On this thread (as on many others), we talked about racism, and the extent to which enmity toward Obama is based on his skin color.
On this thread, especially at the end, we talked about the the conflation of religious certainty with political certainty.
And on this thread, one poster talked about the stereotypes of conservatives that she believes are accepted among the liberal posters on this board.
What ties them all together? This new report from James Carville's research group. It's called "The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans," and it's based on focus groups conducted with people who represent two very different types of conservatives: those who identify themselves as politically active Republicans, and those who are conservative but don't consider themselves part of the Republican base.
First, Carville's report takes race off the table:
Quote:
Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs - but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion - but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.
Second, the base voters see themselves as an oppressed minority with special insight into fundamental truths that are ignored by the mainstream:
Quote:
[T]hese conservative Republican voters believe Obama is deliberately and ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt our country and dramatically expand government control over all aspects of our daily lives. They view this effort in sweeping terms, and cast a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of the United States as it was conceived by our founders and developed over the past 200 years. This concern combines with a profound sense of collective identity. They readily identify themselves as a minority in this country - a minority whose values are mocked and attacked by a liberal media and class of elites. They also believe they possess a level of knowledge and understanding when it comes to politics and current events, one gained from a rejection of the mainstream media and an embrace of conservative media and pundits such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, which sets them apart even more.
I bolded that part because it gets to the issue of religious certainty: they have such absolute faith in their political beliefs that they deliberately ignore any point of view that might conflict with what they so passionately believe. In another section, the report says that they feel their faith is under attack, along with their freedoms.
But independent conservatives frame their disagreements with the administration in starkly different terms:
Quote:
Independents harbor doubts about Obama’s health care reform but are desperate to see some version of health care reform pass this year; the conservative Republicans view any health care reform as a victory for Obama and are militantly opposed. The language they use further reflects this divide. Conservative Republicans fully embrace the ‘socialism’ attacks on Obama and believe it is the best, most accurate way to describe him and his agenda. Independents largely dismiss these attacks as partisan rhetoric detracting from a legitimate debate about what many of them do see as excessive government control and spending.
It seems to me that most of the conservatives on this forum fall into the latter category. There's a wide distrust of government meddling in the economy, but no sense that Obama is out to change their way of life. Is that fair?
And I think it's also fair to say that the liberals who post here have been guilty of framing all anti-Obama sentiment as part of the Glenn Beck/tea party coalition, when clearly it isn't.
I know Carville plays a clown on TV, but I don't think this is a hit job on the Beck brigades. It strikes me as a useful way to understand the current political climate.
The report was intereresting. Also Huffington had links to Frist interview(s) regarding both health care and 'birthers', which reflected 'independent conservative' viewpoints. Of course an overriding reality is which group owns the Republican party, and can it win election without the cooperation of both groups.
Seriously though, I think that is a fairly accurate summation. As a conservative, I think I am more easily offended by someone pulling 'the race card' on me. It just smacks of unfairness.
It's such a dirty thing, like saying someone is a pedophile or something, and if someone even remotely hints that your view point substantiates that you are that way, it puts you at an instant disadvantage if that is taken seriously. It paints you as guilty without cause.
I have no trouble saying that I disagree with Obama in many of his policy ideas, but I am still an American and he is the president . . that makes him my commander in chief. My president.
A society is balanced in that way. I am supposed to stand for what I believe, and realize that 'reasoning men can disagree'. I expect Obama to stand for what he believes as well. That is what we all should do. And, at the end of the day, we usually wind up meeting somewhere in the middle.
There is a chasm between Liberal and Conservative America. I think both sides have concepts about the other that isn't true, and both sides have trouble being true to themselves about their own faults.
Also, on the big government thing, you are correct. I do think that 'massive reform' could help short term, but I go along with the reasoning that a government that is big enough to 'take care of you' is big enough to destroy you when things go wrong. I mean, take the welfare system of Roosevelt, it was good for it's day (and needed) but now it is a beast that is consuming a critical amount of our resources for little comparative return. I simply haven't seen a system succeed . . .
**Total side note, but James Carville (sp?) came in the restaurant a couple of times where I worked. He is even skinnier in real life and you can hear his voice (b/c of the pitch) about three dinning rooms over! LOL Also, he is super picky about his food . . but a good tipper :)
__________________
***********************
If you weren't born drop dead gorgeous, be thankful for the opportunity to develop character first.
