"Respectful Disagreement" with conservatives

I don't think forcing changes on others is a progressive trait. There is only so much one can do. And we need to accept that differences in opinion are okay. It is conservative who believe we must all subscribe to their world view. For progressives, it's about empathizing with others. It's about presenting a progressive world view and getting others to hopefully adopt at least some of it. And who is to say how long this will take or if it ever will? I mean, no two people think alike, even among progressives. So to think that everyone in this world has to think like me and agree with my opinions is the ultimate in narcissism. As progressives, we must accept that it's acceptable to disagree even if we don't like it or would prefer others to think more like us. That's just a fact of life. You can't always get what you want and we must learn to live with that to the best of our ability. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make our case and get others to hear our point of view and respect our opinions. It goes both ways.

I wasn't talking about forcing changes on anyone, I was talking about the rhetorical style progressives should adopt. Did you actually read what I said? I think what you wrote perfectly illustrates what is wrong with the progressive message machine....you went on and on about how narcissistic it is to actually think you're right about an issue, about how we shouldn't be in the business of changing minds, and basically that all points of view are valid. Big, big mistake Moriji....you need to take a closer look at the right wing noise machine, because you will be blown over by these guys. They fully understand our weaknesses, and don't expect to actually be challenged on an emotional level. WHile you will sit there and rattle off statistics and behave with decorum, trying to rise "above politics" so to speak, the people you need to be communicating with will look at you as another policy wonk with no passion. They'll go with the guy who actually can forcefully and succinctly articulate a position. The conservatives are naturals at this, and I think we would be wise to stop pretending that just putting out our ideas is enough. The Faux News pundits will never act in good faith, and I think we need to address the emotional component in a big way.Please reread what I wrote.

I did read what you wrote. Just because I don't subscribe to your views doesn't mean I don't "understand." My God, why am I getting crucified for just stating my opinions? You don't like it? Fine!

Your posted a question. I didn't realize it was a directive.

"WHile you will sit there and rattle off statistics and behave with decorum, trying to rise above politics so to speak, the people you need to be communicating with will look at you as another policy wonk with no passion."

WTF does this have to do with me? Sounds like you are stereotyping me. When in the world did I ever say this? Get a clue before you open you mouth and accuse people.

I agree. I think that when progressives try so hard to be polite, the message conservatives (and others) hear is that we are weak. Plus, we risk not getting our points across because the conservative is running over us. I'm sure that part of the "elite" comments are helped by our loyalty to politeness. We don't have to yell or name call (although I'm not entirely against that either), but we should be able to say something like, "That's not true," or "That's ridiculous," and then explain why. One of the reasons I like to listen to Sam Seder is because of the way he talks to conservatives. He directly challenges what they say, yet doesn't get offended or flustered when they are offensive or insulting, and ends the conversations with the conservative sounding like an idiot. It's inspiring to hear. If we can challenge false comments immediately before the other speaker runs amok with more conservative talking points, we can be strong and keep the conversation balanced. Think of Winston Churchill. He's famous for his put-downs, and they were (and still are) effective, both in helping his point of view and endearing himself to any listener or reader.

It seems to me your original post only appears to contain questions--you have your mind pretty well made up. You have framed the issue as an adversarial struggle between conservatives and progressives, with conservatives winning. Your solution is to best them at their own game, just use a bigger hammer.

Challenging (or appearing to challenge) strongly held beliefs invites argument and reciprocal attack, not discussion--and certainly not dialogue. You demonstrated this quite elegantly with your response to Moriji.

If you keep reading Rockridge articles, you will find responses to conservative comments that identify the problem in the conservative position, and presents the alternative progressive view in a way clear, respectful way. Nothing wimpy in this--it's compelling and instructive. It leaves little opportunity for negative escalation, and the accurate reframing offers something of substance for the conservative to consider.

Conservatives often seem to be satisfied with spin-based arguments, and "meeting them on their own territory" is just an invitation for a fight. IMO, you never win support by beating someone in an argument or debate. The best you can do is win the debate, and that intellectual success will most likely produce a more committed adversary.

