Why do teabaggers think liberals are fearful?

[Olfatbut]

This meme just confounds me. Take for example this unintentionally ironic billboard (http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/image_thumb4.png). It juxtaposes photos of Obama, Hitler and Lenin with the caption "Radical Leaders Prey on the Fearful and Naive".

Now, that statement may well be true. But it argues the exact opposite of the intended meaning.

Even if you think Obama is radical, when has he ever used fear? When has the media ever used fear to promote anything but a right-wing agenda?

Examples of right-wingers using fear are more than abundant.
- It was Bush's core platform.
- Beck sells (overpriced) gold and bunkers and freeze-dried food to survive the coming armageddon or whatever.
- Republicans in campaign mode commonly mention 9/11 and "your children's safety" in the same breath.
- How many times have you heard "If you don't support xxx you won't even recognize your own country in a few years"

(BTW it took me a while to figure out that the last one is dog-whistle for "the brown people are coming")

It's easy to just dismiss this as so much insanity but do they really think liberals are fearful? And how do they not see the irony?

As for naive, well, they kind of have a point there. Obama was naive to think he could work across the aisle and should have just steamrolled instead of letting republicans ensure that only crappy things passed. But I don't think that's what they mean.

[Chronos]

It's projection. They're afraid, so they think everyone's afraid. Perfectly normal human mistake.

[Johnny L.A.]

It's easy to just dismiss this as so much insanity but do they really think liberals are fearful? And how do they not see the irony?
Someone posted an opinion in a Pit thread (I think) about preachers and homosexuality. I'd rather not search for it, but it went like this: Straight people don't think about homosexuality. That is, it's not something that's on our minds a lot. These preachers who turn out to be gay have been taught that homosexuality is bad. And yet, as repressed homosexuals, they think about homosexuality all the time. They assume that they are 'normal' (relax -- it's just shorthand), and if they think about homosexuality all the time then it follows that everyone else does. Therefore bringing homosexuality into the open is a Bad Thing because all of these people who are obviously (to them) always thinking about homosexuality will 'turn gay'.

I think that the 'fear' issue is the same thing. People who are afraid assume that everyone else is as well. So they compensate by putting on a strong face. They're afraid of The Others, so they make out The Others as the fearful ones. And no, they don't see it. If they did, then they would have to face their own fears.

EDIT: Or what Chronos said more succinctly. ;)




.

[foolsguinea]

Huh. I assumed that Teabaggers thought we weren't afraid enough. Not afraid enough of scary Muslims in power, not afraid enough for our freedoms, etc.

[Snowboarder Bo]

As Rob said to Bucky once: "I think you think everyone else thinks like you think. You're wrong."

[Ca3799]

Because if you say it often enough and loud enough, it will become true?

[River Hippie]

It's projection. They're afraid, so they think everyone's afraid. Perfectly normal human mistake.

Yep.

[Beware of Doug]

Libs are yellow skunks because:

a) their warrior instinct is lacking. They instinctively shy away from the use of deadly force.
b) they mistrust those God has rewarded with authority and power. When situations call for unthinking obedience and loyalty, they ask too damn many questions, instead of showing resolve, which equals courage.

[Baffle]

Being a liberal, though... there are a lot of things I am afraid of. I'm afraid of contracting a debilitating illness I can't afford to treat. I'm afraid of being unable to support my family. I'm afraid of having no place to live.

The difference between my fears and the right-wing fears are that mine are happening to lots of people, every day. How many people do you know of that are being attacked by terrorists?

I'm lucky to be Canadian and have most (though not all) of the costs of the first one covered, at least. And as far as the other ones go; we're just as vulnerable as our neighbours to the south.

[Beware of Doug]

Being a liberal, though... there are a lot of things I am afraid of. I'm afraid of contracting a debilitating illness I can't afford to treat. I'm afraid of being unable to support my family. I'm afraid of having no place to live.Guess what: anyone who is afraid of those things is afraid of the free market and of having to compete to survive. And that is another kind of person conservatives have deep contempt for. "Waa waa waa," they hear you say, "take care of me and don't make me have to line Mr. Big Bad Businessman's pockets to stay alive." Well, courage to them means trusting in Higher Powers - be they God OR Mr. Big Bad Businessman. How many people have what kind of problems - or how pressing they are, especially to individuals without power - is just not important.

[Beware of Doug]

Lest anyone think I intended to shit this thread, I want to make it clear that I am playing devil's advocate in the above 2 posts. I put it to you that conservatives - many of the farthest-right ones especially - think deep down of liberals in the ways I described. I would welcome opinions pro or con; it could lead to a good all-out debate.

[Baffle]

Guess what: anyone who is afraid of those things is afraid of the free market and of having to compete to survive. And that is another kind of person conservatives have deep contempt for. "Waa waa waa," they hear you say, "take care of me and don't make me have to line Mr. Big Bad Businessman's pockets to stay alive."

There's a leap of logic between 'not wanting to compete to survive' and 'being afraid of losing that competition'. And the competition metaphor fails completely on the health standpoint, except from an evolutionary biology standpoint. (I'd like to see that argument -- universal health care lets people live when they should die and improve the gene pool -- from the same group that wants to ban abortions because life is sacred, and whose members largely reject the validity of natural selection.)

[Captain Amazing]

Both parties use fear sometimes, and it's a pretty common tactic across the political spectrum. Do you want examples of just Obama doing it, or of it being done by liberals in general?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Both parties use fear sometimes, and it's a pretty common tactic across the political spectrum. Do you want examples of just Obama doing it, or of it being done by liberals in general?

Neither, as it's not germane to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss that, why don't you start a thread about liberals using fear as a tactic? This thread is about teabaggers thinking liberals are fearful.

[Captain Amazing]

I thought the thread is about "Even if you think Obama is radical, when has he ever used fear? When has the media ever used fear to promote anything but a right-wing agenda?"

I mean, maybe it's possible that teabaggers think liberals are fearful, because, on some issues liberals are fearful. If this thread is intended to be no more than "Look at how crazy and disingenuous teabaggers are", it sounds to me that it belongs in the Pit.

[Beware of Doug]

There's a leap of logic between 'not wanting to compete to survive' and 'being afraid of losing that competition'. And the competition metaphor fails completely on the health standpoint, except from an evolutionary biology standpoint. (I'd like to see that argument -- universal health care lets people live when they should die and improve the gene pool -- from the same group that wants to ban abortions because life is sacred, and whose members largely reject the validity of natural selection.)But don't conservatives run on the idea of a radically free market, where everything possible ought to run on a for-profit basis? That implies not only that health providers/insurers compete in the marketplace, but that individuals compete in the job market to be able to pay for their care.

Then again, all this may be reasoning too far back for teabagger minds to even comprehend, let alone to portray in a 30 second sound bite in the media. One gets into big trouble when trying to logic these folks into understanding where their beliefs will lead.

[Blalron]

It's called psychological projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection):

According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else. 'Emotions or excitations which the ego tries to ward off are "spit out" and then felt as being outside the ego...perceived in another person'[5]. It is a common process that every person uses to some degree.....

To understand the process, consider a person in a couple who has thoughts of infidelity. Instead of dealing with these undesirable thoughts consciously, they unconsciously project these feelings onto the other person, and begin to think that the other has thoughts of infidelity and may be having an affair. Thus one can obtain 'acquittal by his conscience - if he projects his own impulses to faithlessness on to the partner to whom he owes faith'

[A Dodgy Dude]

Because tolerant, open-minded liberals celebrate the diversity of opinion by using terms like "tea-baggers"?

[Ludovic]

Because tolerant, open-minded liberals celebrate the diversity of opinion by using terms like "tea-baggers"?At least some of them have historically called themselves that. And I thought tolerant, open-minded conservatives weren't all up in arms about this whole Political Correctness thing.

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

At least some of them have historically called themselves that. And I thought tolerant, open-minded conservatives weren't all up in arms about this whole Political Correctness thing.

Good points, especially the PC thing. It has been proven time and again that "Teabagger" originated with the Tea Party. That is why it is so funny. If someone else assigned it to them, it would be on the level of grade-school humor. Any child can point at someone and call them a "Teabagger", but having someone stand up and proudly call themselves that, well, that's a special kind of clueless. And when a large group of ppl do it, for weeks and months, in interviews and in front of cameras, well, that's just epic. No do-overs. We're not going to turn back time and pretend that didn't happen. Teabaggers embarrassed themselves right out of the gate, and they must own it. If they don't like it, they need to look in the mirror.

Also, that kind of cluelessness should be considered when they speak on other topics. If you can't even choose a name without embarrassing yourself and spending the next couple years running from it in denial, what could you have to say on other subjects that I would want to hear?

[What the .... ?!?!]

"Clueless"??

Because they didn't know what "teabagging" meant?? That kind of cluelessness they should be ashamed of .....right !!!!

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

"Clueless"??

Because they didn't know what "teabagging" meant?? That kind of cluelessness they should be ashamed of .....right !!!!

It's called GOOGLE. Five seconds with safesearch=off would have saved them this problem. Clueless.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Here's a good example of liberal fearful whining...............the evil Rand Paul. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=584096)

[LonesomePolecat]

It’s a lot of things, big and little. It’s things like this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13097509#post13097509)in the Pit, an excellent example of the left’s snarling hatred for everyone to the right of Nancy Pelosi. It’s Carrie Prejean in the Miss America pageant being punished for dissenting from the left’s position on same sex marriage. It’s Juan Williams being fired for a comment no reasonable person would have found the least bit controversial or offensive. It’s James Watson having his career destroyed for dissenting from the politcally correct view of race. It’s the mainstream media dragging Joe the Plumber through the mud for asking Obama an awkward question. It’s harassing Sara Palin with hundreds of frivolous ethics complaints. It’s the applause from a night club audience when Sandra Bernhard ranted about Sara Palin being gang raped by her “black brothers.” It’s the arson at Sara Palin’s church. It’s a President who pals around with the likes of William Ayers and Reverend Wright. It’s a President who removes references to God when quoting the Declaration of Independence. It’s the Democratic party embracing race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It’s the Duke University rape hoax and the Jena Six circus, it’s American students in an American high school being forbidden to display the American flag on Cinco de Mayo, it’s a California school requiring students to dress like Muslims and pray to Allah in a class project on Islam. It’s forbidding a high school valedictorian to talk about her religion in her graduation speech. It’s progressive students shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses. It’s the way so many of you act like Soviet commissars intent on sniffing out “counter-revolutionaries” and sending them to the gulags.

And you claim not to understand why so many people mistrust and fear you.

Can you guys really be this blind?

[Vinyl Turnip]

It’s a lot of things, big and little. It’s things like this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13097509#post13097509)in the Pit, an excellent example of the left’s snarling hatred for everyone to the right of Nancy Pelosi. It’s Carrie Prejean in the Miss America pageant being punished for dissenting from the left’s position on same sex marriage. It’s Juan Williams being fired for a comment no reasonable person would have found the least bit controversial or offensive. It’s James Watson having his career destroyed for dissenting from the politcally correct view of race. It’s the mainstream media dragging Joe the Plumber through the mud for asking Obama an awkward question. It’s harassing Sara Palin with hundreds of frivolous ethics complaints. It’s the applause from a night club audience when Sandra Bernhard ranted about Sara Palin being gang raped by her “black brothers.” It’s the arson at Sara Palin’s church. It’s a President who pals around with the likes of William Ayers and Reverend Wright. It’s a President who removes references to God when quoting the Declaration of Independence. It’s the Democratic party embracing race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It’s the Duke University rape hoax and the Jena Six circus, it’s American students in an American high school being forbidden to display the American flag on Cinco de Mayo, it’s a California school requiring students to dress like Muslims and pray to Allah in a class project on Islam. It’s forbidding a high school valedictorian to talk about her religion in her graduation speech. It’s progressive students shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses. It’s the way so many of you act like Soviet commissars intent on sniffing out “counter-revolutionaries” and sending them to the gulags.

