Why working-class people vote conservative

[amigocabal]

Am I right? Or is the fuse still burning, and going to keep burning where I can't get at it, until it explodes and blows me to pieces? That article is saying "we have ten years to put out the fuse." We didn't put out the fuse. That doesn't mean the explosion hasn't happened yet- the fuse is still burning, the world is in fact still getting warmer. You can check this. In places where once there were mountains of ice, there is now no ice, because it melted- a sign of things getting warmer. But you never see places where there never used to be ice, and now there is- so there are no places where it's getting colder.

What is false is the idea that we had ten years to put out the fuse. To the contrary, Carl Sagan and four others proved that such a fuse could be put out with then-existing technology, six years before the Miami Herald article was published. It was called the TTAPS study, the most significant scientific paper since Albert Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

[amigocabal]

I'm not sure if amigocabal is trolling or acting as a devils advocate.

This is my summary of amigocabal's position, again always keeping to the 'working class conservative point of view' that this thread is about.
And trying to avoid quote spaghetti.

1) Enviromentalism - Working class conservatives were for it, when it was the environment around them that was shit. Now most of the environmental movement's targets are relatively distant (eg overfishing, ice caps melting) there is no perceived connection to their own environment, while the costs (eg 'the company i work for getting hassle') remain easily perceptible. A conservative opposing such actions might point to various flaws in 'the evidence' which members of the board might accept as standard scientific procedure (we're not certain) or stupid sensationalist journalism. The average working class conservative american will not be so tolerant.

2) Gun control - Since criminals are often armed, by extension people who have to deal with criminals (police) or are frequent targets of criminals (population, with high perceived crime rates) should also be armed for self defense.

3) On the list of 'moral values' 'care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity, lefties tend to score higher then conservatives on the importance of 'care' and lower then conservatives on the importance of the other values. From a conservative viewpoint, shifting resources to boost 'care' at the cost of 'liberty' or 'fairness' is immoral. They don't value the boost in 'care' as much as the loss in the other values, leading to a net moral reduction = immoral action.
(I'm using lefty because liberal has multiple meanings)

4) General arguments regarding balancing of different moral values - this disintegrated into nitpicking specific examples which is not very interesting, although good flame bait. Besides I think the board agrees about the concept of balance and trade offs, it's just deciding where the balance line should be, which is why we are discussing conservative value systems and how to fit lefty ideas into them.

5) Healthcare - Working class conservatives also mistrust the government (interesting interplay between liberty and authority here). They do not trust it to have their best interests at heart (fairness, care).

6) Contrary to Stas Bush's argument - in order to enact policy change in a democratic nation, you FIRST have to appeal to the voters, not simply wait for their moral values to come into line with yours. Nor should you have to reject your own moral values, but simply find areas where the two coincide.
(the example given is confusing - I'm not sure Amigocabal and Stas Bush are arguing for the same policy on immigration)

is this a fair summary?

Yes, it is a fair summary.

As for national health care, supporters would point out, that while conceding that it would place health care under the control of those who ran the Tuskegee Experiments, the alternatives are worse.

(Of course, this implies health care policy is like choosing being a solid turd sandwich and a diarrhea shake.)

[madd0ct0r]

don't get me started on health care policy - i've been looking into it as part of my job recently and the main conclusion i have is that americans are batshit crazy.

ok. so adressing your points:

selling environmentalism:

People of America! There are those among you who remember the bad old days - when rivers caught fire! When the Love Canal poisoned our children! I would not have us go back to that. This is our world, our land and we have a God-given duty to look after it. Is it fair that a company can save money by dumping waste? Is it fair that small fishing boats can be put out of business by greedy neighbors? No! In our very constitution it say 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' I would not dream of touching upon your liberty, friends nor can I say what makes you happy. But the weather is changing, the seasons are stirring and we, amongst all the people of the world, have done the most to put things out of balance. When the pilgrim fathers landed here, the land was wild, pristine, virgin. Should you not keep a little of that legacy for your children to see?

