Conservative intuition: ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity

[Moontanman]

It seems we may be about to establish that Questor is a liberal - he just doesn't know it yet.:doh:

 

Yeah , it's time to come out of the closet Questor:naughty:

[HydrogenBond]

Conservative, by definition, implies conserving the best of the past. Liberal is more progressive but often sails into unchartered waters with little field testing in terms of consequences. Once the liberals find something that stands the test of time, conservatives integrate it. But in the short term the conservatives resist due to the duds that go along with the successes.

 

As a good example, during the John Kennedy years, the democratic party looked similar to the modern republican party. The conservatives of that time were even further tied to the past. But in the same token, everything that was tried by the liberals was not beneficial. Conservative tries to retain what works and avoids following every new fad until the good ones have proven to be of social value. Conservative added the best but doesn't just follow change for the sake of change, like seasonal fashions.

 

Relative to Creationism, although this is in conflict with science and even common sense, the tendency to support it based on what it represents. Liberal is trying to remove religion, willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. The bigger picture is seen as an attempt to plant a virus which can also affect healthy tissue. The backlash is an immune response so the virus doesn't affect the healthy parts. It amounts to leaving the wound in tack to avoid the consequences of a new liberal fad. If it works out then it will be integrated.

 

The same conservative affect occurs in science. For example, the earth's iron core has never been sampled for verification. We assume iron based on faith in circumstantial evidence which is built upon the assumption and not the other way around. But science can't admit the truth of its lack of direct proof or else it could act as a virus that could have an impact on the solid science. So there is a dogmatic reaction. The average person assumes 100% certainty based on the way it is presented and pitched. Conservative science can't blink or the virus might attach.

 

Even rational people, like scientists, can be conservative and are not willing to budge until the liberal change is able to show strong field testing. It is willing to suspend reason but will change if the alternative is progressive. It will even avoid placing the lack of sample disclaimer in text books because this truth is dangerous. This is natural conservative. It teaches sort of a human creationism version of earth reality, avoiding logic and common sense because it could affect the circumstantial mythology. Science is also conservative and liberal, with the conservative expecting solid verification before it changes it direction.

 

Evolution may work but it is empirical and not deduced with logic and reason. Empirical allows anything including conflicting points of view. If evolution could evolve to logic and could deduce the future a=B , b=c and therefore a=c, then conservative religion would concede the point.

[Southtown]

Edge: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt

When discussing politics, let's refrain from talking issues please, and just stick to the same-old partisanship.

 

By the way, Yashua said, "Any kingdom divided against itself will not stand." I guess time will tell.

[Essay]

Jonathan Haidt published a new article, "What Makes People Vote Republican" on edge.org recently.

 

Edge: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt

 

 

I've only read the above part (and through the thread), but not the links to Haidt yet.

 

Here's part of what I recently wrote in a personal letter:

 

Watching CSPAN (esp. BookTV on weekends; see also on computer) has enabled me to understand both the conservative and liberal perspectives much better.

 

For so long the conservative views and ideas made as much sense as the liberal philosophies, and I coulnd't understand how two competing philosophies could both seem so valid.

Finally I found a unifying principle to help explain the logic of the two sides. All their decisions, programs, and ideas make sense if seen from the proper perspective.

 

Conservatives act from fear and assume unlimited time and resources are available to sort things out and establish global security.

[unlimited time... for things to "trickle down," ...for the free market to work things out, ...etc.]

Liberals act from hope and assume very limited time and resources are available to sort things out and establish global equity.

[limited time... to help large groups at once, ...save resources, ...etc.]

 

The whole free-market vs. regulated, incentivized economies thing makes sense when respectively employing these two perspectives.

 

Even going back to the founding of this country, one can see these two opposing philosophies; that of individuality and freedom, versus that of equality and justice. ...Not always compatible.

 

Does this sound like a sentiment similar to Haidt?

Any other thoughts, critiques, objections, caveats, etc. welcome.

 

:confused:

[questor]

Hydrogen bond, your post made a lot of sense.

Modest, your poll shows that around a third of Dems and Repubs believe that man evolved God guided. I assume you think these are the most stupid of all.

I also deduce that you think the 55% atheist Dems are the most intelligent.

I do not know how or what actual questions were posed for this poll, so I can't really comment on it. What I can comment on is the fact that most of the business owners I know are Republicans and most interest groups I know of are Democrats. I would rather be a member of a group which believes in private enterprise, capitalism, self reliance and self responsibility than one who believes government is the solution to all societal problems. If the country was actually divided into two parts, one liberal and one conservative, which part would you think would the most stable and prosperous?

[Essay]

If the country was actually divided into two parts, one liberal and one conservative, which part would you think would the most stable and prosperous?

 

Literally? Well, then quite quickly the prosperous side would take over the other side.

