Original story I don't usually post opinion pieces, especially by conservatives, but I thought this one had an excellent kernel of truth in it. This is one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. For most conservatives, it is an article of faith that the United States is the greatest nation on the face of the earth and that by extention we are trhe greatest people. They believe in their country the same way they believe in their god, omnipotent, infalliable, and supreme. This becomes part of their identity as an American, the country is good so I am good. For most liberals, including myself, the picture is much more complex. The Us does some great things, but we also do some pretty awful things. This also figures into the politics of identity. We realize that we live in a democracy and so what the country does, for better or worse, reflects on us an individuals. When the country does good things we are proud, when we invader other countries, torture people, discriminate, etc we are ashamed. Ms. Chavez compared the feeling conservatives have for their country to the unconditional love of a parent. From my standpoint that comparison seems apt, specifically, it reminds me of the parent being interviewed on the news after their son has just been convicted of being a serial rapist and mass murderer. It's that same mentality, "I don't care what they say he did, I believe him and I'll always love him no matter what"
I don't feel the need to be proud of my country just because I was born there. That doesn't make any sense! Be proud because of what your country does and that you're a part of something great, or not. I don't see why you would blindly support something because you were born on a particular chunk of land. So in that respect, I think Mrs Obama was bang on the money. I reckon she meant exactly what she said, but had to tone it down afterwards in order that she doesn't dissuade any 'undecideds'. I totally agree with it anyway, although I'm not sure that saying it was a very clever thing to do.
Did they ever apply? People don't want to live in shades of grey because it complicated things and there's no definitive right and wrong.
in my book people that are fanatic patriotic no matter what harm the country causes are as bad or worse than religious fanatics......
So what you're saying, basicly, is that conservatives are all* absolutists who only see in black and white, while liberals are all able to see in shades of grey and are able to understand relative situations? Irony much? To be honest, from what I follow of US politics, the over-riding impression I get in people who strongly support either side is stupidity and narrow-minded zealotry. This doesn't surprise me at all, because both of your main parties are nearly identical and absolutely terrible. Personally I'm getting tired of the liberal and conservative labels. US republicans are terrible at being conservative (1 trillion dollar wars = not conserving money!), and US liberals are much bigger facists than the republicans have ever aspired to be these days. The real breakthrough is going to come when we finally get past partisan politics, and just elect people for their ability to govern, with the people electing governers and leaders based on their ability, and then voting on major directions of policy which the already elected beurocrats then follow, instead of voting the party that follows their chosen policy in and just getting whoever happens to be senior in that party in office regardless of their actual ability at governance. *Ok, so you used most as a qualifier, but that really doesn't change anything
^^ What he said. Any time I get into a political discussion, I mention that I'll be voting for (insert candidate here). This is usually followed by cries of, "Oh, but don't you know he does this," or ""But, he opposes that," or "Don't you know he is pro-whatever!?" Every last one of the candidates is guilty of the same shady election-year politics. It takes a certain mindset to aspire to public office, and in that light I don't think any of the candidates are much different from the next. I usually find the few issues that are most important to me, and vote accordingly. -monkey
dont really pay attention to politicians, they all just change their minds at a moments notice, and are trained liars. bit like women really
US politics appears to this UK citizen to be incredibly fanboy, for examples see any Digg thread; whatever the subject, politics and name-calling inevitably come in by some variant on Godwin's Law. And certain opinions are as taboo as confessing you're a cannibal. All the faults are at the top, all those committing those faults merely following orders like good patriots. That's what patriotism is - blind and unthinking. And, of course, any other country's patriots are at best wrong, at worst terrorists. The parent analogy is accurate but that doesn't make it right to be oblivious to your child's faults. It's not even good parenting practice.
Admittedly I'm using a rather broad brush, but generally what I'm saying is true. From the research... Original story It seems to me that this would support a pre-disposition to religion and religion-like beliefs in conservatives since these don't change. This divide actually tends to becmoe apprarent very early in life, long before we become politically aware, as shown in this study:
OH NOES! WE HAVE TO THINK! And people wonder why I hate politics. The only good ones are considered unelectable because of their rationality, and the rest are liars, flip-floppers, or engaged in very shady if not outright illegal practices. Blah.
Whoa, whoa now! As a neuropsychologist I must object. It is not that simple. The first study (article here) experiment essentially taps into mental flexibility and response inhibition. Brighter people tend to do better on these tests, however, because it is not purely about flexibility in responding, but also abour being able to develop an effective response strategy (e.g. focussing on one salient visual detail that distinguishes an M from a W). So we are not just measuring political orientation, but also intelligence. The study suggests that liberals are better at conflicting response inhibition than conservatives: The second study (article here) however contradicts the above (and itself) a bit, really, when it talks about conservatives being more "rigid, inhibited, and relatively over-controlled" (which would suggest strong response inhibition) and liberals as "relatively under-controlled" (which would suggest less response inhibition). Wouldn't you expect "undercontrolled" individuals to make more response inhibition errors? The study goes on to note in the discussion: This is kind of important however: in a liberal community, liberal families are going to feel at home. This is possibly why liberal kids were described as: "resourceful and initializing, autonomous, proud of their blossoming accomplishments, confident and self involving"? Conservative families however, may feel at odds with the prevailing liberal social culture, which could explain why their kids were described as "visibly deviant, feeling unworthy and therefore ready to feel guilty, easily offended, anxious when confronted by uncertainties, distrustful of others, ruminative, and rigidifying when under stress". A second issue, not addressed in the article, is that children tend to adopt the political views of their parents. Could it be that their teachers were, in their observations, likely to be influenced by their knowledge of the political views of the childrens' parents? Complex issue, this, as the authors acknowledge: Moreover, at the risk of attaching value judgements to labels: I can't help but drawing comparisons with studies on e.g. Black vs. White school children and adults, and all the pitfalls those tend to encounter when issues of aptitude, achievement and personality enter the fray.