Selling Gun control:

Friends, when Jesus spoke upon the Mount, did he mandate an eye for an eye? Did he argue that all should carry knives in case they were attacked? No. He brought to the Earth a new justice, transcending the old. The right to bear arms is an important pillar of the constitution, and I would not dream of pressuring people to give up their hunting rifles or the gun they keep safely locked in their house to protect their family. Maybe you feel you need to carry a handgun with you in the same way. But none of us are perfect, all of us have made mistakes in the past, and I would hate for my mistake to steal somebody's husband away, to rob children of their father or stain my soul with guilt. As such, I call on you today to support in my campaign "Don't play Russian Rouleete, Don't live carry".
We have gun laws, let's see them properly enforced.
Thankyou



Selling Universal Healthcare:

America is a sick nation, my friends. We pay more then anywhere else for the same medicines. Is this fair? We work longer hours, die sooner and our families are charged nearly double. Is this fair? Let me tell you a secret my friends: America has a socialized Health Care system. Truly, we do. The American Government spends more per person the British with their NHS! And while the Brits make their doctors shop around to save money, we just deny government funded healthcare to most of the population! Your taxes, your income is going to support these government programs, so why shouldn't you get your money's worth from them? Friends, we have a choice. We either abolish tax funded healthcare, or we give everyone the chance to use it - the liberty to use it.

Jesus was a healer who helped the sick, the lame and the poorest in society. We have a mandate to do so too and , I don't know about you, I like to get my money's worth. If I give to one charity, how much actually goes to help? If I have to give my money up (and remember, I'm already paying taxes, giving to charity AND having to arrange insurance for myself) I want to get the best bang for my buck, not pay for a new picture on the wall of an insurer's office, or pay for a local charity to do nothing, because there's no-one nearby who really needs it. What did Jesus do when he heard of a stranger healing in the Lord's name? He praised him.

I'm not asking you to give up your liberty to choose whether to pay - YOU ALREADY DO. I'm asking whether you think it's right that we, as Americans, take care of each other, whether we, as Americans, choose to follow Jesus's example or not, whether we, as Americans, demand what every other 1st world country is getting!

[Simon_Jester]

What is false is the idea that we had ten years to put out the fuse. To the contrary, Carl Sagan and four others proved that such a fuse could be put out with then-existing technology, six years before the Miami Herald article was published. It was called the TTAPS study, the most significant scientific paper since Albert Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

Um... are you serious?

The TTAPS study assumed that smoke and dust from nuclear explosions would be instantly teleported into the upper atmosphere, that continents have uniform climate instead of having interiors and coastlines, and that certain key parameters would be "worst-case-imaginable."

I don't know how much smoke we'd have to put into the air to get a serious cooling effect, but really- go ask real climate scientists. My bet is that you'll get an answer like "a ridiculous amount, so much so that the warming effect from the CO2 cancels the cooling effect from the smoke." Or you could use sulfur aerosols like volcanoes do... and dissolve the ozone layer by keeping it up permanently.

These really aren't good plans, and they certainly aren't magic pills for curing global warming.

[amigocabal]

What is false is the idea that we had ten years to put out the fuse. To the contrary, Carl Sagan and four others proved that such a fuse could be put out with then-existing technology, six years before the Miami Herald article was published. It was called the TTAPS study, the most significant scientific paper since Albert Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

Um... are you serious?

The TTAPS study assumed that smoke and dust from nuclear explosions would be instantly teleported into the upper atmosphere, that continents have uniform climate instead of having interiors and coastlines, and that certain key parameters would be "worst-case-imaginable."

That would be well, grossly negligent, to put it mildly, especially since Carl Sagan, one of the greatest scientific minds in world history, participated. While I can understand a math error, I can not believe Sagan would participate in such an egregious error.

In any event, what precipitated TTAPS was the observation that temperatures were cooling, and as it turned out, global cooling coincided with above-ground nuclear testing.

I don't know how much smoke we'd have to put into the air to get a serious cooling effect, but really- go ask real climate scientists.

Were not the five scientists who wrote TTAPS real climate scientists?