I guess we'll have to disgree here. I personally don't feel that we can make movement conservatism any more committed to discrediting liberalism than it already is. And I believe that the point of debating is not to change your opponent's mind, but the minds of those listening, the "biconceptuals". I think the reason that conservatives are often satisfied with short, easy to understand statements is because.....they work! Unlike the conservatives, I think we can use their tactics in an intellectually honest way, while at the same time getting our message across. I think true dialogue is really only possible with the uncommitted, nonpartisan moderates who don't really pay that much attention to the issues. They should be our focus. And you seem to suggest that we don't want to "fight". I think this attitude may be an ingrained part of the progressive personality, but it is a weakness that we must address (at least in this country). I think we need to fight, and trying to "dialogue" with those who will never operate in good faith is a surefire mechanism of defeat.

I'm suggesting to critique failed conservative values. the point is not to name call, etc. but to put it out there that conservative values have failed. it actually creates an opening to inject progressive values into. you don't criticize the person.,, but say the values they hold have failed. which is actually the case. If I thought conservative values worked.. hell, I'd be a conservative. but they don't work, and I feel progressive values do work. so...

We need to just repeat it over and over again.. Failed Conservative Values, Failed Conservative Values, Failed Conservative Values, Failed Conservative Values, Failed Conservative Values, etc. try it out and let me know how it works.

I put out a video for moveon.org, and the conservative websites linked to it.. got 4,000 hit from the conservative websites.. all leaving nasty comments.. I replied, that's just demeaning and a failed conservative value. they would talk about individual responsibility and I'd say it's just code word for indifference which is a failed conservative value. but then i injected caring into the conversation. If you care for your self, what about your family, your neighbors, community, etc. the progressive values of caring works.

I then got an email from one of the conservatives that said, "this is a great conservation, usually progressives just name call.. I'd like to continue this conversation in more depth". (this was on youtube which only allows short comments).

try it, Failed Conservative Values it works... because it's the truth.
http://progressivespirit.com/[…]/

it's an absolute waste of time to critique conservatives plans, programs, policies.
they're masters of rationalization and it goes nowhere. go for the jugular.. Failed Conservative Values, Failed Conservative Values, Failed Conservative Values. we need to drive it into the American publics heart, guts and soul.. conservative values have failed.


Edwin Rutsch
What Are Progressive Values? Documentary Project
http://ProgressiveSpirit.com
and Study Group
http://www.dfalink.com/group.php?id=2285

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I will definitely try out your mantra "Failed Conservative Values"! It's so true that debating the finer points of policy is a path to nowhere with these guys, because they fundamentally reject any sense of intellectual honesty (at least in my experience). I have a question though....conservatives have spent the last 3 decades making the word liberal a synonym for evil.....should we respond in kind? Should we make the word "conservative" into a dirty word, or do you think that's taking things to far?

look at the state of the country... 70% dissaproval ratings of the conservative direction we're going in. it's a dishonesty on the progressive side not to point out how conservative values have failed. just do it without demeaning, putdowns, etc.


-------------------------------
(from a post I did on DFA
http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/24878

 I've never used the word evil.. I don't even believe in evil.. that is a conservative word that they have used very effectively to scare people and gain power. The use of fear as a power and control tactic is again one of the failed conservative values that needs to be stood up to and spoken about.

 I do not mean to demonize conservatives, even though it is again one of their failed tactics.  I do however feel most deeply, that the values they hold need to be criticized in the most direct way possible. If I am wrong about the critique I would be glad to be corrected. Conservatives have held up their values as the foundation of all that they do;  lying to create wars, indifference to suffering, authoritarianism, culture of corruption, self-righteousness. Why is it that  no one will question these values? What are they afraid of?

Progressives need to develop an honestly harsh critique of conservative values without demonization. It's time to start questioning the essence of failed conservative values.

-------------------------------

but I love the term and image of a mantra.
yes.. let's make it a mantra. ;-)
until it is burned deep into the American consciousness.

the beauty of it is you put it out there and the frame can be developed on the fly. for every reply conservatives have, their reply generally becomes another manifestation of the failed conservative values. Even when they are fighting against it, they are reinforcing the notion.

