Progressives and Conservatives - An Analogy

Two cavemen are sleeping one night in two different locations, when they are both woken by the howl of wolves. They sit upright, listening in the darkness for the rustling of wolves in the brush. They both grab their trusty sticks and strike them on their flints, and wave the firey appendage around them to see the approaching predators. The wolves slowly creep out of the bushes, and our human subjects diverge in their experience.

The first sees the wolf and lunges for his spear. He's seen careless, curious children eaten by wolves upon first sighting them, oblivious to their hostile nature. He knows that wolves are vicious carnivores that eat other animals, including humans, and he's not going to become their prey. So he grabs his spear and as the wolf runs at him he wards it off with his fire, then kills it with a spear to the heart. Another night survived. Another day in the life of the prehistoric human.

The second man has a different idea. He's seen how wolves hunt, how effective they are at rooting out and catching smaller animals. Wouldn't it be great to be able to do that? Well he can't, but this wolf could. If only he could tell it what to do. But this is a vicious predator, a killing machine - why would it ever do what he wants? He can't even talk to it. And normally, he'd grab his spear and skewer it. But...man, it would be so nice to be able to catch rabbits and foxes and other ground dwellers without having to resort to traps or quick reflexes, which he knows he doesn't have. If he could just....wait, wolves love meat right? What if...

And he slowly back toward his dead firepit. The wolf stalks toward him. He reaches behind him and drags out the carcass of the deer he ate last night. He kicks it forwards, towards the wolf. Then he grabs his spear, backs up and waits. The wolf drags the carcass off. The next night, as he finishes his dinner, the wolf comes back. He tosses it the carcass again. It drags it away. Already he can see a pattern, and is planning a way to earn its trust of him. Lure it closer and closer, get it to let him touch it, then somehow use this reward of food to make it get his food first. It'll take some trial and error, might not even get it right with this particular wolf, but he's onto something at least. He'll see how his plan turns out.

Our second man could very well have ended up dinner for a wolf that desired more, or fresher, meat. The first man would then be justified in proclaiming the second an idiot for ever thinking the savage beast that is the wolf could have its will bent to serve a human. Tis not the nature of things, and the second man should have known better. Perhaps our wolf here was tired and took the easy way out when getting its meal. Perhaps it truly is indifferent towards potential prey, killing out of necessity rather than some sick, savage pleasure. Whatever the case, a bond has formed between it and a human. And it will become useful to the human. And in exchange it will always be guaranteed a meal.

Risk aversion, risk taking, calculation, planning, thinking outside the box, survival, learning from experience, playing it safe - your opponent in our discourse here and in the wider political arena is not (usually) one of outright hatred, self-absorbtion or blind idealism. Ultimately it comes down to value judgements and natures, rooted in base and primal survival strategies. If your opponent's way of thinking was truly mostly bad, nature would have selected against that kind of thinking. Perhaps it may in time, on the fringes, but in the majority discourse this is not true. Ultimately we're all here to survive, and beyond that is up to us: some for self-gratification, some for altruism, some for what they think lies beyond their mortal life. But ultimately, most, though not all, are good people. They have different priorities, they approach things in different ways, but they're just trying to make their way through their lives in a way that makes them happy and safe and fulfilled.

 

So in other words, progressives arr more adaptable and superior to conservatives.

Nothing can be further form the truth.

 

Where did I say that?

 

who is the conservative and whose the progressive? the one who trained the wolf to hunt for him, or the one that kills it at first sight?

 

I thought it would be obvious but I guess I'll spell it out.

The one who killed the wolf is the conservative, the one who tamed it is the progressive.

 

so your sort of saying conservatives are stupid easily frightened types who need progressives to invent new things for them?

 

That was your whole analogy.

And, if progressives are so gosh darned adaptable, then why are they so stuck on turning America into a socialist/communist utopia when it has failed everywhere else?

No, what they are good at is lying to the American people and obfuscating what their true motives are.

It is their dishonesty where they are so adaptable at.

otherwise, they would learn that we just don't want those things here in America and go somewhere else.

But OH NO! They must have control, they must have their money, and they must impose their beliefs on to all of us and to hell with things like the constitution, life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Loot and pillage all of America any way they can.

OH JOYS!

 

Or you could day the progressive was an idiot because if that wolf wasn't lazy or wanted fresher meat it would have just eaten him while his guard was down.

 

Basically. Conservatives are reactionaries and are generally alarmed and confused by social change.

 

Liberals are the same way, you know. They just want things to change to what they want them to be, and when they get the change they want to, they will fight tooth and nail to keep it the status quo.

It's human nature to resist change, because not all change is good or for the better.

 

Good story, thoughtful moral.




​

 

Traditionally, that has usually been the synopsis. Conservatives tend to always lean back towards not rocking the boat, keeping tradition, heritage, yada yada. Progressives are the ones who opt for loud cars, short skirts, and insane ideas about porn and microchips in your brain. Neither is inherently good or bad and both can be pretty promising or disastrous.

That said, if you read this story and felt jilted, you're an idiot. Sorry, but you're a little to invested in this partisian politics stuff. No one is completely conservative or progressive. The more wingier Conservatives endorse the Free Market, which is basically economic anarchy. Wingier Progressives tend to sugest promoting more liberty through increased government regulations, restrictions, and oppressions (Obamacare). Most people are more towards the center- willing and able to accept new ideas and change while having a stable center of reference founded on tradition, experience, knowledge, etc.

In essence, no one seems to have caught on that these hunters, while having different ideas, still work together. Two different methods to achieve a common goal- neither of which hurt, abuse, or ostracize the other.

