we didn't scare so easily....we were revered.
Why would you start a thread and post a movie clip like that?
Please explain what you are doing. Are you just being a dick or you just want people to argue with you?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 30, 2012, 02:52:11 PM
Why would you start a thread and post a movie clip like that?
Please explain what you are doing. Are you just being a dick or you just want people to argue with you?
If I had put it under "Entertainment" would you have not attacked me personally?
I happened to find it quite provoking. It seems to have worked. I open it up for discussion. There's a sh!t load of interesting commentary in that clip.
Many intelligent people I know were discussing it during the past week. You find it disturbing rather than honest?
American exceptional-ism seems to have evaporated.... discuss?
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 30, 2012, 03:53:00 PM
If I had put it under "Entertainment" would you have not attacked me personally?
I happened to find it quite provoking. It seems to have worked. I open it up for discussion. There's a sh!t load of interesting commentary in that clip.
Many intelligent people I know were discussing it during the past week. You find it disturbing rather than honest?
American exceptional-ism seems to have evaporated.... discuss?
Just more boomer bullsh!t wishing for the good old days that didn't really exist even then.
Quote from: swake on June 30, 2012, 04:07:12 PM
Just more boomer bullsh!t wishing for the good old days that didn't really exist even then.
Really? You must be from "this" generation. We've let it slip away over comments like this?
"We didn't belittle anybody"
Let's start addressing non-sense that distracts society from prioritizing the real problems before us.
example: http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/new-tea-party-theory-kindergarten-leads-hig
An interesting essay from the 60's identifies the culprit:
THE Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays
http://studyplace.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/files/courses/reserve/Hofstadter-1996-Paranoid-Style-American-Politics-1-to-40.pdf
I love Teatown. Without the clown, progressives on this forum would appear reasonable. ;D
"Since 2010, the Republicans have cut the federal firefighting budget by more than $200 million."
Budget Cuts Hinder Efforts to Fight Colorado Fires
http://powerfulstorms.com/budget-cuts-hinder-efforts-to-fight-colorado-fires/
More evidence.....more coming as to why we are no longer looking after each other....
and btw Gassie, Nate and Aquaman are the ONLY others here who could claim to be progressive.....besides me.
Its a small, lonely club.
I get so tired of seeing conservatism paraded around the air waves, internet and print like its the default philosophy. It was the laughingstock of the country in the sixties and seventies. To me it still is. Must we always have equal time for stupid, fearful people? I tune in to Fox and am stunned at how fast and loose they play with the facts but one thing for sure, they rarely give a sucker an even break. They load up their talk shows with idiots, a few moderate guests who seem overwhelmed by it all and fire at will. Then I go to MSNBC for contrast and damned if some of the same people aren't sitting on the panel there as well spewing their nonsense. This idea of balancing repubs, dems, libs and conservatives whenever reasonable people are in charge of discussions is just not working. They don't reciprocate and they dominate every media they touch by turning up the volume, fear rhetoric and vulgarity. It polarizes people and it does get tiresome.
I learned in college that there are no stupid questions. If you asked the question there are many others too fearful to do so lest they sound dumb. That's the way I feel about Tulsa and on this forum. There may be few of us questioning the default status quo, but we represent many others who are not participating.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 01, 2012, 08:10:41 PM
I get so tired of seeing conservatism paraded around the air waves, internet and print like its the default philosophy.
I know how you feel. I was around in the 60s and 70s.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 01, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
I know how you feel. I was around in the 60s and 70s.
Then you, too, should be tired of seeing conservatism paraded around the air waves, internet and print. Except for the internet, it has been the dominant noise since before then. Remember Gene McCarthy? Richard Nixon?
And no, LBJ getting a voting rights act passed is not progressive. It IS doing the right thing. 100 years AFTER it should have been done.
Quote from: swake on June 30, 2012, 04:07:12 PM
Just more boomer bullsh!t wishing for the good old days that didn't really exist even then.
Classic no clue about history moment.
