I came across a summary of what neuroscience has found about the difference between conservative brains and liberal brains. It notes
On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity.
It also provides a link to a study in which two hypothetical candidates would appeal to liberals or conservatives. You can access that through a institutional account.
I'm not really typical (then again, who is?) but I'm quite politically liberal, yet I deeply want security and predictability. Not authority so much.
I'm going to read that article later (when I'm not at work) for sure! Thanks for the link.
What does "conservative" mean on its own? To me, it's a relative term, and means different things if you're talking about, say, social policy, or philosophy/theology, or economics.
Perhaps more importantly, it depends on your frame of reference. Here in the US, "conservative" will be defined very differently than in some other parts of the world & in other moments in world history.
Individualism is tied up with conservatism in the US, although as individuals, IME liberals are more likely to do their own thing and conservatives are more likely to conform to their social group - although maybe that's more to do with authoritarianism/authority than with individualism.
Others have mentioned "human nature." I personally find that phrase to be a sort of useful fiction - an abbreviation for "how humans do," if you will. To say humans are social animals, for example, isn't technically a claim that there is some kind of metaphysical "human nature," but it does describe something that generally is true about humans - though there are exceptions (perhaps that prove the rule?). And so one might say that humans are, "by nature," social animals.
At any rate, that's how I took the OP in two ways:
(1) "Human nature" as generalizations we can make about humans based on observation; and
(2) The part about wanting what's best for the group - I read that as the OP saying individuals would do what's good for the group rather than stick to any ideology. If it's good for the group to radically change, that would be "liberal," but it would be concern for the good of the group. IOW, I didn't read it as claiming that conservatism = individualism. I could be wrong. As my sig line on the old Ship used to say, "I reserve the right to change my mind."
The Right want people to vote for privatised medicine even though most voters will get poorer healthcare. The Left want universal healthcare because of the belief that all voters should be able to access healthcare.
One of the features of healthcare that makes it rather different from most other things that people need is that it's difficult to make an informed consumer choice. In the US, there is a market of sorts in heathcare, but people aren't the customers. The insurance companies are the customers and the medical providers are the vendors. People are, depending on your point of view, either the product, or the raw materials.
How could that be, @Dafyd when the shift of power/locus didn't move towards the east of the Roman Empire until Constantine and his successors?
I thought it was Constantine who shifted things to the city that bore his name.
Besides, he was the first Christian emporer so who were these emporers in Constantinople before Constantine?
There was certainly a tussle and power struggle going on between the Western and Eastern parts of the Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was an attempt to revive the Empire in the West which had effectively collapsed by 476 AD.
So Charlemagne and his successors were simply mirroring what the Byzantines were up to. You pays your money and you makes your choice. The Orthodox claim that the Papacy gradually became more overweening from the time of Charlemagne onwards. Catholics would see the Papacy as asserting its rights over the other Patriarchates. That's simplifying things.
The Great Schism when it came had been brewing a long time and was as much - if not more - about power and empire-building as it was about doctrinal divergence.
Truth be told, whilst differences were undoubtedly there, the substantial divergences only really developed from the 13th century onwards.
What strikes me is the conservatism of at least a strand of radical thought, expressed by those like John Ball; "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" English radicals referred to the "Norman Yoke"; Blake's socialist vision in "Jerusalem" invokes the Glastonbury legend; the Land Song, originating in the 1880s, was raised by Harold Wilson in the general election of 1964: "The Land! the Land!' twas God who gave the Land! The Land! the Land! the ground on which we stand! Why should we be beggars, with the ballot in our hand?"God gave the Land to the People!" Similarly, the Grand Old Cause of the Commonwealth is a paradise to be regained.
,
Dost thou mean that harking back to a mythical state of equality in the Upper Paleolithic is conservative, traditional? I like it. Although anthropological studies of modern Upper Paleolithics shows a normal distribution of possible societies. Some of it extremely unpleasant. As with Neolithics on up.
As a Geoist, inequality starts with land, beyond physicality, something the ancient Jews remarkably tried to address. It's just one small step from that 'conservative' position to declare that land is its own, is free, can never be owned, (apart from ones allotment. 1/16th of an acre, of which there are sixty million in the UK, for a family or group of four). All other land use (95% in the densely populated UK now) must be rented. Far too simplistic I'm sure...
Comments
I'm not really typical (then again, who is?) but I'm quite politically liberal, yet I deeply want security and predictability. Not authority so much.
I'm going to read that article later (when I'm not at work) for sure! Thanks for the link.
What does "conservative" mean on its own? To me, it's a relative term, and means different things if you're talking about, say, social policy, or philosophy/theology, or economics.
Perhaps more importantly, it depends on your frame of reference. Here in the US, "conservative" will be defined very differently than in some other parts of the world & in other moments in world history.
Individualism is tied up with conservatism in the US, although as individuals, IME liberals are more likely to do their own thing and conservatives are more likely to conform to their social group - although maybe that's more to do with authoritarianism/authority than with individualism.
Others have mentioned "human nature." I personally find that phrase to be a sort of useful fiction - an abbreviation for "how humans do," if you will. To say humans are social animals, for example, isn't technically a claim that there is some kind of metaphysical "human nature," but it does describe something that generally is true about humans - though there are exceptions (perhaps that prove the rule?). And so one might say that humans are, "by nature," social animals.
At any rate, that's how I took the OP in two ways:
(1) "Human nature" as generalizations we can make about humans based on observation; and
(2) The part about wanting what's best for the group - I read that as the OP saying individuals would do what's good for the group rather than stick to any ideology. If it's good for the group to radically change, that would be "liberal," but it would be concern for the good of the group. IOW, I didn't read it as claiming that conservatism = individualism. I could be wrong. As my sig line on the old Ship used to say, "I reserve the right to change my mind."
One of the features of healthcare that makes it rather different from most other things that people need is that it's difficult to make an informed consumer choice. In the US, there is a market of sorts in heathcare, but people aren't the customers. The insurance companies are the customers and the medical providers are the vendors. People are, depending on your point of view, either the product, or the raw materials.
I thought it was Constantine who shifted things to the city that bore his name.
Besides, he was the first Christian emporer so who were these emporers in Constantinople before Constantine?
There was certainly a tussle and power struggle going on between the Western and Eastern parts of the Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was an attempt to revive the Empire in the West which had effectively collapsed by 476 AD.
So Charlemagne and his successors were simply mirroring what the Byzantines were up to. You pays your money and you makes your choice. The Orthodox claim that the Papacy gradually became more overweening from the time of Charlemagne onwards. Catholics would see the Papacy as asserting its rights over the other Patriarchates. That's simplifying things.
The Great Schism when it came had been brewing a long time and was as much - if not more - about power and empire-building as it was about doctrinal divergence.
Truth be told, whilst differences were undoubtedly there, the substantial divergences only really developed from the 13th century onwards.
Dost thou mean that harking back to a mythical state of equality in the Upper Paleolithic is conservative, traditional? I like it. Although anthropological studies of modern Upper Paleolithics shows a normal distribution of possible societies. Some of it extremely unpleasant. As with Neolithics on up.
As a Geoist, inequality starts with land, beyond physicality, something the ancient Jews remarkably tried to address. It's just one small step from that 'conservative' position to declare that land is its own, is free, can never be owned, (apart from ones allotment. 1/16th of an acre, of which there are sixty million in the UK, for a family or group of four). All other land use (95% in the densely populated UK now) must be rented. Far too simplistic I'm sure...