So, many on the right are not the caricatures that some on the left paint them to be? And many on the left are not the caricatures that some on the right paint them to be?
As PMDL might say, Impossible.
__________________
Since most of your life is already complicated, why make your training the same way? Jim Wendler
And I think it's also fair to say that the liberals who post here have been guilty of framing all anti-Obama sentiment as part of the Glenn Beck/tea party coalition, when clearly it isn't.
I know that they aren't, but sarcasm and satire to illustrate a point are my raison d'etre.
In any case, what's shocking is that I have my own anti-Obama sentiments. I don't like a great deal of the things he does.
What sets me off into jerk-mode is the fact that the anti-Obama sentiment boils down to tin-hat raving. Never once have I seen anyone here (Manny and Lou excepted) raise a complaint about Obama that wasn't 100% Pure Fox Noise.
You expect me to get worked up over one trivial piece of nonsense after another, when 1) there was only apologism for Bush's incompetence-cum-fascism and 2) there are a great many things worthy of slamming Obama over?
The bailouts are one thing.
How about staffing his DOJ with RIAA lawyers?
How about the multi-lateral ACTA agreement?
How about not rescinding the warrantless wiretaps and state-secrets garbage?
How about continued telecom immunity?
How about twiddling thumbs over Afghanistan?
I'm sure I can think of several other policies that are worth some screeching over. Do we get any of that well thought-out criticism?
No. We get such hits as "Obama uses a teleprompter!", "Obama wants to kill Sarah Palin's baby and your grandma", and "Obama speaks to children, tells them to do their homework"
Pardon me if I can't take that kind of stupidity with anything approaching seriousness. If that's the "conservative" outlook, then they deserve every bit of caricature and lambasting they get.
And then I can post that controlled scientific research straight off Pubmed showing that conservatives tend to be more resistant to facts and more inherently biased in the first place.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
How about not rescinding the warrantless wiretaps and state-secrets garbage?
How about continued telecom immunity?
How about twiddling thumbs over Afghanistan?
You won't hear outrage from left-leaning posters on here about this (I can't remember a single post where Lou had any outrage either). After having fun with bashing Bush about these subjects they're in disbelief that their Messiah would continue in the same vein. Once he had to step away form his campaign rhetoric and actually govern things changed (was that the change he talked about?) I find the silence quite amusing.
Quote:
How about staffing his DOJ with RIAA lawyers?
This is a non issue. Lawyers, like rep-counters, will sell their soul to the Master that brings in the cash (not that it makes them bad people).
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
I would take a fairly leftists position on the above points. But my complaint with Bush was his digging in his feet on all the issues, and attempting to cut both the Congress and courts out of the decision making. There is the general issue that politicians, Clinton and Obama, are not all that liberal on civil liberties. A long standing issue with all Presidents. Obama seems to be pretty open to Congress and the courts setting guidelines. Not perfect but better.
You won't hear outrage from left-leaning posters on here about this (I can't remember a single post where Lou had any outrage either).
I've been disappointed with a lot of developments, and I think I've expressed that disappointment. But on most issues -- particularly the ones we discussed on the healthcare thread -- I want to hold back until I see what the actual results will be. There's no final healthcare bill, so I can't see much point in getting worked up now.
When it comes to war and torture, I'm still outraged that Bush started these things -- that he took our country to war in Iraq for no reason, and then authorized the military and CIA to torture people so they'd confess to something that would make it look like the war was justified.
I'm disappointed that Obama hasn't unfucked them faster than he has.
I reserve outrage for the perpetrators. Disappointment is for the clean-up crew.
When Obama lies and breaks the law to commit horrible acts in our country's name, I'll upgrade.
When it comes to war and torture, I'm still outraged that Bush started these things -- that he took our country to war in Iraq for no reason, and then authorized the military and CIA to torture people so they'd confess to something that would make it look like the war was justified.
I'm disappointed that Obama hasn't unfucked them faster than he has.
I reserve outrage for the perpetrators. Disappointment is for the clean-up crew.
When Obama lies and breaks the law to commit horrible acts in our country's name, I'll upgrade.
