Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Great point. It’s so much easier to dismiss an argument than attack it. I have nothing to add to this except that I will have to watch myself so I do it less.

When exactly is war good? Just maybe, but good? By the way, I don’t think that is irrational just inprecise.

I happen to believe most of us are frequently not rational. War is not rational on the face of it. Everyone loses, but that doesn’t stop it from happening.

I’m sure he’s not referring to me right? :-| Oh dear, I’m getting a reputation. ;-)

This is a pet subject of mine. I’m very fascinated with the workings of human thought and intelligence, especially from a neurological point of view, and how it relates to the environment. Philosophically, it’s one of the big problems out there.

I think we get too much into the whole notion of the predictability of what the other side says, and sometimes ignore the truthfulness of what they are saying. Sometimes the keeping of a drumbeat of this kind is not just (sometimes not even) the expression of political rancor, but also frustration at a group of people who refuse to admit something that is on the factual record.

I kind of like that motto on the Factcheck.Org site: “Everybody is entitled to their own set of opinions, but not their own set of facts.”

Whatever happens, the facts are what they are. Facts may benefit one group or another, but they carry no inherent political loyalties. When the revelation of new facts is judged only in the light of the political benefit to one side or another, and not also in the context of it’s truth value, then the opportunity is there for the politics to spin wildly away from the truth.

Any attitude that sacrifices concern for the facts as they have been presented, and what those facts necessarily imply about our situation is one that is misleading.

I feel that all too often, Republican politics is practiced at the expense of Republican policy. That, indeed, the vote value of the trillion tax cuts is held as more important than the dollar values that will ultimately decide the course of lives.

All in all, I think it is neither productive politically in the long run nor practically for the political platform to be the basis of good decision making. People often say thing short of good advice by the experts and the experienced, that turn out to be flat wrong when considered in a more informed light.

One of the most troubling aspects of this presidency, and among the more disturbing things about what is in Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty is Bush’s insistence on certain policies even in the face of countervailing advice, with political campaign promises and things like that given as the reasons for that disagreement. What people promise to do for people and what people should do are not necessarily the same thing, and it’s only by keeping track of what the solid facts are and following up on the implications of those facts that we get anywhere in the policy realm.

**Wait a second here, I’m guessing no one on this thread thus far has ever heard somebody explain something absolutely whacko with a rational sounding demeanor? frought full of talking points and redundant monotribal soundbites?

How about Gingrich with his Toffler sci-fi futurism, remember the homeless with laptops idea and his women in the military statements? How about Kucinich with his U.N. in and U.S. out rhetoric(which he has thus ameliorated or atleast thought through more fully). How about Bush and cabinet claiming that terrorists attack us because they “Hate freedom” or more recently John McCain wanting to make cable tv a pay per single channel service and daftly supposing that by enhindering a corporation they won’t resort to price gouging consumers?

Have you heard the FCC lately? Apparently a fourty year old womans breast is more offensive than murder being portrayed nightly on primetime television? Or that poopie and vagina jokes from Stern are ruining our nation’s youth? (kids today have more offensive screensavers)

How about Bush trying to amend the U.S. constitution to stop gays from marrying? How about the televangelists Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, and Billy Graham? Conservative or not, they’ve got the squirrel cage wide open.

My binary point is thus, the tone or talking point is’nt what makes the proponent, pundit or prognosticator a mind to be envied or admired it is the followthrough and consideration of odds, obstacles and other people as it relates to them that is the hallmark of rationality. Think it through on all sides, 360, before you shoot it out your ass! That’s rationality!

**And one more thing, a portion of greater rationality is also existent in finagling to meet with one’s given agenda or objective, more popularly known as the “flip-flop”.

There is a viable reason to nuance, without such all you have is method and idealogical rote as you navigatory devices. Making something workable means you must negotiate reallities and systemic structures in place to meet a desired result. A mouse in a maze is useless if it cannot turn and negotiate corners and a blind mouse is even worse if uncognizent of walls and structural divergeancy (lack of pattern to how things really are) the world is quiltwork.

A. reallize what’s reallistic and how it works and what it is (who, what, when, where and why prior to arriving at the “how”).
B. Plan the maneuver or thought to meet with that body of facts and guesstimate end or desired result and counter effects of your assertion (also what it serves).
C. And when you explain your ideas in detail, expect that dumb-ass people are going to call you a “flip-flopper” because they have’nt done the neccessary homework/intellectual groundwork you have so you’ll have to explain it from their perspective or from their lack of informational accrueance, over and over again and it will eventually drive you nuts!

