GENIUS FORUMS

Later on in this thread I'd like to contrast "nice guys" with "bad boys", but to start off, I'd like to analyze some things I noticed in politics.

Consider the psychology of someone who is far left (democrat, liberal) in contrast to someone who is far right (republican, conservative).

The two sides are stupid (or intelligent) in different ways.

Here's my best shot at generalizing the most common way the opposite mentalities fail:

The conservative (repuke) cripples himself and the world by not thinking about and empathizing with the natural world and humanity enough. Mindless selfishness that leads to too much harm to the things he depends on. Mindless activity. I think his views often stem from an inflated self concept or excessive confidence, but this is not without some paranoia and excessive fear of being the victim. Aside from the military and police, he has the sense that he can do it all himself and doesn't need anyone's help, but is always on guard against enemies. He tends to be religious, but ironically has a survival of the fittest outlook, congratulating the strong, despising the weak, but denies Darwinism.

The liberal (dem) cripples himself and the world by thinking about and empathizing with the natural world and humanity too much, without paying enough regard to the basics needed for him to thrive individually. He doesn't worry as much about being a victim, and for this reason tends to empathize with the victim or ends up as the victim. He is characterized by a mindless selflessness (or maybe an underhanded grandiose, unrealistic sense of self?) which leads to too much dependence on the actions of people around him who are harmful. Mindless passivity. Too often, the liberal views stem from a weak self concept, the sense that he needs help from others, and that he can't do it alone. He tends to be more scientific, accepts evolution, but wants the weak protected from destruction and degradation, which isn't always bad, but when he can't take care of himself and is tortured with indignation, then that's not very bright.

Personally, I maintain some basic conservative ideas, but also subscribe to a few democratic ones. In a lot of ways, the conservative/republican view is a strong foundation, it represents a certain self interest that you need to have. I think that if you master taking care of yourself, then should get interested in some democratic views, which involve taking care of others beyond you and your immediate family. Sometimes I think that people who are overly liberal or democratic, are over reaching. Sometimes they don't pay enough attention to taking care of themselves and their family, and get too lost in grandiose things.

I think when democrats are really stupid, it's because they are too caught up in (or paralyzed by) their their empathy, moral outrage, wishful thinking.

When repukes are stupid, I think they are possessed by avarice, their contempt for the weak, and lack the ability to care about things outside their narrow selfish pleasures.

I definitely wouldn't say I belong to a particular side, but I tend to enjoy humor at the expense of repukes more, because it's funnier to make fun of the follies of the strong than it is to belittle the follies of the weak. (contrast George Bush, to a bum on the street)

But are democrats really weak? Only when they are stupid. When they are intelligent, they are cool headed, with their rationality extending very far and wide.

What does a conservative look like when he's intelligent? I think he's often a great business man with a great philanthropic streak. In fact, if conservatives where principled philanthropists, then conservatism would be the way to go. But it would appear that greed wins, at least with conservatives in general.

I agree with what you have said, and I also believe that center isle is the ideal. I'm pretty much a Rino, so I also see the reasoning (or lack thereof) on both sides.

I would like to add that something that both the dems and rebubs have in common is that they are both (with the exception of the crooked ones, of course) trying very hard for what is fair. The difference is that they have polar opposite ideas of what fairness is.

The repubs consider that they worked hard for what they have, and they should be entitled to what they worked for. They also recognize the fact that people are motivated by reward, and if people have to give away their reward for working hard, they are less motivated to work hard.

The dems recognize that life is not always fair, and their solution is to mitigate the unfairness by spreading the blow of bad events across either the whole population or across those who have the highest evidence of good fortune.

Another thing they both have in common is that they want people to be as productive as they can be, but since people have different situations and different mindsets, neither the punitive mindset of the republicans nor the nurturing mindset of the democrats is appropriate across the board. Injustice happens both when someone is punished who needs to be nurtured (such as being financially ruined due to an illness), and when someone is nurtured who needs to be punished (those who abuse the welfare system). The problem stems back to the concept "that all men are created equal." Although having the same rules apply to everyone and weight given to precedent promotes equality and helps to prevent wild injustice, it does not currently take nuances of the individual cases into consideration enough to apply the right response to the specific individuals. Worse, in an attempt to compromise, often the right sort of response is too watered down to be effective (insufficient punishment to be a deterrent to criminals who need to be punished, or waiting until a person is destitute before they qualify for assistance, exacerbating any problems and making recovery less likely).

What is needed is more latitude of judgment to give the appropriate response to the appropriate people - but in order to do that, we need a pool of people with good ethics, good judgment, and more openness to promote incorruptibility.