The whole failed conservative values critique wouldn't work if it wasn't so painfully true. I don't see it as a dirty word so much as just a simple and obvious truth. someone just needs to state the obvious.. the media seems incapable of it.. they will not question religion or values (except in the most extreme cases).

please write up your thoughts and experience with it, I'd like to put together a book and a video entitled; Failed Conservative Values.

edwin

When you look out the window of your home, what do you see? Poverty? War? Crime? When you walk to lunch from your office, what do you see? Poverty? War? Crime? Most people who call themselves Conservatives see trees, children, nice homes, nice cars, and other people who look satisfied and happy. Yelling that their values are wrong just causes them to wonder what you're talking about. They think that their values have got them all the things they're seeing. If you're unhappy, they think, it must be YOU who has the problem - it must be YOUR values that are lacking.

That is the fallacy of the casting blame approach. The "things can be even better" mantra would be much more effective. Don't remind Conservatives of how bad the Iraq Occupation is - commiserate with them and say we should get out. Don't tell Conservatives that undocumented workers have rights too - comment on how hardworking they are and how they've proven their worth. Don't be shrill and ask for apologizes or demand Conservatives take blame for whatever irks you - shrug your shoulders and say, "that didn't work, let's try it my way for a while and see what happens?"

Conservatives have controlled the national spirit for past 30 years because of your approach. Are you ready for another 30 years? Patronizing conservatives hasn't worked yet, why do you think it's suddenly going to work? Try telling them the truth, which is conservative authoritarianism, greed, selfishness, secrecy, dogmatism, self-righteousness, indifference, etc. are not good values to build a society on. There's plenty of evidence now to support that, 70% of Americans think America is going in the wrong direction, a messed up economy, social problems getting worse not better, etc. etc. etc.

I've tried out a critique of conservative values with conservatives and it works. The Conservative movement promised a wonderful world if just everyone would follow them.. Things are falling apart and many are questioning their values as well. Progressives need to help that along and show the alternative values. Sure, conservatives will try to defend their failed values, but we just need to keep at it. Keep questioning and pointing our the failed values. Sure they will use the failed conservative value of irresponsibility to say everything is ok. Sure they will give the people who caused the failures medals of honor. Sure they will use the failed conservative value of scapegoatism to deflect personal responsibility for their failure. Sure they will hold tight to their dogmatism. But those tactics are just more examples of Failed Conservative Values.

With Iraq, for example, don't patronize them with commiseration, articulate the truth of the failed conservative values that created the mess and articulate values that will work to build be better society:. caring, empathy, community, equality, justice, to name but a few..

I've been reading your posts, Edwin, and you appear thoughtful and open for debate:

Life IS good - even with everything you've said (and rightfully so), life for most Americans is peachy keane. People don't want to risk this for something else. That's why Conservative scare tactics work - they claim that someone is trying to "take away" what we have. A negative argument like you're presenting is intellectually honest but it conflicts with people's personal experience, and more importantly, it is not a message of hope & optimism.

I'm probably making an argument for a two-pronged, good-cop/bad-cop approach to defeating the Republicans in the Fall. Some people react to hyperbole, while others respond to cajoling.

There is resistance to change, but there's also a lot of anxiety in the society now. Conservatives might put on a good confident face, but there's plenty of anxiety under that mask.

Good cop, bad cop,, sort of..
I see Failed Conservative Values discussion as the way to open a REAL discussion on values. It will get the conservatives attention and force them into a true examination and discussion of values. It creates the opening to talk about values and the alternative progressive values. Before entering the discussion, progressives need to be well grounded in articulating their progressive values.
http://progressivespirit.com

Martin, my question for you is,
Do you personally feel conservative values have failed?
 

> Do you personally feel conservative values have failed?

Exemplified by what? The beautiful place I live? Nope - love that. The fabulous stuff I own? Nope - great stuff. My friendly neighbors & co-workers? Nope - they're cool. The restaurants & grocery stores? The repair shop? Blue jeans? Church? High School baseball? What?

There are miles and miles of suburbs/exburbs/rural ("Applebee's America") filled full of people who look around them and wonder what you're talking about. Are they all Republicans? Are they all Conservatives?

People may think Bush is a failed President but they don't think America is failed or even failing country. If you tell them that - you'll drive them away from your message... Which is, "we can do even better."

