RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Conservatives, know thyselves.(39 posts)

Conservatives, know thyselves.czardonic
Jul 24, 2003 9:59 AM
    "Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
  • Fear and aggression
  • Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
  • Uncertainty avoidance
  • Need for cognitive closure
  • Terror management"

(And know thy brethren - cz)
    "Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way. . .

(. . .and keep your enemies even closer! - cz)
    "The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

    "Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system."

(http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml)

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

Obviously, any "scholarship" eminating from a dubious institution like U.C. Berkeley is bound to be marred by a few gross failures of logic and judgement:
    "The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

Is there no deviance that these damn liberals won't make excuses for!?
They're not scared of you128
Jul 24, 2003 10:54 AM
George: Oh, they're not scared of you. They're scared of what you represent to 'em.

Billy: Hey man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody needs a haircut.

George: Oh no. What you represent to them is freedom.

Billy: What the hell's wrong with freedom, man? That's what it's all about.

George: Oh yeah, that's right, that's what it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it - that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. 'Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom, but they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

Billy: Mmmm, well, that don't make 'em runnin' scared.

George: No, it makes 'em dangerous.
Only time for a hit and run hereLive Steam
Jul 24, 2003 11:34 AM
The problem with "liberals" and "free thinkers" is that you are not a "free thinker" unless you think like them. Your desires and freedoms must be there's or they are not valid. The SUV argument is a perfect example. So is the ban on smoking in public places and the use of handguns. The list goes on and on.

I guess you would call the Pope, the Grand Ribbi and anyone with traditional values, "left-wing ideologues". I find the whole liberal holier than thou argument lacking in any sound basis and very paranoid. The idea that being different for the sake of being "different" smacks of indecisiveness and insecurity.

Here in NYC we have all sorts of "different" people. You find out how "different" and "liberal" everyone is when someone moves in next door they think "doesn't belong". So much for being a free thinker! We conservatives may be a stick in the mud kill joy at times, but at least we know who and what we are and we're honest about it. We have core values and don't waiver on the flavor of the day. I know I'll get some stupid response that will claim I am bigoted or intolerant or some other foolish remark. No that is not and never was the case. Hey if you want to have green hair or three rings in your nose, more power to you. That doesn't mean that I have to have them too to be a "free thinker".

Being a conservative means that we are honest about what and who we are. I don't think many "liberals" can make the same claim. At least not the "true hard core liberals". They are too busy trying to make themselves and enigma.
OK - You're bigoted and intolerant.moneyman
Jul 24, 2003 12:38 PM
But then so am I, even though I am not. Does that make sense? Because my politics lean to "conservatism", I am stereotyped as a white, mid- to upper-class male, Republican, homophobic, intolerant (I love that word!), hateful, etc., etc., etc. But stereotypes are often wrong, just like this one.

Czardonic's quote of a UC-Berkley study does not surprise me. Much like me quoting an editorial from the Wall Street Journal. However, where it lost all credibility with me was in the comparisons of Mussolini and Hitler with Ronald Reagan. The implication is that they all fit in the same ideological category, when there is nothing further from the truth. Mussolini and Hitler were deprivers of freedom, whereas RR was perhaps the greatest defender of freedom this country ever had. (That ought to get a rise out of some the folks here.) Also, what was left conspicously absent in the additional comparisons was a US President of the same ideology as Castro, Stalin and Kruschev. How about FDR? Or LBJ? Wouldn't they fit in with the despotic ideologues as well? Roosevelt authorized all kinds of freedom-limiters during WWII. LBJ was (in)famous for his statement about the air force not being able to bomb an outhouse without his permission. He had a proepensity for limiting freedoms to his political advantage as well.

I guess it all depends on one's definition of "conservative" and "liberal".

$$
It explicity <i>contrasted</i> Mussolini, Hitler and Reagan...czardonic
Jul 24, 2003 1:03 PM
...but pointed out that they all "preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form". That seems a fairly apt observation to me, but it also seems relatively benign no matter what your opinion of its validity.

Your feelings about Reagan's defense of Freedom® are irrelevant to that statement. In fact, the article has nothing to do with "freedom" or the defense thereof (the word doesn't even appear).
Nothing b9 about itmoneyman
Jul 24, 2003 1:14 PM
Cute, huh?

Anytime people are associated like that, even in contrasting situations, the reader is led to believe that there is a commonality between them. The use of the three individuals on the right side of the spectrum was no accident. The absence of a similar famous liberal to contrast with Kruschev, Stalin and Castro was no accident either.