Jesus was a healer who helped the sick, the lame and the poorest in society. We have a mandate to do so too and , I don't know about you, I like to get my money's worth. If I give to one charity, how much actually goes to help? If I have to give my money up (and remember, I'm already paying taxes, giving to charity AND having to arrange insurance for myself) I want to get the best bang for my buck, not pay for a new picture on the wall of an insurer's office, or pay for a local charity to do nothing, because there's no-one nearby who really needs it. What did Jesus do when he heard of a stranger healing in the Lord's name? He praised him.

The counterpoint would be that Jesus did not spend millions of shekels to heal people. He did not build hospitals nor hire doctors or even receptionists. He simply healed by word of mouth. To literally follow Jesus's example, we would have to heal by word of mouth, and if it does not work, it can be chalked up to God's will.

And of course, if national health care were instituted, Jesus would not run it. It would be run by the same folks that brought the Tuskegee experiments and Los Angeles County King-Drew Medical Center.

People of America! There are those among you who remember the bad old days - when rivers caught fire! When the Love Canal poisoned our children! I would not have us go back to that. This is our world, our land and we have a God-given duty to look after it. Is it fair that a company can save money by dumping waste? Is it fair that small fishing boats can be put out of business by greedy neighbors? No! In our very constitution it say 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' I would not dream of touching upon your liberty, friends nor can I say what makes you happy. But the weather is changing, the seasons are stirring and we, amongst all the people of the world, have done the most to put things out of balance. When the pilgrim fathers landed here, the land was wild, pristine, virgin. Should you not keep a little of that legacy for your children to see?

The counterpoint would be that current environmental regulations are working fine. (it is, of course, an argument for the status quo.)

Friends, when Jesus spoke upon the Mount, did he mandate an eye for an eye? Did he argue that all should carry knives in case they were attacked? No. He brought to the Earth a new justice, transcending the old. The right to bear arms is an important pillar of the constitution, and I would not dream of pressuring people to give up their hunting rifles or the gun they keep safely locked in their house to protect their family. Maybe you feel you need to carry a handgun with you in the same way. But none of us are perfect, all of us have made mistakes in the past, and I would hate for my mistake to steal somebody's husband away, to rob children of their father or stain my soul with guilt. As such, I call on you today to support in my campaign "Don't play Russian Rouleete, Don't live carry".
We have gun laws, let's see them properly enforced.
Thankyou

the counterpoints is that the new justice does not mean surrendering to bandits and brigands, and that the police continue to live carry, even though they have stolen somebody's husband and robbed children of their fathers. If the government wants to stop live carrying, it should set the example.

[Simon_Jester]

That would be well, grossly negligent, to put it mildly, especially since Carl Sagan, one of the greatest scientific minds in world history, participated. While I can understand a math error, I can not believe Sagan would participate in such an egregious error.

You can't believe Carl Sagan could make a mistake?

That's a pity, because Carl Sagan always did. "X is a good scientist" is not the same as "X is always right," especially when X is working with limited computer resources or makes a mistake about what simplifying assumptions are possible.

In any event, what precipitated TTAPS was the observation that temperatures were cooling, and as it turned out, global cooling coincided with above-ground nuclear testing.[/quote]People have been looking into the data for many years since then; TTAPS was not the last word. There's never a last word, only things that work well enough that no one can find a problem with them.

And pretty much every piece of work done since the mid-1980s on the subject of nuclear winter and global cooling points to the same conclusion. It isn't nearly as dramatic an effect as TTAPS made it out to be; that was simply a mistake. Mistakes happen, sometimes.

You could, in principle, cool the planet somewhat by spreading huge amounts of soot into the atmosphere. But the amounts involved would be utterly tremendous, far more than was spread by real-life nuclear testing or any real-life fire. And there would be serious side-effects, like destroying the ozone layer or CO2 emissions that cancel out the gains from the soot.

If you want "spread soot into the air" to be the magic bullet that kills global warming... I'm sorry, it just isn't. No matter whose signature was on that scientific paper back in the 1980s.

[amigocabal]

That would be well, grossly negligent, to put it mildly, especially since Carl Sagan, one of the greatest scientific minds in world history, participated. While I can understand a math error, I can not believe Sagan would participate in such an egregious error.

You can't believe Carl Sagan could make a mistake?