My contention; rational people are usually rather quiet individuals, I’d imagine.

I’m not sure I can add much to this, but it occurs to me that this brings up the issue of what our worldview is and the natural sifting we do to determine what is relevant information and what is not. After all the same facts can be interpreted in many different ways, and often are.

What determines ‘how our beliefs are produced and sustained?’ I think mainly it is through experience. But experience can be a roll of the dice in many ways. Experiences can mislead. Not every man is an alchoholic. We make choices. Experience allows us to adapt to circumstances as they have been and as we reasonably expect them to be in the future. But because of our rational ‘flexibility’ we can believe things that aren’t true, even convince ourselves to believe in things that aren’t true, if we have enough reason to do so. Partly for that reason and partly because of efficiency, we discard information that might contradict our worldview and accept information that confirms it.

I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing as long as you can have some process and openess to evaluate information that is ‘contradictory’. Without some continuity we couldn’t function as rational beings. We need to have a consistent worldview. I think our mental health requires it.

If the beliefs you held for a lifetime were suddenly shown to be completely false, what would you do? How much do you have invested in your worldview? I’m sure it’s true that there are many who would not change without it being made completely inevitable.

Many times it’s not the facts that are in dispute, but the interpretation of what the facts mean. It’s probably a higher level of abstraction in which we attribute different values according to our own worldview.

If our worldview is based on our experience, and everyone’s experience can be somewhat different then there can be many worldviews and many different arguments on the same issue. After all there are facts, and there are facts. I’m not a lawyer, but in law doesn’t intent matter almost as much as the facts? Intent is a hard thing to pin down sometimes, and is more subject to interpretation than the facts themselves.

Throw in religion, emotions, relationships, and personal loyalty and you have a recipe for divergent opinions about the same exact facts. After all, there have only been one set of facts throughout history, right? Everything happened as it actually did, but somehow there are differing versions of history. I don’t consider this irrational at all. It’s natural. We are finite sentient beings, limited in our capacity for knowledge and ability to take in and process sensory input. There’s bound to be some disagreement.

Stephen, I can tell you from experience in psychology and philosophy, that in this country or any modern western society, the general population can be categorized into two general groups on any particular issue. Those who see the world in segregated terms, and those who see the world in integrated terms.

What do I mean? Well, segregated terms show up with beliefs, thinking and attitudes that reflect “us and them” type thinking. These people are generally avid sports fans, patriotic about war, and judgemental about anyone who reflects values or ideas that are not in keeping with their own.

Integrated terms means folks who tend to see the world in wholistic terms. They use the word we, very frequently even in debate, and tend to see what is common and connected in their thinking and perceptions of the world. Folks in this camp tend to support environmental issues, peace above all except in direct defense, and are more tolerant of those with different views, values and ideas. These folks also tend to believe the idealistic is achieveable.

Like all things social or philosophical, such categorization is not hard and fast and by no means a science. However, it is an effective method of anticipating how folks will respond to certain issues if their behavior falls clearly into one camp or another.

I have not had the opportunity to do the research, but my bet would be that those who see the world in segregated terms by and large fall into conservative political camps, whether that be in England, Australia, Spain or the U.S. And those who view the world in integrated terms largely fall into politically liberal camps.

If you think about it, if this categorization is valid, it would be damn difficult to find any issue in society upon which the whole population could agree given equal distribution of education, experience and socio-economic status.

There is quite a bit of research done on perceptual discrimination from the sensory (which is abundant) to the cultural (which is not so abundant but does exist). It is an amazing topic. There is a tribe (in Borneo if I recall correctly) which does not have the ability to distinguish green from brown. They don’t even have a word in their language for the color green. Green to them is just a shade of brown. While the children can easily be taught to make the discrimination, the adults proved virtually unable to pass the color discrimination tests after training.

There are some thinking approaches that become hardwired after puberty. Thus, changing peoples minds on an issue becomes more difficult as the population ages. This has particular consequences for this baby boom generation and the political chasm we find ourselves in today.

Of course this discussion is applicable to populations and there are hosts of exceptions to any social science theory or measurements.