You didn't answer the question.
Do you personally feel Conservative Values Failed?
[ ] no
[ ] yes

Conservative values have not "failed" - in fact, recent history says they "won." That's why we're pitching progressive values so hard because, in the baseball game of politics, we've lost 5 of the last 7 World Series, and if you don't think Bill Clinton had progressive values, then we've lost them all lately.

People on this forum complain when I try to make issues black & white, but then those same people try to draw a B&W distinction between Progressives & Conservatives. Issues are easy to define - people are not.

they give food for thought..

You could certainly say Conservative Values have won in the sense that they have captured power over the last 30 years. If they lose the Whitehouse and Congress in the next election, then by your definition Conservative Values will have failed. yep.. set the frame of Failed Conservative Values now, and if they lose the election, that will certainly reinforce it.

There's other forms of present values failures.
- 70% disapproval ratings, (30% are happy like you explain with their blue jeans, etc.)
- growing authoritarianism at the expense of democracy
- growing indifference and greed at the expense of care and empathy and community
- hardening dogmatism versus open-mindedness
- deception and breach of trust by creating wars versus integrity
- increased secrecy at the expense of openness and transparency
- economic irresponsibility versus responsibility
- feel free to add some more failures that are on the minds of the 70% disapproval ratings.

It things are not black and white, please do articulate the gray shades of the Failures of Conservative Values.

That is a great list of failures you put together. Thanks!

Let me ask my neighbor if s/he thinks their life is a failure...

That's 70% that think things could get better - don't confuse the two concepts.

let me know what they say when you ask your neigbor(s) if Conservative Values have failed. sounds quite interesting.


Of course, things could be better because Conservative Values have failed. hopefully out of the ashes of failed conservative values will rise traditional progressive values. Hope, caring, empathy, community, justice, equality.

The "30 years of failure" has a ring to it. I like this better. It's because this implies that it's not just the George Bush presidency that led us to this point in our nation's history, but 30 years of conservative values.

So let's turn it around on them. They say they were duped into believing George Bush was a real conservative. Let's say they were duped for 30 years into believing conservatism works. I mean, just look at the results. The proof is in the pudding.

I've been thinking that failed conservative values, since the time of Ronald Regan, were kept in check by liberal progressive values. It's only since 9/11 that they were allowed to run free and unchecked. And now we can see the full extent of their failure.

I've been developing a Failed Conservative Values frame.
see;
http://progressivespirit.com/[…]/

I've come across the very point your making.. There's an attitude among progressives of wanting to be the nice guys. They may think conservatives are authoritarian, secretive, dogmatic, greedy, etc, etc. but they don't want to antagonize them.. A big mistake.

I think attacking conservative values directly and forcefully is the way to go and am starting to launch a Failed Conservative Values campaign to do it. Would love any feedback on the project.

Best

Edwin Rutsch
What Are Progressive Values? Documentary Project
http://ProgressiveSpirit.com
and Study Group
http://www.dfalink.com/group.php?id=2285

I checked out your website, edwin, and clearly much thought and work went into it--very impressive. I did not, however, find a lot of what I could call "attack" material there. For an example of a real attack excange, you need go no further than the beginning of this thread. After reading over your website, I would have to say that you use "attack" the way I would use "confront," or perhaps "challenge". A real attack, imo, is based on an adversarial model, tends to personalize issues, and includes overt or covert messages that the attacker is superior in some respect. In a real attack, there are many unspoken messages, such as "if you don't agree with me, there's something wrong with you," or, "pay attention, stupid, and you might learn something." Often these messages are more evident to the atackee than to the attacker, but they're felt at the emotional level and have powerful consequences.

Re-examine your own encounters with people. Do you really believe antagonizing someone is likely to make them listen to you more carefully, respect your (different) viewpoint, or make it more likely they'll come around to your way of thinking? That certainly isn't my experience. Neither has it been my experience that choosing not to fight/attack/get a bigger hammer is always the result of weakness, fear, or timidity. Rather, weakness and fear can become the basis for attack. This becomes something like the Pit Yorkie Syndrome--"If I can just look threatening enough, maybe they'll go away and leave me alone."
 