And you claim not to understand why so many people mistrust and fear you.

Can you guys really be this blind?

A couple of those are true, none of them are related, and none of them has anything to do with the topic of the thread, which is why conservatives think liberals are fearful.

Thanks for playing, though.

[LonesomePolecat]

A couple of those are true, none of them are related, and none of them has anything to do with the topic of the thread, which is why conservatives think liberals are fearful.

Thanks for playing, though. All of them are true, and all of them address the question of why people--not just conservatives--mistrust and fear the left. A snide, dismissive attitude does not make these things go away.

[DrDeth]

It's Tea Party. Unless you're 8 years old.

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

It's Tea Party. Unless you're 8 years old.

Is that also the age of the TEA party members that called themselves Teabaggers?

[Vinyl Turnip]

All of them are true, and all of them address the question of why people--not just conservatives--mistrust and fear the left. A snide, dismissive attitude does not make these things go away.

I snidely dismiss the notion that you actually read the OP, or even the subject line of the thread, before emptying your tired old bag of bullshit talking points into it.

Once again, the question was not "why do people fear liberals," but "why do conservatives think liberals are fearful," i.e., why do they think liberals are afraid / use fear as a motivator.

Understood now? I can draw up a little diagram if that would help.

[Chronos]

...and all of them address the question of why people--not just conservatives--mistrust and fear the left.Which is, again, not the topic of this thread.

[LonesomePolecat]

Meh. Yeah, I only glanced at the title and skimmed over the thread, and so what? It still turned out to be pretty much what I expected it to be—a bunch of lefties patting each other on the back for being so wonderfully superior to the peasants. In any case, it’s always appropriate to remind progs that they aren’t nearly as open-minded and democratic as they think they are.

Oh, yeah, and the teabagger thing. It’s nothing but childish spitefulness, and it doesn’t matter that some tea partiers once inadvertently used the term not knowing about its sexual connotations. Grow up, why don’t you?

You guys can get back to your circle jerk now.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Meh. Yeah, I only glanced at the title and skimmed over the thread, and so what? It still turned out to be pretty much what I expected it to be—a bunch of lefties patting each other on the back for being so wonderfully superior to the peasants. In any case, it’s always appropriate to remind progs that they aren’t nearly as open-minded and democratic as they think they are.

Oh, yeah, and the teabagger thing. It’s nothing but childish spitefulness, and it doesn’t matter that some tea partiers once inadvertently used the term not knowing about its sexual connotations. Grow up, why don’t you?

You guys can get back to your circle jerk now.

Hey just because some of us Progs once inadvertently jerked off in a circle without knowing about it's sexual connotations doesn't mean you can keep dipping your balls in out mouths about it. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

[Zeriel]

Meh. Yeah, I only glanced at the title and skimmed over the thread, and so what? It still turned out to be pretty much what I expected it to be—a bunch of lefties patting each other on the back for being so wonderfully superior to the peasants. In any case, it’s always appropriate to remind progs that they aren’t nearly as open-minded and democratic as they think they are.

Oh, yeah, and the teabagger thing. It’s nothing but childish spitefulness, and it doesn’t matter that some tea partiers once inadvertently used the term not knowing about its sexual connotations. Grow up, why don’t you?

You guys can get back to your circle jerk now.

My favorite part of this is where you don't actually have an answer for the OP.

Charming, as usual.

--Z, not a leftist by any stretch.

[BrainGlutton]

Oh, yeah, and the teabagger thing. It’s nothing but childish spitefulness, and it doesn’t matter that some tea partiers once inadvertently used the term not knowing about its sexual connotations. Grow up, why don’t you?

The proud stalwarts of the Tea Party
Have lusts that are hearty but naughty
Such as offering their sacks
As mid-morning snacks
To all and to sundry! How haughty! :cool:

[LonesomePolecat]

My favorite part of this is where you don't actually have an answer for the OP.

Charming, as usual.

--Z, not a leftist by any stretch.And I especially like the part where you completely missed the point that I don't fuckin' care. Selah.

[LonesomePolecat]

The proud stalwarts of the Tea Party
Have lusts that are hearty but naughty
Such as offering their sacks
As mid-morning snacks
To all and to sundry! How haughty! :cool:Okay, I'm gonna make an exception here--anyone who makes me laugh can go on using the T word. :cool:

[What the .... ?!?!]

Having learned what the wonderful people at MSNBC can do with your own words let's get this straight....

Is tea bagging something you only do mid-morning?

Is it considered haughty?

What does the word sundry mean?

To all....... that's just not right.

[msmith537]

It's Tea Party. Unless you're 8 years old.

The Tea Party is for the 8 year old in all of us.

[LonesomePolecat]

What does the word sundry mean?

Here ya go, dude:

sun·dry adj. Various; miscellaneous: a purse containing keys, wallet, and sundry items. The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sundry)

I take this to also mean insignificant and trivial, much like this thread.

I really ought to take offense; after all, I'm not quite that casual with my sexual favors. But a well-composed X-rated limerick is always good for some low-brow yuks, and I simply can't bring myself to take umbrage. The mods would just make me give it back, anyway.

[JRDelirious]

Okay, I'm gonna make an exception here--anyone who makes me laugh can go on using the T word. :cool:

Yeah, really -- good one, BG.

As to the top question, heck if I know, but Beware of Doug has a point, what I always detected as the "negative character traits" the RW attributed to libs was more along the lines of weakness or lack of assertiveness/self-assurance, not really "fear".

Which is not to say I haven't met a few fellow libs, who do sometimes sound something like "OMG!! People have GUNS?!?! B-b-b-but... that means they could shoot me!! Or someone! or some animal! or themselves!" or "OMG! You let your child out of the HOUSE without a helmet and kneepads and lab-quality breathing mask?":rolleyes:. But then there's the guys on the opposite end of the spectrum who're going "OMG! Gays in the Army!! They'll give my son teh surprize buttsecks!!"or "OMG! Illegal Mexican Muslims want to set up socialist Death Panels!!!!":p

[pravnik]

Maybe the pot makes them paranoid?

[Suse]

Because Rush said so, the day after the election. He kept telling his listeners that the Democrats were 'shaking in their boots'. He didn't offer any proof but apparently he doesn't need any.

[marshmallow]

If Bush era Republicans ran on "ZOMG GAY MEXICAN TERRORISTS!" then Obama Dems have run on "ZOMG TEA PARTY NUTS SARAH PALIN FOX NEWS!"

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Could someone rate these as true or false so I could research them? TIA


1. It’s Carrie Prejean in the Miss America pageant being punished for dissenting from the left’s position on same sex marriage.
2. It’s Juan Williams being fired for a comment no reasonable person would have found the least bit controversial or offensive.
3. It’s James Watson having his career destroyed for dissenting from the politcally correct view of race.
4.It’s the mainstream media dragging Joe the Plumber through the mud for asking Obama an awkward question.
5.It’s harassing Sara Palin with hundreds of frivolous ethics complaints.
6. It’s the applause from a night club audience when Sandra Bernhard ranted about Sara Palin being gang raped by her “black brothers.”
7. It’s the arson at Sara Palin’s church.
8.It’s a President who pals around with the likes of William Ayers and Reverend Wright.
9.It’s a President who removes references to God when quoting the Declaration of Independence.
10. It’s the Democratic party embracing race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
11. It’s the Duke University rape hoax and the Jena Six circus,
12. it’s American students in an American high school being forbidden to display the American flag on Cinco de Mayo
13.it’s a California school requiring students to dress like Muslims and pray to Allah in a class project on Islam.
14 It’s forbidding a high school valedictorian to talk about her religion in her graduation speech.
15 It’s progressive students shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses.
16. It’s the way so many of you act like Soviet commissars intent on sniffing out “counter-revolutionaries” and sending them to the gulags.

[Lightnin']

Could someone rate these as true or false so I could research them? TIA


Why certainly! Just as soon as you explain why you're unable to read the OP's question: "Why do teabaggers think liberals are fearful?"

'Cause 'near as I can tell, not a single one of your questions has anything to do with fear on the behalf of liberals. Is there some sort of teabagger reading disorder, or something?

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Why certainly! Just as soon as you explain why you're unable to read the OP's question: "Why do teabaggers think liberals are fearful?"

'Cause 'near as I can tell, not a single one of your questions has anything to do with fear on the behalf of liberals. Is there some sort of teabagger reading disorder, or something?

Ok, nevermind, I will start a new thread.
Sorry for the error.

[Blalron]

And I especially like the part where you completely missed the point that I don't fuckin' care. Selah.

Some people love watching and identifying birds. I love watching and identifying logical fallacies:

Ignoratio Elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi)

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation could logically be; "elenchi" (genitive singular of the Latin elenchus) is from the Greek ἔλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.

[BrainGlutton]

Okay, I'm gonna make an exception here--anyone who makes me laugh can go on using the T word. :cool:

If you like that:

A Republican man-about-town
Could make a smile vertical frown
For, at finish, the heel
Always made the girl kneel
And let all the wealth trickle down!

A Democrat is well suited to diddle
In the sense that he's straight-up-the-middle
But, 'tween left and right hand
He can ne'er . . . make a stand
At the end, can just sit there and twiddle!

Socialists like to share their virility
But it brings social costs in fertility,
For, "To each by her need!"
Is their true solemn creed,
But the sharing wears out the ability!

A lascivious thing is a Green
Every tree, every shrub, every bean
Every beast classed "Endangered"
And life-forms far stranger
Must endure his attentions obscene!

A theocon's holy and pious
But political judgment is biased
By his mind filled with floods
Of the cries of hung studs:
"Come into the closet and try us!"

Libertarians swing and they play
You can use them most any which way
Straight, gay, trans, or bi
Or whatever you'll try
All while shouting, "For freedom! Hooray!"

[Shodan]

I'm not a tea party member, but if we are willing to generalize to conservatives in general -

We think you are fearful because of the things you tell us you are afraid of. You are afraid of people owning guns, you are afraid of second-hand smoke (even out doors), you are afraid of paying for your own health care, you are afraid that Bush was going to cancel the elections, you are afraid of AIDS, you are afraid of all kinds of things, reasonable and not.

Much of it is just that liberals think they are better than anyone else. But there are more of us than there are of you, and we don't do as we are told. And that's frightening.

Some of it is justified, some of it is just fear of the unknown - you succeed so well in insulating yourselves from anyone who might disagree about anything important that you conjure up all sorts of bogeymen and tell each other that this is what non-liberals are like.

Regards,
Shodan

[Max the Immortal]

You are afraid of people owning guns<snip>

Interesting. You think that liberals feel that widespread gun ownership leads to them personally being the victim of gun violence?