BTW - What I described about RR and freedom were "beliefs", not "feelings". Feelings are emotions - happy, sad, angry. Beliefs are intellectual interpretations of situations and information. My beliefs about RR and freedom are quite relevant, especially in this situation, because I was contrasting RR to the other two.

$$
Perhaps they assumed a more sophisticated audience.czardonic
Jul 24, 2003 1:44 PM
That is, one that is not so easily "led to believe" a commonality by mere grammatical adjacence. Perhaps you feel that it is not your place to nuance, either. Perhaps you are just intolerant of ambiguity, as the article predicts.

The use of the three individuals on the right side of the spectrum was indeed no accident, the "right" was the object of the study. I guess for the sake of reverse-political-correctness they could have thrown you a bone and included FDR with Kruschev, Stalin and Castro. I'm sure you would have been outraged at the unfairness of the implied commonality.

"Belief" and "feeling" are synonyms, and in regards to Reagan and freedom, neither are relevant to the article. There are many ways that one could contrast those three figures, none of which necessarily refutes the comparison.
You're so tolerant. That's what I love about you.moneyman
Jul 24, 2003 2:05 PM
"Belief" and "feeling" are not synonyms. Please read my previous post for definitions.

If you don't believe that the positioning of those three names, as well as the absence of someone like FDR on the other side is not intentional, you are much more naive than I could have ever imagined. To place RR on "The right" with Hitler and Mussolini is not a nuance. It is a direct attempt to categorize conservatives in the US with despotic fascists.

$$
Please consult a Dictionary, or better yet. . .czardonic
Jul 24, 2003 2:28 PM
. . .explain to me how religious "beliefs" are exclusively "intellectual interpretations of situations and information".

Did I ever say that the positioning of the names was not intentional? No. The whole point was to draw a comparison between the three. Acknowledging the possibly inflammatory implication, they also saw fit to underscore a contrasts. (They tried to be one step ahead of you, but you managed to be two steps behind.) That's right, they both compared and contrasted the group. So if you interpret the comparison as a pernicious categorization, why don't you interpret the contrast as a redeeming stipulation? Hmmmm?
Oh, a barb from Berkley! I should have guessed. (nm)SteveS
Jul 24, 2003 8:22 PM
"they condoned inequality"Sintesi
Jul 24, 2003 6:31 PM
What exactly are we supposed to make out of such generalized similarities? So generalized and unqualified the comparisons are utterly meaningless. Sounds like a concocted excuse to get Reagan, Hitler and Mussolini all in the same sentence to me. Propaganda. Demonization of Reagan is the actual outcome as opposed to your disingenuous literal minded response to moneyman. The only reason you post something like that is to piss Reagan fans off. Then you play silly "I don't know what you're talking about" games.

You are rotten. Transparent as all get out but still rotten.
It is an article that summarizes a broader study.czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 8:01 AM
It merely aims to outline the thesis, not qualify it. Cousult the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin if you are interested in refuting it.

And I know exactly what these over-sensitive Reagan worshipers are whining about. They drop Stalin's name into every argument about liberalism, but fly into an indignant rage whenever anyone mentions the rather obvious fact that Hitler and Mussolini hailed from the right-wing.
H!tler was a socialist, dammit! It's National SOCIALISM! nmOldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 8:18 AM
A perfect moment for yet another movie quote:sn69
Jul 25, 2003 8:25 AM
"Say what you want about the tennants of National Socialism, Dude. At least it's an ethos."
Or:OldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 8:29 AM
"If I say this beach is safe to surf, it's safe to SURF, damn it."
"I dunno, Sir. It still looks pretty hairy out there." nmsn69
Jul 25, 2003 8:35 AM
So by the same token.Sintesi
Jul 25, 2003 1:25 PM
"And I know exactly what these over-sensitive Reagan worshipers are whining about. They drop Stalin's name into every argument about liberalism, but fly into an indignant rage whenever anyone mentions the rather obvious fact that Hitler and Mussolini hailed from the right-wing."

So you play the same silly game from other side of the fence?

THANKS!
Didn't say it was a silly game. Said you were whiny. (nm)czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 2:16 PM
Wow! Same literal dodge.Sintesi
Jul 25, 2003 4:05 PM
Hey! Two can play at that game. I never said I was a Reagan fan.
Then what are you whining about? (nm)czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 4:17 PM
Your same dumb behavior.Sintesi
Jul 25, 2003 6:49 PM
If you want to call it whining fine with me, but it does not negate your duplicative behavior. Kind of dumbfounding how you call fowl when you pull the same tactic admittedly. Sorry.

What a joke you have become. Why don't you move on? Like to board where people respect your opinions?

