Thinking Liberally...

I recently had a brief email conversation with my good friend and online mentor (who I've never met, LOL) Professor Bob Carroll, author of my Bible, The Skeptics Dictionary and the highly recommended Unnatural Acts: Critical Thinking, Skepticism, and Science Exposed!. In the course of the emails, he sent me a link:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/04/09/the-thinking-liberal/

Now... I don't see any "political bias" when I look at the Freakanomics guys. I see them getting in plenty of hot water with both Liberals and Conservatives, and there is very little that "politically correct" about them, no matter how you slice it. Also, it should be mentioned that while I don't always agree with their conclusions, there is no denying that they'll give you something to think about, and a perspective that, regardless of your ideology, you likely hadn't considered before. And I like that sort of thing no matter where it's coming from.

But that post really made me laugh out loud.  Particularly the summary/brief that was posted about the paper (my favorite parts in bold.):

The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

Yeah... Ain't that the truth!

Another book recommendation, from Professor Carroll, which I'll definitely be checking out myself:

The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality by Chris Mooney

Should be a fascinating read!

LOL

Reply to Conchobhar's vanden Heuvel article

When I first read this I hard time separating vanden Heuvel's points and opinions from Chait's. I'm blaming that on the NyQuil, so hopefully I can keep them strait this time around. And I really only want to explore one aspect of the article - the idea of party loyalty, group-think, hero-worship and unconditional support. I'm not going to defend Obama's record, but I'd feel more than a little silly bashing it at this point, seeing as how this was in reposes to a post in which I honored a website dedicated to listing out his accomplishments. (But I probably will anyway.) My opinion on Obama is fairly simple: I supported him in the primary, happily voted for him (esp. w/ Sarah Palin in the #2 spot on the other ticket!) and felt very hopeful that we would get a strong, popular, MODERATELY LIBERAL candidate... which, after eight years of living with the hard-right, seeing our civil liberties eroded away and the Supreme Court pulled solidly to the Right, SHOULD have seemed like a breath of fresh air, and a step in the right (not Right) direction. Of course, I'm as disappointed and disgusted as anyone, and Obama's judgment as a failure over all is well earned, even if the Right-leaning voters haven't the slightest clue as to WHY. Done. I will say no more about it.

BUT... I've certainly leaned pretty heavily over the years on the trope that the Republicans band together whilst the Democrats mostly bicker amongst themselves. That the Right votes (and thinks) in lockstep whilst the diversity of opinion on the Left - while idealistic and admirable - often times sabotages their ability to govern. And that's BEFORE you get someone who's as allergic to hard negotiation as Obama is.

And this article really challenges that trope. I mean, sure, me and a few of my fellow bloggers might criticize Obama (and/or Clinton) but I'm an engineer - a man of SCIENCE. Can this really be quantified? What does it say about this that idea that there are many historic examples of the OPPOSITE being true: that the Right is all disjointed and the Left are the ones that close ranks?
Well... I ain't ready to buy that just yet, but some reconciliation is obviously in order.

So I'm going to go through the examples one by one, starting with Reagan. I think that's the best place to start, because any discussion of MODERN Conservatism and Liberalism, or for that matter Democrats and Republicans really can only be traced back as far as Reagan, maybe Carter. You go back much farther and the parties just look too different form what they are today for these comparisons to be relevant. (In Nixon's day, there were still Conservative Democrats - mostly Southerners - and still some Socially Liberal, Libertarian Republicans. And while that all started to change in the 1960's with the Civil Rights Act (Johnson was right about losing the South, but he was being wildly optimistic that it would ONLY be 'for a generation!') it was finally beginning to cement itself during the Reagan Years. I would say the last nail in the coffin was 1994 and the Gingrich-led Congress, but they were certainly polishing the wood for it, so to speak, during the Reagan years.

Now Hoeft mentions how Reagan had his critics. He mentions the hard Right, because Reagan DID raise taxes several times. (Not something that's really associated with his legacy, but true all the same.) He also had his critics all over the map because of what was the first of what would eventually be twelve years of deficits that were insane in any time that wasn't a full blown World War. But in the end, as Dick Cheney so *ahem* eloquently put it: Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter. (Yeah, unless there's a Democrat in the White House, huh, Dick?) And whatever Right-Wing critics he had on tax policy, he pretty much silenced them in 1987, by lowering the top-tier tax rate to 28% - almost as low as what a median income earner was paying just the year before, while leaving the upper-middle class bracket at 33%. That's right - for three years we actually had a REGRESSIVE taxation system, for the only time in the history of the Federal Income Tax. And given Reagan's historic landslide in 1984, I would hardly say that these critics of the now iconic Republican were really all that significant. Or critical.

