

[Ben Kenobi]

Exactly.

I respect Jessup's decision. He should have said it was his responsibility and his call to order the code red, not anybody else's.

He should have affirmed that while he believes what he did was the right thing, that they law must sort itself out.

Breaking the law is sometimes ok, but there is nothing to be commended about that act. There are consequences and Jessup should have owned up to them from the start.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I guess Arrian's a conservative now (again)?

Arrians political and social positions are a little variable but then so are mine.

I think everyone (well most people who pay attention) these days realizes it is about a stalker.

That is probably true today since the comment about the dual meanings has been made many times but when the song was fresh it was not obvious.

[Theben]

In addition to arrogance, one could argue that Jessups did what he did to protect the honor of the military. His vision of 'honor' was just ****ed up.

Honor is subjective while against the law is not.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So I guess I should re-phrase the question, are liberals less likely to understand honour?

JFK did win a Pulizer Prize for his book "Profiles in Courage," which dealt solely with the honor of America's early leaders. So maybe liberals know a little bit about honor. Indeed, honor is the foundation upon which liberalism is built.

But neither end of the political spectrum has a monopoly on any virtue or on any vice.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

JFK did win a Pulizer Prize for his book "Profiles in Courage," which dealt solely with the honor of America's early leaders. So maybe liberals know a little bit about honor. Indeed, honor is the foundation upon which liberalism is built.

But neither end of the political spectrum has a monopoly on any virtue or on any vice.

I havent read that book so I cant comment on the specifics. I will say that from my reading on the early American leaders including Jefferson, who appears to be the most liberal of the founding fathers to become President, that he had little of what I would call honour.

In any case, I'm not arguing that liberals cant have honour nor am I arguing that there have been no honorable liberals in history. I'm simply stating an observation I've made that people I encounter who either downplay or misunderstand the importance of honour, or who have no honour IMO, tend to be liberals.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I havent read that book so I cant comment on the specifics. I will say that from my reading on the early American leaders including Jefferson, who appears to be the most liberal of the founding fathers to become President, that he had little of what I would call honour.

In any case, I'm not arguing that liberals cant have honour nor am I arguing that there have been no honorable liberals in history. I'm simply stating an observation I've made that people I encounter who either downplay or misunderstand the importance of honour, or who have no honour IMO, tend to be liberals.

We could argue this all day. I could give a long list of conservatives without honor, and liberals with honor, but that would merely bore everyone here.

[DaShi]

This is a brillant thread Spenc, keep going.

Now I'm off to cheer on Docfeelgood for his outstanding Obama birth certificate thread.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


JFK did win a Pulizer Prize for his book "Profiles in Courage,"

But seriously- you don't think he wrote that himself, do you ?

The Kennedy White House had lots of like-minded Liberal big thinkers to call upon for writing chores.

who have no honour IMO, tend to be liberals.

? Such as Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Robert Mugabe, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, the members of the Greek, Chilean and Argentinean juntas, Jeffrey Archer- who never met a lie he couldn't tell- Jonathan Aitken, Al Capone, Mussolini....




Perhaps you're just meeting the wrong 'liberals'- I've been fortunate enough to have met a former member of the Dutch Resistance, a Quaker and an ex-Suffragette who all were prepared to risk life or limb for their ideals in the service of others, and not one of whom would have been considered 'conservative' by American political standards.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by molly bloom


But seriously- you don't think he wrote that himself, do you ?

The Kennedy White House had lots of like-minded Liberal big thinkers to call upon for writing chores.

JFK got the Pulitzer before he was in the White House. You may know that already, but you seem to be indicating that he did it in office.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dauphin


JFK got the Pulitzer before he was in the White House. You may know that already, but you seem to be indicating that he did it in office.

Let 'Kennedy White House' stand for Kennedy clan, like-minded individuals, hangers-on and fellow travellers, before, during and after J.F.K.'s term in office.

During the Eisenhower and Nixon years Liberal pointy heads and nattering nabobs gravitated en masse to the only game in town.

[GePap]

I much prefer the Classical Greek conception of Honor being something one is granted by the community as a reward for exceptional action. The idea that someone has some sort on internal "honor" to me is bull****, a great vanity which inflates the ego far beyond what it merits on a good day. We are turning honor into hubris.

Of course, I am also sick of the overuse and abuse of the term hero, but that is just me I guess.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by molly bloom


But seriously- you don't think he wrote that himself, do you ?

The Kennedy White House had lots of like-minded Liberal big thinkers to call upon for writing chores.

? Such as Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Robert Mugabe, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, the members of the Greek, Chilean and Argentinean juntas, Jeffrey Archer- who never met a lie he couldn't tell- Jonathan Aitken, Al Capone, Mussolini....

I would have thought it was quite obvious inference from

"In any case, I'm not arguing that liberals cant have honour nor am I arguing that there have been no honorable liberals in history."

that I dont believe nor do I espouse that all non-liberals are honourable.

Perhaps you're just meeting the wrong 'liberals'- I've been fortunate enough to have met a former member of the Dutch Resistance, a Quaker and an ex-Suffragette who all were prepared to risk life or limb for their ideals in the service of others, and not one of whom would have been considered 'conservative' by American political standards.

I too have met liberals that I consider honourable, I didnt say or infer otherwise.

On normal days, I encounter two groups of liberals. Those whom I work with, academics with PhD's and MD's, and polytubbies. Its fair to say that I dispise most of the academic liberals I work with as honour-less dreck and cowards. OTOH, I can think of more than one liberal here at poly that I dispise politically but who have acted with what I consider to be honour. If I was to pose my question about "A few good men" to my collegues they would puff out their scawny hairless chests and leave in a huff. Here, I get a few honest answers.

Another way to approach my position is this, I find that more liberals than conservatives temper their behaviour and language based upon fear of reprisal, from the law or otherwise, rather than from doing what they believe to be right i.e. a sense of honour.

I'm interested in others viewpoints, but lists of famous liberals with honour and conservatives without honour is not an answer to my question.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Another way to approach my position is this, I find that more liberals than conservatives temper their behaviour and language based upon fear of reprisal, from the law or otherwise, rather than from doing what they believe to be right i.e. a sense of honour.

And who the hell is Joe Q. Nobody to judge what is "honorable?"

There is another word for "Senese of Honour" as you seem to formulate it, ones opinion. Being unconcerned with societal or community reaction is not a "value." After all, you could easily state that almost all crime is action taken without regard to the possible reprisal from others.

Jessup took an oath to do a job. There were certain standards implied in that oath. Jessup's failure of "honor" was not that he let others take the blame, but that he violated his position in the first place. That is the fountain from which all his other sins in the movie stem. Personally I would state that the Liberal/Conservative split comes from being appaled by Jessup's actions either because they:
Violated some theoretical or imagined set of values (Liberal)
Violated the constructs and codes created by society to insure order and stability (conservative)

Your own idea of "Honor" is just that, a personal one, as is clear from the general lack of agreement from other "conservatives."

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
I much prefer the Classical Greek conception of Honor being something one is granted by the community as a reward for exceptional action. The idea that someone has some sort on internal "honor" to me is bull****, a great vanity which inflates the ego far beyond what it merits on a good day. We are turning honor into hubris.

Hubris can be mistaken for honour and some cultural manifestations of "honour" are, in fact, hubris. I dont agree that honour is bull**** though but I dont find it surprising that you do.

Of course, I am also sick of the overuse and abuse of the term hero, but that is just me I guess.

Occasionaly, we agree.