What situations? I’m not sure I understand the question. I am socially liberal in a libertarian sense…as long as you aren’t hurting me, I don’t care what you do. I think the government (especially at the federal level) should back way way off of regulating private behavior. (And, yes, I understand that the conservatives who are currently in power are not necessarily the poster children for this.)
My major exception is that I am pro-life, but as some of you may know from other threads, even in this area I am not vehement in insisting that ALL abortions be illegal.
So it wasn’t applying so much to a small subset of conservatives, as implying that most conservatives are authoritarian, and thus have terrible character flaws.
I think it is more than reasonable for states to have standards for education…that children need to be schooled up to a certain age, or pass minimum requirements for graduation. I don’t think that learning about evolution needs to be a requirement.
A much stronger case would have to be made here for a religious exemption, because these skills are much more necessary in life than a working knowledge of evolution.
So, there IS a difference…and a pretty major one.
And if they taught about Hinduism in a manner that makes them happy, it would offend your sensibilities of social justice…I guess there is always someone whose sensibilities are being offended. The voucher system would really help this situation.
No, actually I reacted to his saying that there are conservative authoritarians, but not liberal ones. It seems pretty clear to me that there are authoritarians on both sides…at least I am willing to see some conservatives for what they are.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Some extreme liberal positions may be misguided (gun confiscation, PeTA, anti-smoking nursemaids) but I think they come from a place of misguided compassion…/QUOTE]
But the merits of an idea or position should be judged on their results, not their intentions. There is of course, the “law of unintended consequences”; as far as unabashed dictatorial authoritarian “liberals” in history - the Bolsheviks, I Suppose, would be the classic example, along with Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, etc. Socialism is inherently authoritarian, which is why it is to be so studiously avoided.
Great! Now explain why you laughed. Is there something humorous about science? Authoritarianism? Is there something about authoritarianism that you believe makes it unable to be the subject of scientific inquiry?
I admit that I don’t like Dean’s conclusions (I reserve judgment on the actual studies, since I doubt the sociologists condemned conservatives), but that’s not what I found funny. And I don’t find either science or authoritarianism particularly funny (except maybe the fact that fascists always seem to dress funny).
What I found funny was your implication that there was such a thing as “science on authoritarianism.” At best, these studies were based on polling data, which isn’t exactly “science” in the Newtonian sense (I’m a former psychology major, so I’ve had my fair share of experience with sociology).
At worst, Dean’s book has divorced these studies from any truth that existed in their original context. I mean, do you really think the sociologists who performed these studies used words like “un-American” and “dangerous” to describe conservatives?
But what’s especially hilarious is the fact that you take this study so seriously. As if you’ve now got scientific proof that conservatives are bad people. “It’s science!”
Well, maybe. I’m all for paring down unnecessary crap from the curriculum: for example, I was required to take a Pacific Northwest history class, which consisted mainly of information about the geography of my state and countless timelines of interactions between settlers and native tribes. I’ve never used any of that information, and many years later, I can now say with confidence that it was a waste of time for everyone involved.
But you can extend that argument pretty far, and if you do, what’s the point of having standards at all? How many people really need to use algebra, world history, or English composition once they leave school? Who needs to know how to add or divide numbers on paper when a pocket calculator costs less than a sandwich? Hell, who really even needs to know the names of the planets in our solar system?
Evolution is a fundamental part of biology and medicine, and helps to answer many common questions (why do dogs, elephants, and lizards all have roughly the same body parts in roughly the same arrangement as people? why do they test drugs on animals?) as well as letting us know why we shouldn’t overuse antibiotics. If you’re looking to cut out parts of the science curriculum that aren’t “necessary in life”, there are much better places to start. Remember dissecting pigs, frogs, etc.? Who has that helped? And when was the last time you needed to know about molecular bonds, or plate tectonics, or the detailed workings of photosynthesis?
Granted, evolution is certainly important in certain areas of study, but I don’t think it is fundamental to K-12 education. Also, the criteria isn’t to cut out things that aren’t necessary, it’s to cut out things that are contrary to religious belief. I am merely saying that if math or reading were contrary to religious belief, there would be a much stronger case for overriding the parents wishes, since those skills are necessary to be able to function in society.
Actually, Nixon was a liberal Republican. If LBJ would have been a Republican today, Nixon would have been a Democrat. See, e.g., Steven Hayward’s Nixon Reconsidered (pointing out that under Nixon, social spending soared from $55 billion in 1970 (Nixon’s first budget) to $132 billion in 1975, and from 28% of the budget when LBJ left office to 40% when Nixon left; massively increased HUD and the Model Cities program; instituted automatic cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other entitlement programs; quadrupled federal spending on the arts; expanded the Federal Register 121% (vs. 19% for LBJ); expanded affirmative action and racial quotas, etc.) While LBJ increased troop levels in the Vietnam conflict to new highs (without either a formal declaration of war, UN approval, or even a large international coalition), Nixon drew down troop numbers to an almost negligible level. The Nixon Doctrine on Vietnam was based on the idea of training the South Vietnamese army to fight their own war. Nixon also expanded relations with China and the USSR.
