What is wrong with you people?

[Shawnee123]

Usually when I hear the phrase "you people" it is followed by "are ruining my life and starving my children."

[Clodfobble]

I'd just like to reiterate that UT's link was a really excellent and insightful article.

The ingroup/loyalty foundation supports virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice that can lead to dangerous nationalism, but in moderate doses a sense that "we are all one" is a recipe for high social capital and civic well-being. A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie and social isolation by decreasing people's sense of belonging to a shared community. Democrats should think carefully, therefore, about why they celebrate diversity. If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns), then these goals might be better served by encouraging assimilation and a sense of shared identity.

America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation... Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Our opinion is completely right and everything else is completely wrong. That's the problem.

Some opinions are left.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This extremely difficult, yet extremely rewarding essay appeared over the weekend.

A somewhat easier-to-digest opinion from Penn Jillette, in a short video: The Party of Hate. Republicans are the party of fear, Democrats are the party of hate. Hard to disagree after seeing your thread title. Let me ask you this: if you weren't addressing a group of people -- let's say you were addressing your friend's Aunt, who has said to you that she'll vote for McCain. Would you come back at her with What is wrong with you?

How I respond to individuals varies by individual. I try to show respect to all, and the response you illustrate isn't very respectful. I almost certainly would not address her that way, unless I were provoked severely. Highly unlikely and unlikely to be useful in any way.

...the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer.

When I oversimplify the positions of the parties to equal levels, this is what it is reduced to: Reps==intolerant.

But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Pretty good summary, unfortunately.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?

The label elitist is earned as much as close minded is. The labels are practically useless. Why is the author bothering to use them? Did he just call me broad minded, color blind and smart? Is he suggesting that those elitist Dems are name calling? Is that a good thing? Is he calling names? Is that ok?

Back in the United States the culture war was going strong, but I had lost my righteous passion. I could never have empathized with the Christian Right directly, but once I had stood outside of my home morality, once I had tried on the moral lenses of my Indian friends and interview subjects, I was able to think about conservative ideas with a newfound clinical detachment. They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate of schools and discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of single motherhood and weaken the traditional social structures that compel men to support their own children? Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later), and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

So now "moral equivalence" is a virtue?

One critical cultural distinction that is absent in this analysis is that our very foundation as a country "exalts" the individual. "All men are created equal..." Remember that? And that ours is a country of laws. And that there's a bona fide process for creating those laws, obeying those laws and enforcing those laws and penalizing those who don't obey them.

I believe our country's respect for the rule of law is the very essence of what distinguishes us from every other society.

And another thing,

think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

Yeah? So what? What weight does the author assign to "heartfelt-edness"? SonofV has some very heartfelt visions of how our family should be run, at least a heartfelt as his parent's visions. And they're often in direct conflict with each other. But that has no real bearing on their validity. Why not? Because they're bad visions. All play, no work, all dessert, no vegetables, etc etc. I exaggerate for effect. My point is that it is a false premise that how intensely one feels is a reliable basis for deciding the worth of an idea.

Originally Posted by philosopher David Hume

that reason is "the slave of the passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them."

Author Jonathan Haidt argues for rational thought to rule our decisions. He then lays the very cornerstone of the foundation of his arguments in the sand of his passions. I am wary of structures built on sand.

I struggled considerably with the feeling that I was on the hook for his accusations of Democrat's shortcomings, especially that *I* don't get it. But I'm over it. I'm not bitter. Really.

The end of his article was quite good. The addition of three channels comprising his definition of morality, ingroup/loyalty, purity/sanctity, authority/respect was understandable and reasonable. I"m not certain of my level of agreement yet, but I'm willing to keep an open mind.

In the meantime, the difficulties in ascribing motivations to groups as large and diverse and contradictory and amorphous as political parties aside, I'm more concerned with understanding smaller collections of politically tainted people, namely candidates. That's a lot easier for me to process with confidence.

Thanks UT for the informative article.

[Riddil]

Gya, I'm sad I missed this thread for so long. Unfortunately cellar access from China is limited to the rare times when Tor is running well. (Well = equivalent to 14.4 modem)

Some great comments in this thread. More insightful than I could have hoped for, actually.

To be honest, my thread topic was intentionally over-the-top. It was really just trolling (I'm sorry!). The post was motivated from an emotional outburst after I was struck dumb after I saw Palin's mind-numbing interview with Charlie Gibson.

