The Conservative Mind Set
- by Subversify Staff
- Posted on 2 September, 2011
Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without… men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters
— Edmund Burke (1729–1797) “Father” of conservatism
Intelligent men and women assure me that reasonable conservatives capable of logic and reason exist, therefore it will be the only point I will cede on their behalf. I’m told by good sources that republicans were once conservatives — a political philosophy which literally encompasses the notion of conservation. Those Republicans wanted to conserve important things — like the public infrastructure, the rule of law, public education, and even our environment. During the last 30-40 years, though, like parasitic degenerates, the GOP has systematically dumped these classic conservatives from office, replacing them with right-wing, laissez-faire parasites. Or so I’m told… I have grave misgivings about this characterization of conservatives past.
Nonetheless, the neoconservative movement, which blossomed during the Reagan years, is an example of conservative ideals taken to their (logical) extreme. Furthermore, neoconservatism grew out of racist and classist ideological strategy (Kalk, 2001). Contemporary conservatism ignited and thrived on the flames of racism — the backdraft of disaffected white Americans caught in the grips of a mass cognitive dissonance in the aftermath of the meager gains of the Civil Rights movement (Carter, 1995).
In the coming posts, I will make a case for my contention that ideological conservatism (and to a similar extent, libertarianism) and racism are, and always have been, equivalent in the United States. Conservative ideas — from John Locke to Edmund Burke to William F. Buckley Jr. — and the responses to the rise (and decline) of the civil rights movement and the ascendancy of the conservative movement in 1980 clearly shows this is true. Today, I want to set the table a little by looking into the conservative mindset, the motivational, cognitive, and historical forces that undergird it as a worldview.
Sir Edmund Burke, a noble, promoted the worldview that informs many of today’s conservatives: That people are essentially evil and need a strong controlling force to prevent them from acting out their evil nature (that is, unless you’re rich). Such a force, continued Burke, should most appropriately come from those have inherited wealth or lawfully obtained wealth, religious, or political power. In addition, Burke believed that a permanent underclass with little power and a permanent power elite with great power would produce the greatest social good because it will ensure social stability (Burke & Clark, 2001). While it is true that some conservatives aim to conserve some good things, more than anything, conservatives want to conserve the status quo.
My observation is that no one is fully conservative or liberal. We tend to fluctuate according to different situations. However, conservatism comes from somewhere — it is founded on a certain worldview encompassing notions of the origins of human nature that are like strands that link conservative ideology throughout history. What follows is an attempt to peek behind the curtain.
In 2003, a group of researchers published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003 ) that caused an immediate shit storm. Because some government grants were involved in funding the research, conservatives, who at the time controlled all branches of the US government, took an immediate and unfriendly “interest” in the paper. It would seem that they did not particularly care for the results of the research, and threats were made about preventing further “waste of government money” to fund research into the conservative mindset.
[Note: The two papers (one being a response to a critique) are posted on the internet: click here and here to access PDF versions]
The study was “biased” against conservatives, they insisted! As usual, right-wingers went into their feces-flinging act, outraged that anyone would dare quantify the obvious and actually show they are an emotionally unstable group.
Well, it’s not as if we didn’t suspect all along that something was wrong with the likes of Dick Cheney, Glenn Beck, Lush Rimbaugh, that Michelle Bachmann twat, Rick Perry and the rest of the Flock of Fools.
The study, funded jointly by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) at the National Institute of Health (NIH), examined a mindset that the authors were polite enough to refer to as political conservatism. What they were really studying were the right-wing wackos who had taken over the GOP and in the process threatening to turn America into a third-rate fascist state (stuff like torture, shredding of the Constitution, spying on US citizens, etc.).
Sensing that their study might cause a slight discomfort among the more sensitive of our conservative brethren (really: they lit up like rabid chimps going ape on innocent, unsuspecting neighbors) went to great lengths to reassure one and all that they weren’t calling right wingers a bunch of psychotic, destructive nuts. Obviously, they weren’t studying the right-wingers we see most often on the internets. Essentially, the researchers culled through 50 years of research literature on the psychology of conservatism and reported that at the core of political conservatism is resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
- Fear and aggression
- Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
- Uncertainty avoidance
- Need for cognitive closure
- Terror management
The authors wrote, “Our first assumption, too, is that conservative ideologies — like virtually all other belief systems — are adopted in part because they satisfy some psychological needs. This does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled.”
