Conservatism As Predation

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat May 02, 2009 at 13:30


In my previous diary, "No, Obama, Conservatives Are NOT Just Liberals With A Different Set Of Ideas", I talked about the origins of conservatism in landed aristocracy of Europe, a warrior culture, vs. the origings of liberalism in the urban middle class.  Here, I want to shift focus to contemporary psychology related to conservatism and attitudes toward group equality vs. inequality.  It's generally well-known that liberals care more about equality than conservatives do.  But the full implications of this fact are rarely even glimpsed, much less discussed.  Indeed, the fact itself is seldom properly grasped.

For example, it's long been alleged that liberals care more about equality, while conservatives care more about freedom--implying some sort of moral equivalence: each has their own paramount virtue.  Naturally, Frederick Douglass would have strenuously disagreed.  And, indeed, more generally, George Lakoff argues in Whose Freedom that (1) "freedom" is a contested concept, with a very meager conceptual core that (2) can be filled out quite different by liberals and conservatives, but (3) has usually been taken by most Americans in its more liberal sense, (4) which is one reason why conservatives harp on it so much, in order to re-define it in their terms.

Taking a step back, however, something else stands out: there is no such confusion or complication around the issue of equality--conservatives repeatedly have opposed it throuhgout history, and continue to do so today.  What's more, their opposition to equality carries with it a natural corollary: they are far more prone to see the world in us-them terms, which in turn allow them to view those who are not "us" as "fair game" to preyed upon in one way or another.

It is in this sense that there is a natural connection between conservatism and predation.   Not only does conservatives opposition to equality render it difficult at best to negotiate "win-win" policy solutions with them, as President Obama hopes to do.  Their predatory inclinations led them to see such solutions as a trick or a trap, intended to make them the victims of the same predatory instincts that figure so prominently in their own psychologies.

Paul Rosenberg :: Conservatism As Predation
Social scientists have discovered two main types of authoritarianism, rightwing authoritarianism (RWA), which applies particularly to authoritarian followers, and social dominance orientation (SDO), which applies to authoritarian leaders.  Together they account for the majority of group prejudice, whether racial, ethnic, religious, gender or sexual-orientation based.  They also both are significantly correlated with political conservatism, a correlation that grows stronger the more deeply involved they are in organized politics.

Here, for example, is a chart showing the group scores of state legislators who responded to surveys sent to them in the early 1990s:

There are just two state bodies where the Democrats scored higher on RWA--both Southern states, the Mississippi Senate and the Louisiana Assembly. Both are bodies where a considerable number of Democrats would be self-identified conservatives.  There are methodological reasons to expect that if all representatives had responded, the differences between parties would have been even more pronounced--and don't forget, these were all done before the "Gingrich Revolution" and before most state GOPs had been taken over by religious conservatives.

Both RWA and SDO are measured by responses to a simple set of questions, measured on simple additive scales.

First, here's the scale for Social Dominance Orientation:

SDO-6 questions

  1. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
  2. In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.
  3. It's OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.
  4. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.
  5. If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.
  6. It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.
  7. Inferior groups should stay in their place.
  8. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.
  9. It would be good if groups could be equal.
 10. Group equality should be our ideal.
 11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life.
 12. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.
 13. Increased social equality.
 14. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.
 15. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.
 16. No group should dominate in society.

Reference: Social Dominance, p. 67.

And here's the RWA scale, taken from Robert Altemeyer's online book, The Authoritarians:

___ 1. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
___ 2. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
___ 3. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people's minds
___ 4. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
___ 5. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
___ 6. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
___ 7. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.
___ 8. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
___ 9. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.
___ 10. The "old-fashioned ways" and the "old-fashioned values" still show the best way to live.
___ 11. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority's view by protesting for women's abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.
___ 12. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.
___ 13. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the "normal way things are supposed to be done."
___ 14. God's laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
___ 15. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
___ 16. A "woman's place" should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.
___ 17. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the "rotten apples" who are ruining everything.
___ 18. There is no "ONE right way" to live life; everybody has to create their own way.
___ 19. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional" family values.
___ 20. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group's traditional place in society.