We have always been a combination of good and evil. And many times, much more evil than good. But what we see in recent years is a whole lot of exactly what he was talking about. We have come full circle back to the 1890's - in terms of handing the keys to the chicken coop over to the Fox (happy coincidence working out that way....). We are back in a robber baron world, with class structure - caste system - that has become recognizable on and from the world stage. That is a huge degradation of what we have been in the past and what we SHOULD be. In terms of direction - we are moving backwards rather than progressing.
All the rah-rah propaganda they are feeding you in school or on Fox is just coverup for what is going on around you. Really should have actually read/studied some history when you had the chance - but it's not too late - could start tomorrow!
Notice how the Fox are all literally foaming at the mouth these last few days? Whipping up the ignorant and the richest to try to rid themselves of something that IS the first step in trying to elevate our position as 38th in the world in health care systems. Yeah, that's gotta be real bad...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2012, 09:26:55 PM
Then you, too, should be tired of seeing conservatism paraded around the air waves, internet and print. Except for the internet, it has been the dominant noise since before then. Remember Gene McCarthy? Richard Nixon?
And no, LBJ getting a voting rights act passed is not progressive. It IS doing the right thing. 100 years AFTER it should have been done.
I am not tired of seeing basic conservative values paraded in opposition to liberal ones. I do resent the hijacking of conservatism by the religious extremists. I remember McCarthy, McGovern and others. Knowing what I know now, I would still vote for Nixon rather than them. And yes, I know, not everything Nixon did would fly today. I was most disappointed in the 55 MPH speed limit joke that lasted more than 20 years. LBJ did some good with Civil Rights, which was actually in opposition to some of JFK's and RFK's views, but the Great Society created a generation dependent on government. Not so good. Why did you leave out Kennedy? Most of my opinions on JFK are based on my father's opinions since I was still somewhat young. Dad said he had some good ideas but chose the wrong way to get there. That is frequently my view of many liberal ideas today. I don't really remember the details. When Kennedy got shot, the attitude among many of us Jr High kids was "Oh no, now we get Johnson". I do remember the 1964 Presidential election. Even then, politics divided some of us Jr. High school friends. Goldwater was painted as a war-monger. History tells us the story of our involvement in Viet Nam.
I forgot about Humphrey. Still wouldn't vote for him either.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2012, 09:42:54 PM
Whipping up the ignorant and the richest to try to rid themselves of something that IS the first step in trying to elevate our position as 38th in the world in health care systems. Yeah, that's gotta be real bad...
Not everyone who believes that Obamacare (or whatever you want to call it) is the incorrect path is an ignorant bassturd. I don't believe anyone really thinks the status quo is the correct answer either. There is certainly a lot of political rhetoric on both sides but true differences of opinion do exist.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 01, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
I do resent the hijacking of conservatism by the religious extremists.
What are you going to do about it?
If you and other reasonable republicans don't step up, the religious extremists will destroy the republican party. The fiscal conservatives have already began leaning toward tea party which is costing lots of money spent just to survive the primary for normally strong republican incumbants.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 01, 2012, 09:57:07 PM
What are you going to do about it?
When a "conservative" candidate lists his religious beliefs before other qualifications, I will try to choose another candidate. Sometimes there is little choice.
A religious conservative candidate is usually still closer to my views than the Democratic Party candidate. We all have to make our choices.
What are you going to do about Democratic Party candidates that will lead us to bankruptcy, over dependence on government, and socialism?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 01, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
I am not tired of seeing basic conservative values paraded in opposition to liberal ones. I do resent the hijacking of conservatism by the religious extremists. I remember McCarthy, McGovern and others. Knowing what I know now, I would still vote for Nixon rather than them. And yes, I know, not everything Nixon did would fly today. I was most disappointed in the 55 MPH speed limit joke that lasted more than 20 years. LBJ did some good with Civil Rights, which was actually in opposition to some of JFK's and RFK's views, but the Great Society created a generation dependent on government. Not so good. Why did you leave out Kennedy? Most of my opinions on JFK are based on my father's opinions since I was still somewhat young. Dad said he had some good ideas but chose the wrong way to get there. That is frequently my view of many liberal ideas today. I don't really remember the details. When Kennedy got shot, the attitude among many of us Jr High kids was "Oh no, now we get Johnson". I do remember the 1964 Presidential election. Even then, politics divided some of us Jr. High school friends. Goldwater was painted as a war-monger. History tells us the story of our involvement in Viet Nam.