So essentially you're saying that Obama can keep us in a holding pattern regarding two large-scale wars and secret torture, and that will only garner disappointment from you? I understand these are gigantic and complex problems. But I hope that eventually people will realize that this is Obama's game now, and inaction on his part and maintenance of the status quo is a choice.
__________________
"If it felt good, you didn't push hard enough. It's supposed to hurt like hell." - Dean Karnazes' track coach, Ultramarathon Man
"My baby's soft and sweet, somewhere between a flower and a gun" - fiction family
So essentially you're saying that Obama can keep us in a holding pattern regarding two large-scale wars and secret torture, and that will only garner disappointment from you?
I am so totally fucking not saying that.
I'm disappointed Obama hasn't moved faster to unfuck the worst monstrosities of the Bush administration, the second- or third-most disastrous presidency of our country's history, depending on how you rank Buchanan and Nixon.
But anybody who's more outraged at Obama for not cleaning it up fast enough than they are at Bush for creating these disgraceful shitpiles is being willfully obtuse.
Quote:
I understand these are gigantic and complex problems.
We all understand that. Most important, Obama understands that, and his administration approaches these problems with more caution and gravity than the Bush administration mustered when it rushed into them.
Quote:
But I hope that eventually people will realize that this is Obama's game now, and inaction on his part and maintenance of the status quo is a choice.
Caution is not inaction. He's not maintaining the status quo. He's working to get the prisoners out of Gitmo, and trying new strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think there's about zero chance that prisoners are still being tortured or abused in a systematic way based on orders from the top. (I'm not naive enough to think that soldiers won't occasionally lose control and break the rules just because we have a new president. I can't imagine the level of stress these guys are under.)
To repeat: If Obama perpetrates a willful deception in order to break U.S. and international law and tens of thousands of people end up dead, yes, I'll be outraged.
It seems to me that most of the conservatives on this forum fall into the latter category. There's a wide distrust of government meddling in the economy, but no sense that Obama is out to change their way of life. Is that fair?
I DO think Obama and his supporters want to change our way of life, and want to do so in a manner that involves less personal freedom and more regulation by government.
I recognize that this has been going on a long time. It is not Obama's fault that you can't buy a decent toilet (as I have said before, when there is a black market in functioning toilets, it is pretty clear that the regulatory state has gone off the rails). But I view Obama, and the "progressive" portion of the base of the Democratic party, as wanting more government control over a LOT of areas of life. Health care "reform" is a case in point. Whether you want reform or not, you have to admit that it involves a massive set of mandates on everyone, individuals to businesses. The most obvious example is forcing healthy people to spend a lot of money to buy health insurance that the great majority of them don't need.
They want to decide for the whole country on issues from gun control, gay "rights," etc. (Don't get me started on the plans to ensure that you cannot buy a decent light bulb. I have been trying those fluorescent bulbs, and I think they are pretty poor in comparison to incandescent bulbs. I have also had two or three only last about two months, which, given their price, and the fact that they are supposed to last for 8 years or some b.s., is really starting to torque me off).
I DO think Obama and his supporters want to change our way of life, and want to do so in a manner that involves less personal freedom and more regulation by government.
This is predicated on the notion that what you have now is anything more than the illusion of freedom.
Realistically when someone says "less personal freedom" in the current climate, what that boils down to is simply a change in the name of the large group of people that's constraining your actions.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
You won't hear outrage from left-leaning posters on here about this (I can't remember a single post where Lou had any outrage either). After having fun with bashing Bush about these subjects they're in disbelief that their Messiah would continue in the same vein. Once he had to step away form his campaign rhetoric and actually govern things changed (was that the change he talked about?) I find the silence quite amusing.
I have commented unfavorably about the Obama administration on here about many of these things. In fact, I believe I have referred to him as Bush Lite regarding the Patriot Act, Rendition, Wiretaps and dragging his feet in getting troops out of Iraq among other things. That said, I am glad he is in office rather than President Bush or a President McCain because I believe he can change his mind on some of these things.
If you go and buy the cheapest toilet it may not flush. Don't be so godam cheap! And this is a poor example to boot. Public water systems themselves are kind of socialistic - and a very good idea. Actually they are a utility, and almost by definition utilities need to be regulated, and part of that regulation is how much water is available to each household. An economist may say the way to do this is to price by usage, ever more water, ever higher marginal rates.
humorous aside: we did a major bathroom remodel, walk in shower has multiple heads, actually just a regular and a hand held. In my defense our well is set to 35 psi, and legal shower heads are designed to put out 2.5 gallons at 80 psi.