[Johnny L.A.]

We think you are fearful because of the things you tell us you are afraid of. You are afraid of people owning guns, you are afraid of second-hand smoke (even out doors), you are afraid of paying for your own health care, you are afraid that Bush was going to cancel the elections, you are afraid of AIDS, you are afraid of all kinds of things, reasonable and not.

I am not afraid of guns. I've lost count of how many I have. I'm not afraid of second-hand smoke. Universal healthcare would make American companies more competitive, and there's the ethical issue of not letting people in The Richest Country In The World ™ face bankruptcy or death so that corporations and stockholders can increase their profits. I was not afraid Bush would cancel the elections. I don't know where you got the idea that we're 'afraid of AIDS', but it's not something I think of, let alone be afraid of.

I'll tell you what I am afraid of. Conservatives imposing ever more stringent restrictions in the name of freedom. Moving backward while the rest of the world is moving forward. Destroying America in the name of profits for the few. Denying the rights (Freedoms!) of Americans by people totally unaffected by those rights. Wars instead of diplomacy. The insistence of total, unconditional victory instead of the compromise our system of government is based upon. The Taliban-like theocracy many conservatives are trying to achieve.

[Shodan]

Well, gosh, I can't imagine where I got the notion that liberals are fearful.

Regards,
Shodan

[Zeriel]

Well, gosh, I can't imagine where I got the notion that liberals are fearful.

Regards,
Shodan

Considering many of the fears you listed can be easily--conveniently even--turned around, don't you think the whole conversation is kinda counter-productive? Fear is motivating everyone in the current political climate. The challenge SHOULD be for us ALL to be less fearful and more interested in getting shit done.


You are afraid of not being able to defend yourself without heavy firepower, you are afraid of people not of your gender getting married (even though it doesn't affect your marriage), you are afraid of the government not being able to handle healthcare, you are afraid that Obama was going to impose Soviet-style Communism, you are afraid of terror attacks, you are afraid of all kinds of things, reasonable and not.

Much of it is just that conservatives think they are more patriotic and more salt-of-the-earth than anyone else. But we're better educated and have more influence in popular entertainment, and we don't do as we are told. And that's frightening.

Some of it is justified, some of it is just fear of the unknown - you succeed so well in insulating yourselves from anyone who might disagree about anything important that you conjure up all sorts of bogeymen and tell each other that this is what non-conservatives are like.

--Z, liberal by his family's standards, conservative by his friends' standards.

[New Deal Democrat]

Here's a good example of liberal fearful whining...............the evil Rand Paul. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=584096)

Rand Paul campaigned against earmarks. After being elected he has said that he is in favor of earmarks for his state of Kentucky. This is the kind of hypocrisy that has typified Republicans since 1980. They want more government than they are willing to pay for.

[Shodan]

Considering many of the fears you listed can be easily--conveniently even--turned around, don't you think the whole conversation is kinda counter-productive? Fear is motivating everyone in the current political climate. The challenge SHOULD be for us ALL to be less fearful and more interested in getting shit done.My favorite part of this is where you don't actually have an answer for the OP.

Charming, as usual.:D

Regards,
Shodan

[Zeriel]

:D

Regards,
Shodan

Admit it, you thought the idea of Bizarro Shodan (all in Superman Bizarro style) was hilarious. :D

[Zeriel]

Substance follows:

I think the telling thing about the whole discussion, from my perspective as hanging out with mostly liberal hippie types (perils of working in a college town), is how the stereotypes play vs. reality. I work with a bunch of Obama voters who smoke off the balconies (against the law AND the lease!) and go skeet shooting on weekends. I don't see a lot of liberal fear from day-to-day liberals--not to say it isn't there in some of the extremists (like my mother-in-law or my idiot Buddhist friend). By the same vein, I see a fair bit of conservative fear (mostly from Toomey rallies), but that could easily be the fact I only see the more vocal folks and not a lot of everyday conservatives (like my dad and brother, both of whom don't appear to fear anything political).

Selection bias is so charming.

[InterestedObserver]

I think projection remains the best answer.

To elaborate on that a bit, the Teabaggers/partiers operate in the mode of fear (fear of socialism, fear of illegal immigrants, fear of homosexuals, fear of the government, fear of Muslims, fear of those they imagine are trying to take their religion away, fear of "death panels", fear of Democrats/Liberals, etc..)

Every issue is couched in the language of war, attacks and defending against a dire threat. The media they predominantly expose themselves to is reactionary and inflammatory and defines issues and events in those same terms.

When they consider liberal positions on issues, they automatically interpret those positions as being rooted in fear rather than being calls to action based on HOPE and/or principle.

AS a liberal, I don't tend to see things in terms of threats to fear but in terms of challenges to address. I don't stay up nights fearing the Tea Party or any other bugaboos. I hold certain political positions and do what I can to support them, but I don't see things in terms of "OMG, the Republicans have taken the House! It's the end of the world!" :eek: I just think, great, this will make it harder to accomplish what I want to see accomplished..here we go again.

Other than projection and their desire to IMAGINE we liberals are shaking in our boots and a bunch of pantiwaists in general, I can't see any other reason for them to think liberals are fearful.

[fumster]

Good points, especially the PC thing. It has been proven time and again that "Teabagger" originated with the Tea Party. That is why it is so funny. If someone else assigned it to them, it would be on the level of grade-school humor. Any child can point at someone and call them a "Teabagger", but having someone stand up and proudly call themselves that, well, that's a special kind of clueless. And when a large group of ppl do it, for weeks and months, in interviews and in front of cameras, well, that's just epic. No do-overs. We're not going to turn back time and pretend that didn't happen. Teabaggers embarrassed themselves right out of the gate, and they must own it. If they don't like it, they need to look in the mirror.

Also, that kind of cluelessness should be considered when they speak on other topics. If you can't even choose a name without embarrassing yourself and spending the next couple years running from it in denial, what could you have to say on other subjects that I would want to hear?It's like Diddy complaining that people still call him P Diddy. Pick a name and go with it.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Don't the areas of the country that are most likely to be terrorist targets, like major cities, tend to vote Democrat? I mean, the people who are actually in any semblance of danger don't seem to be the ones shitting their pants about terrorists.

[HMS Irruncible]

The 'libs=fearful' thing is nothing but an elaborate cultural strawman. This is extremely rich coming from people who quake in terror at the idea that gays might get married or that someone might successfully avoid pregnancy by using a condom.

[Cheshire Human]

This meme just confounds me....

For the same reason that your OP should confound the other side, whatever side that is.... It's a dumb idea. Each side assumes that "since you disagree with me, and I am self-evidently right, the only reason you would disagree is because you fear me." No, the proper answer is because BOTH OF YOU ARE DUMBASS STUPID!!!. Your mistake is in the DUMBASS ASSUMPTION "I'm self-evidently right". Try wrapping your tiny minds around this concept: "Maybe both of us have a useful, and logically justifiable point. Maybe my ideas are NOT self-evident, and so I have to actually JUSTIFY them."

No, I haven't read this thread. Probably because I already realize that people who disagree with me may have legitimate reasons for doing so. That's an attitude that seems to be in short supply, here, on the SDMB. If I were willing to READ this thread, I would, no doubt, see the same old dumbasses, making the same old arguments, in the same old way, on both sides of your incredibly stupid OP statement. You got arguments about what I said? Shove them up your posterior. Or send them via PM, and I may respond, but only if they are not the same old shit, because if they are, I will ignore them in the same old way (as they deserve, in the same old manner). Damn, but this OP statement is really fucking stupid....

[Marley23]

For the same reason that your OP should confound the other side, whatever side that is.... It's a dumb idea. Each side assumes that "since you disagree with me, and I am self-evidently right, the only reason you would disagree is because you fear me." No, the proper answer is because BOTH OF YOU ARE DUMBASS STUPID!!!. Your mistake is in the DUMBASS ASSUMPTION "I'm self-evidently right". Try wrapping your tiny minds around this concept: "Maybe both of us have a useful, and logically justifiable point. Maybe my ideas are NOT self-evident, and so I have to actually JUSTIFY them."
Cheshire Human, I'm warning you for this post. It's thread shitting and your tone is wrong for this forum.

[steveinillinois]

you are afraid of paying for your own health care
Whoa whoa whoa WHOA. By "paying for your own health care," do you mean actually paying for all of it with your own money, as distinct from just paying for health insurance?

Yes, I'm afraid of that. You better believe I'm afraid of that. I'd question the sanity of anyone who wasn't afraid of that, unless his name was Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.

I'm not particularly afraid of dying in a terrorist attack. That seems far less likely than, say, getting struck by lightning. But losing my health insurance and suffering a serious illness or injury and being bankrupted by the cost of treatment? Or going without treatment altogether? That happens everywhere, all the time in the USA. If you don't find this prospect terrifying, I wonder about you.

If you meant "paying for your own health insurance," then I apologize for doubting your sanity.

[arc111]

Liberals are afraid of guns but don't seem to be afraid of the inner city minority groups that kill with them.

Liberals are afraid of global warming but don't seem to be afraid of driving big old suv's or commuting to work by plane.

Liberals are afraid that the hard-working man is actually smarter than him.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Liberals are afraid that the hard-working man is actually smarter than him.If he's so darn smart, why does he work so hard?
And get so little for it in hourly wages?

[arc111]

If he's so darn smart, why does he work so hard?
And get so little for it in hourly wages?

Somebody has to do the hard work. I guess the liberals think that the illegal aliens should do it?

"little" is relative.

I know people who have worked all their lives and have lived their entire lives in poverty....but still had a relatively happy life.

[Fear Itself]

I know people who have worked all their lives and have lived their entire lives in poverty....but still had a relatively happy life.But still not smart enough to see they are being played for saps by the Republicans?

[arc111]

But still not smart enough to see they are being played for saps by the Republicans?

For some reason a lot of these folks prefer to work instead of getting every government entitlement benefit that they can....which is the liberal way.

Those who work (even the poor) = conservatives.
Those who wont work = liberals.

[Fear Itself]

For some reason a lot of these folks prefer to work instead of getting every government entitlement benefit that they can....which is the liberal way.

Those who work (even the poor) = conservatives.
Those who wont work = liberals.So why do the liberal blue states pay more taxes than they receive in federal spending, while conservative red states receive more federal spending than they pay in taxes? Conservatives are the ones getting the handouts.

[foolsguinea]

The Democrats are the working-class party. If you think Democrats aren't the party of working people, you should watch some Michael Moore movies & see to whom he plays. Working people are the freaking base.

[The Tooth]

So when the unemployment rate goes up, more people are becoming liberal and refusing to work? Then when it goes back down that means people are becoming conservative again? I doubt that, I think it's more likely your claim is nonsense.

[Sam Stone]

You can describe both parties in terms of what they fear.

Of course this is a generalization, but you could say that liberals are afraid of the market. They are afraid of not being in control. They want the economy directed by smart people with a plan, they want a large state firmly in control of the market and taking constant action to direct society. They are afraid that the market is a malevolent presence in society, transferring wealth from poor and middle class to the rich and increasingly enslaving the people.

Traditional Liberals and libertarians fear being controlled by others. They are comfortable in the free marketplace, willing to compete with everyone else. They think liberals are fearful of this and therefore demand more protection from the government.