My views on communication are tied to my years working in health care, so they may diverge from the norm. However, I'm convinced that a genuine attack:
l) invites anger and defensiveness
2) causes communication to break down.
3) decreases the liklihood shared ground will be located, or core ideas will be revised

I also believe that several things may merge to increase the effectiveness of any communication, but especially when progressives talk to conservatives:

1) the absence of defensiveness and strong negative emotions
2) a clear description of the problem that exists with the conservative viewpoint
3) a clear description of how the progressive viewpoint is better.

Something like a "three-legged stool" principle operates here: remove any one of those conditions, and communication quickly becomes less stable.


 

"I checked out your website, edwin, and clearly much thought and work went into it--very impressive. I did not, however, find a lot of what I could call attack material there. For an example of a real attack excange, you need go no further than the beginning of this thread. After reading over your website, I would have to say that you use attack the way I would use confront, or perhaps challenge. A real attack, imo, is based on an adversarial model, tends to personalize issues, and includes overt or covert messages that the attacker is superior in some respect. In a real attack, there are many unspoken messages, such as 'if you don't agree with me, there's something wrong with you,' or, pay attention, stupid, and you might learn something. Often these messages are more evident to the atackee than to the attacker, but they're felt at the emotional level and have powerful consequences."

Yes, well said. This is exactly what I think. I also agree with the rest of what you said.

I consider an attack to be taking down to someone, belittling them. Just as if you were physically attacking someone. The only difference is you are trying to achieve this using words.

Just look at how phostur responded. He was making the case that I didn't really read what he said and that I needed to reread it because I'm somehow clueless. He's obviously saying he is the wiser one. He also turned me into an adversary.

I can always tell when I'm being attacked because I can feel it. It's aggressive and I don't like it one bit. That's why I protested. As you can see, I have no qualms standing my ground and defending myself, but I will not initiate an attack.

By the way, I always try to visualize what is happening in writing as if it were acted out physically. I wish more people did this, because then they would realize what is and is not appropriate. If you can't see yourself saying what you are saying in person, then maybe you should consider rewording what you are trying to say. The problem is too many people think it's "just words," but fail to see there are "actions" behind them. And that's what I react to.

interesting definitions.. My goal in saying Failed Conservative Values is not to demean conservatives (which would be to use a Failed Conservative Value) but to make them defend their values. They will try to bring the discussion to policies, but the trick is to keep bringing it back to the values. Then give them the alternative progressive values, caring, empathy, community, equality, justice, etc. Keep the discussion at the values level. but by starting the discussion on Failed Conservative Values, it keeps them on the defensive and having to explain their values. when they use their typical dirty tricks,, I try to point that out and call it an example of more failed conservative values.

it means you need a good grasp of progressive values before you go into the discussion so you can bring them up as an alternative. It's why I've started by doing posts of progressive values. http://progressivespirit.com/[…]/ProgressiveValuesStories.htm

the Failed Conservative Values Stories are coming soon.

so with your definition I would be questioning, critiquing, challenging, confronting... however, when I have told conservatives their values have failed, they've taken it as an attack, at least initially. Maybe the thing to remember is, we all have failed conservaitve values within ourselves to one degree or another.

what do you think about Failed Conservative Values as a frame to develop?

"so with your definition I would be questioning, critiquing, challenging, confronting... however, when I have told conservatives their values have failed, they've taken it as an attack, at least initially. Maybe the thing to remember is, we all have failed conservaitve values within ourselves to one degree or another."

It sounds like you bought into their frame that you attacked them. I see no grounds to accuse you of attacking. You are entitled to your opinions, just like they are themselves. You don't have to agree with them and they don't have to agree with you. You should say they need to respect your beliefs if you are to respect theirs.

But it doesn't surprise me that those conservatives you talked to would view having disagreements as an attack. Conservatives are generally not as accepting of diversity. They expect everyone to submit to the One True Religion (conservatism). So anything that challenges conservatism is deemed to be an attack. Sounds very black and white to me. Which is precisely the reason why I don't want to see progressives becoming like this. The more we emulate them, the more we become like them.