If you go and buy the cheapest toilet it may not flush. Don't be so godam cheap! And this is a poor example to boot. Public water systems themselves are kind of socialistic - and a very good idea. Actually they are a utility, and almost by definition utilities need to be regulated, and part of that regulation is how much water is available to each household. An economist may say the way to do this is to price by usage, ever more water, ever higher marginal rates.
humorous aside: we did a major bathroom remodel, walk in shower has multiple heads, actually just a regular and a hand held. In my defense our well is set to 35 psi, and legal shower heads are designed to put out 2.5 gallons at 80 psi.
More to it than that. Having worked at our town's public utility in the wastewater plant, I can tell you this via first hand experience. I can also relate to you about other city's water going private. Short story, not good. Private companies like to "save money" and where do they save that money? Why in maintenance and parts. Basically allow the system to literally fall apart and the resulting water to be not...well, not very good.
So it's parts and efficiency. I can say honestly (and with pride) that the water our city gets via the plant is quality as is the service (and system) is excellent.
It's simply called good government. Or rather, in our town's case, good local government. I guess I've seen good government now from both a local and a state perspective since I've worked in both.
And why I don't believe in that whole "small" or "big" government arguments. It's BS. What's needed is well-run or good government. Pure and simple.
Oh and there's this program run by our public utility that allows you to get reimbursed if you replace an old toilet with a water-saving one. When we lived in Portland (via the utility there), we received a brand new (and free) water saving shower head. It's been several years now and we still use it. It's excellent.
I apologize that my tone was out of line. Rereading it, it definitely could've been phrased in a way that had the same message but was Caustic Lite.
Quote:
But anybody who's more outraged at Obama for not cleaning it up fast enough than they are at Bush for creating these disgraceful shitpiles is being willfully obtuse.
I don't fall into that camp. I'm not a fan of GWB and wasn't when he was in. But Obama certainly is continuing many of the same policies that Bush started, with no promise for significant improvement (I really doubt we can continue sending prisoners to other countries for rendition, and not expect them to be tortured - despite the official word coming out of the White House).
Regarding the wars, I can't really see how the policy in Iraq has changed, just that we're drawing down troop levels because of a situation that has gradually improved from 2006 to the end of the Bush admin. In Afghanistan, I hope Obama stops dithering around and actually makes a decision about a surge. There, I really do equate caution with inaction because the lack of a clearly defined mission, and the according troop support, is causing us to lose whatever gains we currently have, and leading to demoralized troops who are put in danger for no apparent reason. This interview with the British general in charge of NATO forces in south Afghanistan is telling, I think.
Again, I apologize for my tone.
__________________
"If it felt good, you didn't push hard enough. It's supposed to hurt like hell." - Dean Karnazes' track coach, Ultramarathon Man
"My baby's soft and sweet, somewhere between a flower and a gun" - fiction family
Interesting article from the Baptist Press on chain e-mails that spread lies, and possible connections between political ideology and theology among conservative Christians.
Quote:
So, why are Christians so willing to believe unsubstantiated rumors? And more troubling, why are Christians, who should hold the highest standards of truth-telling, so eager to spread such rumors -- and even downright libels?
Christians are not necessarily any more gullible than the population at large -- and there’s the rub, said Bill Tillman, a Christian-ethics professor at Hardin-Simmons University’s Logsdon Seminary, a Texas Baptist school.
“Their gullibility seems to follow the culture’s levels and channels of gullibility,” Tillman said. “That similarity should give Christians pause to think: If I am no different than the surrounding culture on the treatment of e-mails and communication they carry, with what else am I no different?
“I do think that, like the larger culture, some Christians do follow certain patterns that reflect where their theological ideas parallel their political ideologies.”
Closer to Lou's original points this is illuminating:
Quote:
“Certainly, many Christians seem attracted to conspiracy theories and urban myths and these mass e-mails that propagate them,” he said. “But I am not sure if that is because they are Christian or because they are just Americans of a certain type -- people who feel angry about the way the world is, who feel alienated from ‘elite culture,’ who feel embattled by cultural trends that they cannot control and do not at all like, and who often feel looked down upon by those with more education or higher social status.”