I don’t expect liberals to start embracing Nixon anytime soon, but that’s more because of his impeachment than his record. You tell me – Is the redistribution of wealth an “authoritarian” conservative program, or an authoritarian liberal program?
Methinks you should read the thread before commenting on its comments.
Shall I go on? Or are you self-reflective enough to admit that you were wrong?
Another poster who hasn’t read the book. Sigh. Why do you think Dean and his sources refer to “Right Wing Authoritarians” and not just “right wingers” and not just “authoritarians”? And doesn’t anyone have the right to write a book about conservatives, especially since the author and his mentor were both conservatives?
I accept that that is your opinion. However, it does not jibe with social science. No, self-righteousness comes from feeling that you are undeniably right and are above reproach, for religious or other authoritarian reasons.
Then your experience is contrary to social science and directly contradicts both my personal observations and those outlined in the book. Liberals tend to have far more self-doubt and engage in far more self-examination and critical reasoning than most conservatives, especially RWAs and their leaders.
So which is it? Is it the most biased thing or am I right? I am merely reporting the fact (I am a former Catholic) that self-righteous Catholic RWA’s tend to see confession as a kind of moral “reset” button that allows them to retain their sense of sinlessness and over-upright moralistic sense of superiority. I, too, know this from experience. It is in no way a slur on Catholicism that too many Catholics – especially the RWAs among them – do not adequately understand their own faith.
Alas, that is too often precisely the case! There are entire Christian religions that are based upon the absolute belief that, once “saved”, one is saved forever, regardless of one’s subsequent behavior or beliefs. Others are not quite so lenient, but they merely require one to say the magic words again in order to return to utter self-righteousness again.
The point is that religion is the most powerful utensil to justify self-righteousness even if one is sinful or otherwise violates the expected behavior of any particular sect. Dean does not state, nor do I believe, that there is a one-to-one correspondence between religion and self-righteousness. Only that RWAs and their leaders are much more likely to be self-righteous and others, be they conservative or moderate or liberal, and further that relgion far too often aids in the self-justification of self-righteousness.
You’re welcome! The first parts of the book are the most rewarding; the last chapter is just an analysis examining Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation within actual political leaders rather than in the abstract.
Yes, the book includes the nature of the studies, the results of studies, and, in the appendices, the actual scale questions the researchers used (without personal scoring measures, however).
Whether or not I believe Liberals are self-righteous or not has nothing to do with this book. I don’t have to read it or anything else to know that Liberals are self-righteous. I see it all around me every day.
And when people are in the majority, they are much more likely to feel as though they are undeniably right…because their POV is constantly validated by those around them who feel the same way they do. I know a little something about social science, since I have a degree in Social Psychology, but anybody can figure that out with a little common sense
OK, so MY personal observations directly contradict YOUR personal observations…I guess you must be right then. :rolleyes: As Age Quod Agis points out, it’s highly unlikely that the sociologists specifically condemned conservatives. I would prefer to go to the source material and draw my own conclusions.
I was trying to say that you were right…this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. It is most definitely a slur on Catholics to imply that they think they can sin without consequences.
People believe that faith in God saves them. But the point is that the faith leads them to an understanding of their own sinfulness, and sorrow for their sinfulness.
I haven’t heard any data that leads me to believe that any of this is based on anything more than prejudice and a complete misunderstanding of both conservatives and religious people.
No, it’s social science; I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference. Right Wing Authoritarians (followers) and Social Dominating Orientation individuals (leaders) are a sub-category (albeit a very large one) of the conservative spectrum. Please recall that both authors who worked on this book, Barry Goldwater and John Dean, can only be called conservative themselves.
Furthermore, Coulter is as much a stranger to social science (and science in general) as she is to courtesy and mental health.
On the contrary. Nearly everyone in my personal life is a conservative. And furthermore, these particular conservatives fit the description of RWAs to a tee. And honest self-reflection is totally, totally alien to them. They are submissive to authority, they are aggressive on behalf of authority, they are highly conformist and conventional, they are conservatively religious, they generally have relatively little post-secondary education, they trust untrustworthy authorities, they are prejudiced (at least against homosexuals), they are narrow-minded, they are intolerant, they are dogmatic, they are uncritical towards their chosen authorities, they are awash in contradictions, they are highly suggestive, they become afraid easily, they are all Republicans, and none of them have much, if any, genuine self-awareness. So, you see, I know you and your type extremely well.
Here’s a tip for you: Go read the book instead of drowning us in empty, self-pitying rhetoric, uninformed by Dean’s actual words and the facts of social science. And try venturing into the “I Don’t Know Who the Hell I Am” section of the bookstore. (Not that you’ll read anything, of course)
That’s what social science says! It has proven scientifically that most conservatives are Right Wing Authoritarians. The fact that most authoritarians are socially conservative is secondary.