That's a pity, because Carl Sagan always did. "X is a good scientist" is not the same as "X is always right," especially when X is working with limited computer resources or makes a mistake about what simplifying assumptions are possible.

It was the nature of the mistake.

In any event, what precipitated TTAPS was the observation that temperatures were cooling, and as it turned out, global cooling coincided with above-ground nuclear testing.

People have been looking into the data for many years since then; TTAPS was not the last word. There's never a last word, only things that work well enough that no one can find a problem with them.

And pretty much every piece of work done since the mid-1980s on the subject of nuclear winter and global cooling points to the same conclusion. It isn't nearly as dramatic an effect as TTAPS made it out to be; that was simply a mistake. Mistakes happen, sometimes.

The mistake you allege can only be explained by sheer incompetence, or worse. Surely Carl Sagan would not be sheerly incompetent.

You could, in principle, cool the planet somewhat by spreading huge amounts of soot into the atmosphere. But the amounts involved would be utterly tremendous, far more than was spread by real-life nuclear testing or any real-life fire. And there would be serious side-effects, like destroying the ozone layer or CO2 emissions that cancel out the gains from the soot.

If you want "spread soot into the air" to be the magic bullet that kills global warming... I'm sorry, it just isn't. No matter whose signature was on that scientific paper back in the 1980s.

What do CO2 emissions have to do with soot kicked up into the air by nuclear detonations? If I remember correctly, nuclear detonations near ground level create mushroom clouds even in places where there is little flammable material.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Has anyone noted the fact yet that when major social care programmes were successfully implemented in the past, it was in the context of liberal governments willing to engage in massive infrastructure projects of national pride, like the Grand Coulee and Hoover dams, massive highway building projects, the Tennessee Valley Administration, etc; i.e., projects that could tap into a sense of national greatness in the context of improving peoples' lives. Then we have, extending from that, the Space programme in the 1960s during Johnson's Great Society. There was a massive expansion of government that didn't just care about people but improved fundamentally the nature of the State itself as a collective whole.

If we follow that line of thought, Obama could have controlled the tempo of debate over the economy and vision of society by, for instance, pressing hard from the start for projects like the Black Rock Resevoir in Washington State; a massive anti-flooding barrage to defend the Gulf Coast against global warming which would employ millions of people for a decade building it; and other enormous infrastructure measures which could have been started immediately by enabling legislation bypassing the regular review processes and used out of work people as labour instead of contractors.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, Duchess, I've had similar thoughts along much the same lines myself. Unfortunately, he chose to gamble on health care reform. Which was arguably a need as pressing as massive infrastructure projects (measured in dollar consequences off ignoring it), but which delivered him right into the hands of the anarcho-corporatists, in a way that huge seawalls would not.

Might want to pitch that barrage as a hurricane defense though.

The mistake you allege can only be explained by sheer incompetence, or worse. Surely Carl Sagan would not be sheerly incompetent.

Sagan himself would probably counsel you against that mindset; he was big on scientific integrity.

The TTAPS study made a LOT of simplifying assumptions, so that they could do climate modeling on 1980-vintage computers. Some of these assumptions were thought acceptable at the time (on the theory that an imprecise answer now was better than an accurate answer in twenty years' time)

Unfortunately, they made a few too many of those assumptions. Assumptions which didn't pan out, and all of which biased the model to predict more cooling than you'd get out of a more accurate model. It happens- it happened a lot in the early days of computing.

Modeling the climate of a planet with computers is hard, not easy. Even geniuses can do it wrong. That is why we have science, because we can't just uncritically accept whatever any one person says, even if they're a genius.

What do CO2 emissions have to do with soot kicked up into the air by nuclear detonations? If I remember correctly, nuclear detonations near ground level create mushroom clouds even in places where there is little flammable material.

Using massed nuclear groundbursts to stop global warming is a very bad plan. I'm having trouble explaining just how bad it is. I can't find a good analogy for how bad it is. You should know this.

I had... fondly hoped that when you kept talking about TTAPS and dust-induced global cooling caused by dust, you meant some other means of dirtying up the upper air. Because there are (big surprise) better ways to do it than having a global nuclear war.