That's my two cents.

edwin,

Repetition certainly is a key element--it's been an essential part of Bush/Cheny/Rove machine forever. Witness "cut and run," "They hate American and want to harm us," and most notably "War on Terror." They do it because it works. However, it doesn't work because it's a conservative tactic, but because it is tied to fundamental learning processes. It's not the same as applying conservative spin to a specific issue, and I don't feel I'm somehow crossing a line and "becoming one of them" if I do it.

I also see an advantage in the notion of putting conservatives in the position of having to explain/defend their points, and on keeping the focus on values.

I will use your "failed conservative values frame," when relevant, in my Wash Post posts (my other, less progressive, place to ventilate political feelings.)

Moriji
I'm intrigued with the idea of asking someone to visualize and report the behavior implied in written or spoken comments. This is definitely worth some thought.

My thanks for some useful ideas.

Morijii, the reason I took you to task is not because I felt "superior", it's because I genuinely felt like you were not responding to the substance of what I was saying. We're obviously miscommunicating, but the fact that you took what wrote to "attacking" instead of correctly interpreting it as legitimate criticism speaks volumes. You somehow interpreted my point to mean that we need to force our ideas on people, and I never said anything of the kind. All I was saying was, let's not condescend and pretend (like many liberals do) that the other side has a legitimate point of view on a serious issue, like torture for instance. Then you took it further, and stated that by insinuating that I somehow a narcissist because I demanded that everyone should think like I do...how you came to any of these conclusions is beyond me, but I don't take it personally. I just simply pointed out that you must not have read very carefully what I wrote. I would suggest that if you allow for legitimate criticism, and not get so sensitive and automatically assume that I'm attacking you personally. I'm imploring you and other progressives to get aggressive, using the facts, using intellectual honesty, but damn right, taking an adversarial tone with some of these conservatives. That's not narcissism, that's fighting for what you believe.

"Then you took it further, and stated that by insinuating that I somehow a narcissist because I demanded that everyone should think like I do...how you came to any of these conclusions is beyond me, but I don't take it personally. I just simply pointed out that you must not have read very carefully what I wrote. I would suggest that if you allow for legitimate criticism, and not get so sensitive and automatically assume that I'm attacking you personally. I'm imploring you and other progressives to get aggressive, using the facts, using intellectual honesty, but damn right, taking an adversarial tone with some of these conservatives. That's not narcissism, that's fighting for what you believe."

No, no, I was talking about how forcing ideas on people is narciccistic. I never said you are. It sounds like you took what I said as an attack and it isn't. It's just an opinion of mine.

Ironically, it does sound you took it personally. I took it personally and still do. You were after all talking to me. I still think accusing someone of not having read something carefully enough if they don't agree with you is an attack. You are not allowing me to have a differing opinion. It's either 1) I agree with you, or 2) I didn't understand what you said correctly. It's black and white thinking.

Also to accuse me of being so sensitive is again an attack. How dare you talk down to me like this. Then you say you are "imploring me?"

It goes both ways. Don't expect me to roll over for you and take it while I am supposed to shut up and listen (i.e. accept) what you have to say.

Just so you know where I'm coming from... I've been in discussions with people who wouldn't allow me to disagree. They would start getting angry, forcing me down a certain line of reasoning, persist that I agree with them, not wanting to end the argument, etc. Needless to say, none of these people are my friends anymore. I expect mutual respect and people who don't allow this in others have no place in my life. And yes, I have conservative friends.

To clarify, none of this is directed at you. It's about my experiences and what I think about such situations and how I handle it. I didn't even view your original question as being embodied by you.

I just wished you had said initially that you viewed my forcing people/narcissism comment to be an attack. It would have at least made me understand where you are coming from. From your perspective, you were attacking "back" for my attack. I don't view what I did as an attack, but it at least now makes sense why you acted the way you did. To me, it looked like all I said was an opinion and I got slammed for it.

So just to conclude: my opinion is and still remains that people (not you) who force others to agree with them are narccicistic. And I will not allow such people to have their way with me. Period.

That was my point. If you feel this has nothing to do with your initial question, okay. It's just something I was reminded of during this whole thing and I wanted to bring this up because I've encountered on numerous occassions with people who hold to differing opinions.

now use that emotion and turn it on conservative ideologues who are the ones who need an articulate progressive with passion to put them in their place!

any thoughts about that?