Not only would I not say, "What is wrong with you?" to my Republican Aunt, I wouldn't say it to anyone face-to-face. I consider difference of opinion perfectly valid. Hell, in my youth I was a bible-thumper. Who am I to disparage anyone? And even though I may be voting for Obama, the reality is I'm much more of a Libertarian, so there's plenty with his platform that I disagree with. (Not to mention I despise the current Dem Congress).

Funny thing is that from 2000 I've been a strong McCain supporter. I think he's sharp, and more concerned with doing the right thing, than toeing the political line.

BUT

He has changed in recent years. Although even considering his changes, I think he's a sharp enough man that he would be a good president. Finally I won't have to feel embarrassed to be a citizen of a country that has a dunce in the top office.

For me, even though I like(d) McCain, he's carrying a lot of baggage: shifting stance from his own legacy, his move to the right, his choice of Palin....

It's for that reason I think... eh... maybe "change" is the right message. I'm willing to give Obama a chance. I figure he can't be worse than the current prez, and maybe with a Dem in office the worthless congress can actually get to work.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Riddil

BUT
He has changed in recent years. Although even considering his changes, I think he's a sharp enough man that he would be a good president.

George Sr had the same problem. George Sr knew who Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc were. But to get elected, he had to hire them anyway. Thank god for people like Margaret Thatcher who, in Denver, restored George Sr's backbone that had been removed by the above extremists.

McCain will have the same problem. Palin clearly identifies who is now running the McCain campaign.

The Charlie Gibson interview made it obvious that Palin is another extremist front man as George Jr was. George Jr was given an 18 month indoctrination mostly by Rice and Wolfovitz so he could be that front man. Palin will be put through the same program by Republican extremists who are slowly perverting the McCain campaign with their agenda.

George Sr knew Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were not trustworthy. He stated his disappointment of them in his son's administration. But a Republican can no longer get elected without entertaining those rightwing party brokers.

What is wrong with people? Why do so many twenty year olds smoke cigarettes when any logical person knows better? Same process that addicts twenty year olds also issues talking points every morning to Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. That same program was used by Hitler to become popular. Democrats have no equivalent propaganda machine. Disparage the intelligencia and bourgeois - then tell the brownshirts how to think. Brownshirts never ask why or demand numbers. They believe only the first thing they are told. They are easily manipulated by feelings - not by facts and numbers. These people can even be told to smoke cigarettes to be healthy - and will believe it.

It makes no logical sense. But so many people only believe based upon how they feel. The right wing extremists are very good at playing this game. Christian Colleges even teach how to use body language and smiles to influence people - do not even teach calculus or other basic sciences. Cuomo could not understand why so many would vote him as Governor of NY. The majority reason? They liked him. Nothing more. A majority is that ignorant as to be told Saddam had WMDs - then blindly believe it only because it was the first thing told. Most people can be manipulated only by their feelings. The fact that Palin promoted George Jr agendas in Charlie Gibson's interview gets ignored by those who 'feel'.

This majority do not make decisions based upon facts. I don't understand how one can be so naive. But they feel - therefore they know. Concepts taught in junior high school science - how to know a fact - are completely forgotten.

One fact remains completely undeniable from the Charlie Gibson (ABC News) interview. The George Jr people are inside and running the McCain campaign as also indicated by how McCain has changed. McCain had no choice. McCain even quoted George Jr directly when reading a speech written by his new staff. "Our economy is sound" as AIG was going down. Only George Jr was also saying that.

Where did George Jr go as a category five hurricane was destroying New Orleans? He went to McCain's birthday party. Curious? Not as curious as how so many know. They only entertain their 'feelings' which is why Rush Limbaugh, et al are so important in telling them how to think.

[Griff]

I finally got to the essay. Very good stuff, bears a re-read.

[glatt]

I should probably re-read it. I've forgotten already the details of what it said. Something about Republicans just make decisions differently and political candidates would be wise to understand that.

[BigV]

the author says there are five channels through which the electorate communicates and that the democrats focus on two and largely ignore ("just don't get it") the others.

Originally Posted by Joonathan Haidt

In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally.

[Riddil]

Aside from the "tools" suggested with the essay, I was more interested in the central conceit, which I understood as the idea that belief structures are shaped by community. It applies not only to the obvious camps of politics and religion, but really every facet of life. Why is it that Europeans abhor American-football, but are soccer fanatics? And yanks love the NFL, but nod-off during a footy match? It's entirely because everyone is so damn passionate about their "home" sport.

Community influence trumps all logic arguments weighing pros and cons of any two different structures. We've proven to both Dems and Reps that actual policy is almost meaningless. Remember that survey that actually reported the "best match" to most Americans ideals were actually Kucinich and R. Paul? Didn't seem to help them very much.