Still, that didn’t stop right-wingers from losing their minds and screaming for the scalps of the researchers. Right-wing radio hosts howled and frothed at the mouth, demanding an immediate investigation into the funding streams, and they were accused, with no regard to rhyme or reason, of being anti-American (and anti-Christian and probably for gay rights, killing babies, and gun control to boot).
OK, let’s try to forget blowhards like Limbaugh, Bachmann, and Perry for a moment. Sure, there are conservatives who aren’t sadistic amoral sociopaths. Shit, in real life, I know some. I even have conservative friends, although I did warn my sister not to marry my former brother-in-law.
On a serious note, what the researchers were looking at were what could be termed “political fundamentalists.” They tend to be reactionary, paranoid, authoritarian, intolerant, and contemptuous of rules that don’t suit them. While there are left-wing examples, the authors found that they generally gravitate toward fascism and call it conservatism, even though it’s usually better described as radical reactionaries. In any case, the researchers found that left-wingers are less likely to exhibit these traits (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Their work builds on over 50 years of previous research and subsequent research continues to validate their findings (Federico & Sidanius, 2002; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996; Zavala & Bergh, 2007)
The authors define the two core principles of conservatism as resistance to change, and acceptance of social inequality. Conservatives, they argue, cling tightly to a status quo (“traditional values”), real or imagined, and regard society as hierarchical. Not unsurprisingly, they tend to believe they have inherited and/or merited preferential positions in this hierarchy.
The authors address what they call the “conservative paradox” of radical reactionarism (e.g., Hitler, Mussolini) by pointing out that their calls for extreme inequality in the social order were superimposed with promises to lead the country back to an ideal past, one in which “traditional” values and morality reigned. It occurs to me that our present-day right-wing reactionaries continuously evoke a traditional America that never existed: where everyone was a god-fearing generic protestant, people with accents lived in the poor part of town and never bothered folks except to mow their lawn, and women and blacks knew their place. The code for this mythic utopian America is embedded in the current caterwauling from teabaggers who want to take their country back.
This goes with what I believe is a hallmark of the fundamentalist mindset: the ability to subsume a philosophy to suit personal needs. In Christianity and Islam, for example, you have religions that place high premiums on respect for fellow humans, peace, and personal integrity. Yet fundamentalists are frequently the most violent, dishonest, and intolerant people around. Furthermore, they often use their religion to rationalize their repulsive behavior. In conservatism, you see people who champion the Bill of Rights, “small government,” and a laissez faire approach to economics, while loudly cheering for a gross militarism and tax structures that have been shown to benefit only the richest five percent of the population.
This emotional and intellectual contradiction is how conservatives are able to condemn what they perceive as dishonest and immoral behavior on the part of people of color (“welfare queens”), and completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of government handouts go to the richest one percent. It’s how conservatives can damn Democrats (who are, for the most part, Eisenhower-type conservatives) as being fiscally irresponsible even while they ignored Bush’s disastrous conservative fiscal (laissez faire) policies that drove the global economy to an economic collapse the likes of which has never been seen.
One of the more interesting issues studied in the paper is “The Theory of RWA,” in which the authors consider the Authoritarian Personality. They state, “harsh parenting styles brought on by economic hardship led entire generations to repress hostility toward authority figures and to replace it with an exaggerated deference and idealization of authority and tendencies to blame society scapegoats and punish deviants.”
Angry, repressed, passive-aggressive, with an overwhelming desire to punish those who don’t conform.
Yup, sounds like our boys!
This may not stop people from growing up to be right-wingers. Perhaps people can no more choose to be conservative than they can choose their sexual orientation. But hey, you can’t say I didn’t try.
Coming soon: Conservtism as racism.
My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…
Burke, E., & Clark, J. C. D. (2001). Reflections on the revolution in France. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Carter, D. T. (1995). The politics of rage: George Wallace, the origins of the new conservatism, and the transformation of American politics. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Federico, C. M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequences of “principled objections” to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 488-502. doi: 10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1688
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Exceptions that prove the rule — Using a theory of motivated social cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 383-393.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003 ). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.