I personally believe there are open minded people in the world capable of rational evaluation of circumstances based on available information but I also believe no one is ever rational and open minded on all topics at all times. That would be reaching for perfection in a human being and I don’t believe there are any of those.

DAVID,

**I think that that encapsulates it too narrowly. The dichotomy between the integrators and the segregators is fascinating but it’s a general theory that is being provided to determine things that are specificitous.

Sports fans are people that played sports in their youth more often than not. Peaceniks are usually people that are’nt reliantly blind faith and more hopeful of having better in their own lives(optimists more often than not) Vs. those who view optimism as wool picking nievete. Environmentalists tend to be people who have had experiences with camping, hiking and hunting(including many republicans). And those that are more tolerant of others views and personal differences are people who have had eperiences with those with differing views and ethnicities, religions etc. It’s a matter of evolvement. And I’ve heard numerous Democrats and used to be one that was quite intolerant of republican mindsets until I met some that showed me my own arrogance as it showed me theirs. But what I’m saying is that it is more than likely a product of environ and inculcation(nurture) that generates the evolution of it.

Case in point, Rush Limbaugh talking to his father on conservative topics that formed many of his adherent concepts.

But here’s my contention, what makes one more likely to be republican or democrat has to do with parenting and the strictness by which they were raised. There is a phenomenon of having a totalitarian personality-type that I think there are varying gradations of this and this determines the maleabity of talking one down from his/her concepts. Versus those more open to change and concideration.

A totalitarian personality type sees people esentially as bad and only through punishment and indoctrination can they become good where as the more lenient type sees people essentially as good people made bad by experience or indoctrination. It barrels down to following in line(republican)versus individualism(democrat)so it’s parental roles that they are mimmicking to some extent as well as roles in involvement (negligence/strict involvement/caring nurturement etc.).

This dichotomy is really quite age-old the rights of the state versus the rights of the individual. And the roles played by the parents in that evolution. People that were abused without reason are more likely to be people that can be convinced into following more easily as well as are quite strict and abusive to their own young as a matter of business. Those who were neglected are more likely to disassociate themselves from power structures and those that were more cared about demonstratably by a parent are more likely to view people as essentially in need of consideration.

So if daddy is government then what daddy does the nature of persona identify with more? Strict daddy or nice daddy?

Let me revise above statement;

replace ‘nice daddy’ with concientous of what he is doing-daddy. That should make more sense in terms of parental behaviorisms, strictness variables and effects on the adaptive psyche.

To hit without explaination(creating a means for conflict resolution)vs. not to hit or to explain why this is taking place. Excessive violence does create a facsimile of a “helsinki syndrome” in kids which they adapt to fit into maturity.

If you ever meet a person who absolutely idealizes his mother ask about corporal punishment by her in childhood, I’ll bet there is a pick your own switch story somewhere.

There is a big difference skunkbud between speculating on what people are like or guessing how people will react, and actual studies which measure correlations between personality traits and predictive behaviors.

Your assumption that sports fans, for example started playing sports when they were young has no real meaning. Almost all children play some games and sports even for a short time when they are in school. Why do so many go on to become avid sports fans and so many do not? Why is there a dichotomy between academic intellectuals who by and large are not sports fans (media research done on this) and sports fans who span the educational and intellectual spectrum?

When it comes to generalizations on human behavior, frequently what appears obvious turns out to not be valid at all under empirical review. But the discussion is rational thought. Rational, which comes from the word ratio which means to apportion one against another, reveals in its very root definition, why two persons both of equal rational capability when measured by math skills for example, will come to very different conclusions given the same premises to draw upon. It has to do with the values different folks place on the very same premises.

Social science has proven that one cannot predict an individual’s behavior based on a group of personality traits. That same science however, has proven that one can predict population behavior based on a group of personality traits in statistical fashion with a functional degree of accuracy.

So, your comment about integrators and segregators being to general, is the best that social science can do. And any attempt to predict individual behavior by personality traits is plain not possible with any useable degree of accuracy. This is exactly why marketing research is worth the money, but, criminal profilers too often are not. Probabilities break down the closer one gets to trying to predict an individual’s behavior. Profilers can predict the class of pedophile behaviors with some accuracy, but not the behavior of an individual pedophile.

Therefore, one can only talk about rational thought as it affects perception and affinity for groups in general terms.