I see conservatives are starting to find scapegoats. (just saw a post on one of my videos

They're starting to place blame on neocons... So where's the failure here? it's the failed conservative value of irresponsibility. We're not talking about empty ideals of responsibility, ideals are uninteresting. let's look at the actual values.

When conservative officials fail in creating a messed up war in Iraq, conservatives give each other a medals. They are celebrating their irresponsibility.

I've heard some are saying they weren't conservative enough, or it's the fault of a small group (the neocons).. Irresponsibility even goes deeper, in that the conservatives at the top have no oversight. Conservatives actually celebrate their failed conservative value of irresponsibility.

Here's the youtube post I'm referring to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-LCtg3xClM
------------------
I consider myself conservative, and this man is describing neo-conservatism to a large degree. Freedom can only be achieved on an individual level, where the individual maintains responsibility for himself. On a social level there will never be freedom or equality, only rhetoric containing the words "freedom" and "equality". Injection of collectives by "conservatives" or "progressives" leads to nothing but enslavement. WE are not free because the govt says WE are. I am free because I say I am.
-------------------------

Okay, I see you engaging that guy on youtube whose quote you provided here.

First, remember conservatives only believe they are accountable to their superiors. Accountability only goes upward; it's completely hierarchical. So I don't think using the accountabilty frame will work. (By the way, I've posted about this over a year ago here: ttp://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/05/14/thinking-points-discussion-of-chapter-6-part-2-more-about-american-values/weblogentry_view#1179352756)

And like you pointed out correctly, conservatives are looking for a scapegoat. They have to, because in their world view the problem is always external. There wasn't a real strict father in place to bring about order, in this case the neocons were in charge, which is why things went wrong (in their view).

I would point out that the problem is internal, because it was conservatives themselves who voted for and went along with the whole program. They didn't complain about neoconservatism right after 9/11. Now why is that?

Anyway, I think you are generally right in trying to force them to take some accountability for it, but you gotta remember that their concept of accountability is totally different than ours. So good luck!

thanks for the analysis..
how would you say conservatve values have failed?

Well, I hear conservatives increasingly talk about how the modern conservative movement that William F. Buckley, Jr. started has run its course and that it's time for conservatism to figure out where it goes from here. Sounds like good advice to me.

The notion of radical invidualism, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" ethos, has failed millions of hardworking Americans who want to succeed but live within a system that eats up their labor and spits them out without adequately compensating them. The notion of accountability.....there is none. The notion that the government is ALWAYS the problem.....they prove their point every time they get elected. They don't believe in governing, and it shows from Katrina to Iraq. When you don't believe in good governance, it's easier to put cronies in place ala Brownie or Alphonse Jackson, etc. On foreign policy, it used to be that conservatives were the realists, now they are the utopians, resurrecting ideas from Vietnam about falling dominoes and spreading "freedom". Conservatives value loyalty, but they confuse loyalty to party and President, and forget about loyalty to the country and the world. Gosh, there's so many angles to it, but your right, that's where to strike them.

that's a good start of noting down failed conservative values.

I think we need a systematic approach to analyzing each of the failed values and we need a way to create an index/encyclopedia of them. We need a structured and growing Wikipedia styled encyclopedia and index of failed conservative values. Systematically building the arguments and documenting the stories that express failed conservative values.

Here's just some notes I started playing with on your insights..


INDIVIDUALISM - Failure of Conservative Individualism Values
---------------------------------------------------------
The notion of radical individualism, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" ethos, has failed millions of hardworking Americans who want to succeed but live within a system that eats up their labor and spits them out without adequately compensating them.

- What's the failed value here?
        a smokescreen for greed, selfishness. indifference,
        a way to justify greed.

- Connect it to a feeling in the body, heart, guts, soul?
    what does failed Conservative Individualism feel like as an experience?

- What is the contrasting Progressive Value?

- Ideas: What if you don't have bootstraps.
    Children with no shoes, living in the slums, contrasted to
    conservatives using the term, " pull yourself up by the bootstraps."


