I think that Jonathan Haidt does a good job via his research of looking at both conservatives and liberals and how they approach issues. A set of his talks, etc. is listed here:
But to be even more fair, it leaves some of them to jump to the lazy conclusion that because what they say is unpopular that, in and of itself, is evidence that it is the truth.
If those are scientists who are faculty, many Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians I know on campus register as Independent to avoid conflict at the academy. They are typically fiscal conservatives, however, who are turned off by the social conservatism of the Republican party. Anecdotal evidence only of course, so take it with a grain of salt (and squeeze of lime and shot of tequila).
My guy was Jon Huntsman, the exemplar of conservative pragmatism.
Of course, the first few years of Mr. Government-regulatory-state Obama did not endear me to his campaign promises of “No-nonsense pragmatism…”
I did enjoy your analogy, however. I would add that conservatives view personal responsibility as critical: if you trip on a dangerous rock then we will help you. If you are running blind and fall off a cliff, there’s little sympathy.
Claiming that you understand conservatives because of something you read in The Nation is like claiming that you understand black people based on something you heard at a KKK rally. Obviously to understand conservatives you have to read The National Review or The Weekly Standard or something else written by a conservative. Wouldn’t you agree?
And clearly Perlstein has read a lot of that stuff (and so have I) – not just read it, but studied it intensively. Conservative rhetoric, literature and activism from the 1950s to the present is covered/quoted a lot in his three books.
If Perlstein or you have studied it intensively it doesn’t show because so much of it is wrong. I wasted about 2 minutes and read the first linked article in the OP. It was shit. I could point out areas that are just incorrect but then I dunno, based on what Perlstein has written I would be lying, or have a penchant for violence and war. Who the fuck knows what other crazy shit he would think.
If you disagree with this, you are wrong. Oh wait, that was my impression of the OP.
For conservatives, they’re always out there blaming people … women should dress more modestly if they don’t want to be raped,… (and if you disagree with those characterizations, cite me 3 instances of an elected GOP official saying the opposite of those things who’s didn’t say it in the middle of campaign season)
[/QUOTE]
Since you’re the one making the characterization, the burden of proof is on you. How many GOP officials can you quote saying what you attributed to them: “women should dress more modestly if they don’t want to be raped”? Can you name even one?
The reasoning in the OP comes across as a way for the author (of the article) to demonize his opponents. To paraphrase: “Not only are conservatives wrong but we need to realize they are wrong because their way of thinking is wrong.” It’s a more polite version of “Those dirty [insert racial sub-group here] aren’t as smart as we are”.
Can you name some conservative boards that ban liberals? I honestly don’t know of any.
As to your claim that it’s not something that only Liberals do, I’m not sure who you’re arguing with here. I specifically stated that of course Conservatives are guilty of this as well.
It’s the OP who seems to have a blind spot in that regard.
I can see that a few ways.
[ul][li]Because those who denounce the “ivory tower” are anti-science crooks who fear education and truth?[/li][li]Because the GOP base lives in a fantasy world and they fear progress?[/li][li]Because a scientific education tends to lead people away from ideas strongly identified with cultural conservatism (racial essentialism, Young Earth Creationism, Cartesian dualism, etc.)?[/li][li]Or because when you spend a lot of time trying to get grants so you can pursue science, Reaganism starts hurting your ability to make a living?[/li][/ul]
One thing I’ve noticed about conservatives is that they seldom quote their opponents directly. Instead, they deliver a distorted, heavily-spun characterization of what their agenda supposedly is: Liberals want to destroy America, they want to destroy Christianity, they want to destroy Marriage, etc.
Meanwhile, a typical post on a liberal blog (such as Right Wing Watch) is often nothing more than an at-length quote from some prominent conservative. Further commentary is often unnecessary because the outrageousness of their views is readily apparent.
So why is that? Conservatives cannot admit that there’s anything reasonable about their opponents views, so they have to make up a bunch of conspiracy-theory bullshit instead.