apple0154
MEOW
Selfish? Avoiding doing something which benefits no one is not being selfish.
APP - What Makes People Vote Republican
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
Selfish? Avoiding doing something which benefits no one is not being selfish.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Restraint is a key component in preserving liberty.
It has never in my life occurred to me to dictate to other people how to act with what is there's, as leftists do via economic politics. The idea that other Americans could grow up living under a frame of government built upon Lockean natural law and subscribe to leftist economics is unfathomable. Not sure what to say to foreign-born leftists, except go nuts. You're not bound by the same rules as I am.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
You're right. I read the beginning which covered much of what I've read and studied before, then skimmed the rest. My mistake.
His analysis to a degree is correct regarding the 'it' that most Democrats miss. However, having earned my sociology degree in the 70's I must say that the contrasts between Durkheim and Mills is like being back in 1977. What I fail to see is how one can believe what the Democrats hold dear, while subscribing in anyway to Durkheimian theory?
What I do think he nails without being explicit, is that his analysis encapsulates the differences between the ruling class and anyone who disagrees with them-both major parties included. Rasmussen has been conducting some interesting polling regarding answers between those in DC and environs with jobs in government or related to government, and the rest of the country. The only 'general' group that comes close to the ruling class is that which considers themselves 'very liberal.' With that one group exception those that consider themselves 'somewhat liberal', 'moderate', 'somewhat conservative', and 'very conservative', are significantly differ on all answers.
What I do think most Americans would agree with if they took the time to think things through is that while diversity is good within home, church, community, and associations; it's also imperative as a nation to have common connections regarding government, language, minimal education, roles of behavior.
apple0154
MEOW
Citizens have a responsibility to their country. In time of war healthy citizens are expected to defend their country. If there was a major epidemic drug companies would be expected to produce drugs just as "machine shops" were used to produce war machinery.
The wealthy individual has not only benefited from being in the country but requires more services such as roads for business transportation. Also, they require more security, fire protection, etc. as they have more to protect.
They have benefited and expecting them to help during a crisis is proper.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
1) I've observed very little in my fellow citizens that reflects the concept of responsibility. Perhaps that is why the word often seems so alien to me. Honestly, I could just as well mistake the American public for zombies a good portion of the time. However, they are enjoying the fruits of liberty, and things I love dearly, so I can't really blame them for shutting themselves out of political and civic reality.
2) Those are merely excuses you are using to enact an agenda. They need not be taken for more than face value, and yet you insist on making a political case out of it. Why? For what purpose must we all be divided, if not simply to be ruled?
3) We're currently not in a major war (WWII), a major depression, or a pandemic, anyway...
Good Luck
New member
Read Michael Shermer's reaction of Haidt's analysis. Yes, Haidt goes into "explaining" how democrats need to "understand where republicans are coming from" yada yada yada. But, as Shermer points out, the analysis itself is part of the problem: it assumes a stance of intellectual superiority innate in the assumption that voting republican or holding to conservative political philosophies needs explanation. Or as Shermer puts it:
The thing is, even while this attempt at analyzing and "fairly" explaining conservative politics to democrats, even while "admonishing" democrats to remove their elitist halos, the piece continues with incorrect and distorted views of conservative thought. Let's start with the foremost claim: that conservative vote republican in spite of it being against their economic best interests. In this statement alone, liberals in general, and this article specifically, assume that liberal socialist economic models are the only truth out there. Sorry, but right there Haidt falls off his claim of taking off the superiority halo.
And to continue the wearing of the liberal morality halo (as Haidt himself describes it) he comes up with a number of phrases that, possibly unconciously, but definitively shows Haidt still maintains a superiority complex over this "study" he has undertaken. He uses phrases such as "authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank)" to describe on of three conservative values he claims differ greatly from liberalism. (So where does the liberal respect for authority come from? And do not bother to claim liberals do not have this factor in their philosophy when it is to government authority they desire to place all responsibility for economic fairness. When it comes to respect for authority, conservatives are far more consistent - the more remote the authority the less they trust it, while liberals confer more reliance on the more distant authorities while assuming a mantle of individualism by dissing local authority - that authority over which they have the most control. I guess the ability to control is what generates the lack of respect?
Other criticisms of claims and assumptions made about conservative philosophy and how liberalism views it are covered well by Shermer's response, while Howard Gardner shows in full view the elitist halo wearing shithead of modern liberalism, complete with the traditional elitist claims phrased as questions: "Why, then, do right wing partisans ignore this evidence and continue to support policies that are patently dysfunctional?"
Now, that Haidt at least seems to make a genuine effort at trying to understand conservative philosophy instead of simply dismissing it as "dysfunctional" i will give him credit. But his presentation is still loaded with preconceptions and inaccurate assessments of conservative beliefs, he still ends up with nothing less than a product which is full of the same old "we're right, they're wrong" attitudes.
