I’m watching the utter intransigence of the duelling parties in Washington DC and their avatars in the various media and on the net and I find I’m wondering if, at the heart of it, these warring factions are just not capable of reaching an understanding, much less a compromise, because they are fundamentally wired in radically different ways.
By way of full disclosure, I’m a moderate libertarian and right now I’m with Mercutio - “A plague on both your houses”.
Carsten Stroud
I think that’s part of what I was trying to say a few days when I started a thread about where wealth comes from: I think liberals tend to view their wealth as having been earned through a variety of historical accidents, and sometimes crimes, injustices, etc. and feel a degree of empathy for the less wealthy than do conservatives, who tend to think that their earned every red cent of their money by the sweat of their own brow, and by their natural superiority to others, so they refuse the gummint’s right to confiscate it and distribute to the lazy slobs who deserve to live in poverty. I’m not sure if this is exactly the wiring problem you’re discussing, but certainly two groups of people starting out in such radically different places are going to find it hard to agree on very much.
Carsten: Then how do you explain people who, over time, make radical changes in their political (and other) thinking?
Pseudo: In my experience, most conservatives believe that their convictions, if put into practice, would benefit poor people as well.
The Democrats have already compromised by offering a wide range of budget cuts. The Republicans have refused to reciprocate. I hardly think the current situation is symmetrical. (Although it’s certainly in the Republican’s best interest to have people believe that it is.)
Here’s a recent thread with some relevance Is this why I have trouble with politics? - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board
Political leanings aren’t hard-wired. Most children tend to take the politics of their parents and stick with it. I don’t believe that there is a genetic component, however. It has more to do with what you learn. If as a youth you always hear Regan is evil, you tend to accept it and fit it into your world view.
I once voted for Dennis Kucinich and far-left congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. My political leanings began to shift to the right around 2006 due to collected experiences. I voted for Scott Walker and Ron Johnson last November.
Moving to Great Debates from GQ.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
IMO, all beliefs, opinions and preferences and written in the brain wiring. But this statement doesn’t really mean anything in the context of this thread–brain wiring changes all the time.
I’m reading Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids by Brian Caplan, who cites studies indicating that much of the difference in political beliefs is explained by genetic heredity. Studies that removed the genetic component (by studying twins and adoptees) show that political labels are affected by upbringing, but not political beliefs. That is, if your parents were Democrats (or Republican) you’re more likely to call yourself a Democrat (or Republican); but once you take out the genetic effects you’re no more likely to have liberal (or conservative) beliefs than anyone else.
Right. There is no such thing as a 5 year old Republican or Democrat, just as there is no such thing as a 5 year old Christian. But once grown up, people tend towards the persuasion focused on as a child.
That explanation can easily be shown to be false. Conservatives in this country and others give a great deal of time and money to charities that help the poor.
Cite? Specifically, showing a difference between political categorization, normalized for wealth.
They are a matter of brain wiring (neurological disease) when religion is involved, and they are about money, or at least the perception of saving money, in all other cases. I say perception because many people vote republican thinking they will save them money, when in reality it should be perfectly clear that republicans will cost them money.
There’s this:
Well, they might give a (small) contribution to charities that indoctrinate and proselytize and intimidate people. But that’s just how their brains are wired–“This is mine, I choose to give to you of my own free will, having satisfied myself that you will be exposed to my Church’s teachings along the way, and that I’m getting a certain benefit from this investment which as I say is made totally voluntarily.”
No, they put a great deal of time and effort into organizations designed to propagandize the poor into the True Faith by blackmailing desperate people into listening to their sermons. It’s no more about compassion than converting the slaves to Christianity was.
I occasionally wonder if humans would be less inclined to imprint strongly on a religion/philosophy/political party if we were equipped with a strong enough sense of smell to be able to determine who is Pack and who is Not Pack by scent. Or maybe just who is antagonistic and who is not.
Or maybe governments could create reflexive loyalty in their populace with the release of artificial scents.
You’ll know you’ve arrived when you get the clearance to use Big Dog after shave.
You two generalize much? Even though I don’t necessarily agree with ITR champion’s comment, your response, Der Trihs, ignores the conservatives who are not fundamentalists, evangelicals, Christians, or even religious at all.