Kalk, B. H. (2001). aThe origins of the southern strategy: Two-party competition in South Carolina, 1950-1972: Lexington Books.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 476-490.
Zavala, A. G. d., & Bergh, A. V. (2007). Need for cognitive closure and conservative political beliefs: Differential mediation by personal worldviews. Political Psychology, 28 (5), 587-608.
Eddie SantoPrieto- Essentially, the researchers culled through 50 years of research literature on the psychology of conservatism and reported that at the core of
• Fear and aggression
• Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Need for cognitive closure
• Terror management
You know, these traits are not exclusive to the so-called “right-wing” – I knew plenty of so-called “left-wingers” in college that expressed these traits but in different forms: there’s plenty of vegans out there who perceive anyone who consumes an iota of animal product as a “murderer” (never mind that “murder” is a “legal” fiction use to separate killings society approves of from those it does not), lot’s of environmentalists that will become aggressive (sometimes physically violent) towards anyone who favors any kind of real estate development and plenty of pacifists that are afraid of violence in any form (self defense included – they can’t stand the thought of bloodshed even to preserve their own lives: convinced that their “moral” superiority will somehow save them).
Note: I do not judge these views and opinions as being either “good” nor “bad” – hell, some of them actually make a good case for their paranioa considering the present circumstances we live in! My point is that these traits are not “left-wing” or “right-wing” so much as they reflect a general environment of insecurity and decay: in other words, they are the product of a society that denies the average person any legitimate means of contolling the world he lives in – symptoms of a greater illness brought on by the centralization of power. All this talk of “left and right” is simply a distraction intended to keep us pitted against each other rather than uniting against the force that creates the toxic social environment in the first place (i.e. the state and its corporate interests).
Hmmm, a lot of good points Eddie. I generally dislike conservatives and they do seem to be closely linked with religious dogma.
But I must say, I find just as many liberals to be intolerant of other people’s opinions as conservatives. It is human nature to combat against threats to one’s tightly held belief system. Conservatism is a strategy, (admittedly one that is not destined to last) liberalism is an ideology that often times falls short because of human ego and weakness.
Makes me think of that song The Times Are a Changing by Dylan.
As long as you’re not suggesting that we should all vote for the “liberal” democrats, I generally agree. 😉
In many ways, i agree with Azazel, although i do have a tendency to define between “good” and “bad” legislation. Good legislation represents healthy resource management, fair trade and a system of balancing equitable worth. Bad legislation squanders resources, inflates trade values to personal benefit and finds equality among a chosen elite. I would comply to a country with good legislation. I would be loyal, forth right and desirous to be part of the machinery that worked for the common good of the whole. I will not be compliant with a legislation that is bought for the highest dollar, maintains internal and external hostilities with minority views, destroys the environment and brings its people to its knees in bankruptcy.
Forget, please, “conservatism.” It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
What a load of shit – the reason that political movements fail is because some intangible sky being doesn’t like them? Get your head out of the mythology books and into the real world for a minute: the reason that political movements so often fail to live up to the values they espouse isn’t because of some supernatural entity – it’s because when they attain power the leading members of the movement tend to hold onto it at any cost and become corrupted.
There’s no need to invoke a supernatural phenomena (which has never even been substantiated – only held as an unfounded belief) to explain this…
It’s interesting stuff. Seldom is a subject Black and White, yet the cities of the USA, upper suburban vs ghetto, would seem to make it quite literally apparent. As much as I can agree with much of the premise and thrust of the essay, it makes me uncomfortable.
In Indian country of past times, Republican administrations were preferred because they tended to ‘meddle’ less in the affairs of people who simply wished to be left alone, whereas Democrats tended to ‘know’ what is good for people and nearly always had it wrong.
I grew up with conservatives of a western states rural type that now seem nearly extinct. People who prized the ability to take care of themselves and could be trusted not to step on their neighbors toes. The conservative community antipathy of that era to ‘liberals’ was the same complaint the Indians had, the liberal attitude ‘here we are like mighty mouse to save the day and fix what does not need fixed.’
