Why are American liberals more prone to in-fighting than conservatives? [closed]

Question

In America at least, there tends to be far less unity within liberal factions when compared to conservative ones. One just has to point to the last few presidential elections.

2008: There was a significantly tougher struggle between Obama and Clinton compared to McCain and other Republicans.

2012 The democratic party unites around Obama fairly effectively. (Although this is the outlier compared to the last few presidential elections.)

2016: Again, although there was a struggle between Trump and Republican party veterans, but the struggle between Clinton and Bernie was far, far worse.

2020: Trump faced practically no opposition while again the Democratic party was greatly divided via the Bernie vs Biden struggle.

Not even taking into account official elections, there just tends to be way more in-fighting within liberal groups socially compared to conservative ones. Conservatives always seem to be on a united front: Being Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anit-Immigration, etc, are common among nearly all American conservatives. On the other hand, there are very few issues that all liberals agree on. Why is this the case?

Answer 1

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of most public offices, not just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran virtually unopposed for the Democrat party nomination. His only opponent — Bill Bradley — did not win any primaries and Gore’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention was unanimous. George W. Bush on the Republican side faced 7 other challengers.

So just from a this evidence, it would appear to be the opposite of your premise. I personally don't believe either party is more or less prone to infighting than the other. Each party has their own factions and internal squabbles. It just often appears that one or the other has more unity, depending on how well the leadership within can hold the party line together more effectively at any given time.

Answer 2

Because there is only one observable 'past'. And a multitude of proposed 'futures'.

First, let me make a frame change. The question implies the standoff between the Liberalism and the Conservatism, while the two are orthogonal concepts that can co-exist.

I suggest comparing the Conservative vs. the Progressive¹.

---

By its very definition, Conservatism is a social vision that promotes the traditional values. The 'traditional' stands for the way it used to be in the past.
Broadly speaking, Conservatism is all about keeping things the way they used to be.

A person who follows the Conservative philosophy envisions the Past as great. And they would naturally wish to keep things the way they are.
In case if the current political institutions and practices do not match person's views, such person would would advocate for reinstating the old practices and make the observable reality Great Again.

Naturally, there is only one (or a very limited number of) "Great Past" in a particular place, so the broad variety of people (who may have different views on other aspects of life) would fight for similar political/social values.

---

The Progressivism, by definition, offers changes. These changes can be naturally different, be it Right- or Left-leaning, adding or lifting restrictions or rights, etc.

Which makes many Progressive ideas incompatible with each other. So people who follow the Progressive ideas debate over whose ideas are to prevail.

Which would lead us to observe far less unity among the Progressives.

---

¹) although they could co-exist as well, but it looks like a forced compromise, not as a political doctrine.

Reading

• Why are certain views/values amassed in one party, like Republican vs Democrat? — Answer

Answer 3

This is kind of true even outside America.

The reason is that "liberals" tend to be less authoritarian and more democratic than conservatives.

So "liberal" parties in a democracy tend to allow more expression of diverse opinions inside and outside the party that also often generates heated open (public) debates. This may sometimes seem like in-fighting. And sometimes it does become so when people become too emotional about some issue. But this is seen as normal and healthy - the ability to be comfortable with different opinions and maintain a relationship with someone who may have some different views is considered an important attribute to have in a multi-cultural society and a democracy.

In fact, this kind of "in-fighting" is sometimes even seen in the legislative houses of democracies (especially in younger non-western democracies). Some examples:

• British Parliament fight is full of 'dodgy' language
• Slaps, Punches, Uproar: When Parliament, State Assemblies Turned Into House of Ruckus
• The world's biggest parliamentary brawls

Due to the nature of democracy to allow different opinions, such occasional flare-ups of emotions are actually considered normal.

Conservative parties on the other hand tend to be more authoritarian, and dissent or deviation from the party leaders public political stands is often seen as an attack on the party leadership itself. Thus, in conservative parties divergent views are actively discouraged or only shared and discussed in private.

Answer 4

Throughout the 20^th century, conservatives were as diverse and subject to infighting as liberals. Just in the last half of the century conservatives often split into Free Market activism, Libertarianism, small-town conservatism, religious conservatism, southern segregationists, militia separatists, military jingoists, and advocates of corporatism, all with their own idiosyncratic interests and agendas. Those groups still exist today, obviously, but any infighting between them seems to have dropped out of the public eye. So why did that happen?