And besides... While Reagan might not have always enjoyed the full support of his party (though I question how often this really translated into "No" Votes) he was the one who STARTED the trend. What was his greatest legacy?

"Do not speak ill of your fellow Republican."

Party loyalty was the at very heart of the man's philosophy and is perhaps his most significant and lasting legacy. If the Right learned ANYTHING form the Reagan years (and given the Bush'43 years, I have my doubts) it was this.

So... Fast forward to 1992, and the Republican Primary and incumbent President George H.W. Bush (whom I consider to be the best or 2nd best Republican since Teddy Roosevelt) facing the music from the likes of Pat Buchanan and the Christian Coalition. Look... I don't mean to dismiss the destructive influence that this combination of bigotry and fanaticism has had on the Republican Party. Starting with Jerry Fallwell, then Pat Robertson and now James Dobson (and others) the Christian Right has been destroy the Republican Party for DECADES now. But if you are going to look at George H.W. Bush's loss in 1992, and try to figure out what happened, the elephant in the room can be summed up in two simple lines:

"It's the economy, stupid!" ~Bill Clinton

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" ~George H.W. Bush

That's it. That's all you need to know. George Bush was an INCUMBENT. Any nonsense from the likes of Buchanan or any others are inconsequential next to those two, simple lines. There was a recession. And while it's kind of stupid to blame a recession solely on the President, it's not as dumb if he just raised taxes (after basically saying he wouldn't.) As for the "read my lips" quote? Well, at least the Right is consistent, I'll give them that. Juts like Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet* Bush'41 never said he wouldn't RAISE taxes. He just wouldn't create any NEW ONES. Well... I can certainly see how that could have been misinterpreted. Al Gore's statement... not so much.*

*it's off-topic, but read the end comment.

And at the end of the day, it's not like the Christian Coalition went and voted Democrat, nor did Buchanan really represent a serious primary challenge: Bush trounced him by over three to one in the popular voter and won every single State. Buchanan represented no more than a symbolic (and possibly egotistic) challenge. So... I'm sorry. It's pure and utter bullshit to say that a lack of PARTY LOYALTY cost Bush the '92 election. He went back on a "Read my lips" pledge, and was in a recession, running against a charismatic candidate who constantly reminded people of it.

Dan Quayle didn't help matters much either.

OK, now... Fast forward again to Bill Clinton, 1998.

After six years of compiling a largely Republican record: NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, '96 Telecom Monopoly Bill, Repeal of Glass-Steagal, and a 38.6% top-tier tax rate (remember, from 1982 to 1986, under Reagan no less, it was 50%!); one could certainly make the case that Liberals were fed up with him and his "new Democrat" paradigm. Aside from Bryer and Ginsberg? I can't think of a single, bona fide Liberal thing the man did. Of course, that's not why I hated him then. I was a Conservative then, and still at a "William" level of Right Wing brainwashing, thanks in equal parts to Rush Limbaugh and growing up in the family I did and the times that I did. What can I say? As a CHILD? Reagan was my hero. (I sent him a get-well card when he got shot. He sent me back a letter. That was a pretty deal to a then seven-year old!) (Even though I know he didn't actually write it himself!) But... I'm grown up now, and so I know better. Now? I hate Clinton for the right (not the Right's) reasons.

So how does one explain how we all "rallied" around Clinton during the impeachment proceedings? Where were all his Liberal Critics then? Why didn't we join with Newt Gingrich, in the hunt for justice... Sorry... I can't even type that with a strait face. Rallying around Bill Clinton during his impeachment had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton, and EVERYTHING to do with NEWT GINGRICH! I mean, come on... So the guy was bullshit President. That doesn't mean we're going to sit back while some Right-Wing, jack-booted, cocksucker like Newt Gingrich REMOVES A POPULARLY ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE over something as inconsequential as a blow-job from an intern! (And before any doofuses out there tell me it was about lying about it, let me ask you something: How do you feel about the fact that Gingrich him self was having an affair at the time? And did you feel the same about incoming speaker Bob Livingston? Who that mean old Larry Flynt at Hustler magazine "forced" to resign as incoming Speaker over HIS affair? It was a bullshit impeachment, and you know it, so don't waste our time!) What was on display in 1998 was not support for Bill Clinton so much as a backlash against Gingrich and his hyper-partisan, Republican-led witch hunt of Clinton. It wasn't a defense of the DEMOCRATS so much as it was a defense of DEMOCRACY. The Republicans couldn't win fairly in '96, so they were going to ruin him.

