I agree. But what's funny is if you ask a liberal, they will often think of conservatives as being collectivists because conservatives place loyalty to country and respect for authority high on their values list. Liberals usually think of themselves as individualists.

This is no longer true, however, when you talk to open socialists. They tend to embrace collectivism. It was more true of traditional Democrats (though I still think they were actually collectivists, even if they didn't see themselves that way).

I agree with you... but I keep trying to wrap my head around what on earth a Nazi and a Libertarian have in common?

The answer is almost nothing... except for this: They both start from a premise of placing higher importance on national identity than on other group identities which, according to the left, transcend nationalism... like being LGBT or black.

But what a Nazi does, is he takes that too far and starts to conflate the importance of his country with the importance of his race, religion, sex, etc. He assumes no one outside his nation's borders could possibly hold the same values he does, and so therefore those brown people, or the Jews, etc., are defiling the purity of society and must be removed.

Essentially, as soon as the right begins to do this, they fall into the same exact trap as the left. It's just their own nationalist version of the same toxic concepts. Which is why Nazis are actually so close to Communists, despite how much they despise each other.

I really like this comment. Thank you!

It's definitely a push/pull scenario between the 2 ideas. One of the problems with pure individualism is it's naively idealistic. Humans are humans.. as you say. We have tribalism built into our biology. But since maintaining the rights and responsibilities of the individual are crucial to maintaining a flourishing society, the question is at what level do we define the collective. We can't get rid of the collective. Because even if you abolished government, people will naturally begin to form groups to either oppress or fight against oppression.

My answer, at least when we're talking about government and policy, is the collective should be defined by geography and creed. Because that allows for people from diverse backgrounds to live in the same space and cooperate with each other... skin color, gender, etc. doesn't matter if we're fighting the same fight and agree on fundamental values.

@jnaatjes Thank you. I kept thinking of the book, Lord of the Flies by William Golding and how the collectives with varying ideologies formed.

Good post! An amazing thing--today's "Conservatives" embrace the same values as Classical Liberalism, and today's Liberals/Progressives embrace the values you have listed for classical Conservatives (they will argue NOT). Words have meanings--but we have seen that meanings get turned 180 degrees at times--only a century or so in this case.

@MarPep Yes, one of the Democrats' primary political tactics has been to conflate terminology.

Too bad today's individualists are politically inclined towards social tolerance and simple equality of opportunities...
The collectivists of today are politically inclined towards social intolerance and suppression of individual rights by way of enforcing "equity" between identity groups based (today) on arbitrary immutable characteristics and perceived group identity power "privileges" -

@Jwishbone Thank you for responding. I agree with you. I don't care for what is often referred to as "Identity Politics"; everyone seems to be lobbying for the lowest position on the social ladder in order to gain special status or treatment. However that aside, it appears that you are seeking the same classic liberal rights that I seek as defined by our Bill of Rights and outlined in my comment. I believe that is what most Libertarians seek as well. I am just learning more about this 3rd Party option.

You might be misunderstanding...

I'm not defining individualism as impersonal, I'm saying the collective identity should be impersonal. I'm saying we unfortunately have to have some sort of collectivism to maintain a functioning society. But the way we define ourselves as a collective should be "impersonal." Meaning our collective shouldn't be defined by who we personally, it should instead be defined by where we live and what we believe. Because if you define it by your "personal" characteristics, then your identity becomes the collective.

For example, the fact that someone is black should be one part of their complex personal identity. But it should not define the group they are apart of. The group should be defined more broadly (aka more "impersonally" ) to extend to all Americans. That gives you room to be an individual, because it means the group can be made up diverse people.

Really good point. I think there are well-meaning progressives who think of themselves as individualists because they believe they are toppling the existing social order to make room for people who are different, and who before were on the margins of society.

This is fine if they're looking to achieve equal opportunity. But people of a revolutionary mindset (as opposed to a traditional one) seem to not know what to do with themselves when living in a society where people really do have equal opportunity... as now is the case in the West. So they look at outcomes instead of just opportunity... despite the fact that the 2 are mutually exclusive.