SkunkBud… good example of an irrational argument, based on idle conjecture and or fantasy.

…what makes one more likely to be republican or democrat has to do with parenting and the strictness by which they were raised. There is a phenomenon of having a totalitarian personality-type that I think there are varying gradations of this and this determines the maleabity of talking one down from his/her concepts. Versus those more open to change and concideration.

Dude, what are you smoking?

It barrels down to following in line(republican)versus individualism(democrat)so it’s parental roles that they are mimmicking to some extent as well as roles in involvement (negligence/strict involvement/caring nurturement etc.).

Are all of your arguments based on the same type of reasoning? Broad unsubstantiated generalizations do not a rational argument make. This is about on par with rascist justifications of why people of color are not equal to whites.

Eric, we don’t agree often but, your reply just above is right on. Such thinking is what leads to extremism of the kind which says we good, they bad, nuke ‘em. It is not based on empirical data, facts, or research, just on emotional conjecture designed to prop one’s own position up above others.

Used to debate folks of that ilk most my life and to little avail. Finally gave up. One is either indoctrinated to logical rational thinking by education and/or experience, or one is not. Hence one is capable of being persuaded by facts, data, and research, or one is not.

Regrettably, the persuadeable folk probably make up only about half the population if one considers about half of Dem’s, half of Repub’s and half of all others in that group of persuadeable by data, facts, and research. Probably more than half in fact, but that still leaves a very large minority who are not. One can only hope they make up the group by and large of those who don’t vote.

In defense I have to start with a few clarifiers.

***First of all the topic of rationality was not at issue in my remarks, the comments were in response to what I saw as somewhat incomplete. Sociology is where you are dredging this up from developmental psychology is where I am dredging my stuff from. You are examining ‘what’ in a general sense determining what is there, correct. I am examining ‘why’ an effect ‘generally’ occurs (generally). And I never left out the word “VARIATION” or “VARIABLE” and yes for the most part there is truth to it. Pleasurable effects do cause an adherance to an activity (Sports, Hiking, chess etc.) but it also peaks an invested interest in the sport as a topic (following the sports page etc.). When I said sports I meant competitionally (team or otherwise)not rare and recreationally, say like a game of volleyball at a barbeque.

If your hypothesis was true then it would work in reverse also, Nancy Kerrigan training virtually her whole life would no longer watch ice skating finals and so on. This is an invested interest not just an activity but an adherence and an identity with that sport. It is ‘like’ a belonging that they have found within it and a comradery about it that keeps them engaged. They know the topic well and are ardent fans. And the variable as to why some don’t watch sports could be a host of reasons, but if the parental investment was there perhaps with pride about that child the child’s peak in interest is there and won’t go away most likely. Because it is a part of themselves that was taken pride in. AND YES THERE ARE NUMEROUS VARIABLES!

Secondly,and this is outside sociology and psych, pick up a Time magazine. Now this magazine has spent a fortune trying to market to you. Now you seem like a hip twenty five to fourty five year old, does it reflect you? Does it reflect your politics? Does it reflect your interests in detail or does it leave you wanting something more complete? Please don’t make me get into how marketing research is crap! There are so many people left out in the cold when it comes to what interests them. Bill Clinton was supposed to be precisely what all Dems wanted, the man nauseated me 7/10ths of the time and the only reason he won against Dole is because Bill brought out the female vote in droves. Not marketing, but more appealing than the competition and Hillary did’nt hurt either.

Now, as for the totalitarian personality archetype there is alot of research on that with lots of data. There is a link between Republicans and strict upbringings in many cases. Cases differ on an individual level but inculcation is the most prevalent determiner of how they think. And visa-versa with Democrats.

And I won’t even get into memetics.

Okay guys then where you start is not a factor in development. It’s not a developmental springboard,no.

Your current political ideas don’t circumnavigate your upbringing and your environment whether past or now or your education. Okay, plays no part. Then all those stories I hear about “in my day” were made up right?

I’m not saying things can’t be changed modified and the like. Via new experiences, reallizations, new environments etc.

But okay tell me where you got your political introduction, the mall? someone elses home? the bus stop where?

Quick club what you don’t understand!

Quick club what you don’t understand!

Given the topic was rational thought in a political discussion forum, I’d say you have done the above quite nicely so there appears to be no need for redundancy here.

