Is the divide between Conservatism and Liberalism in American society too large to be reconciled?

Question

Serious answers only please.

Do you think the dramatic difference of opinion between conservatives/freligious fundamentalists and liberals/secularists can be reconciled?

People seem more polarized than ever and it seems it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get them to unilaterally support any ideal or political principle.

Moreover, is it necessary to reconcile the opinions of the two groups in order to have a functioning society, or is such conflict a necessary and unavoidable part of any society?

Answer 1

No, there's a significant amount of disagreement within the Conservative and Liberal branches of the political spectrum, so much so that various components begin to resemble their counterparts, and this will continue as the political landscape develops. Consider the unification of diverse elements that gave rise to the Democratic-Republican party in the antebellum period and the ensuing split that brought rise to the two parties we know today (as well as the demise of the Whig party).

Dramatic differences of opinion can only be reconciled when the purpose of a campaign is to galvanize opinion onto discrete and minimal issues of significant importance.

People have always been polarized. Ours is the most informed (some would say excessively so) society ever, and so we seem more polarized because the differences are far more obvious. We've not gotten to the point of violence, at least not in any fashion beyond a couple of drunk idiots on a Thursday night.

Conflict is necessary and essential to any society. If you follow Hegel, you know that society only advances as a compromise from adversity. However, the slimmer the compromise, the more violent the results. This can either stem from vast disparity of opinion (ie, KKK vs Black Panthers in the 2012 elections) or a very small center.

Answer 2

I feel that the two groups will remain polarized on the extreme fringe. However, I find more often than not, the average everyday person is tiring of the extreme liberalism invading the nation. Secularists are losing, although it isn't always reported in the mainstream media.
Moderates will eventually rule the country because extremists on either side of the spectrum will eventually self-destruct.
Conflict is completely necessary in any society because it is conflict that brings about change. Without conflict over civil rights or voting age, change would have never happened and the country would not have progressed.

Answer 3

I'm a religious liberal; where does that leave me in the divide? (Although I am indeed a secularist.)

But I think that the present polarization is extreme. There is a middle ground shared by most Americans, and most Americans would be more than glad to embrace a political figure from either side who seemed moderate and sane. Where does this polarization come from? More and more, it seems to me, from the internet "echo-chambers" where people go only to hear opinions that reinforce what they already think. And from the extremists on both sides who seek to cement their power by dividing the people. Listen to Barack Obama's speech at the last DNC. A man like that is capable of uniting people across the political spectrum.

Answer 4

No Dem's and Rep's have a blurred line no longer Conservatism and Liberalism. Liberalism needs socialism and conservatism will continually favor small authorities. that's the reason Conservatives want a clean party the Rep's no longer characterize our beliefs Bush became an mind-blowing celebration of this he bought out Conservatives for votes

Answer 5

Actually, the gap is not as large as people like to think. Both see problems with America but disagree on the solutions. People are only "polarized" because they chose to stand on the fringes instead of jumping in and working at a solution.

Oddly enough, the places I volunteer at seem to be the exact opposite of mymadsky's. Both the soup kitchen and food pantry are run by conservative organizations but staffed mainly by liberals. It is a, however, an excellent example of both "sides" working together towards a common cause.

One incorrect conclusion you, and most people, seem to draw is that being liberal is at odds with being Christian. I don't feel that political philosophy has any bearing on religious philosophy. There are good Christians, as well as false Christians, on both sides. The difference is in how we treat our fellow man: with compassion and understanding, or intolerance and hatred. The Christian way is clear...

Answer 6

I believe the divide is too great. We can't reconcile with one another. Here is the most important reason we can't:

In "The Federal Courts, Politics, and the Rule of Law," by John C. Hughes (published 1995), it says:

"In the contemporary political context, those who fear conformity have tended to describe themselves as liberal and have tended to applaud judicial 'protection' of human rights. Those who fear diversity have tended to call themselves conservatives and have been appalled by judicial 'usurpation' of the majority's discretion to form the kind of community it finds most conducive to its own happiness. The former tends to approve of the expansive theories of constitutional interpretation, while the latter tends to prefer the restrained theories of judicial review. These alignments are neither perfect nor inevitable, but the debate has surely been shrill."

I am on the right, and I believe in majority rule. The left insist that the Constitution is on their side and they insist on interpretting it any way they feel like -- with flexibility and adaptation and sentimentality rather than with discipline. The left insist that the Constitution allows their side to have whatever laws they want to have but does not allow the right to have whatever law they want to have. The left are inflexible, rigid, and sanctimoniously behave as if they don't have to compromise because they have the Constitution on their side. Majority rule does not matter to the left. Majority rule is pernicious to the left.

So we on the right cannot talk with, work with, or "reconcile" with the left. The left use constitutional law to trump majority rule on issues like abortion, gay marriage, the slice of swiss cheese separating church from state, and so on. Like Ann Coulter has said, "Liberals say the Constitution grows and evolves. It always seems to grow in ways that liberals like. It never grows a right to guns, or school vouchers, or free champagne for blondes. ..."

Answer 7

No it is not too wide. However the gap between Democrat and Republican is too wide to bridge.

I do volunteer work at two places, a women's shelter and a homeless shelter. ALL of the administrators (paid) are Liberals all of the workers (volunteers) are Conservative. We come together to help but each for their own reason, but all for a common good.

Answer 8

yes
need i say it again
YES
again
yes
i can not abide an individual who wants me to live by some rules in a book that has under gone more surgerey then pamela anderson.