My article here is looser than usual. It was meant to be more of a philosophical rant. So I was talking loosely about "lies," including self-deceptions and hypocrisies. There's a myriad of ways in which we can avoid being perfectly truthful. So it's not just a question of self-contradiction.
And my point was that complete honesty and freedom from delusion are rare. I wasn't arguing that the failures of liberals and of conservatives are identical or even similar, beyond the fact that both involve "lies" of some kind.
I don't think I'm reluctant to say there are better and worse ways of understanding things. It's just that my way isn't mainstream, so it takes a lot more work to lay my view on the table.
For example, although I adopt the convention of speaking of a political spectrum with left and right wings, I've argued that that convention is misleading because it places conservatives on the same level with liberals (link below).
Instead, I argue that the crucial dichotomy is between animalists and humanists. As my long series on conservatism should show, I have little if any respect for conservatism/animalism (social Darwinism).
But I'm also ambivalent about humanism/liberalism. A major problem with the latter is the environmental cost of human progress. I think that progress is driven by an under-appreciated existential rebellion against the inhuman, godless, absurd, and nightmarish wilderness. We've had numerous strategies for blotting out that nightmare, from animism, to monotheism, to secular progress (the building of artificial, self-reflecting refuges, known as cities, civilizations, cultures, etc).
By the way, this article on the commonplace "lies" was inspired by our earlier exchange in the comments.