 

But in general....

 

Stability may be in the eyes of the beholder.

 

Enforced stability can come from prosperity.

Equitable prosperity can allow all to become more safe.

 

Weren't most areas of the world stable pastoral communities, until prosperity "came" to them?

Isn't it the wide disparity in "prosperity" that creates so much inequity and injustice (instability) in the world?

....Especially when that disparity develops rapidly....

 

:confused:

 

p.s.

 

Sorry, I didn't really answer your question:

 

The conservative side would be the most properous, but I don't think the stability would be sustainable over generations. The liberal side could achieve a sustainable stability, but would not be the most prosperous (probably at best, only 80% as prosperous).

 

...what a bunch of losers; only 80%....

[modest]

Modest, your poll shows that around a third of Dems and Repubs believe that man evolved God guided. I assume you think these are the most stupid of all.

 

It's not "my" poll, and your assumption is in direct opposition to something I told you directly just a couple posts ago. You're the only person here that's calling people stupid. As you may recall, I told you that trying to associate these beliefs with intelligence is not proper. In fact, I told you it does a disservice to the problem in general. No. I don't think "they" are stupid.

 

I also deduce that you think the 55% atheist Dems are the most intelligent.

 

The number 55 appears nowhere on the two graphs I posted. You're obviously misreading something and I can't figure out how. 17% of self-proclaimed democrats responded that they believe god had no part in evolution. 4% of republicans responded the same. I do not equate these results with intelligence.

 

I do not know how or what actual questions were posed for this poll,

 

Then follow the links that I gave...

 

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

Republicans, Democrats Differ on Creationism

 

I posted the pertinent question word for word in the post, the others can be found on Gallup's site that I sourced. These polls are in direct opposition to your position that creationism placed less than 10,000 years ago is an uncommon belief. I'm not going to spoon feed you the poll - It opposes directly what you said.

 

so I can't really comment on it.

 

and I didn't expect you to. It is simply beyond your reproach. I expected you to throw some ad hominems my way for posting it - which you did. :hihi:

 

I would rather be a member of a group which believes in private enterprise, capitalism, self reliance and self responsibility than one who believes government is the solution to all societal problems.

 

Well, that seems relevant.

 

If the country was actually divided into two parts, one liberal and one conservative, which part would you think would the most stable and prosperous?

 

Well, clearly, the liberal half would have rainbows of bubblegum happiness and jellybean raindrops of joy. All would frolic in everlasting delight. The conservative half would probably resemble something like Goodbye Blue Sky from a Pink Floyd video. :eek:

 

In all seriousness, your question is exactly the attitude the democratic party is currently trying to put behind us.

 

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

 

Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.

 

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

 

The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

 

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

 

I'll let you figure out who said that at your leisure.

 

~modest

[questor]

I don't know who said this, but he couldn't be more wrong:

''The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

 

 

''We worship an awesome God in the blue states,''

Is it not true that the liberal ACLU wants to remove all mention of God in textbooks, public memorials, the Pledge of Allegiance, eliminate prayer in public school and the Motto on our currency? Is it not true there is an atheist club on this site? What % liberals do you think really believe in God, and if they do, why haven't they resisted the ACLU's machinations?

 

''We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.''

This statement is so patently ridiculous in todays world, it warrants no discussion.

[Moontanman]

I smell something, yes I am sure, something distinctive yet rancid. Something old and stale like the under side of a very old bridge :(

[Galapagos]

What % liberals do you think really believe in God

Too many!

It is well-known that Republicans are more religious than are Democrats (or independents). These data confirm that finding. Eighty-nine percent of Republicans believe in God, compared to 77% of Democrats and an even lower 70% of independents.

GALLUP-Belief in God Far Lower in Western U.S.

 

Also interesting is the ever-present negative correlation between education and belief! :(

, and if they do, why haven't they resisted the ACLU's machinations?

Because they also believe in/respect a separation of church and state. In a global community, and immigrant nation like our own, secularism and tolerance stabilize society.

[Thunderbird]

I smell something, yes I am sure, something distinctive yet rancid. Something old and stale like the under side of a very old bridge :(

 

Its about time someone said that :) Questor you have shown you're self to be a raving idiot with absolutely zero regard for simple logic or any ability to debate within a framework of historical references and facts . Ether engage your brain or crawl back under you’re bridge.

[Essay]

''We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.''

This statement is so patently ridiculous in todays world, it warrants no discussion.

 

My goodness, I don't usually find myself shaking with indignation after reading many posts.

...but let me tell you....

My grandpa, an immigrant from Europe, eventually was a state Sec. of State; my dad gave most of his sight and hearing for this country's wars as a pilot, and contributed to the skunk-works programs; and I can't tell you where my sister worked, but her husband gave his life overseas for this country also.