I left out JFK, 'cause he wasn't really considered conservative, even though he did have his moments (like Obama has).
Kennedy bungled some things very badly - Bay of Pigs. He really didn't get that much done, so it really is tough to say he was good or bad based on very much fact. He did a great job of dealing with the Russians (Cuban Missile crisis) - very tough stand. So, if take those two main events, he was a wash. His legacy is more about the charisma - the "Camelot" crap if one believes in that kind of stuff. (I don't). I think if he had more time, good things might have come about, but I also believe we would NOT have gone in deep into that Viet Nam mess like we ended up doing. That was LBJ - a good old fashioned Southern Democrat - catering in great part to the conservative military industrial complex that followed the philosophy of (paraphrased) - "what's good for Douglas, Boeing, General Dynamics, is good for the US." A lot like what got us into Iraq....
I was still in elementary when Nixon ran against Kennedy, and there was only one little girl from a Kennedy supporter family. Very hard for her. There was an adaptation of a sing-song chant; Nixon, Nixon, he's our man...throw Kennedy in the garbage can! No one really knew exactly why either of those things were desirable...
By 1964, I and many friends had figured it out. It always puzzled me how ANYONE in this country could believe anything Westmoreland said to anybody. Oh, well, what the heck, those 55,000 were just collateral damage... oh, wait - unless you happened to know one (or more) of them.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 01, 2012, 10:09:05 PM
What are you going to do about Democratic Party candidates that will lead us to bankruptcy, over dependence on government, and socialism?
I guess the only choice is to re-elect the only real Republican in the race - Obama (as bad as that may be for other reasons).
Otherwise, we will have the policies that put us into getting to brink of bankrupty, dependence on the bailout by big banks, big insurance, and big oil. And socialism? When I took MBA econ class, they defined that as a 'demand economy' where the government 'demands' goods and services - using fiscal policy to create economic activity by spending money on goods and services to accomplish it's goals. That means we have the largest socialist economy in the world - brought to you by the imperialistic voyeurism brought to you by the people who have made war the main tool of economic policy in the last 30 years. Reagan ran on the fact that he wanted to slap the snot out of Iraq, and we continue in that vein today.
And yeah, Truman and LBJ were both massively guilty of the same thing, but somehow, that didn't seem to end up with $15 trillion in debt, though.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2012, 10:17:36 PM
I left out JFK, 'cause he wasn't really considered conservative, even though he did have his moments (like Obama has).
I disagree that conservatism was the theme of the 60s. JFK was not conservative for his time. Please re-read AquaMan's post:
QuoteI get so tired of seeing conservatism paraded around the air waves, internet and print like its the default philosophy. It was the laughingstock of the country in the sixties and seventies.
Kennedy did cut the marginal tax rates and raise federal tax income though. I will agree to the concept of diminishing returns at our current levels though.
The biggest thing I remember from the Kennedy-Nixon race was that Kennedy was Catholic. Much like the noise about Romney being a Mormon.
QuoteBy 1964, I and many friends had figured it out. It always puzzled me how ANYONE in this country could believe anything Westmoreland said to anybody. Oh, well, what the heck, those 55,000 were just collateral damage... oh, wait - unless you happened to know one (or more) of them.
I didn't personally know anyone who didn't make it back from Nam. I was lucky I guess. I just knew though that when I got drafted and sent to Nam that I wouldn't make it back. It made it difficult to study in college. I was fortunate, I was Viet Nam era but didn't have to go to Nam. I did know several guys who did go to Nam from the volunteer Fire Company in my home town. Fortunately, they all came home in one piece.
[/quote]
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2012, 10:33:09 PM
I guess the only choice is to re-elect the only real Republican in the race - Obama (as bad as that may be for other reasons).
We will just have to disagree on Obama. I cannot call him a Republican in any sense.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2012, 10:33:09 PM
And socialism? When I took MBA econ class, they defined that as a 'demand economy' where the government 'demands' goods and services - using fiscal policy to create economic activity by spending money on goods and services to accomplish it's goals.
