Andrew Klavan

MSgt Steve Sweeney - The basis of the conservative movement is that tight government control restricts freedoms. The basis of the liberal movement is that it is the governments job to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Caring for others is a moral obligation and not one that is derived by logic. Therefore in order to get people to vote themselves out of money, and to mobilize the lower income masses to vote themselves more money a politician simply needs to make the upper classes feel bad for the lower classes and to make the lower classes angry about their position in life. Therefore applying to emotion instead of logic.

Whereas conservatives simply state that you will either rise or fall on your own two feet and it is not the governments job to do anything about it which is a much colder and calculated stance on dealing with poverty.

"The basis of the conservative movement is that tight government control restricts freedoms." - even if that actually is the basis of the conservative movement, it is an opinion. It really would depend on how you define "tight". Does that include the government dictating whom you can marry, or what you can put in your body, or who can serve in the military? There are a great many things conservatives attempt to control through legislation. There are very few government controls in places like Somalia, but I don't believe that is the model conservatives are going for. As for the "basis of the liberal movement", you may want to look into the prospects of advancing from a false premise. It may shock you that western society, as a whole, is seen as quite liberal. Promoting the general welfare in pursuit of a strong nation is indeed part of the liberal agenda, but does not entirely define it. "Every man for themselves" is not a logical basis on which to form a team, a political party, or a nation. There is strong logic behind the adage, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And there certainly are plenty of logical reasons for caring for others.
As to emotional arguments, both sides employ them. What is important it to look at the emotions to which the arguments are appealing... Arguments like "immigrants are going to take your jobs", "refugees are hiding terrorists", "They hate your freedom", etc.

While I do concede your point that some conservatives use terrible arguments to promote fear based voting, the logic of "every man for themselves" is not the premise of conservatives. It is based on a society that takes care of its own on its own volition. Anytime the government gets involved the measures taken to promote a healthy society generally backfire and simply promote laziness. Also, while Europe seems set the standard for how well socialism works, most of those countries are extraordinarily broke, have double digit unemployment, and have taxes that exceed 60%. The government in those countries is the sole provider, which means that all people are at the will of the government and the free market is crushed. Liberalism, and especially socialism, can only be promoted by telling others that they must give their money to the government so the government can take care of everyone else, while conservatism says that we should be free to spend our money as we choose, which means individuals can decide who they want to help.