Liberals think the future needs to be planned. Government should be making 'investments' and directing the energy and wealth of society down guided paths set by them.

Libertarians and classical liberals believe that the market is just the expressed desires of free people in a society, and they're perfectly comfortable letting the people just choose their own path, and that order will emerge and the future will be just fine without all the bright boys in clipboards running everything from Washington.

[HMS Irruncible]

For some reason a lot of these folks prefer to work instead of getting every government entitlement benefit that they can....which is the liberal way
Liberals are afraid of global warming but don't seem to be afraid of driving big old suv's or commuting to work by plane.

I guess this explains why I see so many private jets lined up outside the employment office all the time. It's all those private-plane flying liberals commuting to pick up their welfare checks.

[Fear Itself]

Libertarians and classical liberals believe that the market is just the expressed desires of free people in a society, and they're perfectly comfortable letting the people just choose their own path, and that order will emerge and the future will be just fine without all the bright boys in clipboards running everything from Washington.Libertarians believe government should not protect the weak from the strong. Liberals disagree.

[Johnny L.A.]

You can describe both parties in terms of what they fear.
We are miles apart politically, but even though I disagree with your positions you do make cogent arguments. It's good to have you here.
Of course this is a generalization, but you could say that liberals are afraid of the market. They are afraid of not being in control. They want the economy directed by smart people with a plan, they want a large state firmly in control of the market and taking constant action to direct society. They are afraid that the market is a malevolent presence in society, transferring wealth from poor and middle class to the rich and increasingly enslaving the people.
There's nothing wrong with having a plan. There's a saying: 'He who fails to plan is planning to fail.' Liberals do not fear not being in control. We do, however, have a problem with people being in control who do not have the good of the country as their primary goal. The Preamble to our Constitution says that one purpose of the new government is 'to promote the general welfare'. That is, do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If you're not working toward that goal, you're working against it.

The Right wants the opportunity to make as much money as possible. They fail to plan for those who are unable to make use of those opportunities. 'I'm all right, Jack. Keep your hands off of my stack.' 'If they don't have bread, let them eat cake!' Then they're surprised when their plans fall apart. The Left try to take into account those who don't have the means to take advantage of opportunities. We are accused of wanting the government to control our lives. That is simply not true. We want a fair referee that will not allow those whose only goal is personal enrichment to control our lives. (And this extends to non-economic issues as well.)

The Right seems to say, 'I worked hard to get where I am,' (and in many cases, that's true), 'Why should I support people who won't work hard, or won't work at all?' We counter that unless people are allowed to have the tools to better their positions, how can they better their positions? The Right seems to think that if they have all the money, some of it will fall out of their pockets and the lower classes will benefit. I don't think the Trickle Down Theory works. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. We believe that a tree grows from the roots up. So concentrating resources at the base allows growth at the top. I'd rather have 1,000 people lower on the totem pole buy my product, than ten people at the top buying it. Maybe I'm not so good at math, but I think that if I sell 1,000 things it's better than selling ten of them.

In any business, there is overhead. 'It takes money to make money.' I see such things as health care reform and education as being the cost of doing business. If a person is sick or uneducated, they're not going to be able to take advantage of opportunities, or even work at all. We have to invest in the lower and middle classes so that we can reap the profits later. It's not about stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It's investing in one's own company. There are tons of businesses that have cut corners or that have failed to invest in themselves and have gone bankrupt, just as there have been many trees that have fallen because they were not fed at the roots. The way to make the country strong and flourishing is to 'promote the general welfare'.

[arc111]

I guess this explains why I see so many private jets lined up outside the employment office all the time. It's all those private-plane flying liberals commuting to pick up their welfare checks.

You are basically describing Al Gore lol.

[Sam Stone]

Johnny LA: Thanks for the nice compliment. Appreciated.

There's nothing wrong with having a plan. There's a saying: 'He who fails to plan is planning to fail.'

But what if the thing you're trying to plan isn't plannable? What if attempting to control it just makes things worse?

The key insight I think Libertarians have that others won't or can't grasp is that an economy is a complex adaptive system that exhibits properties of emergent order. It's like an ecosystem or global climate - immensely complex in detail, and yet in aggregate it is efficient and self-regulating. It is self-regulating because ultimately it is responsive to the needs and wishes of the people, and the people act as negative feedback loops to maintain stability. Then the price of a good goes up, demand goes down and the production of alternative goods is stimulated.

Trying to plan a system like this is like trying to direct evolution along 'better' paths or like trying to control the climate. It's doomed to failure, bound to be not as efficient as the emergent path, and rife with unintended consequences that require ever-increasing interventions to control until the system collapses.

I like the contrast between the English Language, which had no plan and which had a structure that emerged as the result of millions of preferences, and Esperanto, a scientifically 'planned' language. Esperanto was an attempt to create a 'better' language. One more logical, more efficient, more 'scientific'. The thinking was that a language created by smart, educated people along scientific principles was bound to be superior to a language created haphazardly with no direction, no governing board, no one to guide it along the most efficient path.

How did that work out? It turns out that the completely unplanned and undirected language kicks Esperanto's butt in almost every conceivable way, and Esperanto has never been anything but a niche language that a few enthusiasts bothered to learn. Like Klingon.

Planned economies never work out as intended. They almost always grossly underperform free market economies. And the more rigid the plan, the worse the results.

But at least in a planned economy you know the direction you're trying to go in, and I think that appeals to liberals. They want to see a strong captain at the tiller, trying to navigate the economy through treacherous waters.

Liberals do not fear not being in control. We do, however, have a problem with people being in control who do not have the good of the country as their primary goal. The Preamble to our Constitution says that one purpose of the new government is 'to promote the general welfare'. That is, do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If you're not working toward that goal, you're working against it.

That supposes that capitalists are truly in 'control', and not just responding to the pressures the market puts on them. There is plenty of evidence of the latter - the rich people are the ones who are best at figuring out what the market wants from them - they're not controlling the market. If they were, they would be selling crappy goods at high prices. Instead, the market drives even the largest companies to cutting profits, improving quality, and constantly sampling the public to find out what it desires.

Of course there are exceptions in the case of monopolies and such. But in the aggregate, the economy's emergent order is a powerful force that even rich people can't ignore. Only politicians can, because they are the only ones given the right to use force to circumvent the expressed wishes of the marketplace.

The Right wants the opportunity to make as much money as possible. They fail to plan for those who are unable to make use of those opportunities. 'I'm all right, Jack. Keep your hands off of my stack.' 'If they don't have bread, let them eat cake!' Then they're surprised when their plans fall apart.

'The Right' is a pretty broad brush (as is 'The Left'). And I wouldn't deny that there are plenty of authoritarians on both the right and the left. Often, the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is in what they choose to control, rather than a difference in the desire to control at all. That's why I limited my comments to 'classical liberals' and 'libertarians', who I think are the truly fearless part of the electorate. Social Conservatives and Liberals are both fearful, battling each other to take over the reins of big government so they can use it to their own ends and prevent the other side from taking away what they value.

The Left try to take into account those who don't have the means to take advantage of opportunities. We are accused of wanting the government to control our lives. That is simply not true. We want a fair referee that will not allow those whose only goal is personal enrichment to control our lives. (And this extends to non-economic issues as well.)

I don't think that's true. I think it may have been true when the left was pre-occupied with helping the truly poor and needy. I don't think that's the case any more. I rarely hear Democrats these days talking about issues like homelessness, welfare, child malnutrition, or even issues like poverty in Africa. The left used to be about truly helping the very poorest and the most needy.

These days, it seems like the intellectual energy of the left is focused on themselves - the 'shrinking middle class', the cost of health care, globalization taking manufacturing jobs, retirement benefits, global warming, public unions, funding for college, providing day care, etc. In other words, using government to protect the middle class and shave off the hard edges of normal American life. It's about having government look after you, to be there in case you fall, make sure you can get an education and a good job, and provide for your retirement. Along the way you want to make sure that government protects you from bad drugs, bad products, smokers, wealthy capitalists, and other forces that scare you and you feel you have no control over.

The Right seems to say, 'I worked hard to get where I am,' (and in many cases, that's true), 'Why should I support people who won't work hard, or won't work at all?'

I don't think that's true, and I'd offer as evidence the fact that people on the right give at least as much in personal charity as do people on the left. The attitude is more like, "I don't want Washington deciding who I must help with my money. I think I'm a better judge of that."

We counter that unless people are allowed to have the tools to better their positions, how can they better their positions?

That would be true if the energy on the left was focused on making sure the poorest kids got a good education, rather than that the teachers of the kids must get good raises. But the energy is more about teachers and their jobs and their pay and their union than it is about the kids. That's because the Democrats in the U.S. have been thoroughly hijacked by rent seekers who profit from big government.

The Right seems to think that if they have all the money, some of it will fall out of their pockets and the lower classes will benefit.

No, the right thinks that the rich get richer by providing things people want. There's no mystery over how the Walton family benefits poor people. Wal-Mart has made them rich by driving down the prices of goods consumed primarily by poor people, and by creating a business model which puts stores near poor communities and makes it easy for people like single mothers and large, low income families to get their shopping down as easily as possible. Note that Wal-Mart has been successful only be relentlessly pursuing low prices throughout its supply chain, and then turning the results of that effort over to poor people in the form of lower prices.

I don't think the Trickle Down Theory works. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

Except that the poor aren't getting poorer. Not in free economies they aren't. What's actually happening is that everyone is getting richer, except the rich are getting richer faster. Until the recession hit, the poverty rate in the U.S. was at an all-time low, while products the poor use have grown steadily in quality.

We believe that a tree grows from the roots up. So concentrating resources at the base allows growth at the top. I'd rather have 1,000 people lower on the totem pole buy my product, than ten people at the top buying it. Maybe I'm not so good at math, but I think that if I sell 1,000 things it's better than selling ten of them.

The problem with your analogy is that it assumes that concentrating resources at the bottom does not take resources away from the top. I think the tree analogy is pretty tortured, but if you want to follow it, I'd say it's more like removing all the leaves from the top of the canopy where the energy is gathered and using them for fertilizer at the bottom. It might give a bit more nourishment to the roots for a while, but ultimately it kills the tree.

You think that consumption drives economic growth, so if you give consumers lots of money, the economy will grow. I think that growth comes from innovation and improvements in efficiency, and the social surplus that arises out of that causes more consumption. And since the only way you can fund consumption is to take money out of production and investment, ultimately you're choking off the long-term engine of growth even if you get a short-term boost in demand.


In any business, there is overhead. 'It takes money to make money.' I see such things as health care reform and education as being the cost of doing business. If a person is sick or uneducated, they're not going to be able to take advantage of opportunities, or even work at all. We have to invest in the lower and middle classes so that we can reap the profits later.

I would agree with you had you stopped at 'the poor' and not extended your analogy into the middle class. By all means, let's make sure that the poorest people in society don't have the first rung of the ladder of prosperity cut off. But the middle class is the bulk of the country, and you can't subsidize them to any meaningful extent without destroying the engine that keeps it all running, or you can play a shell game where you rob Peter to pay Paul to no effect other than to insinuate government into everything.

It's not about stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It's investing in one's own company. There are tons of businesses that have cut corners or that have failed to invest in themselves and have gone bankrupt, just as there have been many trees that have fallen because they were not fed at the roots. The way to make the country strong and flourishing is to 'promote the general welfare'.