I do not have a favorable opinion of the last few generations of MBAs. Every discipline has a way of defining things to meet their needs.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 01, 2012, 10:53:13 PM
I do not have a favorable opinion of the last few generations of MBAs. Every discipline has a way of defining things to meet their needs.
Neither do I! Harvard MBA syndrome is one of the worst afflictions we have had to deal with since the last big smallpox epidemics. I don't have the MBA, but have taken a couple courses in that direction, then stopped. Have a kid who got one and we had to have a talk - actually several, and ongoing - to get her brain back in alignment with the real world so that she doesn't buy into the fantasy that her carp don't stink... they teach that in MBA 101. And it is SOOOO wrong!!!
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 30, 2012, 03:53:00 PM
Many intelligent people I know were discussing it during the past week. You find it disturbing rather than honest?
The only intelligent person you know is me. You didn't ask my opinion prior to now.
(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/36579/782538.jpg)
It won't be long before General Santa Anna's great great grandchildren see they were better off as Mexicans....
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/texas_gops_2012_platform_accidentally_opposes_teaching_of_critical_thinking_skills.php
It's no longer "the dumbing down" of America....It is now, "why do you want America to be a shadow of it's old country?"
And Conan, we know your opinion. Don't need no "whethermen" to know which way RM's wind blows....
Mean people suck. Those that fail to see what's going on in the world and our diminishing stature in that world suck more.
The disrespect shown for our leaders is more evidence:
Allen West: President Obama Wants Americans To 'Be His Slave'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/allen-west-president-obama-wants-americans-to-be-his-slave_n_1643769.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037
Where are his 78 names of the socialists in Congress anyway?
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 02, 2012, 07:29:01 PM
The disrespect shown for our leaders is more evidence:
Allen West: President Obama Wants Americans To 'Be His Slave'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/allen-west-president-obama-wants-americans-to-be-his-slave_n_1643769.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037
Where are his 78 names of the socialists in Congress anyway?
Where were you to decry this during "Shrub's" admin? Talk about bitter disrespect. And racism. Just ask Kanye.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 01, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
Please re-read AquaMan's post:
Kennedy did cut the marginal tax rates and raise federal tax income though. I will agree to the concept of diminishing returns at our current levels though.
I guess I don't understand what you mean about the diminishing returns...?? Is that to imply that raising the tax rates 3% is going to be worse to end up at 36% than when they were 70% and more?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 02, 2012, 10:04:23 PM
I guess I don't understand what you mean about the diminishing returns...?? Is that to imply that raising the tax rates 3% is going to be worse to end up at 36% than when they were 70% and more?
There was probably more benefit regarding increased tax income by reducing the marginal rates from 90% & 70% to 50 % than from 50% to 33%. I don't remember the exact numbers but they illustrate the principal.
@Conan...we've been through the shrubs before...he purposely lied us into a war we could not afford. Quit with your false equivalencies. Bush should have been impeached and driven from office. He still does not travel over seas for fear of being jailed. :o http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/11859-romneys-weekend-with-establishment-bush-era-warmongers
Red Arrow, I really could care less that you do not think the INFORMATION I post is credible. Quit with your personal attacks in other threads. They reek of a failure to think which leads us to why this thread is valid. We've become a country that's lost it's place because we are misinformed and really don't want to know the truth while belittling each other. :-*
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/M/a/4/Polarized-America.jpg)
AND, with regard to a %70 tax bracket, the government had a tax code developed with incentives to build businesses, invest, and take risk. It enabled many Americans to move up the income ladder. Todays code is designed to shrink the government...not the military portion.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 02, 2012, 10:45:35 PM
@Conan...we've been through the shrubs before...he purposely lied us into a war we could not afford. Quit with your false equivalencies. Bush should have been impeached and driven from office. He still does not travel over seas for fear of being jailed. :o http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/11859-romneys-weekend-with-establishment-bush-era-warmongers