What were you actually thinking?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, Duchess, I've had similar thoughts along much the same lines myself. Unfortunately, he chose to gamble on health care reform. Which was arguably a need as pressing as massive infrastructure projects (measured in dollar consequences off ignoring it), but which delivered him right into the hands of the anarcho-corporatists, in a way that huge seawalls would not.

Might want to pitch that barrage as a hurricane defense though.

Yes, that's viable. Anyhow I am primarily thinking that once those projects were initialized, universal single-payer as "the new social security" would follow on the heels of it, once he had gained decisive control of the news tempo and memetic response to the situation.

[Gandalf]

Yes, that's viable. Anyhow I am primarily thinking that once those projects were initialized, universal single-payer as "the new social security" would follow on the heels of it, once he had gained decisive control of the news tempo and memetic response to the situation.

How would he gain this control of the news tempo?

[madd0ct0r]

Duchess is talking bigger then a single project, it'd be building (hah!) on the momentum of hope and change.

Process: yes we can -> building a better nation -> making a stronger healthier nation.

The republicans could have still screwed him over with debt ceiling grandstanding, and since they were already threatening everyone, they'd probably have done it even if he was more popular.

I do like Duchess idea, but wonder if Parrallel.sdn is sitting around discussing the various big, unfinished vanity projects, mired in corruption scandals and financing issues and wondering why the hell didn't Obama tackle healthcare when he had the chance?

[Ryan Thunder]

the counterpoints is that the new justice does not mean surrendering to bandits and brigands, and that the police continue to live carry, even though they have stolen somebody's husband and robbed children of their fathers. If the government wants to stop live carrying, it should set the example.

Not sure if troll or actually just that stupid.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, that's viable. Anyhow I am primarily thinking that once those projects were initialized, universal single-payer as "the new social security" would follow on the heels of it, once he had gained decisive control of the news tempo and memetic response to the situation.

How would he gain this control of the news tempo?

The theory here, if I'm guessing Duchess's thought process rightly... hm.

Basically, when you're doing things, and pushing yourself out there as a champion of this and that national cause, you stand a chance of gaining the initiative. You get control of the news tempo because your press releases are more interesting, compared to the opposition: you are doing things that are obviously good for a lot of people (including Republicans who view government regulation of health insurance as a plot to kill grandma with a death panel).

You can find Tea Partiers who favor spending government money to build highways, but very few if any who will spend it to house the homeless. So spend money on highways first; it disrupts the organized anarcho-corporatist resistance, lets you talk about yourself in an active role. So you're defining your own presidency, instead of letting the opposition do it for you as Obama has largely done.

By sitting back and trying to be a negotiator, a bipartisan peacemaker, Obama leaves himself vulnerable and therefore ineffective. Because while he's doing those things, he doesn't take the initiative. He doesn't go on the offensive, and he doesn't try to spell out how his political opponents are trying to harm and retard the nation's development, in the manner that FDR did against the Tea Party's forebears.

He's giving press releases instead of fireside chats, and so many of his high-profile policy statements involve him declaring a stance on something somebody else does. Like the vote on health care reform, or the decision not to put up funds to defend Don't Ask Don't Tell, or a number of other things.

So if I follow the argument directly, what it comes down to is "activity versus passivity." Obama's passivity makes it impossible for him to present the media with an exciting story, which means they spend a lot more time covering and adopting the narrative of his enemies.

[madd0ct0r]

Jesus was a healer ...

The counterpoint would be that Jesus did not spend millions of shekels to heal people. He did not build hospitals nor hire doctors or even receptionists. He simply healed by word of mouth. To literally follow Jesus's example, we would have to heal by word of mouth, and if it does not work, it can be chalked up to God's will.

And of course, if national health care were instituted, Jesus would not run it. It would be run by the same folks that brought the Tuskegee experiments and Los Angeles County King-Drew Medical Center.

People of America! There are those among you who remember the bad old days - when rivers caught fire!

The counterpoint would be that current environmental regulations are working fine. (it is, of course, an argument for the status quo.)