Funny how history repeats itself, huh? You'd think Barry would have known the types of people he was dealing before he took the job. Shame that.

So fast forward again (over eight years of a President who WAS NOT popularly elected, and who the press - that's ALL of the press - cheer-led for as he exploded the deficits, startled illegal, unnecessary and unfunded wars and happily chipped away at our civil liberties) to our "savior" (the Right's words, not ours) Barack Obama. So... HOW do I explain why so many Liberals (including your's truly, for longer than most) stuck with him for SO long? Thought a health care bill that resembled Gingrich's c.1993 before the Republicans even took first crack at it. Through a stimulus bill that was trimmed down to a size that would satisfy the very people who's leader stated as his 'top ptriority' making [Obama] a one-term President. Through replacing two reliable Liberal votes on the Supreme Court with two moderates - thus moving the Court farther to the Right. WHY have we stuck with him? Why are there so many still do?

Well, I see two things, really. In the early days, say... early 2009 though about mid 2010? I think there was a lot of... confusion. Obama suddenly didn't sound a whole lot like the guy we had all voted for. That's not normally surprising, most candidates don't live up their rhetoric, but Obama was elected on a large part BECAUSE of that rhetoric! And give HUGE majorities! In BOTH HOUSES! And, pretty much just like Clinton, he took that Liberal mandate and ran right to the Center with, quite possibly overshooting the mark. And... well.. I figure a lot of people didn't even notice at first. And once they did, couldn't figure out what to make of it. And Obama had MUCH larger majorities than Clinton had. (And also squandered.)

And then there was the Right. See... I also think that a lot of the image people had of Obama as this extremely Liberal guy came from the Right. I pretty much knew I was voting for a moderate because I recognized the Right's blathering as pure horseshit and listened to what Obama had to say. The quintessential example of this was when Obama said, [PP] "If we have actionable intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, I would consider military incursions into Pakistan in order to capture him." Within a day this very rational position became "Obama wants to OVERTHROW Musharraf!" (That was our "great ally" Musharraf, BTW, who's country Bin laden WAS actually hiding in the entire time!) And within a day of THAT, I'm getting emails from my Conservative friends saying how Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan! Seriously! And they BELIEVED this! And even after PROVED to them that this was an idiotically absurd interpretation of the man's words, they're response was STILL be best summed up by my friend, Mike, who said, "Yeah, OK, but still... Strange dude."

*face palm*
*shakes head*

Now... What role does all this play? Well... Consider the average American voter. They get inspired by his lofty rhetoric, and here the Right demonize him with every epithet they can muster. He comes into office, seems to capitulate to the Right on just about every key issue, and they... KEEP ON demonizing him with every epithet they can muster. So let's go back to that relatively mild-mannered voter, and now woefully misinformed voter. Sure... there are those on the Left who say he's going too far to the Right, but... If that were true why does the Right seem madder than ever at him?

Well... simple answer: They're bat shit fucking insane, that's why!

And that's really been the trend since at least the Clinton years: As the Republicans have pulled farther and farther to the Right, the Democrats have responded by moving to the right. And as the Democrats have compromised by moving to the Right, the Republicans have responded by moving EVEN FARTHER to the Right!

And at this point? Any real Liberal who's still supporting Obama as a Candidate or the Democrats as a Party are doing so for any of the following reasons: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John Beohner, Mitch McConnel, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... The list goes on, but I think the point is clear. It not so much as the lesser of two evils, so much as voting for the person or party who would compromise with the evil and voting for the actual evil. At this point the Republicans are so far gone, that NEWT GINGRICH, one of the least popular Speakers of the House in American History, is their LEADING CANDIDATE!
And no, I DO NOT hope he gets the nom, because as much as I believe he would getter utterly TROUNCED in the general, I remember 2000 and the Rehnquist Court appointing our next President, and I will not chance that.