This really makes no sense - it's just an attempt to hijack the language of business to make wealth redistribution sound like reasonable economic policy to people who support business. But in fact what you're doing is reducing investment to pay for current consumption. The money you need to subsidize the health care, education, and retirement of the middle class either comes out of the same middle class, in which case it does nothing, or it is borrowed, in which case it destroys future investment. It's not coming from 'the rich' - there aren't enough of them and they don't have enough money. And if you take what they have, you destroy the system that provides the wealth in the first place.

[Johnny L.A.]

But what if the thing you're trying to plan isn't plannable? What if attempting to control it just makes things worse?

The key insight I think Libertarians have that others won't or can't grasp is that an economy is a complex adaptive system that exhibits properties of emergent order. It's like an ecosystem or global climate - immensely complex in detail, and yet in aggregate it is efficient and self-regulating. It is self-regulating because ultimately it is responsive to the needs and wishes of the people, and the people act as negative feedback loops to maintain stability. Then the price of a good goes up, demand goes down and the production of alternative goods is stimulated.
To borrow from your analogy, the natural systems are pretty good at regulating themselves. But introduce rats or cats or snakes into a natural environment, and they can and have wiped out species. It's true that the environment attains a new equilibrium -- eventually, but that doesn't bring back the species that have been made extinct.
Planned economies never work out as intended. They almost always grossly underperform free market economies. And the more rigid the plan, the worse the results.

<snip>

The problem with your analogy is that it assumes that concentrating resources at the bottom does not take resources away from the top. I think the tree analogy is pretty tortured, but if you want to follow it, I'd say it's more like removing all the leaves from the top of the canopy where the energy is gathered and using them for fertilizer at the bottom. It might give a bit more nourishment to the roots for a while, but ultimately it kills the tree.
I'm not talking about planned economies. What I'm talking about is an economy that works for the nation. This requires balance. More regulation may have averted the Recession.

You're Canadian. I know you don't like your health care system, but you have it. You're not going to go bankrupt, lose your house and everything you've worked for, because of catastrophic illness, accident, or an insurance company that changes the rules after the fact. Not so here. There are people here -- even on this board -- who cannot buy health insurance for any price. There are others who can buy insurance, but can't afford it. Literally, they cannot afford it. So what's the solution? A bullet in the head? The Right would rather blame the victims or just not think about them at all. But the reality is that we cannot shoot the sick, or let them fend for themselves. They're going to be there, whether or not they are acknowledged. So the solution is a publicly-funded system. This helps the needy, in that they get medical care. It helps business by ensuring a healthier workforce and greater productivity. It lowers the cost of care, and of overhead. All of this is beneficial to the country as a whole. As far as paying for it, I see it not as a giant tax hike, but as debt consolidation. You pay the same, but you only have one bill.
You think that consumption drives economic growth, so if you give consumers lots of money, the economy will grow. I think that growth comes from innovation and improvements in efficiency, and the social surplus that arises out of that causes more consumption. And since the only way you can fund consumption is to take money out of production and investment, ultimately you're choking off the long-term engine of growth even if you get a short-term boost in demand.
I'm not saying anything about 'giving' consumers money. Like it or not, we live in a consumer society. Businesses are in business to sell things, and that requires consumers. So it's better if money goes into the pockets of the majority than into those of the minority. Growth does come from innovation and improvements; but you still need people to buy the innovative, improved products. It used to be that the U.S. produced a lot of new, innovative products. We built the best cars, the best planes, the best televisions, the best lottathings. And people bought them. But while the Japanese were improving their cars, American companies were pocketing the profits and cutting corners. Boeing still makes the best airplanes, but their New Innovative Product is years behind schedule (largely because of cost-cutting measures) and the Air Force might end up buying tankers from our European competitor. When I was a kid, any middle-class person might buy a General Aviation aircraft if he wanted one. Today, not so much. Have you looked for an American-made TV lately? There are successes, of course. I'm thinking mostly high-tech items.

The way I see it is that too much wealth is being concentrated in too small an area. When a CEO can fail utterly and still collect a billion-dollar bonus, something is wrong. Rewards should be paid for performance, and that includes the performance of the people who actually do the work. A business should take into account the well-being of the workers, and by extension the country as a whole, instead of the well-being of the stockholders. I know what you're going to say: 'If the stockholders don't make a profit, then they won't invest in the company!' Well, that's true. But if you kill the goose, you don't get any eggs. I'm trying very hard to avoid 'redistributing the wealth'. But the fact is that to make a balance, you need to distribute the weight properly. In my opinion the 'top 1%' are not carrying their weight.

[Chronos]

Of course this is a generalization, but you could say that liberals are afraid of the market.Then why is it that liberals want cap and trade, while conservatives oppose it? Why is it that conservatives are afraid that health insurance companies will go bankrupt if they're forced to compete? Why is it that liberals want the value of precious metals to be set by market forces, while conservatives want to nationalize the precious metal industry?

[F. U. Shakespeare]

(snip) Why is it that liberals want the value of precious metals to be set by market forces, while conservatives want to nationalize the precious metal industry?

I'm not questioning you, but could you elaborate or give a cite on the part I've bolded? My first thought was that it related to the Pauls' affinity for the gold standard, but isn't that the opposite of nationalizing gold?

[Ludovic]

I'm not questioning you, but could you elaborate or give a cite on the part I've bolded? My first thought was that it related to the Pauls' affinity for the gold standard, but isn't that the opposite of nationalizing gold?

Presumably it would involve the government having to back the currency with gold, which would involve increasing the scope of government, since they would probably be the buyer or seller of the vast majority of gold in America. In addition, the last time we had the gold standard, the government practically did nationalize the industry, as there was severe restrictions on private ownership of gold.

[Peremensoe]

Unless I am mistaken, restrictions on private ownership of gold were in place for only forty years at the tail end of the gold-standard era. Also, I'd argue that a gold-based currency means that all transactions are in effect sales of gold, so obviously nearly all such will be between two private parties.

I am mystified by Sam Stone's claim that products are always increasing in quality, particularly at the low end. As far as I can see, an awful lot of the stuff that poor (and non-poor) people spend their money on is absolute junk, trash when new, not even worth the low price from China. Much of our cheapest food is garbage. Are matters so different in Canada?

[foolsguinea]

Libertarians and classical liberals believe that the market is just the expressed desires of free people in a society, and they're perfectly comfortable letting the people just choose their own path, and that order will emerge and the future will be just fine without all the bright boys in clipboards running everything from Washington.[emph. added]

This is why I'm no longer a libertarian. What you're saying is that order will emerge from chaos, & it doesn't matter what we do because everything will turn out all right in the end. This is Pollyannaish nonsense, & it has in fact in our era led directly to great environmental ruin.

[Chronos]

Presumably it would involve the government having to back the currency with gold, which would involve increasing the scope of government, since they would probably be the buyer or seller of the vast majority of gold in America.Going onto the gold standard is just another way of saying that the price of gold will be fixed by government fiat. Saying that one dollar is defined as the value of 1/1000 of an ounce of gold, or whatever, is the same as saying that the price of one ounce of gold shall be 1000 dollars. It doesn't even matter if the government itself is actually doing the buying and selling, since they'll be setting the price anyway.

[Sam Stone]

[emph. added]

This is why I'm no longer a libertarian. What you're saying is that order will emerge from chaos, & it doesn't matter what we do because everything will turn out all right in the end. This is Pollyannaish nonsense, & it has in fact in our era led directly to great environmental ruin.

It's not chaos - it's the self-directed human action of millions of people, each acting in their own interest.

This isn't an argument for anarchy. It's an argument for government acting as minimally as possible while working towards the goal of keeping markets free, ensuring that competitive forces remain strong and that the failures of the market are corrected. But the goal of government should be to create an environment where markets work the best - not to displace markets with central planning and coercion.

It's also not a fringe belief - the majority of economists agree with it. Including this wacky guy (http://www.amazon.com/Self-Organizing-Economy-Paul-R-Krugman/dp/1557866996).

[ElvisL1ves]

So what's so special about "the market" that humanity should be utterly subservient to it? Why the fetish? Is that born of fear of having to follow the rules of society, rather than nurture Rand-porn fantasies of being the special Achievers who should not have to do anything for Parasites?

Guess what - the rest of us do understand how markets work. We understand how it gets manipulated by those who put their own interests ahead of society's, and that eliminating controls is exactly the opposite of how to prevent that. So we don't make this chimera called "the free market" our religion. We know better.

[Starving Artist]

So what's so special about "the market" that humanity should be utterly subservient to it? Why the fetish? Is that born of fear of having to follow the rules of society, rather than nurture Rand-porn fantasies of being the special Achievers who should not have to do anything for Parasites?

Guess what - the rest of us do understand how markets work. We understand how it gets manipulated by those who put their own interests ahead of society's, and that eliminating controls is exactly the opposite of how to prevent that. So we don't make this chimera called "the free market" our religion. We know better. Just what exactly have these evil capitalist manipulators done to harm society? Provide HD color tv's for $300? Cars that last 300,000 miles with computers that can tell when your tires need air? Satellite television with hundreds of channels for $100 a month or so? Computers for a few hundred bucks? The ability to go to a grocery store and select from multiple brands just about anything you're looking for?

Just how is it exactly that you've been hurt or your life negatively impacted by having the market respond to what people want? And how exactly have these powerful people who "put their own interests ahead of yours" hurt you?

Your post is a perfect example of why conservatives think liberals are fearful.

[Chronos]

Just what exactly have these evil capitalist manipulators done to harm society? Provide HD color tv's for $300? Cars that last 300,000 miles with computers that can tell when your tires need air? Satellite television with hundreds of channels for $100 a month or so? Computers for a few hundred bucks? The ability to go to a grocery store and select from multiple brands just about anything you're looking for? Insurance that drops customers as soon as they need it, oil companies that keep us involved in the Middle East shedding our blood and wealth so their product remains available, industries of all sorts who ignore safety standards and enable disasters like the BP spill and the Tennessee coal ash spill, plus smaller-scale tragedies to individual workers...

Nope, those capitalists aren't hurting a thing!

[Starving Artist]

Insurance that drops customers as soon as they need it, oil companies that keep us involved in the Middle East shedding our blood and wealth so their product remains available, industries of all sorts who ignore safety standards and enable disasters like the BP spill and the Tennessee coal ash spill, plus smaller-scale tragedies to individual workers...1. I have known many people, including myself, who've had health care paid for by insurance companies without a bit of trouble. I've never known anyone who got dropped as soon as they need it, and doctors are beginning to refuse new patients if they lack insurance. All of this tells me that insurance pays most of the time. This view is further supported by the fact that so many people are afraid of being without it and that they are willing to pay as much as they do for it.

This is not to say there isn't any misbehavior on the part of insurance companies but to whatever degree it exists, it can be corrected the same way we correct other forms of malfeasance and that is with laws and punishment. Insurance company wrongdoing, to the degree it exists in fact rather than what one hears around here, is not an indictment of the free market, but rather a small part of it annd one that can easily be corrected without abandoning or even modifying the free market itself.

2. The free market as a matter of fact is working furiously to find alternative energy sources to free us from dependence on the Middle East for oil.

The idea that we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan because of oil is ridiculous and I'm not going to bother arguing against it.