Red Arrow, I really could care less that you do not think the INFORMATION I post is credible. Quit with your personal attacks in other threads. They reek of a failure to think which leads us to why this thread is valid. We've become a country that's lost it's place because we are misinformed and really don't want to know the truth while belittling each other. :-*
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/M/a/4/Polarized-America.jpg)
Think of all the things POTUS Obama has lied to us about or simply sweeps things under the rug. Hundreds of Mexicans killed in a reckless ATF/DOJ/FBI/CIA clusterfuck. Drone attacks on innocent people. We are still losing soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan after being assured this nightmare would end. You really think rendition has ended? He didn't give his most ardent supporters single payer. If you think Obamacare will morph into that without bankrupting Medicaid and Medicare, you've got another thing coming. He's tried to lie and cajole his way through this jacked up economy, but finally after four years, it's becoming apparent he doesn't have a clue. Soak the rich and feed the poor? Hahahah! How's that coming along?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 02, 2012, 10:50:53 PM
Think of all the things POTUS Obama has lied to us about or simply sweeps things under the rug. Hundreds of Mexicans killed in a reckless ATF/DOJ/FBI/CIA clusterfuck. Drone attacks on innocent people. We are still losing soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan after being assured this nightmare would end. You really think rendition has ended? He didn't give his most ardent supporters single payer. If you think Obamacare will morph into that without bankrupting Medicaid and Medicare, you've got another thing coming. He's tried to lie and cajole his way through this jacked up economy, but finally after four years, it's becoming apparent he doesn't have a clue. Soak the rich and feed the poor? Hahahah! How's that coming along?
even more evidence!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 02, 2012, 10:50:53 PM
Think of all the things POTUS Obama has lied to us about or simply sweeps things under the rug. Hundreds of Mexicans killed in a reckless ATF/DOJ/FBI/CIA clusterfuck. Drone attacks on innocent people. We are still losing soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan after being assured this nightmare would end. You really think rendition has ended? He didn't give his most ardent supporters single payer. If you think Obamacare will morph into that without bankrupting Medicaid and Medicare, you've got another thing coming. He's tried to lie and cajole his way through this jacked up economy, but finally after four years, it's becoming apparent he doesn't have a clue. Soak the rich and feed the poor? Hahahah! How's that coming along?
Doesn't help much on the legislative side of things when you have a majority leader in the House who has essentially been neutered by the right wing loonies.
And tell me how the previous president didn't lie to the American people about a Iraq. A war that was kept OFF THE BOOKS for a reason.
I'm sure I'll get it for the 'blame Bush' meme, but how the hell do you take a surplus and run through it in 8 effin' years the way that bozo did?
The misinformation talking heads drone on making our citizens dislike each other. I liken Cain to Thomas. There's an actual minstrel in the teaser.
Wow.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-teaser-for-herman-cains-cain-tv-will-blow-your-mind/
How ironic the slogan is "We Are Not Stupid"... making the sheeples live in fear of the right information.
I was let down by this last episode. It was a little weak compared to the pilot.
If this thread is about the show I mean.
Quote from: Townsend on July 03, 2012, 03:29:26 PM
I was let down by this last episode. It was a little weak compared to the pilot.
If this thread is about the show I mean.
I think as time goes on it will get better.
I have to watch it with closed captions because the writing is so good that the dialogue gets rampant.
But the thread would be in "Entertainment" thread. Unfortunately, this thread is more about why we are no longer the country we once were. Watch Will's rant (often) to understand what Hollywood elites want you to believe is at the core of Amerika sinking.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 03, 2012, 03:18:57 PM
The misinformation talking heads drone on making our citizens dislike each other. I liken Cain to Thomas. There's an actual minstrel in the teaser.
Wow.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-teaser-for-herman-cains-cain-tv-will-blow-your-mind/
How ironic the slogan is "We Are Not Stupid"... making the sheeples live in fear of the right information.
What total BS! Kind of reminds me of you TTAC. So which part of your body are you spewing this out from?
The text from this site reads of someone that has a hard time with English stucture.
QuoteWhile much of the details are not available yet, Cain has teased that he will discussed the matter today on the Hannity radio show,
Original text:QuoteWhile much of the details are not available yet, Cain has teased that he will discussed the matter today on the Hannity radio show,
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 04, 2012, 04:20:58 AM
What total BS! Kind of reminds me of you TTAC. So which part of your body are you spewing this out from?