"Don't play Russian Rouleete, Don't live carry".
We have gun laws, let's see them properly enforced.

the counterpoints is that the new justice does not mean surrendering to bandits and brigands, and that the police continue to live carry, even though they have stolen somebody's husband and robbed children of their fathers. If the government wants to stop live carrying, it should set the example.

The same folks who ran those two shameful failures would run the hospitals? My friend, since when does America reward failure? Exactly the same people who are currently running the hospitals now will still be there tomorrow. Bad hospitals will still be shut down, good hospitals will prosper, exactly as it is now. Good doctors will be lauded, bad doctors sacked. You can still choose where to go to get treatment or whether to proceed with it or not, in fact, your choices will be larger then ever before... Healthcare will be free at point of delivery, and the full scrutiny of both parties will be upon them.

As for the environment - I agree, the status quo is good. We have cleaner air, cleaner water and my kids can experience the soul of America in the National parks. There are those who would turn back the clock, defy authority, defy common sense and destroy what we have built. That is not the American way. There are those who stare into the future and cry tales of devastation, that we should chain ourselves and march whimpering into the darkness. That is not the American way. I'm not a scientist, but I can see and feel the weather changing. Each year the balance swings a little further away. I don't propose revolution, or a pilgrimage, just common sense. America is a great country, and it is so because of it's people and this is something that needs to come from them, the sum of thousands of individual actions, tiny choices made each day that together, roar 'We are the American People, and we WILL NOT see our land destroyed'

My friend here asks that the police give up their guns before we do. Are there any policemen in the audience? Would you vote for such a man? Let me explain myself to my friend here. I do not believe you (any of you) should give up the right to own a gun. I do not believe that gun ownership is a bad thing, nor commonsense uses (like hunting with rifles) are an issue. However, we have laws in this country for the protection of all, and some of these relate to carrying a gun in public. I trust a policeman to use his gun sensibly, much as I trust a doctor or an engineer to do their jobs sensibly. I do not trust myself, with my limited training and shaky hands, to be as good as a cop or a trained marksman, anymore then I'd trust myself to perform heart surgery or design a suspension bridge. I do not want to go to heaven with blood on my hands and I do not want to have to justify that at the foot of Him who said 'turn the other cheek.' Perhaps my friend here considers himself better then a police officer? I don't know about you, but I find that idea frightening.

[Aaron MkII]

the counterpoints is that the new justice does not mean surrendering to bandits and brigands, and that the police continue to live carry, even though they have stolen somebody's husband and robbed children of their fathers. If the government wants to stop live carrying, it should set the example.

Not sure if troll or actually just that stupid.

LOL, I think you do know. But hey, violent crime has been on a steady downward trend for decades, eventually this will be a non-issue and the fucking idiots on both sides can finallyshut up.

[Alkaloid]

If we follow that line of thought, Obama could have controlled the tempo of debate over the economy and vision of society by, for instance, pressing hard from the start for projects like the Black Rock Resevoir in Washington State; a massive anti-flooding barrage to defend the Gulf Coast against global warming which would employ millions of people for a decade building it; and other enormous infrastructure measures which could have been started immediately by enabling legislation bypassing the regular review processes and used out of work people as labour instead of contractors.

I wouldn't be so sure. The government here now is undertaking one of the single largest infrastructure upgrades in Australias history, the National Broadband Network, a plan slated to cost $40 billion and connect 93% of the country with fibre to the premises internet access and everyone else with high speed wireless or satellite. It is their single strongest platform, going swimmingly, coming in under budget to the tune that estimates are it will be $9 billion less than originally thought and is as close as you can get to completely politically unassailable. The opposition mostly try to leave it alone because there's not been much to criticise apart from the massive upfront cost, but when they do go after it they still manage to score points with the argument 'the private sector could do it better/cheaper' despite the private sector having let the current copper network decay for decades and having no real desire to do anything more than squeeze the most profit out of consumers/prisoners possible. And this is in a country with a much less turgid boner for private industry and small government.

[Alyrium Denryle]

More generally, I'm not entirely sure I buy this, mostly because it has the smell and taste of pat pop-psych "this is why people are like that" argument.