There is no question that upbringing has a lot to do with ones choices and preferences. But, education plays a huge role as well. If not, why are so many on the right spending millions upon millions to take the liberal out of liberal education? Article on this very topic in last week or so - I will see if I can find it.

But to extrapolate from the general to the specific puts one on very dangerous ground and anecdotal personal experience will never substitute for good research. Any attempt by anyone to cast as large a group of the population as the Democrats or Republicans in a better light than the other based on a value scale is doomed to be proven false, and is so prima facie of one accepts the premise human beings around the globe have far more in common than they do differences. This renders all such large groups equal on the value scales, with equal numbers of faults and strengths regardless of culture, personal upbringing, or even education when the groups are compared.

Now if Republicans in general had more years of schooling than democrats, or vice versa, their may be a quantitative difference in rational thought between the two groups. But, unless you can produce research that indicates that is true, any claim that one party’s members are inherently superior or inferior to another is personal projection of biases and really rather absurd in light of bell curves of populations.

Wait until the day you reallize you are in many ways just like your Dad. Maybe it will be just as momentous as the morning you woke up and without prior influence said today I’ll be left wing or right wing. Okay David I obviously insulted your generalization with mine. And Eric I insulted you as a republican with the term ‘totalitarian’ I’m sure (I know no other name for the archetype) originally it was meant to define archetypes of despots and what make them tick.

perhaps my wording too blunt for something with a lot of interpersonal dimension. But David I still take arguement with the segregator theory that as you have relayed has no basis other than ‘just is’ I’ll take a look around for it. Wholistic concept of the world, that does’nt pigeon-hole. C’mon that whole thing was an masquerading of Dems and Cons and your version, violent brute vs. peace loving good person who votes Nader, thereof. I get attacked for saying life and persona is bigger and has many developing aspects.

I throw the word ‘totalitarian’ in there and fur flies up in the air>

(Did I win the rationality contest?)

Duuuude, you brought up segregators I responded, please don’t make more of this than there is!

Neitze (I’m sure I mispelled that) is not applicable to this conversation. Superior? I certainly did not say superior anywhere I merely attempted to simplify something comprising hundreds of pages into a thread (if not thousands, if not volumes)

According to above comments David’s theory of segregators and integrators has proven correct. You were right!

SkunkBud,

As for my personal anecdotal experience, my dad was a liberal democrat. I am imbued with many of his characteristics. My love of argumentation is one, but politically we are polar opposites.

Had I received fewer spankings from him, perhaps I would be a liberal today. Who knows?

I think that the segregator / integrator argument has some merit but is too broad as well. I would certainly take exception with David’s conclusions that integrators are liberal and segregators are conservative. It’s more likely a mixed bag like everything else.

My personal experience shows that there are rigid thinkers and open thinkers and they fall into all spectrums of the political spectrum.

Actually, as I think about it, it might be fruitless to use political standards to apply to some of these socio-phychological theories.

I’ll just digress to say that the best political conversations I have are with the father of one of my high school friends. He is an old school liberal. Graduated from Harvard in the late 60’s.

I think one thing I’ve come away with from our informal ‘debates’ is that we agree on ends but not the means. By that I mean, we both generally are for equality, prosperity, peace, opportunity, etc. etc. What we don’t agree on is what will get us there. He believes that the beneficial hand of government can do all things, and I just as vehemently believe that empowering the government to do all things will in fact achieve the opposite in most cases.

Suffice it to say that I have no idea what makes one person a liberal and another a conservative. Some people just aren’t very smart or are extremely gullible and so end up falling for the liberal line of thought. ;)

It takes a lot of nerve, to say “Some people just aren’t very smart or are extremely gullible and so end up falling for the liberal line of thought. ;)” and then try to call oneself rational.

Isn’t the hypocrisy obvious when a person in the same setting says

“My personal experience shows that there are rigid thinkers and open thinkers and they fall into all spectrums of the political spectrum.
Actually, as I think about it, it might be fruitless to use political standards to apply to some of these socio-phychological theories. “

and then ascribes liberals with lack of smarts or gullibility for being liberal? Apparently not so fruitless to apply those theories when one is doing the applying, oneself.

It is apparent by this lack of rational thinking that no one party has a monopoloy on it. It is fortunate to have such a stark display of the kinds of folk in both parties who just don’t see the need for rational thinking, or being a whole person instead of Jeckyl Hyde; Politically correct in public and full of contempt in private. But that pretty well describes a great portion of humanity and who am I to criticize a fellow human being, eh?

