Difference between revisions of "2008-09-09 What Makes People Vote Republican/woozle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Haidt on ethos: saving work again again, I hate interruptions) |
(→Haidt on ethos: saving work) |
||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
* Liberals are every bit as loyal to their in-groups (friends), although their criteria for forming those groups may be different from those used by conservatives; conservatives seem to form loyal relationships based on established institutions (marriage, church, the workplace), while liberals are more focused on personal empathy | * Liberals are every bit as loyal to their in-groups (friends), although their criteria for forming those groups may be different from those used by conservatives; conservatives seem to form loyal relationships based on established institutions (marriage, church, the workplace), while liberals are more focused on personal empathy | ||
* Liberals often display immense respect (bordering on worship) of certain individuals, but the processes by which they ''choose'' which individuals to favor thusly are probably somewhat different from the processes used by conservatives. At a guess: conservatives seem to give respect, or deem individuals worthy of authority, based solely on position within a strict hierarchy; liberals tend to be more willing to independently evaluate individuals for their contribution to society, regardless (indeed, often in ''spite'') of hierarchical position. | * Liberals often display immense respect (bordering on worship) of certain individuals, but the processes by which they ''choose'' which individuals to favor thusly are probably somewhat different from the processes used by conservatives. At a guess: conservatives seem to give respect, or deem individuals worthy of authority, based solely on position within a strict hierarchy; liberals tend to be more willing to independently evaluate individuals for their contribution to society, regardless (indeed, often in ''spite'') of hierarchical position. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It seems clear that Haidt must be using very specific definitions of those three pillars; obvious unanswered questions are (1) what are those definitions, (2) how did he arrive at them, and (3) why did he choose to exclude any other possible definitions (such as those used by liberals)? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Beyond that, there is the more glaring and significant question of ''why these three "conservative pillars" should matter if not for the benefit they may bring to society?'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Other questions rear their heads -- there are a lot of potential pillars not mentioned (honesty, integrity, honor, effectiveness, talent); how did Haidt arrive at just those five as being relevant? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Haidt concludes this section by stating: | ||
| + | <blockquote>The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.</blockquote>To the extent that this is a criticism of the Democratic point of view, it is a stupid argument (do you want the medicine that tastes good, or the one that works?); to the extent that it is criticism of Democratic marketing, it is feeble and ought to be something that conservatives would find insulting ("Dem solutions may actually be better than those of the Cons, but Cons will keep using theirs until Dems can entice them with the right color of paint"). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sadly, apparently they do not; Barone's referencing of Haidt seems entirely approving, and he seems to completely overlook the fact that Haidt is calling him and his ilk gullible fools who will take splash over substance every time, as long as the splash has the right symbols on it (family! church! country!). | ||
| + | ===Haidt and The Political Brain=== | ||
| + | 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). 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, whose points of view may be safely ignored. This is [[demonizing]], and is simply unacceptable in civil discussion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''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? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | And, you know, it should be pointed out that the Islamic cultural invaders in Europe are using almost exactly the same arguments that Haidt (and religious conservatives) use for protecting "sacred" values from the "profane, secular, materialistic" values of the larger culture in which they live... yet if you locked them in a room together, we would immediately have both a Christian holy war against the Islamic heathen ''and'' an Islamic jihad against the Western infidels. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I just have to ask: what kind of world do you think we're likely to get, if we decide to respect that kind of thinking? | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>Whenever Democrats support policies that weaken the integrity and identity of the collective (such as multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration), they show that they care more about pluribus than unum. They widen the sacredness gap.</blockquote>WTF is he talking about? Oh, well, I guess he's writing without the benefit of having read what I just written. /ignore | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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=== | ||
{{editing}} | {{editing}} | ||