No. It is not. Jonathan Haidt is a top-notch social and moral psychologist at NYU. He is actually pretty badass, and has a well established and respected research program.

I'm not sure if this nicely encompasses what the article is trying to say (I get the impression the thesis may be critical of the left's fundamental ideas rather than just its presentation of them)

From what I know of the author, no. He is only criticizing the presentation.

You mean the WMDs in Iraq. You mean a magic man in the sky? Pot, kettle, black.

Except that he means the point generally, not just talking about the left. You are putting words in the man's mouth. His particular subject might be the left and how it is lying to itself with the "Duping Hypothesis", but if you were not busy cherry picking sentences out of context you would note that he explicitly mentions that this is one of the most robust findings in social psychology. He is also correct.

You just put words and a political ideology into the man's mouth, and then used them to commit an ad hominem, an a tu quoque fallacy.

Good job!

Here's a more painful but ultimately constructive diagnosis, from the point of view of moral psychology: politics at the national level is more like religion than it is like shopping. It's more about a moral vision that unifies a nation and calls it to greatness than it is about self-interest or specific policies. In most countries, the right tends to see that more clearly than the left. In America the Republicans did the hard work of drafting their moral vision in the 1970s, and Ronald Reagan was their eloquent spokesman. Patriotism, social order, strong families, personal responsibility (not government safety nets) and free enterprise. Those are values, not government programmes.

The Democrats, in contrast, have tried to win voters' hearts by promising to protect or expand programmes for elderly people, young people, students, poor people and the middle class. Vote for us and we'll use government to take care of everyone! But most Americans don't want to live in a nation based primarily on caring. That's what families are for.

Let us take this apart for a moment.

The conservatives have a unified moral vision. Remember, this is not an Ethical vision, it is a Moral vision. What the actual consequences are suck, but the values resonate with a lot of people.

Dr. Haidt actually devotes a large part of his research program at looking at the psychological differences between the two sub-groups. In fact, I will link you here:

http://www.ted.com/speakers/jonathan_haidt.html

In the same way, you can think of the moral mind as being like a tongue that is sensitive to a variety of moral flavours. In my research with colleagues at YourMorals.org, we have identified six moral concerns as the best candidates for being the innate "taste buds" of the moral sense: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Across many kinds of surveys, in the UK as well as in the USA, we find that people who self-identify as being on the left score higher on questions about care/harm. For example, how much would someone have to pay you to kick a dog in the head? Nobody wants to do this, but liberals say they would require more money than conservatives to cause harm to an innocent creature.

But on matters relating to group loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity (treating things as sacred and untouchable, not only in the context of religion), it sometimes seems that liberals lack the moral taste buds, or at least, their moral "cuisine" makes less use of them. For example, according to our data, if you want to hire someone to criticise your nation on a radio show in another nation (loyalty), give the finger to his boss (authority), or sign a piece of paper stating one's willingness to sell his soul (sanctity), you can save a lot of money by posting a sign: "Conservatives need not apply."

In America, it is these three moral foundations that underlie most of the "cultural" issues that, according to duping theorists, are used to distract voters from their self-interest. But are voters really voting against their self-interest when they vote for candidates who share their values? Loyalty, respect for authority and some degree of sanctification create a more binding social order that places some limits on individualism and egoism. As marriage rates plummet, and globalisation and rising diversity erodes the sense of common heritage within each nation, a lot of voters in many western nations find themselves hungering for conservative moral cuisine.

His findings in this regard are fairly robust, I might add. You can tie a lot more people together with these axes of variation than you can with just the one axis of variation. Think of it in terms of data reduction. Where someone falls on the political spectrum is explained by these axes. You dont need to adopt the precise policies of the conservatives to take advantage of them. If you construct a moral vision whereby for example the environment has intrinsic value, you can pull people in who score high on Sacredness. If you subvert the Loyalty axis such that you redirect loyalty away from Nation or Ethnicity and toward Socio-Economic Class, you can pull more people in than you can if you relied only on the Care/Harm axis.

[amigocabal]

The same folks who ran those two shameful failures would run the hospitals? My friend, since when does America reward failure?

Since at least fall 2008, with the first round of bank bailouts. Very likely earlier, if political connections are involved.