Anyway, contrary to claims against my initial posts, the reaction remains as I stated in the beginning: fuck the whole elitist, republicans need their motivations explained bullshit. Conservatives have no more need to have their motivations explained than do progressives.
Or, perhaps, if we are to actually attempt to understand and reunite the peoples of this country, progressives have no LESS need of having their motivations put under the social science microscope. If only there were conservative social scientists to do so.
The thing is, even while this attempt at analyzing and "fairly" explaining conservative politics to democrats, even while "admonishing" democrats to remove their elitist halos, the piece continues with incorrect and distorted views of conservative thought. Let's start with the foremost claim: that conservative vote republican in spite of it being against their economic best interests. In this statement alone, liberals in general, and this article specifically, assume that liberal socialist economic models are the only truth out there. Sorry, but right there Haidt falls off his claim of taking off the superiority halo.
And to continue the wearing of the liberal morality halo (as Haidt himself describes it) he comes up with a number of phrases that, possibly unconciously, but definitively shows Haidt still maintains a superiority complex over this "study" he has undertaken. He uses phrases such as "authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank)" to describe on of three conservative values he claims differ greatly from liberalism. (So where does the liberal respect for authority come from? And do not bother to claim liberals do not have this factor in their philosophy when it is to government authority they desire to place all responsibility for economic fairness. When it comes to respect for authority, conservatives are far more consistent - the more remote the authority the less they trust it, while liberals confer more reliance on the more distant authorities while assuming a mantle of individualism by dissing local authority - that authority over which they have the most control. I guess the ability to control is what generates the lack of respect?
Other criticisms of claims and assumptions made about conservative philosophy and how liberalism views it are covered well by Shermer's response, while Howard Gardner shows in full view the elitist halo wearing shithead of modern liberalism, complete with the traditional elitist claims phrased as questions: "Why, then, do right wing partisans ignore this evidence and continue to support policies that are patently dysfunctional?"
Now, that Haidt at least seems to make a genuine effort at trying to understand conservative philosophy instead of simply dismissing it as "dysfunctional" i will give him credit. But his presentation is still loaded with preconceptions and inaccurate assessments of conservative beliefs, he still ends up with nothing less than a product which is full of the same old "we're right, they're wrong" attitudes.
Anyway, contrary to claims against my initial posts, the reaction remains as I stated in the beginning: fuck the whole elitist, republicans need their motivations explained bullshit. Conservatives have no more need to have their motivations explained than do progressives.
Or, perhaps, if we are to actually attempt to understand and reunite the peoples of this country, progressives have no LESS need of having their motivations put under the social science microscope. If only there were conservative social scientists to do so.
apple0154
MEOW
We're not in a major depression, yet. However, with a high deficit and high unemployment the quicker we address those problems, the better.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Why is it "right" for an able-bodied voter to not contribute to society while taking money from folks who do?
apple0154
MEOW
Part of Shermer's response was, (Excerpt)" As Haidt notes, the standard liberal line is that people vote Republican because they are "cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death." A typical example of this characterization can be found in a famous 2003 paper published in the prestigious journal Psychological Bulletin by the New York University social psychologist John Jost and his colleagues, entitled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," in which they argue that conservatives suffer from "uncertainty avoidance," "need for order, structure, closure," and "dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity," all of which leads to "resistance to change" and "endorsement of inequality." (End)
Followed by, (Excerpt) "Further, according to the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Surveys, 1972-2004, 44 percent of people who reported being "conservative" or "very conservative" said they were "very happy" versus only 25 percent of people who reported being "liberal" or "very liberal." A 2007 Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Republicans versus only 38 percent of Democrats said that their mental heath is "excellent."(End)
Most people, Liberals and Conservatives, prefer a "stable" life. People tend to not like uncertainty so it's natural Conservatives would feel happier because they are certain in what they believe. "The old way or the way things have been done in the past is the best way." Certainty. Stability.
Liberals, on the other hand, see that change is needed. Whether due to the old ways requiring improvement or to new ideas to deal with new situations the Liberal is not "content" if there is a possibility of improvement.
No, it's not the ability to control that results in a lack of respect. It's the usual narrow-mindedness involved in local control. Distant authority, which covers authority over larger groups of people, tends to be less rigid and more accommodating. It has to consider a variety of differences among people.
For example, a small community may enact laws which means one is ruled by a small number of people. A community will enact laws that are, generally, more intrusive to ones life whereas remote authority (Federal) has to consider all the citizens regardless of where they live or their customs/habits.
It's because many Conservative views/policies are dysfunctional. Society has changed more in the last 100 years than in the last 1000. Just the last 50 years have seen changes never imagined.