You are obviously obsessed and in need of importance.
I agree. nmNo_sprint
Jul 28, 2003 1:03 PM
Must be George Sr. in that conversation? nmKristin
Jul 24, 2003 12:21 PM
yawn nmDougSloan
Jul 24, 2003 2:48 PM
[rolling eyes] nmczardonic
Jul 24, 2003 2:55 PM
Handily, the best post of the day....nmbicyclerepairman
Jul 24, 2003 3:39 PM
liberals, know thyselves.DougSloan
Jul 25, 2003 7:26 AM
"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of liberalism report that at the core of political liberalism is the desire for change merely for the sake of change and an intolerance for the status quo, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political liberalism include:

Unrealistic hope and passivity

Idealism and intolerance of certainty

Uncertainty preferance

Need for cognitive ambiguity

Terror encouragement"

"Disparate liberals share a quest for change and intolerance of success, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR were individuals, but all were left-wing liberals because they preached a quest for an idealized future and practiced authoritarianism in some form.

"The researchers noted cases of other left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly demanded absolute authoritarian control, allegedly in the name of idealism.

"They noted that these figures are to be considered politically liberal in the context of the systems that they created or perpetuated. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving control of the idealistic Soviet system."

(http://www.bullshit.edu)
-------------------------

Obviously, any "scholarship" eminating from a dubious institution is bound to be marred by a few gross failures of logic and judgment:

"The researchers said that liberal ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that liberalism is pathological or that liberal beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."
Wow, you start out describing Jefferson! nmOldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 7:50 AM
Textbook appeal to ridicule.czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 7:50 AM
Other than two or three overstatements, most of this is fairly apt and not particularly damning. Of course, "turning the tables" so neatly underscores the accuracy and impartiality of the original analysis.

I think you'd be laughed out of any serious conversation by comparing FDR and Hitler's "left-wing" liberalism. But certainly Stalin and Hitler bear a great deal of comparison in their murderous extremism. Both were monsters more than they were liberals or conservatives, respectively.

I hope I haven't interupted your cognitive closure.
Speaking of cognitive closure,OldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 8:08 AM
Doug, in his charmingly bullheaded way, relentlessly insists that Hitler was a socialist, hence a left-winger, simply because Nazism was called 'national socialism.' No foray into convincing him otherwise has ever succeeded. It is part of his worldview. That authoritarianism isn't a necessary component of socialism, or vice versa, is impossible for him to conceive.

THEREFORE, I would remind him that what we used to call Red China is now called The People's Republic of China, and should therefore be accorded the same approving respect as other Republics. After all, that's what it's CALLED.

Glad to get that all settled! ;-}
Damn Doug, you beat me to it.loki_1
Jul 25, 2003 7:52 AM
4 out of 5 liberals surveyed...

Research. That's what they are calling it now?
bullshit.edu?OldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 8:00 AM
Such language. I may start spelling out N!zi.
mr. moderator, please remove the profanity which offends me. nmrufus
Jul 25, 2003 10:05 AM
sorry; won't say "liberal" any more. nmDougSloan
Jul 25, 2003 10:25 AM
I agree, I must, after the fuss i made a couple weeks ago (nm)94Nole
Jul 25, 2003 11:15 AM
re: liberals, know thyselves.DougSloan
Jul 25, 2003 1:19 PM
"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of liberalism report that at the core of political liberalism is the desire for change merely for the sake of change and an intolerance for the status quo, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political liberalism include:
Unrealistic hope and passivity

Idealism and intolerance of certainty

Uncertainty preferance

Need for cognitive ambiguity

Terror encouragement"

"Disparate liberals share a quest for change and intolerance of success, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR were individuals, but all were left-wing liberals because they preached a quest for an idealized future and practiced authoritarianism in some form.

"The researchers noted cases of other left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly demanded absolute authoritarian control, allegedly in the name of idealism.

"They noted that these figures are to be considered politically liberal in the context of the systems that they created or perpetuated. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving control of the idealistic Soviet system."

(http://www.bs.edu)
-------------------------

Obviously, any "scholarship" eminating from a dubious institution is bound to be marred by a few gross failures of logic and judgment:

"The researchers said that liberal ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that liberalism is pathological or that liberal beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."
That's more fking like it. (nm)czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 4:20 PM
Bro you got it going on!Sintesi
Jul 25, 2003 9:40 PM
As opposed to a ringing clash of ideas one enjoys the "slop!" of the same crap with the names interchanged.

This is interesting to you? Applause to Doug he has entertained Hard-onic.
As described by nincompoops.Sintesi
Jul 25, 2003 10:03 PM
Excuse me. That's Dr. Nincompoop to you!

"This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said"

"elegant and unifying explanation" Gotta love that.!

Reagan, Hitler, Limaugh, Mussolini, Indian caste systems. Fellow travelers (psychologically speaking between you and me*wink*). That's pretty damn elegant. And useful!

Thanks Czardonic. Take a seat.