From his earlier work, I re-organized a list he provided of all the tendencies recorded that correlate with RWA.  Here's one set of such tendencies:

Table 1: Hostility & Fear Toward Outgroups

RWA's are more likely to:

   * Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty, such as the Bill of Rights.
   * Punish severely `common' criminals in a role-playing situation.
   * Admit they get personal pleasure from punishing such people.
   * But go easy on authorities who commit crimes and people who attack minorities.
   * Be prejudiced against many racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
   * Be hostile toward homosexuals.
   * Support `gay-bashing.'
   * Be hostile toward feminists.
   * Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
   * Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.
   * Be fearful of a dangerous world.

In The Authoritarians, Altemeyer reports on his use of two other scales, which have not been widely used, but which show a strong correlation witht the SDO scale (r> 0.60), and which highlight further aspects related to predatory attitudes.  The first is the "The Personal Power, Meanness and Dominance Scale":

Power as a means to a laudable end is not a bad thing--although we have to acknowledge that almost everyone thinks he's the good guy, and if you take your stand on the slope of Mount Righteous Cause, it has proven as slippery as greased glass.

But social dominators will run to take their chances on that slippery slope. They thrill to power in and of itself. They want to control others, period. (Make that, "exclamation mark!") Their name says it all. And they come bundled with a shock of nasty attitudes that completes the package. The following items are from a Personal Power, Meanness, and Dominance Scale I have developed, to which high social dominators respond in very predictable ways, compared with most other people. Look over this "Power Mad" scale to get an idea of what goes on in dominators' minds.

The Personal Power, Meanness and Dominance Scale

     -  It's a mistake to interfere with the "law of the jungle." Some people were meant to dominate others. (Agree)
     -  Would you like to be a kind and helpful person to those in need? (Disagree)
     -  "Winning is not the first thing; it's the only thing." (Agree)
     -  The best way to lead a group under your supervision is to show them kindness, consideration, and treat them as fellow workers, not as inferiors. (Disagree)
     -  If you have power in a situation, you should use it however you have to, to get your way. (Agree)
     -  Would you be cold-blooded and vengeful, if that's what it took to reach your goals? (Agree)
     -  Life is NOT governed by the "survival of the fittest." We should let compassion and moral laws be our guide. (Disagree)
     -  Do money, wealth, and luxuries mean a lot to you? (Agree)
     -  It is much better to be loved than to be feared. (Disagree)
     -  Do you enjoy having the power to hurt people when they anger or disappoint you? (Agree)
     -  It is much more important in life to have integrity in your dealings with others than to have money & power. (Disagree)
     -  It's a dog-eat-dog world where you have to be ruthless at times. (Agree)
     -  Charity (i.e. giving somebody something for nothing) is admirable, not stupid. (Disagree)
     -  Would you like to be known as a gentle and forgiving person? (Disagree)
     -  Do you enjoy taking charge of things and making people do things your way? (Agree)
     -  Would it bother you if other people thought you were mean and pitiless? (Disagree)
     -  Do you like other people to be afraid of you? (Agree)
     -  Do you hate to play practical jokes that can sometimes really hurt people? (Disagree)
     -  It would bother me if I intimidated people, and they worried about what I might do next. (Disagree)
     -  I will do my best to destroy anyone who deliberately blocks my plans and goals. (Agree)

Social dominance scores correlate very strongly 3 with these answers to the Power Mad scale. High scorers are inclined to be intimidating, ruthless, and vengeful They scorn such noble acts as helping others, and being kind, charitable, and forgiving. Instead they would rather be feared than loved, and be viewed as mean, pitiless, and vengeful. They love power, ncluding the power to hurt in their drive to the top. Authoritarian followers do not feel this way because they seldom have such a drive to start with.

The second is the "Exploitive Manipulative Amoral Dishonesty Scale":

So some non-religious dominators, as part of the act, do go to church regularly, for manipulative reasons. This amounts to lying, but I hope you don't think social dominators would never, ever, ever, tell a lie. Here are the items from another measure I've concocted, called the Exploitive Manipulative Amoral Dishonesty ("Exploitive-MAD") scale. Again, high social dominators' responses, compared with others, really open your eyes.