I hope Romney gets the nom. He's the only who's not completely insane, completely moronic or both.
And I hope there is a Primary Challenger to Obama, even if it's just a symbolic one, like Pat Buchanan in '92. If there is? They already have my vote, right now, just to send Barry a message. But I'll still vote for Obama in '12 in the general and, if he loses, I will personally kick the ass of every Liberal who stayed home. Our next President will likely named Ginsburg's successor, and possibly (remote, but still...) Scalia's or Kennedy's. Do you really want that job to be done by Newt Gingrich?!
And THAT'S why I don;t think you can measure our "loyalty" in votes. Because the alternative REALLY IS that much worse.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that my take on the whole thing. And I'm keeping my stance that the Dem's remain the Big-Tent and the Pub's the group-thinkers.

-------------------------------------------

*OK... Al Gore. The Internet. Here's EXACTLY what he said, in his interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Couple of things...

First of all, Blitzer didn't challenge him on the point. At all. He didn't seem to think this claim was all that remarkable at the time. Liberal Bias? Hardly. More like: IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. How did Gore do this? Well, for a start, there was the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, commonly known as the "Gore Bill." This laid the legislative groundwork for the the National Information Infrastructure, which serves as the foundation of what we now know as the Internet.

Was his statement even misleading or an exaggeration? Well, I think Snopes gives the best take on that question:

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid 1960's that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway system, we would not have seen dozens of editorial lampooning him for claiming that he "invented" the concept of highways, or implying the he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept that Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

If you believe he said it, or doubt the veracity of what was actually said, then you simply do not have a basic understanding of the facts. Because all of the guys that YOU THINK "invented" the Internet? Like pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn? Note that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication."

And making Al Gore's ACCURATE CLAIM into a joke? Makes you sound about as stupid as drawing a picture of Ike with a hard-hat and a shovel - and meaning it as mockery - would do. If you're reading this? You and I both owe a lot of that that to AL GORE. To believe anything else is to swallow the lies that Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter told you because they KNEW that Bush would be trounced if the public ever came to grips with just how much Gore had accomplished - the FUCKING INTERNET for fuck's sake!!! - versus how little Bush had. (Trading Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Marique?! What an idiot!!!) So clearly a different narrative had to be told. They're paid propagandists, who preach to the greedy and the gullible. Nothing more.

Go far enough to the left...

...And you'll find as much of the smae stupidity as you find on the Right.

(Of course, to be fair, on the Right you don't have to go nearly as far!)

Let me back up a bit...

I don't care for labels.  I'm not a "Republican," but that doesn't make me a "Democrat."  Thanks to all of the political and mental baggage that comes with the label, I haven't called myself "Conservative" in about 20 years or so.  Does that make me "Liberal?" Meh, I suppose.  That's fine, if that's how those numb-skulls want to characterize me, I'm OK with that.  I can't stop them, and I hardly see it as an insulting epithet anyway.  But I just don't embrace labels. (Which alone, in their eyes, MAKES me a Liberal!) But I don't really care if my position on something is Liberal or Conservative.  That it happens to be liberal 90-some percent of the time is entirely a function of modern Liberals largely choosing the path of reason, rather that me choosing the path of  modern Liberalism.  I like "Progressive" better anyway, since it conjures imagery more about forwards versus backwards than Right versus Left, but again: I really don't care if I earn that label or not.  I only endeavour to form opinions that I believe are principled and defensible and that will lead to positions that make the world a better place.  If, years from, now it's happens to be so-called "Conservatives" who do that? Fine. Then I'll be "Conservative" again.

I guess my point is that I just hate DOGMA (the philosophical concept not the Kevin Smith movie!) and DOGMATIC thinking.  And really that precludes me from being Conservative these days, because ever since they decided to basically abandon Social Libertarianism and embrace Christian Funny-Mentalism, dogmatic thinking has become a basic requirement to being Conservative.  And while [whatever you call the alternative: Liberalism, Progressivism, etc...] simply does not embrace dogma the same way - Liberalism is all about CHANGE, after all - the fact is that if you go far enough off the deep-end (and we do have one) you'll find that there IS in fact dogma, or at least dogmatic thinking in "our camp" as well.

