Difference between revisions of "2008-09-09 What Makes People Vote Republican/woozle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Haidt on ethos: rewriting/smoothing) |
(→Haidt and The Political Brain: rewriting/smoothing) |
||
| Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
In the next section, Haidt reaches the end of the science he had to present, and keeps going -- not realizing that he has run past the end of what little credibility he had. ''Republicans have become the party of the sacred,'' says he, ''and Democrats the party of the profane -- the secular -- the material.'' | In the next section, Haidt reaches the end of the science he had to present, and keeps going -- not realizing that he has run past the end of what little credibility he had. ''Republicans have become the party of the sacred,'' says he, ''and Democrats the party of the profane -- the secular -- the material.'' | ||
| − | I don't know if there's any point in explaining how ludicrous this is; loyal Republicans will faithfully ignore any reality I might try to interject (reality has a well-known liberal bias) | + | I don't know if there's any point in explaining how ludicrous this is – loyal Republicans will faithfully ignore any reality I might try to interject (reality has a well-known liberal bias) – but remind me again which party it is whose members have more corruption, more sex scandals, more obsession with money and profit? |
| − | It paints liberals as soulless automatons | + | It also paints liberals as soulless automatons whose points of view may be safely ignored. If he had a rational argument underlying this claim, that would be fair play -- but he insinuates and implies it without explaining it. Such demonization is not acceptable in civil discourse. |
''Democrats use polls to decide what they should believe,'' claims Haidt. Perhaps liberal politicians do this, but that's part of democracy -- you know; the "will of the people". Is he saying he would rather that the elite rulers decide for themselves what they want, and then we have to go along with it? (He said that was bad, earlier.) Or perhaps he's just saying that potential rulers should say what they believe, and then stick to it after being elected. That would certainly be a good thing, but I don't think you'll find that the democrats are any worse at this than the republicans. | ''Democrats use polls to decide what they should believe,'' claims Haidt. Perhaps liberal politicians do this, but that's part of democracy -- you know; the "will of the people". Is he saying he would rather that the elite rulers decide for themselves what they want, and then we have to go along with it? (He said that was bad, earlier.) Or perhaps he's just saying that potential rulers should say what they believe, and then stick to it after being elected. That would certainly be a good thing, but I don't think you'll find that the democrats are any worse at this than the republicans. | ||
| Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
''A social contract can easily degenerate into a nation of shoppers.'' ...Wait a minute, I thought it was the Republicans who were all about supporting capitalism. Wasn't it [[George W. Bush]] who, in the heat of the [[US invasion of Iraq]], said that what we could do to support America was go shopping? | ''A social contract can easily degenerate into a nation of shoppers.'' ...Wait a minute, I thought it was the Republicans who were all about supporting capitalism. Wasn't it [[George W. Bush]] who, in the heat of the [[US invasion of Iraq]], said that what we could do to support America was go shopping? | ||
| − | + | {{frac|44|100}} percent pure themselves, have more consistently acted to ''build up'' the infrastructure needed to help modern society function. | |
Their worst moments have been generally when they were being spineless cowards and refusing to stand up to society's enemies, i.e. most Republican politicians. They probably were sucked in by flowery pseudoliberal "we need to all be friends and respect each other's points of view (no matter how stupid)" arguments like Haidt's, and I despise them for it. Sometimes, a bad idea is a bad idea no matter how different the culture it comes from. This is the kind of liberalesque thinking which apparently has Europe bending over backwards to welcome Islamic immigrants and provide them all the help they need in [[Islamic cultural invasion|keeping themselves safely insulated]] from those horrid "corrupting" western influences. | Their worst moments have been generally when they were being spineless cowards and refusing to stand up to society's enemies, i.e. most Republican politicians. They probably were sucked in by flowery pseudoliberal "we need to all be friends and respect each other's points of view (no matter how stupid)" arguments like Haidt's, and I despise them for it. Sometimes, a bad idea is a bad idea no matter how different the culture it comes from. This is the kind of liberalesque thinking which apparently has Europe bending over backwards to welcome Islamic immigrants and provide them all the help they need in [[Islamic cultural invasion|keeping themselves safely insulated]] from those horrid "corrupting" western influences. | ||
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
In fact, I'm putting the rest of this section on /ignore. If there are any useful points I missed, someone please point them out. | In fact, I'm putting the rest of this section on /ignore. If there are any useful points I missed, someone please point them out. | ||
| + | |||
===Haidt concludes=== | ===Haidt concludes=== | ||
<blockquote>If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns.</blockquote>I won't deny that the discovery of these pillars does give us a sort of "starter theory" for understanding the Republican mind. Like Bohrs's "cupcake theory" of atomic structure, it gives us something to talk about as we figure out what is wrong with it. | <blockquote>If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns.</blockquote>I won't deny that the discovery of these pillars does give us a sort of "starter theory" for understanding the Republican mind. Like Bohrs's "cupcake theory" of atomic structure, it gives us something to talk about as we figure out what is wrong with it. | ||