3. BP? Tennessee? "Small-scale tragedies"?

*cough*Chernobyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)*cough*K-141 Kursk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_K-141_Kursk)*cough*

As we can see, even full-scale government control can't prevent accidents and personal tragedies. SoI don't see any point in arguing about that either.

So, all in all, all I see is leftie whinging over things that either don't exist or that can't be helped anyway, no matter how much government there is.

[foolsguinea]

It's also not a fringe belief - the majority of economists agree with it. Including this wacky guy (http://www.amazon.com/Self-Organizing-Economy-Paul-R-Krugman/dp/1557866996).What do biologists believe? Or climate physicists? Or geographers?

I have to live in the material world, Sam. The oceans are dying, markets can get stuffed.

[Starving Artist]

What do biologists believe? Or climate physicists? Or geographers?

I have to live in the material world, Sam. The oceans are dying, markets can get stuffed.Since the early seventies I've seen the left wholeheartedly embrace and wail to the heavens that the world is running out of trees, out of oil, out of ozone, that an ice age is coming, that global warming is coming, and now apparently the oceans are dying.

Well, we never ran out of trees; we never ran out of oil; we aren't all dying from holes in the ozone; we aren't encased in ice; global warming statistics and the methods used to obtain them are in a state of chaos; but now the oceans are dying? The huge, deep oceans that cover 70& of the globe and are impacted by countries ranging from China to Russia to Europe, the Middle-East, India, Australia, etc, are dying? And the U.S. could save them if only it abandoned its free-market economy? :smack:

Again, is it any wonder people think liberals are fearful?

[Chronos]

3. BP? Tennessee? "Small-scale tragedies"?

*cough*Chernobyl*cough*K-141 Kursk*cough*False dichotomy. I don't think that anyone here (other than Commisar, I suppose, but he's not even in this thread) has ever argued that the soviet way of doing things was all that great, either.

And the bit about how we didn't actually run out of ozone or trees is hardly an indication that liberals are fearful. We saw that problems were coming, and so, instead of panicking and burying our heads in the sand, we solved them. We didn't fear those things, because we knew we could beat them. Admittedly, we didn't solve the ice age problem, but that's because there never was an ice age problem, nor did anyone ever think that there was.

[Starving Artist]

We saw that problems were coming, and so, instead of panicking and burying our heads in the sand, we solved them.We solved them? We solved them? The U.S. single-handedly saved the world from the depletion of trees, oil and ozone by passing a few government regulations on U.S. businesses? Pretty good feat, considering the rest of world by and large didn't give a shit. I thought liberals didn't believe in U.S. exceptionalism.

Admittedly, we didn't solve the ice age problem, but that's because there never was an ice age problem, nor did anyone ever think that there was. I most enthusiastically beg to differ! (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims)

[Baboonanza]

Since the early seventies I've seen the left wholeheartedly embrace and wail to the heavens that the world is running out of trees, out of oil, out of ozone, that an ice age is coming, that global warming is coming, and now apparently the oceans are dying.

Well, we never ran out of trees; we never ran out of oil; we aren't all dying from holes in the ozone; we aren't encased in ice; global warming statistics and the methods used to obtain them are in a state of chaos; but now the oceans are dying? The huge, deep oceans that cover 70& of the globe and are impacted by countries ranging from China to Russia to Europe, the Middle-East, India, Australia, etc, are dying? And the U.S. could save them if only it abandoned its free-market economy? :smack:

Again, is it any wonder people think liberals are fearful?
The US hasn't run out of trees, but that is in large part because you import wood and wood -derived products from places that still practice unsustainable deforrestation. The Amazon continues to shrink, and god knows what will happen when that goes.

We haven't run out of cheap oil yet, and I'll grant you that there has been a lot of failed predictions and false doom-mongering on the issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious danger. Is your position that it won't run out or that it won't fuck everything up when it does?

We aren't dying of holes in the ozone largely because the world banned CFCs so that we wouldn't, you know, die from holes in the ozone layer.

The oceans are fucking dying. Besides pollution the human race has eaten everything. Everything. Almost all ficheries are like desserts compared to how they were before the advent of trawl fishing and steam engines.

Only a blinkered, self-centered fool would argue that we shouldn't be deeply concerned about these issues. If humanity survives the next 100 years without some sort of epic collapse it will because some people cared enough to try and solve the problems instead of just waving them away because they were inconvienient.

[Baboonanza]

I most enthusiastically beg to differ! (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims)
Science being wrong once does not make it wrong every time. Cimate science in particular is light-years ahead of where it was in the 70s. This computer has more processing power than the supercomputers they were running their models on then.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Mark me down entirely in the “projection” camp, both from a psychological perspective, and from a Karl-Rovian-calculated-political-manipulation perspective (e.g. if your guy’s military service reeks of elitist avoidance of actual threat, attack the other guy’s more distinguished combat service history).

What always surprises me in these discussions are assertions that psychological, dispositional or constitutional factors or processes shouldn’t be associated with political orientation, or that any given such factor should be associated with either end of the political spectrum equally. I don’t follow the logic there whatsoever. People don’t just stumble into political beliefs. Look at the level of emotion that often goes along with the expression of political beliefs or with debates or discussions on the subject. Clearly how people function emotionally should be related to the political orientation they take.

Empirically, it does appear that dispositional tendencies involving fear and anxiety are associated with conservative political beliefs.

I think I’ve cited Jost et al., (2003) here before, but here’s the bottom line from the abstract:

[…]A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r=.50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.

I don’t believe I’ve cited the following article in previous SDMB discussions of the topic. What’s nice about it is that it is a longitudinal study, allowing for better control of competing explanatory processes and allowing for the examination of developmental change:

[…]Higher levels of [threat perceptions of realistic threat and intergroup anxiety, the ideological motives of system justification and social dominance orientation] at the end of students’ second and third years of college were associated with more politically conservative attitudes at the end of students’ fourth year of college, again controlling for precollege expressions.

Matthews, M., Levin, S. and Sidanius, J. (2009), A Longitudinal Test of the Model of Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Political Psychology, 30: 921–936.

The following is not specific to anxiety, but to sensitivity to disgust, which is itself associated with a disposition to anxiety. I think it illustrates very well the idea that innate dispositional tendencies drive things like political affiliation pretty well. Otherwise, why should one’s disposition towards feeling disgust have any relationship one way or another with political orientation.

[…] We report two studies suggesting that a predisposition to feel disgust (‘‘disgust sensitivity’’) is associated with more conservative political attitudes […]In the first study, we document a positive correlation between disgust sensitivity and self-reported conservatism in a broad sample of US adults. In Study 2 we show that while disgust sensitivity is associated with more conservative attitudes on a range of political issues, this relationship is strongest for purity-related issues*specifically, abortion and gay marriage.

Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A. & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition & Emotion, 23(4), 714-725.

Thus, it appears that people develop conservative political beliefs, at least in part, due to innate dispositions towards greater sensitivity to fear and disgust

[The Tooth]

Since the early seventies I've seen the left wholeheartedly embrace and wail to the heavens that the world is running out of trees, out of oil, out of ozone, that an ice age is coming, that global warming is coming, and now apparently the oceans are dying.

Well, we never ran out of trees; we never ran out of oil; we aren't all dying from holes in the ozone; we aren't encased in ice; global warming statistics and the methods used to obtain them are in a state of chaos; but now the oceans are dying? The huge, deep oceans that cover 70& of the globe and are impacted by countries ranging from China to Russia to Europe, the Middle-East, India, Australia, etc, are dying? And the U.S. could save them if only it abandoned its free-market economy? :smack:

Again, is it any wonder people think liberals are fearful?

Some claim it, yes. I wonder about the 'thinking' bit.

[thethunderchild]

(BTW it took me a while to figure out that the last one is dog-whistle for "the brown people are coming")


No, it's a dog-whistle for
1. No longer being able to travel the width and breadth of the country and only have to know English.

2. No longer being able to travel in National Parks adjacent to Mexico and not be shot by someone smuggling in either drugs or people

3. Watching the Florida aquifers - not to mention the Everglades - dry up because god forbid we should keep other people from coming to the state that is running out of water. The same can be said for California.

4. Not being able to find work, and being put on welfare by the nanny state, who have done their best to destroy the economic engine of this country.

[Raiko]

Man's capacity to evolve his thinking at the very last possible minute is astounding. I have always beleived and will continue to beleive until I am proven wrong that science will develope a solution not a second before it would be too late.

[Kevbo]

Since the early seventies I've seen the left wholeheartedly embrace and wail to the heavens that the world is running out of trees, out of oil, out of ozone, that an ice age is coming, that global warming is coming, and now apparently the oceans are dying.

I grew up around Denver in the 1960-70's. A brown cloud hanging over the City was so common that it was worth remarking on when it was absent. This is not the case when I visit today, and yet there is far more car traffic today, and the are has spread and in-filled to where the population has probably doubled if not more, and yet people actually run in the downtown area without the burning throats and coughing fits that made it better to wait for the next bus in the early 1980s. I have no doubt, that if today's cars were what we had in the 70's people would be dying just from trying to breath.

Detroit and other automakers didn't start making cars that didn't pollute to high heavens, especially at altitude, until EPA regulations forced the change. It took real money to build out the light rail system and HOV lanes. These things have made a huge difference that anyone who was there can see and smell and taste.

Market forces won't make it happen due to the tragedy of the commons. What is done for the good of all is pretty much against nearly every individual's self interest. Only when we all agree to suffer a bit for the collective good can these changes happen, and government is the way we make such agreements. Yes, a few individuals with the means to do it can buy a Prius, but it won't make the air better until the cheaper/less green options are denied the self serving among us.

As for the trees and the oil, I can only take it that you haven't been following the price trends of gasoline and lumber.

[kauffner]

Fearmongering is what modern liberalism is all about: Fear of global warming, ozone hole, DDT, energy crisis, overpopulation, and resource depletion. Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won't have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Fearmongering is what modern liberalism is all about: Fear of global warming, ozone hole, DDT, energy crisis, overpopulation, and resource depletion. Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won't have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up.Don't you mean: "Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won't have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up, unless there is change"?

[HMS Irruncible]

Fearmongering is what modern liberalism is all about: Fear of global warming, ozone hole, DDT, energy crisis, overpopulation, and resource depletion. Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won't have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up.
Yes, and many other kids are having it drilled into them that there is a real threat that their children will grow up in a Spanish-speaking country under Sharia law where white people aren't the majority and gays can throw it in your face that they're married. Yeah, sure, liberals are fearmongers and conservatives are completely chill. :rolleyes:

[JRDelirious]

3. Watching the Florida aquifers - not to mention the Everglades - dry up because god forbid we should keep other people from coming to the state that is running out of water. The same can be said for California. You do know that the majority of influx of population to both states over the years has been Americans from other states, don't you? Unless we establish internal passports, the only thing Florida could do would be post a big sign on I-95 that says "we ain't building one damn more housing unit at any price nor are we permitting one damn more plant or business to open here". That particular problem is an externality of an economic policy based on growth for growth's own sake, but we really don't yet have anything better to offer in the short run except "settling for less", and neither the rich, the poor, the middle, the left, the right, nor anyone, seems to embrace that proposition.