The text from this site reads of someone that has a hard time with English stucture.
Mean people continue to drag our country out of the position of exceptional.
QuoteNo, you don't get it. I am a better person than you in the sense that I am morally superior to you. Your needs and desires are irrelevant to me, except in so far as they might advance my own. I do not need to follow rules that you must follow. I am right because of who I am and not because of what I do or what you think. And it is not just you - I am better than everyone.
http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/07/reflecting-on-american-exceptionalism.html
QuoteFive Ways How I'm Teaching Morality To My Kids http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/2012/07/five-ways-how-im-teaching-morality-to.html
When General Wallace Greene took over as Commandant of the Marine Corps in 1964, he issued an order that in effect said, "Only those officers who think they need it may continue to carry swagger sticks. Swagger sticks immediately disappeared. Only those who think they need it should continue to run around talking about "American exceptionalism."
Ha Ha let the party begin! Light the fuse...can you use them ole US BLUES!
Figured this is as good a place as any for this:
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/America,%20Bitch.jpg)
Happy Fourth of July to everyone--and of course to the memory of those who made it possible.
QuoteJonathan Haidt: He Knows Why We Fight
Conservative or liberal, our moral instincts are shaped by evolution to strengthen 'us' against 'them.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577446512522582648.html
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Nobody who engages in political argument, and who isn't a moron, hasn't had to recognize the fact that decent, honest, intelligent people can come to opposite conclusions on public issues.
Jonathan Haidt, in an eye-opening and deceptively ambitious best seller, tells us why. The reason is evolution. Political attitudes are an extension of our moral reasoning; however much we like to tell ourselves otherwise, our moral responses are basically instinctual, despite attempts to gussy them up with ex-post rationalizations.
Our constellation of moral instincts arose because it helped us to cooperate. It helped us, in unprecedented speed and fashion, to dominate our planet. Yet the same moral reaction also means we exist in a state of perpetual, nasty political disagreement, talking past each other, calling each other names.
So Mr. Haidt explains in "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," undoubtedly one of the most talked-about books of the year. "The Righteous Mind" spent weeks on the hardcover best-seller list. Mr. Haidt considers himself mostly a liberal, but his book has been especially popular in the conservative blogosphere. Some right-leaning intellectuals are even calling it the most important book of the year.
It's full of ammunition that conservatives will love to throw out at cocktail parties. His research shows that conservatives are much better at understanding and anticipating liberal attitudes than liberals are at appreciating where conservatives are coming from. Case in point: Conservatives know that liberals are repelled by cruelty to animals, but liberals don't think (or prefer not to believe) that conservatives are repelled too.
Mr. Haidt, until recently a professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, says the surveys conducted by his research team show that liberals are strong on evolved values he defines as caring and fairness. Conservatives value caring and fairness too but tend to emphasize the more tribal values like loyalty, authority and sanctity.
Conservatives, Mr. Haidt says, have been more successful politically because they play to the full spectrum of sensibilities, and because the full spectrum is necessary for a healthy society. An admiring review in the New York Times sums up this element of his argument: "Liberals dissolve moral capital too recklessly. Welfare programs that substitute public aid for spousal and parental support undermine the ecology of the family. Education policies that let students sue teachers erode classroom authority. Multicultural education weakens the cultural glue of assimilation."
Such a book is bound to run into the charge of scientism—claiming scientific authority for a mix of common sense, exhortation or the author's own preferences. Let it be said that Mr. Haidt is sensitive to this complaint. If he erred, he says, it was on the side of being accessible, readable and, he hopes, influential.
As we sit in his new office at New York University, he professes an immodest aim: He wants liberals and conservatives to listen to each other more, hate each other less, and to understand that their differences are largely rooted in psychology, not open-minded consideration of the facts. "My big issue, the one I'm somewhat evangelical about, is civil disagreement," he says.
A shorthand he uses is "follow the sacred"—and not in a good way. "Follow the sacred and there you will find a circle of motivated ignorance." Today's political parties are most hysterical, he says, on the issues they "sacralize." For the right, it's taxes. For the left, the sacred issues were race and gender but are becoming global warming and gay marriage.