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Of course many in the Muslim world believe that Israel was behind 9/11. I don't think a specific religion makes you susceptible to conspiracy theories. I think religion lends itself to an us against them mentality which makes followers susceptible.
The Christian religion is based on a story that has a fair amount of semblance to a political conspiracy theory. Everything is proceeding along lines laid out by a mysterious all knowing intelligence who has set all events in motion behind the scenes.
Which is not to say that I think that this makes Christians particularly open to conspiracy theories. I think people are in general subject to such things.
The Christian religion is based on a story that has a fair amount of semblance to a political conspiracy theory. Everything is proceeding along lines laid out by a mysterious all knowing intelligence who has set all events in motion behind the scenes.
Which is not to say that I think that this makes Christians particularly open to conspiracy theories. I think people are in general subject to such things.
Milton's Paradise Lost did a lot to add to that ideology and paranoia and not to mention good old Revelations.
__________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
On my original blog, I wrote about a new translation that said the book was written as a heavily allegorical critique of the current Roman emperor. But you couldn't come out and say "the emperor sucks," so the author had to dance around it with veiled and oblique references that would have made sense to his intended audience.
The new translation, IIRC, said that even "666" was a mistranslation -- the original numbers were something slightly different, like "636," and that even this was a veiled reference to the emperor, whoever it was.
Back in high school, I had to write a paper on Revelations for my junior or senior religion class. It was a book that Catholics never quoted from or even talked about back then, so it was all new to me. I remember thinking that it seemed like a remembrance of an especially vivid nightmare. The idea that anyone regarded it as a prophecy that might come to pass in our lifetimes would've floored me.
I understand now that a couple of generations of evangelicals and fundamentalists have been brought up to believe in an imminent apocalypse, but it's still hard to fathom how people make the leap from a first-century political allegory to a prediction of events in the 21st century.
On my original blog, I wrote about a new translation that said the book was written as a heavily allegorical critique of the current Roman emperor. But you couldn't come out and say "the emperor sucks," so the author had to dance around it with veiled and oblique references that would have made sense to his intended audience.
The new translation, IIRC, said that even "666" was a mistranslation -- the original numbers were something slightly different, like "636," and that even this was a veiled reference to the emperor, whoever it was.
Back in high school, I had to write a paper on Revelations for my junior or senior religion class. It was a book that Catholics never quoted from or even talked about back then, so it was all new to me. I remember thinking that it seemed like a remembrance of an especially vivid nightmare. The idea that anyone regarded it as a prophecy that might come to pass in our lifetimes would've floored me.
I understand now that a couple of generations of evangelicals and fundamentalists have been brought up to believe in an imminent apocalypse, but it's still hard to fathom how people make the leap from a first-century political allegory to a prediction of events in the 21st century.
(virtually) no one in the Early Church (East or West) interpreted that book in the weird way that some in the last 150 years or so have done.
And the emperor was Nero (at least that's the common thinking).
I understand now that a couple of generations of evangelicals and fundamentalists have been brought up to believe in an imminent apocalypse, but it's still hard to fathom how people make the leap from a first-century political allegory to a prediction of events in the 21st century.
The same way they make the leap from "love everyone unconditionally" to "Jesus loves mah war and hates socialism"
You can't really decry the non-sequiturs that come from something inherently illogical
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I understand now that a couple of generations of evangelicals and fundamentalists have been brought up to believe in an imminent apocalypse, but it's still hard to fathom how people make the leap from a first-century political allegory to a prediction of events in the 21st century.
It really is just a carry over from the last 2500 years of Judaism. Take a look at the Book of Daniel and the similarities between it and Revelation. The "end times" were coming back then, its one reason there were a lot of "Messiahs" running around proclaiming they had the right way. Just add in a bit of Roman conquering of the "Holy Land" and BAM you have the apocalypse right at your door step.
__________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
Milton's Paradise Lost did a lot to add to that ideology and paranoia and not to mention good old Revelations.
I picked up a nicely illustrated version of Paradise Lost at the "bargain bins" of a bookstore a while back. I got a few pages into it the last time I tried to read it. I need to make another attempt.
The Sum of All Threads
Linear Mode