These days, in both communities, liberal and conservative, there is a compulsive drive to ‘change the world’ and people who simply wish to be left alone to get on with their lives are caught in what seems like a crossfire between competing visions of western reality, both somehow rooted in making the world a ‘better’ place even as they both increasingly screw the world up. I am lucky (or perhaps cursed) to understand a differing perspective (outside looking in) and offer a study nearly precisely reflecting my view on western liberal and conservative mindsets. Remarkably, it is found in a cross cultural study where one would not be inclined to seek data for the subject at hand: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59716369/Being-in-Nature-s-Mind
As for today’s world, as much as I am inclined to, and do side with the liberals, it is not instinctive so much as qualified and rational alliance. I am not comfortable with the alliance, but for the time being at least, it is sound. However my gut instinct is neither side is on a winning path, and I do believe the element of male hierarchy is the villain in any case. Liberals may believe they have that whipped, but I am not convinced. It would seem more honest to me, were it admitted women must become like men to to compete, liberal or conservative. There is much yet to be discovered on the subject but meanwhile I offer this study (and admit today’s ‘conservatives’ are by far the worse offenders) http://www.scribd.com/doc/59707944/Social-Hierarchies-Prejudice-and-Discrimination
LOL Good to know, Lofton, that Clinton and Reagan had Jesus’ endorsement.
Azazel: as usual you miss the forest for the trees. In your response you resort to the logical fallacy of false equivalencies.
Let’s take non-aggression for example, if I believe in non-violence but I resort to violence in order to implement my worldview, and I still non-violent?
OF COURSE NOT!
If as a progressive I claim tolerance, but am intolerant, am I still expressing or manifesting a progressive ideal?
Of course not!
Of course, if you had actually bothered to even glance or skim the resources and links offered in this essay, you would’ve learned something. but you didn’t, all you did was REACT, not respond.
Warren: See my response to Azazel above. Being intolerant is right-ward shift. And yes, conservatism is NOT just a strategy, it is an ideology complete with values, ideals, and a worldview. IN THIS country, conservatism has sat ATHWART history (to paraphrase a famous conservative intellectual). Conservatism, when studied in its HISTORICAL context, has been intolerant of change and of expanding civil rights to people of color and women, for example. This isn’t an opinion, it’s a statement of fact.
Progressives, OTOH, have fought fought for equal rights — again, this can be verified empirically.
Ronald: I think you’re conflating republican and democrat with political ideology. Republicans, at one time, were NOT conservatives. Political party affilliation does not a conservastive or republican make. In fact, the studies I have cited here ar international in scope. conservatism is an ideology, a way of looking at the world, and a preference for certain types of government, not all of it coherent.
Conservatives tend to have a distaste for democratic movements because they are suspicious of human nature.
Conservatives were more likely to advocate for war against Indians, for policies that further marginalized them. this continues to this day against AL people of color.
As for liberals: as an ideology which worldview is more likely to entertain the fact that patriarchy and racism is not a good thing? Which “side” as you put it, has demonstrated a willingness to fight for the expansion of rights, of civil rights FOR ALL?
John: As soon as you start quoting scriptures, you’ve lost me. For me, that’s the most PERNICIOUSNESS form of conservatism. I hope your form of conservatism dies a quick death.
Karlsie: this is more than about “good” or “bad” legislation. What I am speaking to is about the IDEAS and vision of political ideology. It’s what comes BEFORE legislation. It’s what one uses to define “freedom.” If ones worldview is suspicious of human nature, of “others,” and resides in an environment of fear, then what good can come from that? the answer to my question can be found in the studies I have cited here. Political fundamentalism is about maintaining the STATUS QUO. Conservatism is the very definition of that. It’s about maintaining power in the hands of a few. Throughout history, conservatives have been against almost all democratic movements. They were against the abolition of slavery, against the civil rights movement. They were against the women’s movement and today they’re steadfast in their opposition to the rights of LGBTQ community, Latin@s, immigrants… the list goes on…
For the false equivalency people… In their response to peers who pointed out that there is rigidity on the left, the researchers responded:
“… Rigidity of the left can and does occur, but it is less common than rigidity of the right. We stated this as many times as we could in our original article without detracting from our theoretical focus.”
