Perhaps I am in the same situation...and in response to Claire's message, I'd say...go watch China Blues. This extraordinary documentary on how blue jeans are made will take you to the heart of the liberal fairytale, will leave your hands full of policy questions if you felt you did not have enough.

So, the question Claire posted is in line with things I mull over a lot. Particularly, as my best friend identifies as a conservative we discuss this kind of thing A LOT. I think she is actually registered as a Republican, though she identifies politically more as a Libertarian and believes her world view is in line with a classical liberal. She is one of the most thoughtful & insightful & intelligent & sensitive people I know, has 2 masters' degrees and works as a social worker. We have a lot of conversations about how she feels that people she works with all value "diversity" but are not open to political views that are different/diverse from their own, and that if she tries to share her views or engage in discussion people immediately jump to judging her character instead of being open to discussing the issues themselves. Ultimately this leaves her feeling really silenced and in a more general sense, persecuted for her conservative stance.

I decided that instead of speaking for her I would forward Claire's question on to her and see if she felt like responding… I pasted her response below. I also plan to forward her any responses that result from this email.

From my perspective, I feel very strongly that it is essential for us to be able to engage in extensive & constructive dialogue with people who hold different political views. Particularly since many of us will be going into political environments & will be working with and/or representing people with a plethora of perspectives. It seems to me that the more we can discuss, understand, learn from, and respect alternative views, the more likely we will be able to continue to push our own thinking and policy development to be as comprehensive & effective as possible.

Thanks for reading, and I really hope to hear from some of you out there… Such a vital topic! Thanks Claire….

Forwarded:

So I have thought a good bit about this and decided that I would explain my thoughts a bit and send some links helping to explain. First of all, I think that both sides are guilty of this to some degree. I also think it is great you are with this group of people who question and probe like this...I respect that very much and applaud the reaching out.

I think that at the present time in our culture liberal ideas are more mainstream and are what are being presented in the most media (especially "respectable" media) outlets and educational facilities. Even if the "opposing" beliefs are given air time, it is usually by someone who doesn't actually even get the other side.

I would consider myself a capitalist and a libertarian. As an example of my beliefs, I am linking to a great analogy that I think demonstrates my thinking on policy in general (though not always).

Econlib.org

So as a somewhat conservative person in a social services field, I have found that many people automatically assumy my ideas are devoid of caring or selfish. I have examples in my grad school papers of trying to explain my thoughts about the harmful aspects of welfare where my views were totally discounted by professors who told me that I would understand once I actually had more interactions with real clients. That I would find it hard not to become more "soft-hearted" when I actually knew the people I was talking about. If anything, working in the field has made me even more certain that much of the philosophy and policy that is currently in effect is actually more harmful and detrimental than I originally thought.

Through my program I came to understand just how misunderstood just and unfairly represented my ideas were in my field and seemingly, in a good portion of the population (at least the population by which I am surrounded since I am a city person). Beyond that, no one appeared even the slightest bit open to exploring an alternative view because that view was already so immediately discounted it didn't even occur to them that I could have my my own concerned and caring views based on a totally different understanding of the world.

There have been numerous psychological "studies" attempting to pathologize conservatism, and this ideas represented in such studies were the same one-dimensional stereotypes I found in academia. The total disregard for the complexities of ideological belief systems continues to absolutely stun me,

Psychology Today recently published a review of sorts attempting to summarize the differences that have been found between liberals and conservatives. The article is, in my opinion, absolutely absurd and totally lacks any sort of depth. I include it to show the types of negative and maladaptive stereotypes about conservatives that I have heard totally accepted without reserve in many academic circles. It also cites multiple "studies" that have supposedly supported these stereotypes. Just skimming the sections that compare liberals and conservatives should give you a taste of what I am talking about.

PT article

Below I have attached a critique of one of the major "studies" that very appropriately and rationally expresses my reactions to such things:

All in all, I hold onto my belief system because I believe it is honestly the approach that will sustain the most benefits with the least costs for society. I study history, philosophy, religion, social sciences, sciences, animal behaviors... whatever I can to try to piece together to better understand the elements and forces that influence our society and the world around us. These patterns are as old as the earth, and yet as each generation is born anew we have to learn such things again and again, in whatever form they appear. My beliefs definitely stem from a deep moral conviction, and I believe that the most important thing we can do to find truth and justice is to shed ourselves from as many of our own projections and unconscious motivations as possible (gain understanding and awareness of ourselves) and embrace the idea that we all have all of these conflicting beliefs and ways of being within ourselves. The more we try to ignore our natural impulses, however horrible, or succumb to our defenses, we are cutting ourselves off from being whole. We are all good, bad, and ugly. Dwelling purely on guilt over the oppressive actions of our nation's past without acknowledging the tremendous sacrifices and how we have fought OURSELVES again and again to correct these injustices makes things out of balance in the very same way that the idea that whites are superior to blacks is an imbalance at the opposite extreme.

I do hope this makes some sort of sense. It is about one millionth of the things running through my head right now, but hopefully it is coherent and somewhat explains my feelings about these things. I have heard that "On Beauty" is a really interesting book and am now definitely planning to read it.

Thanks for listening. I look forward to reading any and all responses.

Sawyer

Reductive labeling is necessary and productive for beings of finite computing power operating under uncertainty. Bigotry is, at best, rigid attachment to disfavored labels. At worst, it is unreasonable fidelity to disproven inferences. Make a two-by-two table of human types -

Vertical dimension: liberal to conservative.
Horizontal dimension: psychologically flawed to psychologicall intact

Anyone attempting to fill in the table's cells in meaningful fashion will quickly learn that its dimensions are fatally underidentified. Neither lightheaded dichotomization of political attitude, nor much of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, constitutes productive labeling. We all live with uncertainty, necessitating numerous daily wagers regarding the unknown. In the absence of testing, one person's null hypothesis is surely another's "fantasy." The stigmatization of types taken as "other," by individuals and groups, is pervasive across human organization, unfortunately. We are discriminating beings, constantly associating and dissociating to the extent freedom permits. Deep learning about one another is rewarding by time-consuming, and the more substantial the human relationship, the more difficult it is to perfect. As is often said, "Promote diversity on the Berkeley campus: admit more Republicans."

How are you liking that book? I thought the ideas and dialogue were great, but it didn't come together for me.

I think both are completely motivted by moral convictions. We just have very different values. I say, conservative share your wealth with the poor. Conservative says, I want to share my wealth with my family.

I think the question is disingenuous. You classmate Claire seems to be grappling with her own set of unquestioned assumptions. To somehow distill "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies to some sort of black and white framework and write "liberal" ideology off as some sort of fairytale is so naive and simplistic (or perhaps dogmatic) that it makes me wonder whether she's really the one with wings here.

Marc,

The over-simplistic dichotomization of liberals and conservatives (in the traditional American political sense) is unquestionably naive. Furthermore, blindly writing off liberal ideology (whatever that means) is, as you suggest, detrimental to constructive dialogue.

It is this very dogmatic behavior that I challenge. As an agent of social change (which I presume you are striving to be) I assume that you do not embrace groups, or people, or organizations that summarily dismiss as nonsense the ideas of those with whom they disagree. I also assume that this phenomenon is not limited to political ideology.

Smith's "On Beauty" describes the challenges of rising above the fray even when close friends are the culprits. The purpose of Claire's message was to challenge those of us who spend so much time together to evaluate our assumptions.

Embracing dogmatic labels is not necessary. Understanding them may prove useful.