The first time I encountered this was in seeing the hard-core Feminist reaction to basic rape-prevention advice, characterizing any and all discussions of that nature as "blaming the victim."  And DON'T GET ME WRONG: There is NEVER any justification for rape, and I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE we have a societal commitment to stopping all forms of Rape, Violence against Women, Sexual Harassment, and any other form of mysoginy and gender discrimination.  Hey: I manage to get through every single one of my days, working with women, without triggering a lawsuit; so I have very little sympathy for those man who can't seem to accomplish this. (And I've worked with some of them as well. Dumbasses, every one.) I despise the Barbie doll on many levels, and truly believe that the sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.  So I've got plenty of feminist cred.  Yet, when it's pointed out that maybe after her fourth abusive relationship, a girl might want to take batter care in selecting her life-partner? (Or address whatever personal issues she's got that keeps her fgoing down the same path over and over?) I get attacked for "blaming the victim." Hey: Society can do anything and everything you want them to, and yet in the end you can still only control your own actions.

When idealism blinds you to pragmatism?
That's dogmatic thinking.

The other day on MMFA, I was in an argument with a LIBERAL who wanted to defund NPR, because their bias was even more insidious than Fox's, since they put on juts a good enough of show that people believe them to be objective.  OMFG, where to even begin?  NPR is worse for society than Fox? *shakes head* Is NPR perfect? No.  They absolutely are not perfect.  They have biases and agendas and rely on political favor from congress as well as corporate donors for their financial survival.  So yes, they have committed every error from false equivalency and balance to broadcasting outright RW misinformation.  The thing is? That is largely the EXCEPTION at NPR, where it is the RULE at Fox.  If you seriously conclude that NPR is WORSE than Fox?  Well... You're either off the deep end of Conservatism, or off the deep end of Liberalism, as was the case here. (Though, for the record, I do agree with them that there was simply no reason for NPR to act as they did in this case. However, much like with MSNBC's treatment of Olbermann in 2008, I will take a media station that at least HAS a standard of ethics over one that flaunts their lack of one ANY DAY.)

So... what's this all about.  Well... I'm talking to my Dad earlier today (staunch Conservative / Republican) and he asked me if I'd heard about this idiot superintendent in Massachusetts who wants to ban Halloween, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving.  Now, I had, on MMFA. But in a stunning (LOL) show of liberal bias, they point out of she may have had plenty of Conservative allies (Christian Whack-Jobs, Pat Robertson, etc...), had she just stuck to Halloween. But they kind of left out the rest of it. But that's fine, I've got the whole story now.  And you know what?

She's a fucking idiot.

Now DON'T GET ME WRONG:  My objection to this particular breed of LW insanity has nothing to do with the "PC Police" complaints coming from the Right.  Unlike the modern breed of jingoistic, Right Wing, "American Execptionalists" I have no problem discussing the genocide of the Native Americans (and it WAS a genocide) nor of the Europeans bringing diseases, nor of them stealing their land, nor of having a frank discussion about those very "exceptional" origins of America from all angles.  And it is precisely because I believe those discussion to be of such importance that I make my judgement of her.

What better time to have a complete discussion, and endeavour to give children a FULL and COMPLETE understanding of our history than in the context of these Holidays?!  And seriously... It's not like Thanksgiving is all about celebrating the Pilgrims (eventual) victory (massacre, genocide) of the Indians, and neither is it really about trying to GLOSS OVER IT either.  Not anymore, anyway.  For as long as I can remember, it's been little more than a Hallmark Holiday and an excuse to drink and est yourself into a carb-coma.  Maybe, maybe  we'd take a few minutes to "give thanks" for the "things were thankful for." (Hardly an offensive practice.) But really?  It's about Turkey and Potatoes and Stuffing and Gravy and possibly some form of Alcohol.  So if this person wants to raise awareness about what REALLY happened to the Native Americans, maybe a more productive way would be to fill the void of meaning that this holiday has now, let the kids have their celebration, and USE THE OPPORTUNITY to EDUCATE them a little!  (They still do that in schools, right?)

She'd reach a lot more people that way, raise awareness about the American Genocide that much higher, and piss off... basically no one! (I'm not even sure that ACTUAL Native Americans would give a crap about this, one way or the other!) And so thinking that we should BAN Thanksgiving and Columbus Day (not to mention Halloween?) is just stupid.  And, if it's coming from a Liberal motivation, only the result of what happens when LIBERALS start engaging in DOGMATIC THINKING of their own.