And what gets really dangerous, as you point out, is when the left starts to try to form a society whose primary goal is to achieve equal outcomes. This is where the well-meaning leftists delude themselves... they fail to realize that tyranny is the only way you can achieve equal outcomes.

The 1960's hippie movement, for instance, envisioned a sort of communist utopia. But they didn't necessarily think they wanted centralized government power. In fact, John Lennon "imagined" a world with "no countries." They were simultaneously wanted anarchy, and didn't believe in private property. But this is completely naive because the only way to keep someone from stealing something and claiming it as their own is to designate a person or group as the enforcer of the rule... which is the definition of a government.

In short, if you run all the way to the left, it can only result in either tyranny or a chaotic anarchy. There is no peaceful anarchy.

I agree that's (mostly) the way we should think about it. But the right does tend to place a great deal of importance on their national identity. It's very important, to most conservatives, that they demonstrate loyalty and respect for their country. They think of themselves as Americans, not just individuals living in America.

Is this inherently wrong? I don't know... I see its utility because it allows us to form hierarchical relationships that help us achieve goals we couldn't achieve in isolation. But at the same time, we fall into the tribal tendency that all humans, left and right, have a tendency towards... we start to defend the group at all costs.

This is why I think traditional conservatives need libertarians in their midst. Maybe libertarians can be a little crazy sometimes, but they provide the dissenting voice and force the right to consider the corruption of their collective, and keep it in check.

The problem with the left is their liberalism is completely dead. They have no devil's advocate in their ranks anymore.

Yeah, that's actually what I'm saying. The right defines the collective as a national identity. Hence the phrase, "I'm proud to be an American."

The left defines it by race, sex, socio-economic status, etc... and your identification with that group spans across national borders, which is why they tend to be globalists. So a leftist would assume a Mexican-American would identify more with a Hispanic person living in Mexico, than they would identify with either Mexico or America (but especially America). Or they would assume a lesbian living in America would identify more with another lesbian in Europe than she would with her straight next door neighbor. This is a good way to tear the country apart.

Where the right goes wrong is when the importance of their national identity is no longer based upon a common creed, and instead starts to assume that "because I'm an American (or because I'm German, white, Christian, etc.) I am, therefore, inherently better. And those people over there are to be mistrusted." The right-wing gone astray starts to assume that people from outside the group cannot possibly share the same values.

You see this happening more with the right in Europe than in America, because America was more about holding to certain idea than it was about belonging to a certain ethnicity... that was the idea, at least, even if we haven't perfectly lived up to it.

And it's funny, because when the right goes astray, they seem to do exactly what the left does...

@jnaatjes It's not clear that the left and the right do share the same values anymore - or enough of the important ones in common. "in the sphere of all matters subject to individual thought and decision, pluralism is desirable and tolerable only in those areas of that are matters of taste, rather than matter of truth." M.J. Adler

@AlexisS Jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" has helped me understand the other side more. Even if we completely disagree on policy, and even on some more fundamental values, both sides do have a morality that they're working from, and both sides, I think, have the ability to understand the other side's morality (and even agree with it at a base level) if we have an open mind. I think trying to do this is the only hope of healing the divide. Haidt elaborates on this throughout his book, and it's truly fascinating. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

He says we all have at least 6 different "taste receptors" that we use to make intuitive decisions about morality. They are:

1. Care
2. Fairness
3. Liberty
4. Loyalty
5. Authority
6. Sanctity

He says the left has essentially built up a political morality based only upon the first 3, with the first one, "Care," being the most important. Conservatives, on the other hand, use all 6 of these foundations in their morality. When conservatives disagree with liberals, liberals assume they just don't "care" about people. When actually, conservatives do care, there's just more to consider.

On the conservative end, I think we can bridge the gap in the way we communicate. We can speak to left's intuitive leanings toward preventing harm by showing how our views actually do fit into this moral framework, and then show how something like "sanctity" is also an important moral consideration.

@jnaatjes Yes, I've read some excerpts from this - it's on my list of books to buy. And, coincidentally, I am at this moment listening to him and Peterson on a discussion of the university. The left and right have real gaps in communication. We (both sides) do need to bridge it in more creative ways Excellent reference. Thanks.