My family chose to educate me beyond all reason, but don't tell me that I don't always have to hold back tears when I think of our flag.

 

I'm educated and experienced enough to know that conservatives only have the best of intentions for the future of our country also.

 

Just because we disagree on tactics doesn't make either of us evil or unpatriotic.

The fact that you choose to write here at all indicates that you care; I hope you'll realize that the same holds true for others.

 

Thanks,

~SA

[modest]

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

This statement is so patently ridiculous in todays world, it warrants no discussion.

 

I think this sums up our differences very well. Despite my political differences with you, questor, we are both Americans. I'm quite sure we both love our country deeply. Though our methods are slightly different, our goals are the same. We want a strong country, a safe country - with opportunity for our children and grandchildren. Small differences in economic policy and social ideology can't touch that. We have too much in common to be split by these liberal and conservative labels that in reality represent very little.

 

I might have a slightly different interpretation of freedom of speech than you do, but this doesn't make either of us unpatriotic. We can come together and set a common course for our country and be better of for it. I believe this, and you could believe it to. It wouldn't mean you have to share my beliefs on right to life or my views on God. It's just a common respect. We are both Americans and we both want what's best for our country. Can you not recognize this?

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

My goodness, I don't usually find myself shaking with indignation after reading many posts.

...but let me tell you....

My grandpa, an immigrant from Europe, eventually was a state Sec. of State; my dad gave most of his sight and hearing for this country's wars as a pilot, and contributed to the skunk-works programs; and I can't tell you where my sister worked, but her husband gave his life overseas for this country also.

My family chose to educate me beyond all reason, but don't tell me that I don't always have to hold back tears when I think of our flag.

 

I'm educated and experienced enough to know that conservatives only have the best of intentions for the future of our country also.

 

Just because we disagree on tactics doesn't make either of us evil or unpatriotic.

The fact that you choose to write here at all indicates that you care; I hope you'll realize that the same holds true for others.

 

Thanks,

~SA

 

I am glad to hear someone else takes exception to this BS of questioning anyones patriotism who disagrees with one party. Just because I don't worship at the alter of the neocons I am consistently told I am a traitor and unpatriotic. It pisses me off! I love my country, I would do anything to defend my country. I fly the American flag year round unlike lots of my conservative neighbors who think it's too much trouble. I get pissed when anyones love of country if questioned because of their politics not just liberals but it seems the Conservatives are much more likely to brand me a traitor for my views than the other way around.

[ChunTzu]

I'd try to paraphrase this but I don't want to mess it up. The following was written by George Lakoff for Huffington Post. I can't post links yet b/c I don't have enough posts. Just search "George Lakoff" and it should be the first post.

 

The Palin Choice

The Reality of the Political Mind

 

by George Lakoff

 

This election matters because of realities-the realities of global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform.

 

Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

 

The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be taken with the utmost seriousness.

 

The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.

 

All true, so far as we can tell.

 

But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of the political mind.

 

<...>

 

George Lakoff: The Palin Choice and the Reality of the Political Mind

 

Obviously, Lakoff is writing from a liberal point of view but I still believe he brings up some interesting issues. I'm sure conservative thinkers will tear this apart but it's worth a read, at least.

 

Also, one of my favorite things from living in a conservative state (I lived in TX before I moved to L.A.) is the use of "liberal" as an insult. Amazing.

[Galapagos]

Just saw this video of Haidt over at TED:

Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com

[Buffy]

From the The Times of London:

… participants were then given two laboratory tests, to establish their physiological responses to frightening or unexpected stimuli. In the first test, they viewed 33 images, three of which were distressing or threatening: a large spider on the face of a frightened person; a dazed person with a bloody face; and maggots in an open wound. The scientists measured the electrical conductance of the skin, a standard measure of distress and arousal.

 

In the second test, the volunteers were subjected to a loud, unexpected noise, with scientists measuring the involuntary blinking that followed. A strong startle response is indicative of heightened fear and arousal. The results, which are published in the journal Science, revealed significant differences in both responses, which corresponded with people’s political views. Those with “markedly lower physical sensitivity to sudden noises and threatening visual images” tended to support liberal positions, while those with strong responses tended to be more conservative.

 

This would fit with the hypothesis that people who have more fearful responses to perceived threats are more likely to be conservative, while those who have weaker responses develop more liberal views.

h/t to Cernig at Crooks and Liars who had this to say:

Jeebus, they went to all that trouble when they just could have asked Karl Rove? The GOP has been using fearmongering - on terrorism, evil axises, taxes, guns, God, gays etc etc - as a vote-getting tactic for how long now?

 

9/11! 9/11! 9/11! Now vote for McCain or you're all gonna die!

 

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one, :shrug:

Buffy