Not bad on the rationality test, skunkbud. A few notes are in order however. I am 54, been through my mid-life crisis, and resolved my relationship with my dad some 15 years ago. Did his personality influence some of my choices - of course. I identified that parts in him I did not respect and worked to remove them from my reportoire of behavior. I honored his memory by incorporating into my behavior those qualities I did respect, as best I could, being a different person than he.

It is perfectly rational to take exception with my proposal of integrator/segregator categories to explain why folks choose one party over another. I do not have hard data research to support that correlation. In fact, it would be a waste of money and time in these times, to conduct such research, since, neither party would accept the veracity of the results (should they bear out) unless those results were flattering.

However, there is a great body of research on visual discrimination and visual integration - remember the black and white vase and faces? Can’t see them both at the same time. But, a portion of the population does see the faces first, and another portion sees the vase first, and a final portion is not capable of seeing both, unless it is pointed out to them. Those who can see both on their own are integrators at the visual level, and those who cannot see both, are discriminators. This is the kind of research to which I was referring. It is of course, a huge extrapolation to extend the results of such specific and rigorous testing limits to something as general as choice of political party.

Nonetheless, there is a very large body of research and testing that reflects integrator vs. segregator approaches to problem solving. And there are measurable differences in problem solving strategies. Those who choose aggression as a methodology for solving a problem and those who choose negotiation, for example. Would you argue that such measurable choices in problem solving do not exist?

It is not such a stretch, if one agrees to measurable aggression vs. negotiation methodologies for problem solving to apply those methodologies to the political parties in terms of how each goes about solving problems domestically and internationally. Would you agree?

Both are fruitless, I agree if not incomplete and can’t be utilized to make any specific judgements or formulas. And my use of ‘totalitarian’ probably ill-fitted. But what I took objection to with David’s commentary was primarily this notion of catagorization along duallistic lines that fit too neatly with political stereotyping no matter how masked. It was semi-elitist, All sports enthusiasts or pro-war proponents(which is a baiting mainstream general term in itself)are segregators and in one corner and the illustrious peace loving, open minded, integrationalists are in the other. It’s technically wrong (I’ll explain further down)

Perhaps my statements and claims were too terse, blunt and compacted as well as terminology (in review) poorly put. The claims that were made by David were assumptive as I saw it, which is fine. And nothing fits neatly into a box with any such generalities on the nature of persona.

By ‘Republican’ my statements were more in terms of hardline republicans not moderates or those with some republican ideals yet tolerant of debate.

If you would care to see an example of the precise mindset I am refering to head over to the ‘FREE REPUBLIC’(FREEPER) website for a taste test. I would even contend that the majority of republicans on this site are quite moderate in comparison, this is liberal country in contrast. What makes them tick is of interest to me because it is quite puzzling. And yes some Democratic sites do definitely have a hardline agenda as well.

>And I maintain claims that strict households vs. households lacking in structure when growing up do have end product. Also I would assert that environment and exposure do play a role in development of ideas. And people get more extreme in clusters without contrast (democrats/republicans/communists). To many republicans you, Joe bagodonuts,brian and other more conservative posters would be considered a dietary beverage in their segregated clusters (no offense or eludance to David’s arguement). The extremists want inculcation that’s their nature.

But those who accept and those who don’t accept outside influences(although he isn’t claiming authorship it is a body of studies)is wrong on several fronts

***Here’s the point I should have made prior; hypothetical integrators and hypothetical segregators both segregate.

*The sports fan thing was a bit loose.
*The pro-war thing is wrong, Pat Buchanan who is at times very segregationalist(immigration, world involvement) is set against playing world policemen and getting involved in wars. No one in their right mind willie-nillie says let’s try to get our soldiers killed. Although yes, there are some unreallistic sherrif wannabe’s and John Wayne-ers that loom to play world cowboy. But there are a good portion that know what war means even when it’s not being represented in the main stream media and still see change required.

*Integrators are not always peace loving, look at the economic summit in Seattle and others to some this is a field day to pick fights with police. Throwing urine, spitting on police, hitting police, in one instance grabbing a gun out of a holster. Some might contend that they love peace so much they will do what they can to protect it. Then do it a service by not representing us as a bunch of angry neandrethals. But it’s anarchy what can anyone do?