In any case I must also coment that some of the posters simply have reiterated the position that Liberals (or Conservatives) are afraid or are fearmongers, or their perception of what is it that the Liberals or Conservatives fear. EVERYONE fears something. Or if you don't like "fear" then at least everyone is wary of something. But is it really a matter that the political alignments are BASED upon fear? If I supported certain policies because I believed it would be a bad thing if soviet-style communism became dominant, was that "fear"? If I support certain policies because I believe clean air and healthy children are worth more than rising stock values, is that "fear"? Or is really very often just a rhetorical device to degrade what the other side values, or to galvanize those who are potentially sympathetic but won't act unless given a sense of urgency?

[kauffner]

Don't you mean: "Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won't have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up, unless there is change"?

Gore talks about a global warming apocalypse in 10 ten years. According to Paul Ehrlich on overpopulation or the Club of Rome on resource depletion, we all be starving already.

Yes, and many other kids are having it drilled into them that there is a real threat that their children will grow up in a Spanish-speaking country under Sharia law where white people aren't the majority and gays can throw it in your face that they're married. Yeah, sure, liberals are fearmongers and conservatives are completely chill. :rolleyes:

I never said that conservatives don't fear anything, although this seems to be more of a list of predictions that the liberal press celebrates triumphetly. Iran giving some terrorist group a nuke to blow up New York while Obama patiently explains to them that he actually has a Muslim middle name -- there's something to fear.

[GIGObuster]

Gore talks about a global warming apocalypse in 10 ten years. According to Paul Ehrlich on overpopulation or the Club of Rome on resource depletion, we all be starving already.

Cite please, as usual what I see here is not what Gore said.

I never said that conservatives don't fear anything, although this seems to be more of a list of predictions that the liberal press celebrates triumphetly. Iran giving some terrorist group a nuke to blow up New York while Obama patiently explains to them that he actually has a Muslim middle name -- there's something to fear.
Fear itself?

The reality is that if that were the case Iran would become a crater. Iran is being reckless, but I do not think that they would go mad and give the technology to groups that caused the US to rain destruction upon nations that did not support those groups even.

[kauffner]

Cite please, as usual what I see here is not what Gore said.

"Humanity (has) ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced." This is from his movie's web site. It was put up in 2006, so we now have 6 years to live.


"The reality is that if that were the case Iran would become a crater. Iran is being reckless, but I do not think that they would go mad and give the technology to groups that caused the US to rain destruction upon nations that did not support those groups even.

You're counting on Obama to nuke Iran?? If he doesn't act to prevent Iran from getting nukes, that means he's made a decision not to act. A blast might not even interrupt his vacation. After 9/11, the former Clinton administration poohbahs took to the airwaves to tell us not to retaliate in any way. In any case, the leaders of Iran are ready to sacrifice the Iranian people to help bring about final apocalypse and the coming the 12th Imam, or at least they say they are. They have sacrificed a great deal over many years to get nukes.

[GIGObuster]

"Humanity (has) ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced." This is from his movie's web site. It was put up in 2006, so we now have 6 years to live.
Read it again, it does not say apocalypse or the end of the world.

And considering what took place in Pakistan and Russia this year I think he was on the money.

You're counting on Obama to nuke Iran?? If he doesn't act to prevent Iran from getting nukes, that means he's made a decision not to act. A blast might not even interrupt his vacation. After 9/11, the former Clinton administration poohbahs took to the airwaves to tell us not to retaliate in any way. In any case, the leaders of Iran are ready to sacrifice the Iranian people to help bring about final apocalypse and the coming the 12th Imam, or at least they say they are. They have sacrificed a great deal over many years to get nukes.
And here I see yet again a failure of reading properly, the issue was the Iranians giving weapons to unreliable terrorists, if you have missed the news, many do follow the wishes of Saudi Arabia in the sense that if terrorists get a hand on a nuke, one likely target would be Iran.

[GIGObuster]

But I will let this Republican professor at BYU explain why scientists do not dismiss Al Gore like many on the right would like.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/
“Why don’t you criticize Al Gore for all his misrepresentations?” The implication is that I, and others like me, are being intellectually dishonest by selectively criticizing only those who are pushing for doing nothing about climate change, while ignoring “alarmists” who exaggerate.

If you really want to fathom why scientists like me typically don’t get all worked up about Al Gore, you have to understand a couple things from the outset.

1. Scientists expect journalists and popularizers to get a few things wrong when explaining scientific work.

Most scientific work is pretty specialized, technical stuff. It isn’t easy to take something like that and boil it down for popular consumption without glossing over a few important points. The problem becomes worse when we try to explain our work in simplified terms to a journalist or popularizer, who will then try to boil it down even more for the masses. Boiling down technical information is a tricky balancing act, and it often takes an expert to tell when simplification crosses the line into blatant error.

The most extreme example I know of is the time a geophysicist colleague of mine was interviewed by a reporter from the student newspaper. He told the reporter how he uses seismic waves to figure out what is under the surface of the Earth, e.g., he can locate features like the Moho, which marks the transition between the crust and mantle. My friend went on to explain that bats use a similar strategy to locate bugs like mosquitos, except that bats use sound waves instead of seismic waves. When the article came out, it included a “quotation” in which my friend supposedly said that he could use seismic waves to find a mosquito at the Moho.

The upshot is that scientists are usually pretty resigned to the fact that the popular media is going to botch some of the details, so we’re generally happy if they get the overall gist right.

2. Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is not that bad, frankly.

Yes, there are a couple errors. Yes, in a few cases he focuses on “worst-case scenarios,” rather than communicating the full range of risk. But the fact is that he got the most important points right, and the problems aren’t that serious from the perspective of most scientists who have examined the movie. Tim Lambert collected reactions from a number of scientists about a list of nine alleged errors in the movie, for example. While they didn’t always agree about the status of individual “errors,” there was general agreement that the list was too long. In most cases, it was questionable whether they were really errors at all.

In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. ”Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.”

Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing?

And no, I didn’t vote for Gore.
So, besides being an attempt to kill the messenger, dismissing Gore is just an excuse to ignore that the science he mentioned still supports almost all of what he said.

[kauffner]

So, besides being an attempt to kill the messenger, dismissing Gore is just an excuse to ignore that the science he mentioned still supports almost all of what he said.

Freeman Dyson is one of the most prominent scientists alive today, possibly even a better source than Al Gore or some guy on a blog. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/12/the-question-of-global-warming/

[GIGObuster]

Freeman Dyson is one of the most prominent scientists alive today, possibly even a better source than Al Gore or some guy on a blog. Check it out:

Uh, no he is not a good source. And once again, you are not sounding credible at all when you describe a professor at BYU as "some guy on a blog"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/

In the New York Review of Books, Freeman Dyson reviews two recent ones about global warming, but his review is mostly shaped by his own rather selective vision.
1. Carbon emissions are not a problem because in a few years genetic
engineers will develop “carbon-eating trees” that will sequester carbon in soils. Ah, the famed Dyson vision thing, this is what we came for. The seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 shows that the lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the air before it is exchanged with another in the land biosphere is about 12 years. Therefore if the trees could simply be persuaded to drop diamonds instead of leaves, repairing the damage to the atmosphere could be fast, I suppose. The problem here, unrecognized by Dyson, is that the business-as-usual he’s defending would release almost as much carbon to the air by the end of the century as the entire reservoir of carbon stored on land, in living things and in soils combined. The land carbon reservoir would have to double in size in order keep up with us. This is too visionary for me to bet the farm on.

4. Majority scientists are contemptuous of those in the minority who don’t believe in the dangers of climate change.
I often find myself contemptuous of efforts to misrepresent science to a lay audience. The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It’s made up to look like science, but it’s PR. We have documented Lindzen’s tortured and twisted representation of the science to non-scientists here and here. If Lindzen had a credible argument to support his gut feeling (and apparently Dyson’s), I can promise that I for one would take it seriously. I’ve got kids at home whose future I worry about. If Lindzen were right, no one would be happier about that than me. But I do get contemptuous of BS.

http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/15/freeman-dyson-climate-crackpot/
Dyson says many things that are just plain wrong: “There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global.” Uhh, no. The warming is global — as every set of data makes clear — that’s why it’s called global warming.

He says the “fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated” because he is certain the climate models do not reflect reality. I agree they don’t reflect reality– but that leads me to the opposite conclusion. Dyson fails to ask whether the simplifications and omissions in climate models lead them to overestimate or underestimate climate impacts. So far, they have underestimated things like Arctic ice loss, mass loss of the great ice sheets, and sea-level rise. They don’t model many feedbacks very well, and we know today that most feedbacks are amplifying.

No nonsense essay would be complete without a nonsense solution. He believes “the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management” and that the entire climate problem can be solved by increasing topsoil:

We do not know whether intelligent land-management could increase the growth of the topsoil reservoir by four billion tons of carbon per year, the amount needed to stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Actually we kinda do know. The best data suggest we are losing billions of tons of topsoil each year. A major effort will be required just to stop that loss rate from increasing sharply. Indeed, global warming itself is projected to cause both increased flooding, which washes away topsoil, and increased droughts, which destroy topsoil.

The entire essay is riddled with the kind of mistakes and dubious assertions we saw in Crichton’s novel. One final point. Dyson asserts:

They [climate models] do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Uhh, no. Climate modelers are skeptical like all scientists, but contrary to what Dyson says, they do base their models on real-world data, and their models are passable at modeling what has actually happened to the climate so far. As noted, where they have been inadequate is in underestimating the impacts we have felt so far.

But what really irritates me about this statement — which implies climate modelers are ivory tower theoreticians with no connection to the real world –is that it comes from someone who is an ivory tower theoretician with no connection to the real world, without the most basic understanding of climate science or climate scientists (has he gone to the trouble of talking to any?), a man who actually believed it was a good idea to pursue powering a spacecraft with nuclear detonations. People who live in glass greenhouses shouldn’t throw stones.

[kauffner]

It doesn't sound like you even bothered read Dyson. Yes, I'm sure he makes mistakes. I'm also sure that the realclimate people disagree with what he says, and so what? One point Dyson makes is that no matter what you believe about the climate, economic growth and technical advances will give us the tools and resources to deal whatever is coming. This is the opposite of the Gore solution, which is basically to shut the economy down.

[Marley23]

"Humanity (has) ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced." This is from his movie's web site. It was put up in 2006, so we now have 6 years to live.
That's not what he said. He didn't say "we're going to die in 10 years." He said "we're going to have a major catastrophe if we don't act in the next 10 years." Whatever disagreement you have with Gore about climatology - and he did make some extreme predictions - misinterpreting what he said isn't going to help.

[GIGObuster]

It doesn't sound like you even bothered read Dyson. Yes, I'm sure he makes mistakes. I'm also sure that the realclimate people disagree with what he says, and so what?
They are scientists too (the OP's at RealClimate), and they demonstrate where the consensus is.

One point Dyson makes is that no matter what you believe about the climate,

(This just makes him a really useless source)

economic growth and technical advances will give us the tools and resources to deal whatever is coming. This is the opposite of the Gore solution, which is basically to shut the economy down.
Cite? That is not his say so, but what teabaggers and denier republicans say.

[GIGObuster]

I forgot to add that even Dyson has admitted that he is not an expert in this matter and he is not currently engaged in the research.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

It is the experts in Climate Research or related science that we have to rely on; and no, scientists are not experts on everything, they specialize and then become experts.