They go on to explain, however:
“Does this mean that our conclusions were wrong or that no empirical regularities exist between specific cognitive and motivational styles on the one hand and the contents of political ideologies on the other? No. We presented consistent evidence(coming from 12 countries, 88 samples, and 22,818 individual cases) that such regularities do exist… ”
In addition, they go on to explain how some left movements can often become warped and take a turn toward authoritarianism. In other words, once power congeals and those holding power begin to fight to CONSERVE that power, it becomes something other than a progressive movement. Authoritarian governments are a consequence of right-leaning, conservative ideologies. For example, the connection between fascism and the right has been well documented.
In other words, the authors state, there are exceptions to the rule, but there’s a high correlation between the factors I highlighted and the conservative mindset.
[See: http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring05/mcguem/psy8935/readings/jost2003b.pdf ]
Well, Mr Blue Eyes, Condoleezza Rice has a reputation for never giving so much as a quarter inch in her assessments no matter how mild the criticism and I see clearly today this is a shared traits with certain liberal/progressives 😉
• Fear and aggression
• Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Need for cognitive closure
• Terror management
Add *Fear of abandonment* and you’ve pretty well described the Borderline Personality Disorder; a personality constellation on the border of tightly repressed terror and out-of-control anger. Those who suffer from BPD displace rage from its original source onto a projected external object. For these people there is ONE way, ONE truth, a world or either/or, black and white, with no shading or nuance. Not knowing produces terror which provokes a defensive rage.
Change is terrifying for Borderlines; change they cannot control stimulates a near-psychotic reaction. It does not matter if the situation is bad for others or even for THEM, they want the change to stop and stop now.
Thus is the conservative mind set. For the opposite view, a lovely little movie, not about politics but about the real ambiguity inherent in life, I recommend “Chan is Missing” by Wayne Wang. You will have to do some looking to find it.
[Quote=Eddie]Azazel: as usual you miss the forest for the trees. In your response you resort to the logical fallacy of false equivalencies.[/quote]
So says you, but it seems you’re the only person here who thinks so – in fact, most people who tell me I “miss the forest for the trees” tend to be high-minded idealists with little grasp of the reality that surounds and represses them…
[Quote=Eddie]Let’s take non-aggression for example, if I believe in non-violence but I resort to violence in order to implement my worldview, and I still non-violent?
OF COURSE NOT!
If as a progressive I claim tolerance, but am intolerant, am I still expressing or manifesting a progressive ideal?
Of course not![/quote]
Newsflash – not all who identify with the supposed “left” embrace the notion of nonviolence (see militant Marxists and anarcho-syndicalists, for example) nor do all of them embrace tolerance (the vegans are best known for this amongst so-called “progresives”).
The “left” isn’t a monolith – it’s a conglomeration of different interests who just happen to have the common enemy of the status quo that prevails at any given moment and many “left-wing” movements have issues very similar to the so-called “right-wing” of society: various movements on both sides display intolerance, have violent tendencies and require some sort of cognative closure (this notion that ideology X is the “right one – end of story).
But the one thing both alleged political wings have in common is the desire to sieze control of the power of the state entity to do their bidding for them – so tat they might enforce their utopian dreams on the rest of us. My response: fuck the both of them – I’d rather burn this power to the ground than see anyone wield it again for any purpose whatsoever. One man’s utopia is another man’s hell, thus I have no desire to see any single order enforced over anyone – let all social contracts be built from the individual level on up rather than dictated by the almighty state…
Azazel: your last response proves my point that you’re not interested in actually understanding something, but more interested in REACTING.
Let’s use your own words to clarify. You responded:
“Newsflash – not all who identify with the supposed “left” embrace the notion of nonviolence (see militant Marxists and anarcho-syndicalists, for example) nor do all of them embrace tolerance (the vegans are best known for this amongst so-called “progresives”).”
I NEVER said that all lefties are non-violent. WHERE did I say that? I used the issue of non-violence to illustrate that you can’t be a violent advocate for non-violence. Also, intolerance, regardless of what you say you BELIEVE, takes you out of the tolerance camp. In addition, you make claims you really don’t back up. You say vegans are intolerant, but where’s the link showing this is more than a hair pulled out of your arse? Are there roving packs of rabid vegans beating people upside their heads with stale tofu I haven’t heard about? LOL!