Yet between the lines of his book is an even more dramatic claim: The same moral psychology that makes our politics so nasty also underlies the amazing triumph of the human species. "We shouldn't be here at all," he tells me. "When I think about life on earth, there should not be a species like us. And if there was, we should be out in the jungle killing each other in small groups. That's what you should expect. The fact that we're here [in politics] arguing viciously and nastily with each other, and no guns, that itself is a miracle. And I think we can make [our politics] a little better. That's my favorite theme."
Who is Jon Haidt? A nice Jewish boy from central casting, he grew up in Scarsdale, N.Y. His father was a corporate lawyer. "When the economy opened out in the '50s and '60s and Jews could go everywhere, he was part of that generation. He and all his buddies from Brooklyn did very well."
His family was liberal in the FDR tradition. At Yale he studied philosophy and, in standard liberal fashion, "emerged pretty convinced that I was right about everything." It took a while for him to discover the limits of that stance. "I wouldn't say I was mugged by reality. I would say I was gradually introduced to it academically," he says today.
In India, where he performed field studies early in his professional career, he encountered a society in some ways patriarchal, sexist and illiberal. Yet it worked and the people were lovely. In Brazil, he paid attention to the experiences of street children and discovered the "most dangerous person in the world is mom's boyfriend. When women have a succession of men coming through, their daughters will get raped," he says. "The right is right to be sounding the alarm about the decline of marriage, and the left is wrong to say, 'Oh, any kind of family is OK.' It's not OK."
At age 41, he decided to try to understand what conservatives think. The quest was part of his effort to apply his understanding of moral psychology to politics. He especially sings the praises of Thomas Sowell's "Conflict of Visions," which he calls "an incredible book, a brilliant portrayal" of the argument between conservatives and liberals about the nature of man. "Again, as a moral psychologist, I had to say the constrained vision [of human nature] is correct."
That is, our moral instincts are tribal, adaptive, intuitive and shaped by evolution to strengthen "us" against "them." He notes that, in the 1970s, the left tended to be categorically hostile to evolutionary explanations of human behavior. Yet Mr. Haidt, the liberal and self-professed atheist, says he now finds the conservative vision speaks more insightfully to our evolved nature in ways that it would be self-defeating to discount.
"This is what I'm trying to argue for, and this is what I feel I've discovered from reading a lot of the sociology," he continues. "You need loyalty, authority and sanctity"—values that liberals are often suspicious of—"to run a decent society."
Mr. Haidt, a less chunky, lower-T version of Adam Sandler, has just landed a new position at the Stern School of Business at NYU. He arrived with his two children and wife, Jane, after a successful and happy 16-year run at the University of Virginia. An introvert by his own account, and never happier than when laboring in solitude, he nevertheless sought out the world's media capital to give wider currency to the ideas in the "The Righteous Mind."
Mr. Haidt's book, as he's the first to notice, has given comfort to conservatives. Its aim is to help liberals. Though he calls himself a centrist, he remains a strongly committed Democrat. He voted for one Republican in his life—in 2000 crossing party lines to cast a ballot for John McCain in the Virginia primary. "I wasn't trying to mess with the Republican primary," he adds. "I really liked McCain."
His disappointment with President Obama is quietly evident. Ronald Reagan understood that "politics is more like religion than like shopping," he says. Democrats, after a long string of candidates who flogged policy initiatives like items in a Wal-Mart circular, finally found one who could speak to higher values than self-interest. "Obama surely had a chance to remake the Democratic Party. But once he got in office, I think, he was consumed with the difficulty of governing within the Beltway."
The president has reverted to the formula of his party—bound up in what Mr. Haidt considers obsolete interest groups, battles and "sacred" issues about which Democrats cultivate an immunity to compromise.
Mr. Haidt lately has been speaking to Democratic groups and urging attachment to a new moral vision, albeit one borrowed from the Andrew Jackson campaign of 1828: "Equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none."