The short answer is that beginning sometime in Clinton's second term Conservatives gave up on trying to balance different policy agendas — they gave up on expressing policy at all, in fact — and shifted to an entirely media-centered strategy. This involved Karl Rove style (i..e., ad hominem) attack ads, swiftboating strategies, scandal-hacking, fear-mongering and rabble-rousing, all backed by the (then new) FOX Network, with its strong conservative propaganda arm obscured under a pretense of straight news. They created an echo chamber of people who repeated the same talking points while steadfastly refusing to discuss anything of material substance, and who constantly shifted blame away from the party to others, all to present an image of power and unity. Anyone who broke ranks was ostracized and punished as disloyal; anyone vocal outside the group was demonized as bad, or traitorous, or dangerous.

They became a faction in Madison's sense — read Federalist 10 — with all the negative weight that term carries.

Don't think the apparent lack of infighting is real. As we saw in the Trump administration and in McCarthy's troubled speakership, as soon as conservatives gain power they all begin to privately squabble over their differences, rendering them almost incapable of governance. That factional emphasis on a facade of unity selects for the worst kind of candidates: those most shamelessly willing to publicly lie for the party's benefit while privately pushing selfish aims. It's not conducive to real leadership.

Answer 5

Why are American liberals more prone to in-fighting than conservatives?

I actually agree with the premise.

I believe it's because American liberals are more committed to certain ethical tenets that American conservatives are not committed to.

One of those ethical tenets is a commitment to facts and truth. Facts are things that are widely known or proved to be true. Truth is an accurate description of reality.

To rise above the lying and disinformation and bending the "truth" to fit one's ideology, which is something liberals accuse the conservatives of doing, liberals need to steer clear of that themselves. Especially when it's so easy to push a dishonest narrative that will be accepted unquestionably by our base.

So, the infighting among liberals is a consequence that we're more committed to truth than the other side. We're more willing to call out other liberals for mispresenting fact, even if we're both fighting for the same ends.

If more conservatives were like Liz Cheney or Adam Kitzinger, so that they had a real nasty fight among the GOP about T**** (I can't even utter the name) and T****ism and what it's doing to the party and to the nation, then you would not see as much of a difference in the degree of infighting between liberals and the GOP. But we're not seeing hardly any introspection in the GOP.

The used to call this the GOP 11th Commandment. The Dems didn't have such.

Answer 6

Perhaps it is a psychological result of the situation in the last two decates, where the conservatives see themself as the weaker side, albeit still capable of scoring wins sometimes, and so they understand the importance of consolidation. Admitting that you are a weaker side also let (American) Right to adopt "Don't punch Right" approach. The rationale being, you are not 100% in agreement with another conservative who happen to be trending currently, but they are better than any liberal, and if you show in-fighting then liberals win, since they do that by default.

On the other hand, liberals also see themselves as a stronger side, so they aim to get the best piece of the pie which they see as already won, so the only question is who gets to eat it among fellow liberals. this may go such great lengths that they will occassionally lose to the weaker conservatives because of this. Perhaps this is not even seen as a problem because they feel they may score whenever they like it, so it may be better to yield to a conservative (and spend a term bashing them) than to a fellow, but a different flavor of, liberal.

The apparent difference is strength seems to be due to the fact that the great majority of media (news outlets, cinema, arts and music, video games) is now liberal-leaning, a lot of being virtually a loudspeaker for their programmes.

Answer 7

I'd argue that there is more fighting in the left-wing party, because that is where liberals face the most severe challenge to their politics, and where the liberal powers-that-be seek to cause the most upset in order to prevent socialist reform and rig the choices on the ballot.

Trump may be terrible, yes, but I guarantee most liberals would prefer him to Sanders.

The liberals in all major Western nations have a tactic of disabling the democratic system by seizing control of all major parties on the ballot.

Bankrolling the politicians they want on the ballot, and causing chaos and selectively smearing those they don't want, means that important political questions are decided before the ballot slips are printed and offered to the electorate.

Even with Trump they're trying the same tactics, after what they consider one dreadful round with him. What they can't understand is how criminals charges and smears are increasing his popularity rather than decreasing it.

I should also be clear about smears, especially as regards Trump. They aren't always untrue. It's the selective revelation of them to the public at a particular time, the slant and degree of media publicity, and the disciplinary effect they have on politicians who are more inclined to submit to rich interests with intelligence networks in exchange for quiet and successful careers, which is how such smears are used as a means of political control.