The Exploitive Manipulative Amoral Dishonesty Scale

     -  You know that most people are out to "screw" you, so you have to get them first when you get the chance. (Agree)
     -  All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest. (Disagree)
     -  There is really no such thing as "right" and "wrong." It all boils down to what you can get away with. (Agree)
     -  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and never do anything unfair to someone else. (Disagree)
     -  One of the most useful skills a person should develop is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly. (Agree)
     -  It gains a person nothing if he uses deceit and treachery to get power and riches. (Disagree)
     -  Basically, people are objects to be quietly and coolly manipulated for your own benefit. (Agree)
     -  Deceit and cheating are justified when they get you what you really want. (Agree)
     -  One should give others the benefit of the doubt. Most people are trustworthy if you have faith in them. (Disagree)
     -  The best skill one can have is knowing the "right move at the right time": when to "soft-sell" someone, when to be tough, when to flatter, when to threaten, when to bribe, etc. (Agree)
     -  Honesty is the best policy in all cases. (Disagree)
     -  The best reason for belonging to a church is to project a good image and have contact with some of the important people in your community. (Agree)
     -  No one should do evil acts, even when they can "get away with them" and make lots of money. (Disagree)
     -  There's a sucker born every minute, and smart people learn how to take advantage of them. (Agree)
     -  The end does NOT justify the means. If you can only get something by unfairness, lying, or hurting others, then give up trying. (Disagree)
     -  Our lives should be governed by high ethical principles and religious morals, not by power and greed. (Disagree)
     -  It is more important to create a good image of yourself in the minds of others than to actually be the person others think you are. (Agree)
     -  There's no excuse for lying to someone else. (Disagree)
     -  One of the best ways to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. (Agree)
     -  The truly smart person knows that honesty is the best policy, not manipulation and deceit. (Disagree)

Social dominance scores correlate strongly 5 with the responses to these statements. RWA answers again do not correlate at all. Social dominators thus admit, anonymously, to striving to manipulate others, and to being dishonest, two-faced, treacherous, and amoral. It's as if someone took the Scout Law ("A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, ...") and turned it completely upside down: "A 'winner' is deceitful, manipulative, unfair, base, conniving, ..." Furthermore, while the followers may feel admiration bordering on adoration of their leaders, we should not be surprised if the leaders feel a certain contempt for their followers. They are the suckers, the "marks," the fools social dominators find so easy to manipulate.

Looking at these group characteristics, there should be no doubt about the foolishness of trying to negotiate in good faith with such people.  However, these are only group characteristics, based on statistical correlations. There are plenty of individual exceptions.  But in a sense, that's precisely the problem.  Someone like President Obama focuses on those individual exceptions, and how they've responded on a specific issues, and uses this as the basis for a generalized extrapolation that takes no account of the group characteristics and group dynamics.  This is precisely the underlying story of Obama's dashed hopes when he talked of getting 80 votes for the stimulus plan in the Senate.

Obama focuses exclusively on one side of a two-sided truth here: the fact that all conservatives are not uniformly authoritarian all the time.  But he ignores the other side of the truth: that most conservatives in high posts of power are authoritarians most of the time when push comes to shove, particularly on core issues.  And this can readily lead to totally lock-step behavior.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Conservatism As Predation | 32 comments
irony (4.00 / 1)
I suspect "the terrorists" score as high or higher on these scales of authoritarian outlook, which is exactly the reason why a lot of right wing people here in the US declaim that "we can't negotiate" with them, and ridicule those of us who, in their view, think these evildoers will somehow give up hating us if we're a little nicer.

That's irony #1.

But irony #2 is you, and other progressive bloggers, making essentially the same argument about how our side in government should deal with Republicans.  They're dead-set against us, you argue, so negotiating for their favor is doomed to failure.

Both of these views, I think, suffer from another pitfall of conservative thinking: the idea that people are inherently what they are, that good or bad, their personalities are part of their inherent, innate "character".  In reality, people's actions and views arise from a combination of many things, especially their environment and experiences.  People react to what they see and hear and what happens to them.  Conservatives, who focus obsessively on people's inherent character, are bound to set people up to fail.

If you step back and look at the larger picture, you also realize that even if some people are dead set in their views, most people are more wavering and uncommitted.  There's always an audience, partly on the sidelines and partly involved directly, who see what the actors are doing, and react accordingly.