The effect of community so important that I think it casts doubt on every argument anyone uses for or against either party, and their appeal to the greater population. I don't care how intensely my European friends explain the magic of soccer to me... I won't give a lick. (Likewise, my efforts to pass on the passion for NA football have been entirely in vain). In my mind it's not an emotional connection... I can see the common-sense logic clearly indicating NA football is superior. But finally I have to admit that it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with community preference and rearing. I actually WANT to enjoy soccer, it'd be more fun to hang out in a pub on soccer-night. But I don't think it'll ever happen, my predisposition is to ingrained.

Sadly, it's the same for our two-party system in the US. It has nothing to do with real merit, simply either parties ability to appeal to that "community" feeling in their constituents. It's why Republicans have adopted the "small town values" mantra. What does it mean? They don't even know, but everyone from small towns FEEL as if they're a part of something bigger, even if the Republican policies contradict the ideals of small-town life.

So, I took a long roundabout way to get back here, but I also wanted to address tw's post. Personally I feel you're being a bit extremist in your views, but ok, I can understand where your ideas come from. But I also think it's a mistake to assume that it's only evil Republicans who can be so vile. Democrats can be just as conniving.

Even though I hated Bill Clinton when he was on office, in retrospect I have to admit overall he did a fine job. I think Hillary would also be a good leader (except I think she has one big flaw... just like Bush Jr. it seems she has unerring faith in her vision of the future, dissenters be damned). Even though I think Hillary would be leagues better than most, I simply could never bring myself to vote for her. Throughout the primaries she showed willingness to do or say anything to give herself an advantage. I can't argue it's not effective, but because I don't believe it's ethical I can't support her.

So even though I couldn't bring myself to vote for her... I have to respect her. She was a master showman, just like her husband. The theme of politics today is to do and say whatever is necessary to get to the leadership position.... McCain with Falwell, Clinton in a black church speaking "southern" slang, etc. It's that same "showman" idea that makes W. Bush dance like a twit every time he attends a photo-op where there's some band. People think it's cute... and being cute is better than being judged on your failed policies.

That's why I say they're all rotten. Get rid of the lot of 'em, and lets elect a bunch of goats to lead the country.

I wonder if there will ever be a day when someone will invent a government which actually focuses more on qualifications and acountability, and less on showmanship and "cuteness".

[Riddil]

And as a side-note... the reality is that I do have a unique view into exactly why at least some people still support Bush, and will vote Republican in November no matter who is on the ticket.

Remember a few posts back I said that in my youth I was a bible-thumper? That's rarely something you choose for yourself, it's normally an inherited trait. My parents are still very much card-carrying members of the bible-thumping-squad. That said, here are a few recent gems from my Dad...

"How can everyone call Bush an idiot? The man graduated near the top of his class from Harvard" (I wouldn't be surprised if he also believes McCain was a flying ace, who graduated from West Point)

"I'm so tired of people talking about 'evolution' all the time. Just look around, do you really think we all came from monkeys?" (Funny, the Catholic church is now more liberal than my father...)

"I'm spending $50 a week in gas! I hate these Dems that are forcing the price of gas to go skyrocket because they won't let us drill for oil right off our own coast!" (As the financial crisis and the watering down of the dollar started hammering the price of oil)

When my wife and I mentioned we were considering having a baby, but are having doubts because it would take time away from her career, he offered his encouragement by saying, "You can do it! No problem! Just look at Palin, she has 5 kids and was running an entire state! You can have 1 baby and still run your own business, no problem!"

I've given up trying to rebut. Just like I think soccer is boring, he thinks Dems are devils and Reps are angels from above. "Son, just promise me you won't vote for Obama. The man wants raise my taxes and put everyone on welfare!" (Said by a man earning less than $50K a year)

Bless the man, I love him. But he is another victim of society who would much rather hear someone encourage his "small town values", rather than listen to someone outline an actual policy plan. It'd only confuse him. He'd always choose... small town values! "That's not confusing at all! That's exactly what I believe!"

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think I know your dad... and all his buddies.

[Griff]

I didn't realize Riddil was my brother...

[classicman]

I know people who are fervently in both camps and trying to sway me to their candidate. I get bombarded with emails from both sides daily. I am leaning towards Obama, but I am not positive at this point.

Birds of a feather....

[Shawnee123]

Time and time again you remind us you are not sure at this point. Oh what may I do to persuade you over to my side?