Exactly the same people who are currently running the hospitals now will still be there tomorrow. Bad hospitals will still be shut down, good hospitals will prosper, exactly as it is now.

How long did it take King-Drew to be shut down?

The Los Angeles Times did a series of articles on King-Drew.

Perhaps my friend here considers himself better then a police officer? I don't know about you, but I find that idea frightening.

I do not seem to remember the last time I killed someone while breaking into a house to look for drugs sans warrant.

Or the last time I killed someone while reacting to a medical alert pendant.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So basically liberals don't have morals, and criticizing your nation is a bad thing that liberals do. They're also happy to sell their soul. I have a hard time seeing this as anything but pure propaganda.

That is because you are an idiot, taking one summary of a HUGE research program and seeing what you wish to see.

It is not that Liberals dont have morals. It is that the emphasis of the moral reasoning of liberals and conservatives are different. For example, soul selling. For one, liberals are more likely to be atheists (as is the author, as a matter of fact), so if someone offered an atheist 40 USD to sell something that they do not even believe exists, why would they not do it? Even for a liberal who is a theist, it is not like you can really sell your soul in a contract with a mortal right? What is this, faust? God does not care.

To a conservative, the soul is SACRED, and not to be bandied about in such a way.

Liberals just have fewer sacred cows, statistically. He also mentioned, if you were not busy cherry-picking things, that conservatives are more willing to kick puppies.

Um... Simon, did you read the article? He suggests that this is the reason why conservatives get working class to vote for them, a sort of a "moral superiority".

No. Not moral superiority, but a more coherent moral vision that resonates with people who score highly on certain axes of variation with regard to moral psychology. There is a big difference. And yes, I have read the article, and much more of his work besides.

It seems like a flawed assumption to me regardless. Especially considering how much value conservatives place on flag worship and how they tend to treat any criticism of the flag as blasphemy. Why label conservatives as "balanced" instead of skewed towards a different axis?

Because he has the data to back it up.

[Simon_Jester]

More generally, I'm not entirely sure I buy this, mostly because it has the smell and taste of pat pop-psych "this is why people are like that" argument.

No. It is not. Jonathan Haidt is a top-notch social and moral psychologist at NYU. He is actually pretty badass, and has a well established and respected research program.

Alyrium, not all these things were said by the same person; would you kindly distinguish between them?

Since this quote is actually mine- my point is that it feels that way. I can grasp it and I think that somewhere in there there's something important. It's not a complete fabrication. But it makes me suspicious, not least because it looks like so much of the bad pop-psych I've seen on the left.

So that makes me jittery, and unfortunately I don't have your knack for extracting confidence in a result from a small mountain of scientific papers in a hurry. I respect the result, it just strikes me as the sort of thing that's really, really easy to take too far. But I'll keep it in mind anyway.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alyrium, not all these things were said by the same person; would you kindly distinguish between them?

Very well, I will comply with your request.

But it makes me suspicious, not least because it looks like so much of the bad pop-psych I've seen on the left.

A lot of that, I think, has to do with the reporting. A skilled writer can make bullshit look legitimate, or alternatively, a skilled writer can make something fairly complicated like moral psychology simple enough to understand that it if you are accustomed to the former, it will look and feel the same.

So that makes me jittery, and unfortunately I don't have your knack for extracting confidence in a result from a small mountain of scientific papers in a hurry.

I dont read the literature so much as consume it.

I respect the result, it just strikes me as the sort of thing that's really, really easy to take too far.

Sure, but not generally by the original author. I also love how so many people in this thread prove his point about people believing whatever the hell they want, and finding ways to justify it. Such as accusing the piece of being a hit-job, and assuming he is some dishonest republican hack without bothering to look up his CV, university page, or TED profile.

[Ryan Thunder]

Regardless, it seems like an awfully long way to go just to say "because they're stupid".

[Ryan Thunder]

Regardless, it seems like an awfully long way to go just to say "because they're stupid".

For the record, I did not at any point think that he was a republican hack.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Regardless, it seems like an awfully long way to go just to say "because they're stupid".

What is "It", and who are "they"?