Obama came into office seeking "bipartisanship", and made all the gestures to make that happen, while sticking to his core principles.  What the American public saw, as measured in polls, was that Republicans did not respond in kind.  As a result, Obama built popularity and public support, while Republicans drained even more of their already-scarce political capital.  Now, not only does Obama no longer need to seek "bipartisanship" all the time - something the public expected of him initially - but he's in a much stronger position in pursuing political goals.

There's a parallel between this outcome, and the debates over negotiating with "the terrorists".  And that's irony #2.

Assuming Things Not In Evidence--And Actually Just Plain Wrong (4.00 / 5)
But irony #2 is you, and other progressive bloggers, making essentially the same argument about how our side in government should deal with Republicans.  They're dead-set against us, you argue, so negotiating for their favor is doomed to failure.

What's left out of this equation is the much larger framework of politics, culture and psychology outside the narrow confines being discussed (whether terrorist cells or conservatives in Congress).  The larger reality of terrorism is that there is only a very tiny pool of hard-core terrorist potentials.  (As one indication of how small the pool is, I recall a Rachel Maddow segment in which she was discussing a recruitment guide, which was aimed at targeting secular recruits, and which bore striking resemblances to a dating guide.)  Therefore, the greatest opportunity lies with outflanking terrorists, most notably by not doing stupid things like invading other countries and torturing whoever we get our hands on.

Somewhat similarly, what I suggest with respect to movement conservatism is that we not try to do anything with their failing power in the government arena.  In fact, Obama is merely making them stronger by trying to get all kissy-face with them.  Instead, he should simply do the kinds of stuff that completely circumvents all of that BS.  But that would mean throwing over the bankers in favor of the people, for one thing.  And Rubin Obama is hardly about to do that.

This is, in fact, pretty much in parallel to what you go on to argue yourself.  Which suggests that you're not really listening that well to the argument I'm actually making.  I'd urge you read me more carefully in the future.  It's the very essence of hegemony that the potential diversity of thought and action from below is channeled into very narrow and predictable ruts.  And what I'm arguing here is that Obama's approach actually perpetuates this process, rather than breaking with it, which he could do much better by focusing on the vast base that the GOP conservative leadership has essentially mislead into a blind alley.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
The conversation in my head (4.00 / 1)
You post and Paul's response is very much the conversation in my head.  While I suspect Paul's approach, if fully implemented, would work less well then what Obama is actually doing, I don't know that.  I certainly would be curious to see it tried.

But I see no evidence that Obama is empowering Republicans.  In fact, I see the opposite.  With Obama seemingly (honestly, I believe) taking the high road while the Republicans unite against him, Obama has the country largely united against the Republicans.

Now Obama can go with harder tactics, like passing health care budgeting in conference to avoid the filibuster, without any political penalty.  The country saw him try to reason with Republicans and fail.  I'm not claiming this was some great master plan, but it certainly seems to be the result.

[ Parent ]
I Might Be Inclined To Agree With You, Mark (4.00 / 5)
were it not for two things.

First is the rather dire situation we're in. Playing it cautious with the sort of economic meltdown we're in the middle of was more Herbert Hoover's strategy than FDR's.

A similar logic informs the climate change and universal health care issues.

Second is that I think you're misreading what I'm arguing for.  I'm not ultimately arguing that Obama had to take up a far more confrontational approach that would have given the GOP more of a leg up.

Rather, I'm saying that he could have made the case for a much more progressive default position about what cross-ideological consensus-building should look like: a lot more reality-based, and less sound-bite driven, for example, which is something I think he'd lose zero points on at this point.

While it's true that I find his whole approach questionable, I've repeatedly tried to propose alternatives that cleave rather closely to his professed preferences, while showing how they could be both more successful and more progressive. This isn't the only spirit I've written in, of course.  But it has been a frequent one, and it's the spirit I'm writing in here, once again.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Dire (4.00 / 3)
It seems one of the consistent differences in our outlooks is you are constantly amazed how bad things are and I'm always amazed how good things are.  I'm shocked how well humans can cooperate with the court systems and self regulations and you are shocked how poorly the system works.

While this tends to paint me as the optimist and you as the pessimist, I think the opposite may be true.

[ Parent ]
More Complicated, I Think (4.00 / 2)
I know how well folks can cooperate, which is part of why I think we're doing so poorly right now in the US of A, government-wise, at least.