I’ll leave it at that.

DAVID,
I just got your comments, If you would give an example of an instance where this S/I formula has been used. I mean, if it’s a formula that is accurate it must have application.

And I’m not going to venture into the psych stuff again, my explainations are too askewed.

skunkbud, by definition, protestors who antagonize and throw objects at police are NOT non-violent nor peaceniks. To ascribe such folks to any peaceable causes or movements is purely self-serving. Or, if such groups call themselves liberal peaceniks, they know not of what they speak. The protest marches in the 60’s and 70’s for civil rights were in fact engaged in by negotiators and peace choosing people, the overwhelming majority of which were Democrats at the time.

Your argument about Seattle presumes you know that the protestors were democrats and choose negotiaiton and integration as methods to resolve disputes. This is false on its face and by definition. They may have been democrats or liberal, but they could not be categorized as integrators, by definition. Also, do not make the mistake of assuming that the majority who attend peaceful demonstrations in in any way support a few who instigate violence upon police. That would be a very, very wrong assumption. (Like moms attend those things in the hopes of bloodying a cop and being arrested - I don’t think so).

Also, it would be totally inappropriate to categorize all Republicans as violent just because a few who call themselves Republican bomb Women’s choice/health clinics. There are integrators in both parties, as their are segregators. McAuliffe is one of the biggest segregators in his approach to problem solving as I have ever seen. Willing to sacrifice any amount of truth in order to distinguish Democrats from Republicans.

My point was and is, that the conservative parties like the Constitution party and Republican party draw their to their flocks many more who view foreign policy in terms of we/them, and liberal parties like the Green Party and Democratic Party draw to their flocks many more who view foreign policy in terms of just we humans. Hence hawks are drawn in greater numbers to the conservative parties and doves to liberal parties. Segregators and Integrators, we/them vs. all of us, hawks vs. doves, and these differences in choice can be attributable to some extent to perceptual differences, problem solving approaches, and value scales.

There is nothing inherently negative or positive in this dichotomy. I would hope our country would have enough hawks/segregators to deal with invasion of U.S. territories outside the continental U.S. On the other hand, I would hope we have enough doves in government to stay the hand of hawks in a “Sum of all Fears” scenario.

Yes Puerto Rico and the virgin islands could be invaded by China, you’re right!

Secondly there are quite a few who want to make themselves martyrs (aparently it gets chicks in those circles)and in defense I said ‘some’. Those people do call themselves Peaceful Anarchists (probably mistakenly) and yet do those things and have peaceful goals at heart. Ofcourse all protesters are not violent and certainly not moms such as in the million mom march years ago or the parents who lost sons and daughters in the Iraq war marching today.

The difference with the marches of decades past contrasted with today is that people can’t identify with them today as they could then. Due to the exhibtion of extremism. A group of black men and women walking in their sunday best in Selma Alabama vs. A man dressed up as a turtle wearing berkenstocks with a sign that reads’Stop Globalism’. Who is the more negotiable party that perhaps congress can deal with? don’t kid yourself they don’t want to have their issue solved then those types lose the identity they have ensconced themselves with “The Rebel”. But they are looking for negotiation but do little to procure it effectively, due to lifestyle. This represents a good portion of protestors. I’m not pro or con on this I see it as largely inneffective maneuvers. They seem publicly “irrational”, our topic, and it’s that perception that makes them non-negotiable parties in real change. Some don’t want negotiation they want to be hostile, make a stink, get arrested and prove themselves amongst the herd.

skunkbud, I am in total agreement with your last comment. Some, being the operative word.

Sorry, that was meant as a joke.

“Some people just aren’t very smart or are extremely gullible and so end up falling for the liberal line of thought. ;)”

…segregated terms show up with beliefs, thinking and attitudes that reflect “us and them” type thinking. These people are generally avid sports fans, patriotic about war, and judgemental about anyone who reflects values or ideas that are not in keeping with their own.

Integrated terms means folks who tend to see the world in wholistic terms. They use the word we, very frequently even in debate, and tend to see what is common and connected in their thinking and perceptions of the world. Folks in this camp tend to support environmental issues, peace above all except in direct defense, and are more tolerant of those with different views, values and ideas. These folks also tend to believe the idealistic is achieveable.