“The “left” isn’t a monolith – it’s a conglomeration of different interests who just happen to have the common enemy of the status quo that prevails at any given moment and many “left-wing” movements have issues very similar to the so-called “right-wing” of society: various movements on both sides display intolerance, have violent tendencies and require some sort of cognative closure (this notion that ideology X is the “right one – end of story).”
First, this isn’t about “wrong” or “right” that is a projection on your behalf. Perhaps you’ve come to erroneous conclusins abut what u have written because you haven’t bothered to attempt to UNDERSTAND before disagreeing? It seems that way.
The fact remains that this study and many others, over the course of over 50 years, disputes your assumptions. do you have something other than your claims to show this is true?
The authors of the study actually address the points you’re trying to make. One of theior peers wrote a respoinse and mentioned the issue of people like Stalin and others, who exhibited the traits they associatyed to the right. Their response was that 1) the exceptions don’t prove the rule, and 2) While it is true that suppossedly leftist ideologies turn authoritarian, it’s not the ideology that is the cause, but a CHANGE in ideology. In other words, left can morph into right. Once the status quo is defended at the expense of principles, then one isd no longer for tolerance or non-violence, or whatever.
Again, the it’s not absolute that ALL conservatives are fascists or intolerant or whatever. The point of the study is that, empirically speaking, those on the right have a higher tendency toward those cognitive motivations.
Of COURSE the left isn’t monolithic. Of course not all conservatives are assholes. NO ONE here has stated that. And if you had actually read what I wrote, or :;gasp:: took the time to read the sources, you would have known this, But you didn’t. Why? I really can’t speculate, but I believe it’s because you’re not interested in ENGAGING, you’re more interested in reinforcing your own views. In fact, I see you as a political fundamentalist. ANYONE who says that killing women and children is an acceptable collateral consequence for change or revolution has to to be.
“Well, Mr Blue Eyes, Condoleezza Rice has a reputation for never giving so much as a quarter inch in her assessments no matter how mild the criticism and I see clearly today this is a shared traits with certain liberal/progressives”
Yeah and using religion as a basis for government has worked well in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and other totalitarian utopias. The funny thing is that Condoleeeza is more of a religious fundamentalist than I am (IOW, she’s actually closer to your way of seeing things). Religion and government should be kept separate for obvious reasons. If that makes me intolerant, then so be it.
“Add *Fear of abandonment* and you’ve pretty well described the Borderline Personality Disorder; a personality constellation on the border of tightly repressed terror and out-of-control anger. Those who suffer from BPD displace rage from its original source onto a projected external object. For these people there is ONE way, ONE truth, a world or either/or, black and white, with no shading or nuance. Not knowing produces terror which provokes a defensive rage.”
I do hold that different political ideologies correspond to the different stages of human development. As I see it, human develop progresses from the myopic immature level where the emphasis is on the individual to higher levels of development that increasingly expand to include not just the individual, but the clan, the country, and eventually expands into a consciousness that embraces all of humanity and sentient beings.
For example, the John Galt assholes who propose elevating the individual at the expense of the whole SHOULD be considered pathological. so yeah, I can see your point.
Let me back track here a moment. Azazel, My last remarks to you were unwarranted and uncalled for. I’m referring to this badly worded paragraph:
“And if you had actually read what I wrote, or :;gasp:: took the time to read the sources, you would have known this, But you didn’t. Why? I really can’t speculate, but I believe it’s because you’re not interested in ENGAGING, you’re more interested in reinforcing your own views. In fact, I see you as a political fundamentalist. ANYONE who says that killing women and children is an acceptable collateral consequence for change or revolution has to to be.”
I have no way of knowing what motivates you, politically or otherwise and my speculating negatively on that was low.
My apologies for that.
I do believe, however, that equating all ideologies as the same is an erroneous assumption. On that the literature and my experiences tell me you’re misinformed.
You’re a pain in the ass, but I appreciate that you take the time to read what I write and offer challenges (even though you’re always wrong. LOL I’m kidding). Thanks for challenging me.
and guess what: if the system keeps fuckin with me as it has recently, I just might join you!