Pessimism of the intellect.  Optimism of the will.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I see it a different way (4.00 / 2)
While we're beating the Republicans, the conservatives are still winning.
[ Parent ]
Yikes (4.00 / 4)
I can't even read half of these questions without shivers running down my spine.  Scary stuff.
I'm not too scared (0.00 / 0)
I look at the SDO questions and substitute "ideological group" for "group" and I am tempted to agree with things that probably point to SDO.  

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
You're The Perfect Reader, Bud! (4.00 / 1)
That's exactly the reaction I was aiming for.

Bela Lugosi is my co-pilot.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
AN EXCELLENT POST! (0.00 / 0)
"The Authoritarians" (261 pages), by Bob Altemeyer, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba

Chapter 1 Who Are the Authoritarian Followers?
Chapter 2 The Roots of Authoritarian Aggression, and Authoritarianism Itself
Chapter 3 How Authoritarian Followers Think
Chapter 4 Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism
Chapter 5 Authoritarian Leaders
Chapter 6 Authoritarianism and Politics
Chapter 7 What's To Be Done?

FREE PDF DOWNLOAD - http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~a...
ALTERNATE SITE (FREE) - http://members.shaw.ca/jeanalt...  

Darwinism? (4.00 / 1)
There are some that use the ideas of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" to form their life view - especially non or semi-religous conservatives.  They consider it their duty to help make their race, religion, or nation be the dominate.  Weaker peoples need to be weeded out, that is how the species remains strong.  To some people that is natural law, scientific fact and they strongly believe in the princple of it.  Thats why it is now acceptable for conservatives to talk about Texas seceding from the US.  The US is no longer a white christian nation.  Helping the US to be dominate is counter productive because too many non whites and non christians will benefit.
And Texas Is? (4.00 / 1)
The US is no longer a white christian nation.

"Don't look now!" as they say in the trade.

It's headed toward swing state status by about 2016, 2020 at the very latest.  Maybe even 2012, if our economy rebounds as fast as Obama hopes.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Is that a promise, Paul? (4.00 / 2)
If only I live long enough to dance in the streets of Austin with my long-suffering friends, and mock the Dallas Cowboys in Dallas itself.
[ Parent ]
Texas (4.00 / 2)
Texas is currently one of only four states where non-hispanic whites are the minority (Hawaii, California, New Mexico, Texas).  The Republicans have to either reformulate or they are sitting on borrowed time.
[ Parent ]
The Strategy Seems To Be (4.00 / 4)
to make life in Texas so intolerable that the non-white majority youth leave the state in droves, so that the electorate remains majority white, even if the population does not.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
conservatives ARE "Social Darwinists" (0.00 / 0)
   I love that label for them. Because it fits so well, and they hate it so much.
  The truth is that modern conservatism is a paradoxical combination of two ideas:
  (1) a Libertarian, Social Darwinist viewpoint, in which taxing the wealty is called "punishing success" and feeding the poor is "rewarding laziness"
and
  (2) a theocratic, "Christian Taliban" mindset, in which everyone should be forced to act as Christ has ordered (except for things like The Sermon on the Mount, the Good Samaritan, the forgiveness of the Prodigal Son, and so on). Basically, a religious conservative believes in two commandments: "Thou must assume that life begins at conception", and "Thou must smite homosexuals".
  The very word "Darwin" sounds atheistic to a lot of conservatives, and yet "Social Darwinism" is a perfectly accurate description of how conservatives think that everyone should have to "sink or swim" on his own.

Luke 12:48 "to whom much is given, of him shall much be required". Would Jesus want progressive taxation, or regressive taxation?
[ Parent ]
Except (0.00 / 0)
none of the things they are interested in were ordered by Christ.

He never said anything about homosexuality, for example (though a naked man did run out of his bedroom when the soldiers came to arrest him) but he had a BIG problem with usury. Funny how the Religious Right just skims over those parts of the Bible.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
"funny strange", not "funny haha", I assume (4.00 / 1)
   Or perhaps a very dark sort of comedy, like gallows humor.
  One of the memes that I most want to promote is that a true Christian is going to be a Liberal on most issues (ex. supporting government programs to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless, opposing torture, and so on).
  It still strikes me as bizarre that there is so much overlap between being politically Conservative and regularly attending worship at a Protestant church. But the good news is that whenever we (Liberals or Progressives) point out that our views are supported by the Bible, we can put the Conservative "Christians" on the defensive.