…I have not had the opportunity to do the research, but my bet would be that those who see the world in segregated terms by and large fall into conservative political camps, whether that be in England, Australia, Spain or the U.S. And those who view the world in integrated terms largely fall into politically liberal camps.

Et tu Brutus?

David: Eric’s last comment ended with a “;)”, which means “I am being sarcastic” or “just kidding”. It’s the ambiguous magic of emoticons!

In any event, I think this is a great discussion. Ultimately, we should all examine how our own beleif systems fit in with the Victor Reppert book quote above.

In other words, we should (as intellectual exercise) periodically ask ourselves what the axioms are upon which we logically build our systems of belief. What are the core beliefs we each hold that are both (a) inflexible (or nearly so) and (b) useful in deducing all other political ideas?

For example, for many of us a core belief is that “stealing is bad”. We use that basic axiom to determine thousands of specific policies like “insider trading is bad” or “copyright infringement is bad”.

The Reppert quote is probably correct in that we generally do not begin with axioms and then work ourselves upwards towards political policies. We probably more often begin with political ideas that “feel” right, then deduce our way down to find what these beliefs have in common.

For fundamentalists, it’s often easier to take a short cut and skip right to things like scriptures and commandments. As contradictory as they often are, you can simply pick a clause or commandment to agree with your pre-determined belief. And for many liberals, moral relativism has taken hold in such a way that it’s hard to have strong beliefs about right and wrong at all.

Thus, ultimately, I think that such an axiom-based (and hence, strictly rationally-based) approach to political philosophy is completely inefficient. Because we are only human and we love intellectual shortcuts, overly-rational politics more often than not leads to bad policies than good policies. There are too many complexities to government policies to be able to deduce the success or failure.

Because many people seek to have a personal system to help shape their political systems, many turn to simplistic axioms that they apply too strictly. Religious fundamentalists, for example, have a set of axioms that often fly in the face of our modern value systems (women’s rights, for example), and yet religious axioms are probably the most prevalent foundation for people’s politics.

For example, there are many straight people who do not have any particular animosity towards gays, who in fact are pretty much gay-friendly, yet they advocate legislation that plainly discriminates towards gays. I suspect this is because although these people may have a high-level belief that discrimination is bad, somewhere deeper in their intellectual hierarchy they have a low-level axiom that says that homosexuality is wrong.

Libertatianism is probably the most axiom-based political philosophy out there, having a core set of beliefs revolving around the idea that respect for individual liberties will lead to a good society. While it is certain that societies with strong civil liberties do much better than those that do not, there is so very little proof that absolute personal freedom (with almost no government intervention into community life) leads to happy and prosperous societies, that it often seems more like a religion than a logical system.

But then again, I have a philosophy that “racism is bad”, and I freely admit that it’s something I take on faith. I mean, how can I logically prove that racism is bad? But I believe it, and I will fight tooth and nail for that belief.

In short, one can be too logical about one’s politics. “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

-Cf

Christopher,

This is the first post of yours I’ve actually not had a partisan reaction to.

For fundamentalists, it’s often easier to take a short cut and skip right to things like scriptures and commandments. As contradictory as they often are, you can simply pick a clause or commandment to agree with your pre-determined belief. And for many liberals, moral relativism has taken hold in such a way that it’s hard to have strong beliefs about right and wrong at all.

I see another component to the fundamentalist clause you are putting forth here. And I say this from my own personal experience as well as observations. Many ideologies have the same general framework. As a new convert you are the most ah, strident? Single minded might be a better word. Everything is new, the belief system seems to answer every question, etc. This works for religion as well as political ideology. In some cases it is interchangable, not all.

But I have seen that those who have stuck around for awhile in whatever belief system, tend to acquire more of an understanding of the grey areas, if you will.

Just an observation.

And I am sorry about that attempt at a joke. It was flippant of me and I actually didn’t mean it like apparently David thought I meant it.

Eric, don’t apologize the rational thing to do would be to say you are an overly sensitive twit would you like a tissue? then offer to E-mail him one with this emoticon :( Then call him a ‘bitch’.

(David, I’m kidding)

Ah SkunkBud,

You make my flippant remarks plausible.

Suffice it to say that I have no idea what makes one person a liberal and another a conservative.

Karl Rove knows: “As people do better, they start voting like Republicans… unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.”