Nothing will accomplish more in getting modern Americans to FORGET about the fate that befell the Native Americans than BANNING Thanksgiving Celebrations.  On their best day FOX NEWS could only dream of accomplishing so much harm.

How Conservatives Think (~part 2)

A looong while back, I penned this piece pointing out what I thought was the central flaw in HOW Conservatives think. Not WHAT they think, mind you - because it's not like I always agree with Liberals anyway - but HOW they think and HOW the reach their positions and HOW they defend them. Because whether I disagree with them or not, I find HOW they think to be completely offensive, intellectually.

Before I argued that Liberals form their positions based on evidence, while Conservative form their positions and then evaluate any and all evidence accordingly. I still stand by that, but it's not really the ROOT of the problem. Nor is it really the difference in how Conservatives and Liberals think, at their cores. The biggest difference between is that Liberals have no sacred, dogmatic assumptions.

Conservatives go into every debate, and try to solve every problem, starting out with a sacred set of assumption. Tenets that they believe to be both sacred and self evident and that they simply CAN'T examine, or challenged in ANY WAY. These are things like...

1) Raising Taxes is always bad, lowering taxes is always good.
2) Increase [non-Defense] Spending and/or "Growing the Government" is always bad.
3) Christianity is always good, and can do no wrong, on the virtue of its Christianity.
4) America is always good, and can do no wrong, on the virtue of its being American.

This list is hardly exhaustive, but I think you get the idea. And the Conservative would likely look at that list and say, "Yeah, so? What's wrong with that?"

The then go on to ASSUME that the Liberal position MUST THEREFORE be the opposite. That...

1) Liberals want to raise taxes.
2) Liberals want to grow the Government
3) Liberals hate Christianity
4) Liberals hate America

The problem here, and where the conservative errs is that it's not the overall sentiment of the statement that we necessary disagree on: It's the "ALWAYS" part. It's in the assumption that these tenets can NEVER be challenged and NEVER be violated no matter what the situation or problem might call for! This is evidence of the "black and white" thinking that they engage in. They decide something is either ALL GOOD or ALL BAD and then never question or examine that assumption.

To the liberal, there ARE NO "sacred, dogmatic assumptions." The Liberal knows that just about EVERYTHING is both good AND bad. EVEYTHING has positives and negatives. NOTHING is black OR white. Some things are pretty dark grey, and somethings are a damned light shade of eggshell, but nothing is INHERENTLY good or bad to a liberal. Everything, every possible solution to a problem, is always on the table.

That's why (as I've been trying to hammer into Floyd's think, empty head these past couple days over on MMFA) Liberals, right or wrong, cannot be called "sheep." (Or "sheeple" as he tried tried to call [just] me, even though that would be plural.) We can be WRONG: I've disagreed with other Liberals right here on this very blog! And if two Liberals disagree, which happens ALL THE TIME, at least ONE of them has to be wrong! (OK, yeah, I know: not necessarily. Just think like a conservative for a moment.) So we can be WRONG. But in being wrong, we cannot be SHEEP. Because we don't follow a prescribed dogma. If someone were to ask me for something all liberals believe, I wouldn't have the slightest idea what to tell them, other than, "Make no assumptions, nothing is above examination or questions." There simply IS no other set of assumptions that a Liberal uses when forming his position. Evidence of this is the fact that Republicans almost alwasy vote in lockstep with each other, while the Democrats can't even order lunch without it looking like an excersise in herding cats.  So who's the sheep?  The ones who are always unified or the ones who are always bickering?

And THAT'S really where I think we need to attack the conservative mindset and where I think we might actually (eventually) WIN. Because you're not going to change WHAT people think very easily right now. They're just too misinformed, and too locked into their dogmatic world view.  But if you can change HOW they think - IOW: If you can get them to ACTUALLY think; to throw away their sacred dogmatic assumptions, to throw away the "black or white" view of the world, and get them to recognize that EVERYTHING has positives and negatives and that where the REAL debate is is over how we PRORITIZE our judgments, how we VALUE the various positive and negatives... If you can get them to do that... Shit, you've turned them into a liberal, right then and there, even if they don't even change their position!

And THAT is how I wish we were debating - not form the point of view of assuming mutually exclusive, binding assumptions - they way THEY want to argue, but from an AGREED upon set of FACTS - that tall tings have positive and negatice - and from the POV of prioritizing our various agendas and issues. If we could do THAT, then progress will be made. Because once people start question that which they used to take as sacred, it is inevitable that SOME of their positions - which were based upon little other than these sacred dogmatic assumptions - will start to change as well.