Racial quotas and reflexive support for public-sector unions would be out. His is a reformed vision of a class-based politics of affirmative opportunity for the economically disadvantaged. "I spoke to some Democrats about things in the book and they asked, how can we weaponize this? My message to them was: You're not ready. You don't know what you stand for yet. You don't have a clear moral vision."
Like many historians of modern conservatism, he cites the 1971 Powell Memo—written by the future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell Jr.—which rallied Republicans to the defense of free enterprise and limited government. Democrats need their own version of the Powell Memo today to give the party a new and coherent moral vision of activist government in the good society. "The moral rot a [traditional] liberal welfare state creates over generations—I mean, the right is right about that," says Mr. Haidt, "and the left can't see it."
Yet one challenge becomes apparent in talking to Mr. Haidt: He's read his book and cheerfully acknowledges that he avoids criticizing too plainly the "sacralized" issues of his liberal friends.
In his book, for instance, is passing reference to Western Europe's creation of the world's "first atheistic societies," also "the least efficient societies ever known at turning resources (of which they have a lot) into offspring (of which they have very few)."
What does he actually mean? He means Islam: "Demographic curves are very hard to bend," he says. "Unless something changes in Europe in the next century, it will eventually be a Muslim continent. Let me say it diplomatically: Most religions are tribal to some degree. Islam, in its holy books, seems more so. Christianity has undergone a reformation and gotten some distance from its holy books to allow many different lives to flourish in Christian societies, and this has not happened in Islam."
Mr. Haidt is similarly tentative in spelling out his thoughts on global warming. The threat is real, he suspects, and perhaps serious. "But the left is now embracing this as their sacred issue, which guarantees that there will be frequent exaggerations and minor—I don't want to call it fudging of data—but there will be frequent mini-scandals. Because it's a moral crusade, the left is going to have difficulty thinking clearly about what to do."
Mr. Haidt, I observe, is noticeably less delicate when stepping on the right's toes. He reviles George W. Bush, whom he blames for running up America's debt and running down its reputation. He blames Newt Gingrich for perhaps understanding his book's arguments too well and importing an uncompromising moralistic language into the partisan politics of the 1990s.
Mr. Haidt also considers today's Republican Party a curse upon the land, even as he admires conservative ideas. He says its defense of lower taxes on capital income—mostly reported by the rich—is indefensible. He dismisses Mitt Romney as a "moral menial," a politician so cynical about the necessary cynicism of politics that he doesn't bother to hide his cynicism. (Some might call that a virtue.) He finds it all too typical that Republicans abandoned their support of the individual health-care mandate the moment Mr. Obama picked it up (though he also finds Chief Justice John Roberts's bend-over-backwards effort to preserve conservative constitutional principle while upholding ObamaCare "refreshing").
Why is his language so much less hedged when discussing Republicans? "Liberals are my friends, my colleagues, my social world," he concedes. Liberals also are the audience he hopes most to influence, helping Democrats to recalibrate their political appeal and their attachment to a faulty welfare state.
To which a visitor can only say, God speed. Even with his parsing out of deep psychological differences between conservatives and liberals, American politics still seem capable of a useful fluidity. To make progress we need both parties, and right now we could use some progress on taxes, incentives, growth and entitlement reform.
Mr. Jenkins writes the Journal's Business World column.
How to temper this discourse?
This is a good read.
Common sense view of today's politics from? Yep! Billy Corgan. Can't argue with him on this point. Plus, he is a tremendous musician.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/07/05/billy-corgan-growing-around-drug-addicts-and-freaks-makes-you-lean-le
Quote from: guido911 on July 05, 2012, 12:05:44 AM
Common sense view of today's politics from? Yep! Billy Corgan. Can't argue with him on this point. Plus, he is a tremendous musician.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/07/05/billy-corgan-growing-around-drug-addicts-and-freaks-makes-you-lean-le
Figures that you would dig up something where the author "gives up" or finds no hope for change....
Corgan, right. He's some sort of intellectual?
You are a hopeless doe doe...
Here is a pic that is inspirational to me (and I am not a pet owner):
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/480027_490667140949681_527099971_n.jpg)
HBO's ok'd Newsroom for a second season already.