Just the idea of travel, changing jobs, moving communities demands a complete overhaul and understanding when it comes to helping ones neighbor and contributing to ones community. In the past people contributed to their community, at one time or another, over their lifespan. Plus, everyone contributed because they were able to contribute. If a school required building there were jobs anyone could do. For example, mixing cement. It was done by hand and anyone could do it. Today, the cement truck comes. Therefore, rather than help by doing the labor people help by paying taxes. Also, as people come and go they don't always have the opportunity to help. The library may not have required a volunteer the two or three years Mr. and Mrs. Jones lived in the community so they never contributed to that community. That's where taxes enter the picture. Rather than seen as taking ones money it is to compensate for ones lack of contribution that normally took place years ago.
Simply put, it's about change. Be it less community involvement to single parents to looking after the elderly the old ways do not address the new reality. Liberals are not trying to change things in the sense everything has remained the same and they just want change. Liberals are dealing with the changes that have already taken place.
Women's rights and exercising their independence to people's ability and/or need to relocate for jobs are things that require approaches/solutions never required before. There is no "old way" of dealing with them.
That's the frustration the Liberal faces. As Obama said during the health care debate "don't come with tired, worn out arguments."
apple0154
MEOW
In many cases they can't contribute because they can't find a job. When unemployment goes from 5% to 10% it doesn't mean twice as many people decided not to work.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
They can't find a job because socialist policies have destroyed the economy, so now you advocate more socialism...
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Why don't you try reading the article instead of parroting strawmen?
Good Luck
New member
In short, you agree with the tenet that conservative thought is dead assed wrong, so you see nothing wrong with labeling it "dysfunctional" and therefore liberals are right, democrats are right, and conservative republicans should STFU and let liberals take control of everything.
Bullshit.
And to answer a specific claim of yours:
"Distant authority, which covers authority over larger groups of people, tends to be less rigid and more accommodating. It has to consider a variety of differences among people. "
You are completely off your rocker if you actually believe this. Have you ever once in your LIFE dealt with federal regulations? They are the LEAST flexible, and MOST likely to not fit a particular situation. Not to mention distant authority is least controllable by the people.
But you missed the point anyway. Haidt claims conservatives LIKE authority because it provides stability. He claims that authority/respect is a psychological system of conservative philosophy. "authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates" Given that claim, how do you explain Conservative demands for smaller government? How do you explain the fact that one of the largest current complaints of conservatives is they do NOT trust government (ie: authority) to do right by the People? Conservative philosophy believes in personal authority, not institutional. We believe that any hierarchies needed for government or private institutions to run are artificial, and therefore should be fluid. We do NOT automatically respect authority, we mistrust it and demand the system be set up so as to maximize the People's control over it, even while acknowledging the need for hierarchical authority.
And, conversely, how do you explain the liberal philosophy that bigger, more regulatory government is GOOD, coupled with the attitude that people who are financially successful have an obligation to those who are not ("obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates"), and it is therefore government authority's job to force those with economic authority to provide for their "subordinates"?
In short, Liberalism is the philosophy that promotes the idea of attaining security through authority and a forced obligation of superiors toward subordinates, not conservatism. Therefore claiming conservatives are motivated by some basic "psychological system" of respect for authority are so far off the mark as to be beyond belief - unless it is a deliberate lie to support the basic liberal concept that they are the sole holders of "truth".
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Again, I'm responding to the first sentence of the OP that you wrote, asshole.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I honestly don't understand the anti-intellectual stances Americans are taking with regard to foreigners discussing politics on the board. Classically educated Americans from decades past are spinning in their graves, hoping for a chance to bitchslap somebody.
How dare you wish the loss of freedom and autonomy upon my country!! Filthy foreigner!!
Well why don't we just build a wall around our country, scramble all the airwaves and sattelitte networks and just inbreed ourselves to death?
Why the xenophobia dude? What are you scared of?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
....and respecting the institutions supporting those common connections.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
If you accept the premise that it is always in their best interest to do so. I'd call that a false premise myself. There's to much evidence that that Republican economic policy, if tax cuts can be called an economic policy, benefit mainly the wealthy. Often at the expense of the poor and workign classes.
That is, unless you prescribe to the Milo Minderbinder school of economics.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
In spite of being in the economic underclass some folks still have the understanding that if they work hard enough they should get ahead and when that happens shouldn't get punished for being successful. They're not all retards who see the government as their savior, like you.
If you believe that the only "best interest" I have is financial, then you would still have to accept the fact that neither of the parties "always" have my "best interest" at heart.
I reject the premise that the only "best interest" that I have or need to follow is monetary, and that the sole "best interest" I may have in that venue must be money raining from government programs into my pocket.
You begin with a false premise, then expound on it as if it is "true" and reject any other ideas or the very fact that every person might not be run by direct monetary greed and the hope that the government will gift them with other people's money. My best interests are not served by a government that wishes to be a participant in every decision from whether I am allowed to be born, to my health care, to my burial and whether what I earn can be given to those I earn it for after that burial...