As I said in my previous post, WHAT they think is not nearly as frustrating or as damaging as HOW they think. (Or really... the fact that they DON'T.)

Something I've noticed about Conservatives...

Yeah, yeah, big surprise. Niceguy Eddie's going to bash conservatives. Blah... Blah...

OK I got that out of the way! :) LOL.

There's something I've noticed about conservatives lately. I think it's always been there, but either it's gotten worse since 1/20/2008, or maybe 9/11/2001, or maybe it's always been this way, and I'm just becoming more aware of it lately. But there's something really wrong with the way Conservatives THINK. It's all backwards! And I don't mean that there's something wrong with WHAT they think. That a self-avowed liberal and a typical conservative would have different beliefs or opinions or conclusions is nothing profound. But more and more I'm noticing a very disturbing pattern the WAY that conservatives reach those conclusions... in HOW they think.

And before I go on, let me say that I do not personally speak for ALL liberals (I'm sure many want nothing to do with me! LOL.) So when I say "liberals" I'm speaking for myself and the few liberals I know well, or watch on TV. And obviously, I'm generalizing about conservatives, based on my observations of Fox, AM Radio, etc... and my interactions with conservative posters online (most of whom know I'm liberal) and my friends (who mostly trend conservative) and family (half & half,) none of whom really realize the extent to which I am liberal. (They seem to always assume that I'm somewhere between dead center and moderately conservative. I guess I USED to be, and I just don't go out of my my to present my self otherwise.) But that's what I'm basing this on. So if you're conservative and this doesn't sound like YOU, then either:

1) You're really a moderate liberal and just don't know it. (a few of you)
2) You don't realize that you are in fact thinking this way. (most of you)
3) Despite your misguided political tendencies, you are a very intelligent person and can articulate a good argument, and should really post online more often, because the conservatives who DO post there are embarrassing you. (so far I've only met ONE.)

So here's the way I see it.

When a "liberal" decides on his position, he tends to first look at the available evidence, decide what is credible and factual based on it's objectivity and scientific and academic merit, and construct a position that is supported by this evidence. The resulting ideology is then defined as "liberal," usually by those who disagree with the conclusions.

A "conservative," on the other hand, starts out with a set ideology. He then evaluates the merit of evidence based upon whether or not it fits his ideology. If it doesn't support what he already believe he dismisses it, or its source, as "liberal" and that is enough to satisfy him.

The examples of this are all over the place, but let look at a specific example:

GLOBAL WARMING

Now liberals believe that man's activity is causing a long-term warming trend that is independent of the numerous solar, oceanic, and other warming and cooling cycles that are on-going, well known and accounted for in all of the climate models that support this conclusion. (You see: our position was constructed to be supported by scientific evidence.) This being the case, we consequently believe that we should change our habits to stop or reverse this long term trend.

Now... conservatives DO NOT believe that man's activity is causing a long-term warming trend that is independent of the numerous solar, oceanic, and other warming and cooling cycles, etc... What is their evidence? Mainly studies done that have been funded by the energy industries and conservative think tanks.

WHOA! Hang on a sec... Did I just commit the same crime?! Did I just violate my FIRST PRINCIPLE?! No. And I'll explain why.

First of all, our judgement of the organizations is different. The Heritage Foundation (and other conservative think-tanks) proudly admit to being JUST THAT. They don't deny it. This means that anything they put out is going to be biased. Period. That's their stated purpose.That pretty much destroys any scientific or academic merit or objectivity the evidence may have had. As far as industry science goes... well, I'll admit: SOMETIMES industry is right. There are plenty of examples of say... LAWYERS, and the MEDIA, blaming some problem on some corporation and, in the end, the corporation tunrs out to have been blameless. Dow Corning and their Silcone Breast Implants comes to mind. But in THOSE case the corporate science is under assault by LAWYERS using JUNK SCIENCE to win over JURIES, not SCIENTISTS doing RESEARCH and publishing PEER-REVIEWED papers in ACADEMIC JOURNALS. Independent scientific research does trump corporate science on most days, because they're being paid to do research, not support conclusions.