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/8/qZzwRwFDXw0

[Banaticus]

The reality is that if that were the case Iran would become a crater. Iran is being reckless, but I do not think that they would go mad and give the technology to groups that caused the US to rain destruction upon nations that did not support those groups even.
But doesn't President Ahmadinejad believe that the second coming of Jesus Christ is nigh (Muslims don't believe that Jesus Christ will come back as the Son of God, but rather as a prophet from Allah)? Hasn't he also stated that this cannot happen until the world is filled with chaos and the Mahdi has been leading the war against the Antichrist? I do believe he's also said that the US is the Antichrist, hasn't he?

It kind of seems like his religious beliefs would encourage driving America to war, especially a war with Iran.

[GIGObuster]

But doesn't President Ahmadinejad believe that the second coming of Jesus Christ is nigh (Muslims don't believe that Jesus Christ will come back as the Son of God, but rather as a prophet from Allah)? Hasn't he also stated that this cannot happen until the world is filled with chaos and the Mahdi has been leading the war against the Antichrist? I do believe he's also said that the US is the Antichrist, hasn't he?

It kind of seems like his religious beliefs would encourage driving America to war, especially a war with Iran.
I would also remember how very religious rapture guys like Ted Haggard (Gay homophobe) had the ear of George Bush and gave him guidance on the way to the Iraq War.

The difference IMO is that the US was not stupid to gave weapons of mass destruction to a third party expecting them to hit on Iraq, when it would be more likely that the US would be the target. The problem that is ignored here is that Bin Laden and company are radical wahabbi (radicals of an already radical Muslim group), and wahabbi's see Shia Islam (Iran) as an evil twisting of their faith.

I still think that Iran is being reckless, but they are not idiots, they will not give nukes to the terrorists willingly, the most likely way for terrorists to get a hold of nukes will be on places like Pakistan. If the government falls down I expect a mad scramble for the weapons there.

[Giant Robot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXd17TJ_m3Q

[El Gui]

Looks like conservatives might be the fearful ones?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8228192/Political-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Looks like conservatives might be the fearful ones?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8228192/Political-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html

But you cited the wicked, debbil-worshiping Science as your source. Which, as every true Conservative knows, is a Lib-ur-el (read "worse than Communist") propaganda-thingee.

So it don't count.

[kauffner]

They are scientists too (the OP's at RealClimate), and they demonstrate where the consensus is.

Why is RealClimate consensus, but Dyson not? By definition, it's not a scientific consensus as long as there are prominent scientists who disagree. Here is a list of 800 peer reviewed articles that are skeptical of various aspects of AGW: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html The often-repeated claim that 97 percent of scientists support "the consensus" is based on a Web survey with fewer 100 self-selected participants.


Cite? That is not his say so, but what teabaggers and denier republicans say.

There is an extended discussion of the advantages of economic growth in the article I cited before: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/12/the-question-of-global-warming/ Dyson calls it DICE (Dynamic Model of Climate and the Economy). The number one reason I don't believe in AGW is because it is led by people who would say anything to advance an anti-growth agenda. John P. Holdren, Obama's scientist advisor, was a heavy duty ice age monger back in the 1970s, just like Steven Schneider. So he can do cooling, he can do warming, whatever advances the cause. Check out this graphic: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/time_gw_covers_large.jpg

[kauffner]

It is the experts in Climate Research or related science that we have to rely on; and no, scientists are not experts on everything, they specialize and then become experts.

By this "logic," we should ask paranormal researchers if ghosts are real.

[GIGObuster]

Why is RealClimate consensus, but Dyson not? By definition, it's not a scientific consensus as long as there are prominent scientists who disagree. Here is a list of 800 peer reviewed articles that are skeptical of various aspects of AGW: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html The often-repeated claim that 97 percent of scientists support "the consensus" is based on a Web survey with fewer 100 self-selected participants.
Check this thread and see what dopers thought about PopTech and his sorry list.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=568429

There is an extended discussion of the advantages of economic growth in the article I cited before: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/12/the-question-of-global-warming/ Dyson calls it DICE (Dynamic Model of Climate and the Economy). The number one reason I don't believe in AGW is because it is led by people who would say anything to advance an anti-growth agenda. John P. Holdren, Obama's scientist advisor, was a heavy duty ice age monger back in the 1970s, just like Steven Schneider. So he can do cooling, he can do warming, whatever advances the cause. Check out this graphic: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/time_gw_covers_large.jpg
:rolleyes:

"Watts up" is also one of the most pathetic citations you can make.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/anthony-watts-pants-on-fire/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/9/-wbzK4v7GsM

[Beware of Doug]

Don't you mean: "Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won't have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up, unless there is change"?No, unless we completely destroy what little is left of American industry by protecting the environment, which will slaughter what slender profit margin still exists. It's us or nature - whose side are you on???

(I don't believe this; I'm just trying to show how comically bozotic the reasoning is. Why, you'd almost think the conservatives are the fearful ones...until you realize that it's a cynical argument fed to the gullible to keep them happy about the huge profitability and low responsibility of big business.)

[GIGObuster]

By this "logic," we should ask paranormal researchers if ghosts are real.

You did not check the video uh?

Incidentally, the experts you check are magicians or psychologists that do properly explain how humans come up with "paranormal" phenomenons.

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/episodes.do?episodeid=123929&ep=313

[GIGObuster]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/12/the-question-of-global-warming/

As for Dyson, when his results are clearly based on erroneous assumptions, it is safe to say that his solutions will also be off base.

[GIGObuster]

I forgot to add: Nordhaus, the economist that made/works with DICE, that Dyson claims to be using, is frequently mentioned as a global warming skeptic; even though he has been advocating an internationally harmonized $30 to $50 /ton carbon tax be adopted. He emphasizes building an international framework for carbon taxation in case increases as new information warrants.

This is BTW a constant for denier sources nowadays, when finally good citations appear on this subject, the citations turn out to be twisted to say that they agree with the overall claims of the deniers, and this is more notorious when people of some expertise appear to defend the anti-science position.

It does not matter that people with more experience like Pat Michaels, Lomborg or Norhaus agree with the science and even report that indeed AGW is a problem. Unfortunately some of those experts continue to play to (and get paid by the) denier media and politicians to continue to get those experts to throw bones to the deniers that sound vaguely like the anti science they peddle.

The deniers think that they will continue to fool all. Well, at least they do fool a good chunk of the American people.

[Mathura]

I think it's all in their names. This is a group of people who willingly called themselves 'teabaggers' whether they understood what it means or implies is a different question lol.

[kauffner]

Incidentally, the experts you check are magicians or psychologists that do properly explain how humans come up with "paranormal" phenomenons.

I have no interest in the paranormal. My point was that people whose livelihoods depend on a certain belief can't be considered objective on the subject: priests on Catholicism, therapists on psychotherapy, paranormal researchers on ghosts, and AGW researchers on AGW. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph has been repeatedly exposed as a hoax, a "trick" to "hide the decline," as the Climategate e-mails put it. Do we ask him, and only him, if the accusations are true? That's basically what the academic committees investigating Climategate did.

[kauffner]

I forgot to add: Nordhaus, the economist that made/works with DICE, that Dyson claims to be using, is frequently mentioned as a global warming skeptic; even though he has been advocating an internationally harmonized $30 to $50 ton carbon tax be adopted.

First, Dyson didn't have economic argument. Now we can't trust him because the economist he uses has proposed a carbon tax. Am I keeping up?


It does not matter that people with more experience like Pat Michaels, Lomborg or Norhaus agree with the science and even report that indeed AGW is a problem.

Pat Michaels? The guy Ben Santer wants to, "beat the crap out of", according to the Climategate e-mails? He's been accepted as a member of the consensus in good standing? Well, then you might be interested in this: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global-warming/patrick-j-michaels The gold standard of science is the "reproducible result." CRU chief Phil Jones does not believe in science: “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

[GIGObuster]

I have no interest in the paranormal. My point was that people whose livelihoods depend on a certain belief can't be considered objective on the subject: priests on Catholicism, therapists on psychotherapy, paranormal researchers on ghosts, and AGW researchers on AGW. Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph has been repeatedly exposed as a hoax, a "trick" to "hide the decline," as the Climategate e-mails put it. Do we ask him, and only him, if the accusations are true? That's basically what the academic committees investigating Climategate did.

As it was not only committees in academia that exonerated the scientists, I will have to say you are still off base and unreliable.

[GIGObuster]

First, Dyson didn't have economic argument. Now we can't trust him because the economist he uses has proposed a carbon tax. Am I keeping up?
Yes, that is clear, Dyson can not be trusted as he misunderstand what the DICE guy actually said.

But there are other reasons why Dyson should be dismissed.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/27/npr-on-the-media-dyson-romm/

Pat Michaels? The guy Ben Santer wants to, "beat the crap out of", according to the Climategate e-mails? He's been accepted as a member of the consensus in good standing?
Good enough to be called to congress and to attempt to increase the doubts on how bad it could be (this is basically what guys that are still involved in the science but working for misleading outfits like the Heritage Institute and oil companies are reduced to)

And still he got the crap beat by Ben Santer:

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/2/nwPnz3AJ0qQ

Well, then you might be interested in this: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global-warming/patrick-j-michaels The gold standard of science is the "reproducible result." CRU chief Phil Jones does not believe in science: “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

As the investigation showed, most of the requests made with the freedom of information act were rejected by the officials in charge, they did agree more often than not that the requests were frivolous or silly.

And that was even before he was exonerated not only by his academic peers, but also by the British Government.

http://www.desmogblog.com/phil-jones-exonerated-british-house-commons

[kauffner]

The problem that is ignored here is that Bin Laden and company are radical wahabbi (radicals of an already radical Muslim group), and wahabbi's see Shia Islam (Iran) as an evil twisting of their faith.

They seem to be able to team up all the same, just like the Nazis and the Communists in WWII. Iran is currently arming the Taliban, which has the same ultra-Sunni ideology as al-Qaeda. In any case, Iran has its own proxy terrorist groups, namely Hamas (Sunni Palestinian) and Hezbollah (Shiite Lebanese). They don't even need a real terrorist group. They could use their own agents and then just deny everything, like when the Libyans blew up that Pan Am flight over Scotland. With any luck, this is an academic exercise. I expect Israel to hit Iran before long. Obama has already authorized the transfer of the specialized bombs they need, according to the Wikileaks documents.

[Capitaine Zombie]

They seem to be able to team up all the same, just like the Nazis and the Communists in WWII. Iran is currently arming the Taliban, which has the same ultra-Sunni ideology as al-Qaeda.

Cite (if you put in National Review, dont expect to be taken seriously) ?
By the way Nazis and Communists spent far more energy and time fighting each other than being allied, IIRC Soviet Union was the key to beating Nazi Germany. You might want to think your examples through a little more.


In any case, Iran has its own proxy terrorist groups, namely Hamas (Sunni Palestinian) and Hezbollah (Shiite Lebanese).



Since when is Hamas connected in any way with Iran? (Apart from being swarthy I mean. And speaking a language you dont understand).

[Marley23]

This thread has gone far off-topic, and it's no longer related to the recent elections. I'm locking the thread. People who are interested in the subject should start a thread in Great Debates. The subjects of climate change, fear, and terrorism probably deserve separate threads, not one big confusing one.