ACCOUNTABILITY - Failure of Conservative Accountability Values
--------------------------------------------------------------
The notion of accountability.....there is none. The notion that the government is ALWAYS the problem.....they prove their point every time they get elected. They don't believe in governing, and it shows from Katrina to Iraq. When you don't believe in good governance, it's easier to put cronies in place ala Brownie or Alphonse Jackson, etc.

- What's the failed value here?
        dogmatism.

- Connect it to a feeling in the body, heart, guts, soul?
        What does failed Conservative Accountability feel like as an experience?

- What is the contrasting Progressive Value?


FREEDOM - Failure of Conservative Freedom Values
---------------------------------------------------
On foreign policy, it used to be that conservatives were the realists, now they are the utopians, resurrecting ideas from Vietnam about falling dominoes and spreading "freedom".

- What's the failed value here?

- Connect it to a feeling in the body, heart, guts, soul?
    What does failed Conservative Freedom feel like as an experience?

- What is the contrasting Progressive Value?


LOYALTY - Failure of Conservative Loyalty Values
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conservatives value loyalty, but they confuse loyalty to party and President, and forget about loyalty to the country and the world. Gosh, there's so many angles to it, but your right, that's where to strike them.

- What's the failed value here?

- Connect it to a feeling in the body, heart, guts, soul?
        What does failed Conservative Loyalty feel like as an experience?

- What is the contrasting Progressive Value?

The fact that now neo-cons or present or former conservative leaders are seen as failures is a huge failure of the conservative value of strict father. The concept of strict father is based on the other people in the picture submitting to that father figure. That happened right after 9/11, people dutifully shopped and bought duct tape and wore lapel pins. They supported the troops with millions of magnetic ribbons and shipments of candy and toiletries. The strict father figured assured us that what happened in their secret deliberations was all for the best of the country.

Now the truth is coming out about what has been going on and it is apparent that this authoritarian system abused the trust and obedience of its flock. Actually it made a mint off its flock (and future flocks!) and left many dead people (with promises of future dead people!) in its wake.

Give up your power to an authority figure and you commit to possibly walking right off a cliff.

yep. Failure of Conservative Value of Authoritarianism

now we need to flesh it out and expand on it and keep repeating it.

Failure of Conservative Value of Authoritarianism
Failure of Conservative Value of Authoritarianism
Failure of Conservative Value of Authoritarianism
Failure of Conservative Value of Authoritarianism
Failure Conservative Values

I agree with the point being made, I'm just not sure trying to tie authoritarianism to conservative values is going to work on conservatives. I think to them, they view government making you pay taxes and passing all these regulations as authoritarian. To them, going along with the president in a time of war is patriotism and they did everything they were supposed to do. They just think they were duped into believing someone was a conservative when he really wasn't. Because if he were truly a conservative, then everything would have turned out okay (obviously). Their thinking is so screwed up that it is almost impossible to get them to see they are complicit in what happened. It won't be easy.

just keep at it. keep building the frame. drop by drop.. eventually you get the Grand Canyon. doesn't happen overnight.

Criticizing conservative values is probably more effective if it's part of a progressive frame, when the failure of conservative values is implicit in an argument FOR progressive values.

Let's say I'm running for president and I emphasize the transparency of my presidential campaign and that openness will be a cornerstone of my government. That makes people focus on transparency when they look at my opponent and in this context it's natural to bring up problems associated with secrecy and problems with not being able to hold someone accountable, two flip sides of transparency and openness.

That is a way to criticize authority and control, two conservative values, without bringing them up, without saying "don't think of authority and control". If I have understood frames correctly this is very important, to emphasize the weaknesses of the conservative agenda without evoking the conservative values.

One of the best arguments I've seen for openness was on the Obama site. I don't have the url anymore. (it was tied in with the discussion of Hilary opening her correspondences in the Clinton library). It critiqued secrecy as a failure (with Bush), stated the need and importance for openness and transparency, connected it with the issue, and layed out 6 or so policy steps for creating more transparency.. It was an eye opening argument for me, it totally integrated, values, positive progressive value of openness, negative conservative value of secrecy, connected it with progressive philosophy, connected to issues and policy.. a beautiful, fully integrated argument. I thought, progressives need to create fully integrated arguments like this for all the values and issues.