 

Yes, but not based in the dynamics that exist. The reason why is because of labeling and all or nothing thinking. Cognitive distortions.

This is so bad it's twice removed from reality. Conservatives started as republicans 50 years ago, and progressives as democrats

Niether acts alone, the phenomenas of their differences are social not individual actions.

The story can be retold to show how both paradigms contributed to the system we now have which is failing more because of cognitive distortions than anything else!

One group of cavemen has an alpha male that will kill anyone that disagrees that killing wolves immediately is the way to act. Their lives continue in a way with that behavior.

The other group has noticed that the female wolves are more dangerous when they have young. The word goes out to find their closest den. A deer is killed and left by the den by a group working together. Maybe another a week later.
Then the mother wolf shows up one night, she is given a little food so she returns but still must hunt the bulk herself.
At this point a watch is put on the den by cooperating cave people and when the pups emerge, they are fed and lured away for a few to be captured.

They are domesticated and used to hunt their favorite food, deer. When this practice is shared, a breeding program culls the vicious animals that are disloyal and breeds for passivity towards humans or ability to work with them and defend from wolves as watchdogs.

The wolf killing cavemen notice this and realize their errors and befriend the wolf tamers, who have not cultivated the killer instinct as deeply as the wolf killers. They recognize the strength of conviction and independence from the association with the wolf.

They learn that principles are valuable and not to be forgotten so teach that to new generations despite the fact that the domestic wolf warns of the approach making defense easier. This is extended to cooperative wolf hunts by the wolf killers making the region safer for all.

 

In reality this scenario would never happen. The liberal progressive would see the wolves and wonder why they could not be unicorns. Liberals do nothing but make problems worse until someone else comes in to fix things. That is not "training" anyone. They have no idea what they are doing and do not belong in any position where they run things.

 

And the carcass represents welfare?

 

No, that doesnt fit the analogy.

- - - Updated - - -

Clearly in some form it DID, because someone first domesticated wolves. And I'd hardly call a new idea "conservative", it's an oxymoron.

 

Not a bad little story.

Liberals tend to try to look out for the special interest groups, and believe that higher taxes on the rich will help the poor. They strongly believe in individual freedom, but they also believe that the government should be involved in many aspects of everyone's life, regulating it.

Conservatives tend to be believe in traditional religious-based principles, lower taxes, and using our military to fight in all kinds of foreign conflicts, under the guise of looking out for our interests. They believe that leaving the rich alone creates jobs. They do not cater to special interest groups.

Both sides have points that I agree with, but I'm not completely one of the other.

In the U.S. it's hard to argue that both of our two major parties always have our best interests at heart. To them it's about ramming their agenda through, which both sides are guilty of.

 

Nice analogy. Unsurprisingly, it is lost on the idealogues here who are so closed minded that they can't see the value of another point of view. This forum is filled with the wolf hunters who would spear the other caveman for daring to try domestication, and wolf tamers who would sic their wolves on the caveman who doesn't. A perfect microcosm of what is wrong with America. Polarized division, divided and conquered.

 

Maybe it did but a liberal progressive would not be able to do it. One may have tried to do it in the past but ended up as wolf poop.

 

Oops, cognitive distortions invalidated your position.

Returning to the original meanings, republicans stand for the principles of the republic, but those are to be manifested through democratic processes.

Because of manipulation of the majority by corporate media, democratic processes fail more and more often to meet the principles.

Were the 40 most wealthy Americans that died on the Titanic April 15, 1912, republicans or democrats? One year before 2/3 of the states applied for an Article V convention and congress failed to call a convention. Were they mostly republicans or democrats?

In 1913 the federal reserve act was created, was it democrats or republicans pushing it?

 

hahaha

Throw a squeaky toy in the ring and see who comes out on top!

 

Originally Posted by Spiritus Libertatis View Post

Your right, I think both sides are good people as a whole, but they see things different as to make life better. Bill Clinton when President saw that most Blacks and poor were kept out of the home buying market. He wanted to do something to help. So he ordered banks to make lending easier for them. Even threatened them if they didn't. So banks loosened their lending standards and came out with several different mortgages to help the poor qualify. Allowed them to use food stamps and welfare money as part of the family finances. But what happened is things came up, interest rates rose, cars broke down, families got sick, balloon payment came do and millions lost their home.

Now Bush wanted to help the poor too. He wanted to help those that could qualify for a home, but didn't have the down payment for one, he would give them the down payment. He cautioned the poor to be weary of unscrupulous lenders. But even many of those who qualified for a home and got one, found themselves in pretty much the same condition as those who bought under Clinton. Soon, millions of others were losing their homes and banks were trying to peddle off their bad loans on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack. Banks also bundled them up and sold them to other banks and lending institutions. But soon the house of cards came tumbling down and took the economy with it. Would the people and the country have been better off in not having government meddling in people's affairs?

 

Conservatives usually bond with dogs while progressives have kitty cats.

A progressive would have thrown the wolf a head of lettuce because the progressive caveman wasn't a hunter but was a vegan. So there would have been no deer carcass to give to the wolf.

I don't even think a progressive caveman would even own a spear, during the prehistoric era, spears were the assault weapons during the time.

 

I don't think the prevailing theory is that dogs are descended from wolves. What are the wolves in your example supposed to be? Black people?

 

I fail to see why not. It is not the body of an animal that the wolf killed on its own for food, but rather is given in order to tame the wolf. This is the exact same reason for the welfare state. Tame the starving masses by giving them free stuff and they will vote for you - and this is exactly what happens.

What part do you believe the carcass holds in this analogy of taming the dangerous beasts in order that they work for you, instead of against you?