The fact is that most scientific organizations stand little to gain for going on way of the other. The IPCC and other organizations have little to gain by going against industry. If they were interested in money, there's far more to be made by SUPPORTING industry. (If there was more money in GREEN ENERGY, we'd already be doing it! The big bucks right now are in FOSSIL FUELS, so there's no reason, except the scientific evidence, to have an agenda tha goes against this!) But because they reached a different conclusion, conservatives accuse them of being part of a LIBERAL AGENDA, and thus there data is no good. (In reality, and with most things liberal, the data drives the agenda, not the otehr way around.)

And you see there's also two major problems with their conclusions, independent of the agenda that fuels their research. First of all, the conservatives cannot produce a single Climatologist, doing active research, who supports their position. NOT ONE! (30,000+ Names of "Scientists" on a petition, and NOT ONE active climatologist!) What's more, when politics has been involved not a SINGLE scientist has ever accused the UN or some other Government Body of OVERSTATING the conclusions of their research. Whenever politics gets involved, it is invariably to DIMINISH the perceived threat. But unless they diminish it to the point where it's nonexistant, they're just accused of liberal bias or of havign a liberal agenda and dismissed! Again, the liberal agenda is driven by the evidence, not the other way around!

And besides... If it were not supported by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, why on earth would liberals, or anyone else for that matter, what to believe this anyway?! The conservatives will tell you it's because we HATE CORPORATIONS. Well, that's mostly bullshit. To the extent that any of us judge corporations harshly, it is because they have ACTED IRRESPONSIBLY, and we KNOW THIS because we have EVIDENCE!

...Which the conservative will simply dismiss as 'liberal'. (See how frustrating these people are?!)

See how that works? He can't convince us, because we don't share his [delusion] preconceived world view, and we can't convince him because he will not accept any evidence that doesn't support his [delusion] preconceived world view. But WHO'S RIGHT? (Personally I'd say the one that supported by the more objective, independant scientific evidence, but then I'm a liberal; so what do I know?)

Why would they think that Academics, Scientists, etc... are inherently liberal anyway? Simple: They comes to conclusions and repeatedy find evidence that doesn't support the conservative agenda or philosphy... So therefore they MUST be liberal! And so they conclude that the evidence must be wrong (or biased) rather then their philosophy or preconceived notions. The best of them may even realize how utterly intellectually dishonestly THEIR SIDE operates, but they still make the mistake of thinking we work the same way. So they HAVE to accuse universities, scientists, academics etc... of having some liberal agenda, because that's the only way they can refute the evidence.

And go figure: as a species we DON'T ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING. So pretty much anything we learn will refute something we thought we knew. All scientific progress is based on this self-evident truth, and all conservative philosophy is built around resisting it!

And when we judge "evidence" from the Heritage Foundation, or some huge corporation to be garbage, it is not because we think they're conservative. We already KNOW they're conservative - they come right out and SAY IT. We treat it like garbage because we have BETTER EVIDENCE. Our side (talking about independent scientists now) evaluates their evidence and either incorporates it into their models or outright refutes it. In the case of global warming, for example, every competing hypothesis to explain the OBSERVED and MEASURED 100+ year warming trend has been accounted for and/or debunked! But the conservative groups will never TELL YOU THAT! They'll just keep bringing up the same old crap, that's been debunked or accounted for a hundred times over. Like when they point out that their hasn't been any warming for the past ten years... WHICH IS PREDICTED AND EXPLAINED BY THE VERY MODELS THEY'RE TRYING TO REFUTE!!!

Liberals ideology on this issue is driven by these models. Conservatives opinions of these models is driven by their ideology.

And if they were to ask us, what we would do if we were confronted with true, actual, objective, scientific evidence to the contrary? Well what do you think we would do? WE WOULD CHANGE. That's what Liberals DO after all: CHANGE. And the world is CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Liberals realize this, and change with it. Conservatives don't and try to resist change. This has ALWAYS been the case. But then again, they don't realize this, because they constantly make the mistake of thinking that we're just like them.

Again: It's not WHAT they think that's the problem. It's HOW they think. And at best, the conservatives of ANY generation are only just them coming to accept what the liberals of two generations ago already discovered, but were mocked for by the conservtaives of the day. The world doesn't change becasue liberals want it to. We jsut want to make sure that our philosphy keeps up with it. And likewise, the world will not STOP CHANGING just because conservatives want it to. But not being one, I have no ideas why they'd want to cling to outdated knowledge, or philosphies that no longer work.