Luke 12:48 "to whom much is given, of him shall much be required". Would Jesus want progressive taxation, or regressive taxation?
[ Parent ]
It's Difficult to Know (0.00 / 0)
...to what degree Obama understands this, however intuitively (I doubt that he has been exposed to any of this fine research).

Until you've been in actual dealings with SDO/RWA types and have seen how easily they are willing to take advantage of you (and how much they even look for/delight in these kinds of openings), it's difficult to grasp the untruth and naivete of Obama's statement that "Conservatives are like Liberals but with Different Ideas".  As you've noted it's much, much deeper than that.

OTOH, Obama's modus seems to be one who is willing to work with anyone with whom he can find anything in common.  And so we see him sitting down with Rick Warren, for example.  The two don't agree on everything, but there are some points in common.

Charm and intelligence (4.00 / 4)
Obama seems to have absolute confidence in his charm and intelligence.  For the most part, these politicians are not susceptible to charm and they do not reach their conclusions based on reasoning.  He's left with paying a huge price for the support of the Maine ladies or buying off a few individuals like Grassley who seems willing to be bought for a very high price (in his case for Iowa).

With a few minor exceptions, at least 35 of the now 40 Senate Republicans are beyond reason and the price for McCain or Voinovich looks pretty high.

I think this lesson is sinking in.

[ Parent ]
Great series paul (4.00 / 5)
While many can disagree about the specifics of how conservatives and liberals, the general thesis that they differ in more than merely the abstract content of their ideas is a very important lesson for liberals to grasp.  

I would note more the RWAs are themselves victims of the SDOs, perhaps the biggest victims, and that the relationship is quite parasitic.

Joe the Plumber wears a leash; Rush Limbaugh holds that leash (0.00 / 0)
   Daniel,
  You are absolutely correct.
  As Lakoff points out in "Don't think of an Elephant", right-wingers have had a well organized and well-funded propaganda machine operating for about 30 years now.
  One of our main tasks as Progressives is to get guys like Joe the Plumber to realize that they are being exploited, rather than helped, by guys like Rush Limbaugh.

Luke 12:48 "to whom much is given, of him shall much be required". Would Jesus want progressive taxation, or regressive taxation?
[ Parent ]
Two items (4.00 / 2)
Here's a podcast from the BBC of an interview with Dennis Koslowski (of Tyco fame) now in prison. He still doesn't see that he did anything wrong with expropriating $400 million for his toga parties and the like:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/pod...

Second there is a nice article in the Sunday NY Times magazine about a writer who is getting used to living in the Netherlands. He likes the social support services, but is afraid life will become too dull. The fact that one might be content and not striving is a strange concept for Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...

Policies not Politics

Competing With Yourself Is Far Too Hard (4.00 / 1)
Not necessarily stressful, which is not the same thing at all.

Indeed, stress is a form of escape for millions of Americans.  If you're feeling stressed, you know you're engaged with something important.  Your life has meaning.

Heck, I know that feeling from my own experience.

I also know it's utterly false.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Goup = ? (0.00 / 0)
Seems like the SDO-6 questions really depend on what your definition of a "group" is.  If terrorists are a "goup" then retest with that in mind.  The results change quite a bit.
The results don't change (4.00 / 1)
for normal people. You're outing yourself, dude.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
this (0.00 / 0)
Is true, but trivial.  The test does not define "groups" for a reason, and if you limit your answers while thinking about a specific group for whom there are very good reasons to use force on them, or keep them "in their place" and the rest, like terrorists or pedophiles, then you're not really taking a SDO test.

Groups has to stay generic and your answers generally applicable.

[ Parent ]
I'm outting myselft as... (0.00 / 0)
not normal!  I'm OK with that.
You're outing yourself (0.00 / 0)
as an authoritarian follower. Willing to tolerate high levels of cruelty and injustice so long as it is someone other than yourself on the pointy end of the stick.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Not really but... (0.00 / 0)
go ahead and believe what you like.  I'm OK with that too.
[ Parent ]
Passive aggressive (4.00 / 1)
authoritarian follower! It gets better.

Normal people understand that certain things are inherently wrong, no matter who they are being done to. It's what separates us from "terrorists."

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Conservatism As Predation | 32 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox