Comment on this article:
Date:
Display Name:
Comment:
Enter the code
shown in the image:

    
Reader Comments

shellynm on 02-08-2009 wrote:

There are reasons for the "we" vs. "me". I believe they are about inherited biological tendencies to see a narrowed focus (the "me" and the local) and the “we” person has a rather unfocused, wide view of the world. It really explains a lot about how liberals have a very ecological approach to policy on all fronts. There is an inherent understanding of how the "me" is related to and dependent upon the entirety of the "we".

I agree that there is no convincing the other side of the righteousness of any positions, so the best strategy is marginalization. (Obama, Reed – listen up!)

The political parties play an enormous role in doling out the bucks for elections, which helps to explain the amazing degree of party loyalty seen in politicians.


Jolly Roger on 02-08-2009 wrote:

I see. There's no comments yet because everyonoe who disagrees gerts censored. Was there something offensive about the comment I left yesterday, or is it that you're just not willinng to discuss opposing opinions?


Artemis on 02-08-2009 wrote:

This is brilliant.

I think there are some other traditional dividers between the philosophies that are explained by this, too.

For instance: liberals seem more comfortable using multiple frames of refrence and swaping between them. For iinstance, liberals can look at an action from the right-and-wring point of view and whether the person should be punished, and at the same time they can consider it from a systems point of view and whether the total situation in some sense promoted the wrong action, therefore mitigating guilt, and also opening the possibility of preventing similar crimes by improving he overall situation. (E.g., poverty and crime rates.) MAybe this is because the "we"perspective promotes consiering things rom different points of view.

While connservatives usually get very upset at the idea of even considering any alternative models alongside the simple crime-and-punishment model.

Also, conservatives seem much quicker to resort to force and violence to solve problems. Of couse, force and violence are a lot easier if you have less "we" feelings thatmight might make you hesitate to hurt people.

Finally, it explains why conservatives are so concerned about perceived intrusions into their individual wallets and so almost hysterical about "socialism." To put a nicer word on their viewpoint they are "obligate individualists."


phred42 on 02-08-2009 wrote:

"The conservative logic of "me first" may sound bad to a liberal, but is that only because a liberal is a "we first" person? "
.... No, it's because, no matter how you slice it, WE are all in this together. ,,,, but here: The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness --. John Kenneth Galbraith


Carl on 02-08-2009 wrote:

I agree with the article.


Davidasjha on 02-07-2009 wrote:

Bunk!!!


stevor on 02-07-2009 wrote:

Bull. Throwing money at the banks accomplished nothing and throwing more at it will not accomplish anything, either. The problem is lack of money moving in the system. Money is "saved work" that needs to be "traded" to keep the economy flowing. When billionaires (think of hedge fund billionaires) just use the system to rip billions of dollars out of it, they are causing unemployment. If these billionaires who contribute nothing to society (not buying with it, not using it to pay people's salaries) they ought to be taxed at the 90% level. That would encourage reinvestment and keep people employed.


Prissy on 02-07-2009 wrote:

Me first vs. We First? Most people have been taught "me first" is selfish; but not conservatives?


steven andresen on 02-07-2009 wrote:

sam,

I don't know if I want to agree with you about the 'we' and 'me' theory. And, I have to admit I don't know where you are coming from in your observation.

However, when I listen to someone like Rep. Paul, I hear him talking about the constitution and whether what we are doing with the wars or the federal reserve agrees with what is allowed by the constitution. I can't tell whether his admiration of the constitution is out of concern for the individual or 'the people.'

When I listen to the Rev. King, and he talks about civil rights or how the war is wrong, I can't tell if he thinks civil rights is good for the individual or the race he's working for. Or maybe he thinks that if one person is discriminated against, then we are all hurt.

I'm not sure of the significance of your observation. Are you saying that there's something funny peculiar objectionable to the liberal conservative argument?

steven


Jolly Roger on 02-07-2009 wrote:

I don't believe this is true. There are many issues dear to conservatives that are in the best interests of the majority and many liberal causes that ignore the will of the majority. I think this article is flawed in its initial assumption.
Gun rights are a perfect example. Conservatives support the second amendment because it insures the freedom of the entire population, and only does so if many are armed, and liberals who want to disarm the population have only their own safety and second amendment opinions on their mind.
Conservatives tend to oppose abortion for everyone, while liberals tend to be interested in preserving their own right to choose.


Jhoffa_ on 02-07-2009 wrote:

This article is stupid. You're a fag.

Liberals are all kinds of "me first" when you're talking about killing innocent children in the womb, giving religion the finger or indulging their strange sexual proclivities.

Something I've noticed about trite universal maxim's like yours here is, small minded people tend to make them. You know, morons who don't really have a good grasp of the subject matter.

Sadly, so many of these people are stricken with a strange kind of Unwarranted Self Importance which leads them to self publish their nonsense, effectively wasting our collective (We person alert!) time with childish nonsense.

So... The next time you feel the need to write an article, please take a deep breath and then nail both your hands to the desk..

Thank you!

Jhoffa_


Rechill on 02-07-2009 wrote:

I didn't see any democrats in congress getting in the way of any war spending. Warfare spending and stimulating bailouts with a side of pork and payoff are destroying US! WE are being driven under by the continued mismanagement of our country by yet another corrupt regime. I'm sorry, does this not help your "there are two kinds of people in the world" argument.


I love george on 01-28-2009 wrote:

screw you liberals