The more openness though, the less privacy. In addition to those who want privacy because they are doing something wrong or illegal, people might want privacy in order to avoid undue interruption, gossip, or the rudeness of those whose feelings of self-importance far outweigh their wisdom. This could be mitigated by promoting reason and wisdom, or at least civility.

Unfortunately right now, even the Republicans in Congress seem unwilling to extend basic civility. If we can not get civility out of our leadership, how can we expect civility from the populace? Again, there need to be appropriate measures optional based on sound judgment alone. The House should have been able to punish the misbehaving Republicans rather than just repeatedly pound the gavel and state "The gentleman is out of order."

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I would like to add that something that both the dems and rebubs have in common is that they are both (with the exception of the crooked ones, of course) trying very hard for what is fair. The difference is that they have polar opposite ideas of what fairness is.

Yes, very different notions of fair - - I think the repubs have a hard time imaging anything but what's fair for them personally. While the dems I think are a usually trying to put themselves in other peoples shoes, trying to figure out whats Just for all, and with this I think there is more self hating/loathing, and some might say they are not fair enough to themselves.

I'm focusing perhaps too much on issues like welfare and healthcare and such. Perhaps more important than taking care of the struggling, is using policy to put limits on destructive human behavior, (e.g., overconsumption). and this would be a more democratic/liberal focus as well.

The repubs consider that they worked hard for what they have, and they should be entitled to what they worked for.

Yes, they have a very limited sense of fair. Conserving our limited resources and taking care of the planet is part of being fair too, but it's like they can't think that big.

Now, I'm wondering......is the republican who refuses to think beyond monetary and material reward....more feminine or masculine? Is it even appropriate to use these concepts in this context?

They also recognize the fact that people are motivated by reward, and if people have to give away their reward for working hard, they are less motivated to work hard.

Well, I don't think everyone is like this, at least not in terms of monetary and material reward. There are some people who pursue knowledge and art for it's own sake.

I know a lot are motivated by money, but they are usually converatives/repubs.

The dems recognize that life is not always fair, and their solution is to mitigate the unfairness by spreading the blow of bad events across either the whole population or across those who have the highest evidence of good fortune.

Another thing they both have in common is that they want people to be as productive as they can be, but since people have different situations and different mindsets, neither the punitive mindset of the republicans nor the nurturing mindset of the democrats is appropriate across the board. Injustice happens both when someone is punished who needs to be nurtured (such as being financially ruined due to an illness), and when someone is nurtured who needs to be punished (those who abuse the welfare system). The problem stems back to the concept "that all men are created equal." Although having the same rules apply to everyone and weight given to precedent promotes equality and helps to prevent wild injustice, it does not currently take nuances of the individual cases into consideration enough to apply the right response to the specific individuals. Worse, in an attempt to compromise, often the right sort of response is too watered down to be effective (insufficient punishment to be a deterrent to criminals who need to be punished, or waiting until a person is destitute before they qualify for assistance, exacerbating any problems and making recovery less likely).

What is needed is more latitude of judgment to give the appropriate response to the appropriate people - but in order to do that, we need a pool of people with good ethics, good judgment, and more openness to promote incorruptibility.

hmm, very well said. People just need to be smarter, sharper, more conscious. Better able to judge. Until that happens, we are clumsy and groping unskillfully for solutions.

The more openness though, the less privacy. In addition to those who want privacy because they are doing something wrong or illegal, people might want privacy in order to avoid undue interruption, gossip, or the rudeness of those whose feelings of self-importance far outweigh their wisdom.

Transparency is a very interesting topic to me. I think the ideal intelligent species would have no secrets, no privacy, pure transparency. Ironically, we see all these reality shows with people seeming as if they are baring everything, but it's actually incredible obfuscation. What we're seeing is obviously only a tiny bit of the true story, and all these reality show celebrities are all carrying ridiculous secrets about themselves, hiding their true psychology from themselves and the world. They are all cynical toward truth. Most people aren't even transparent to themselves, let alone to others.

Unfortunately right now, even the Republicans in Congress seem unwilling to extend basic civility. If we can not get civility out of our leadership, how can we expect civility from the populace? Again, there need to be appropriate measures optional based on sound judgment alone. The House should have been able to punish the misbehaving Republicans rather than just repeatedly pound the gavel and state "The gentleman is out of order."

yeah, that's horrible, but familiar.

You might know, in Canada, when high level discussions are held in the house of commons, someone will speak his views, but other people in opposition are allowed to yell, hoot, hollar and just heckle the guy when he's speaking, which happens all the time. There should be policies against this. You wouldn't have a criminal trial and allow people to heckle the lawyers while they are trying to make their case, would you? When we're talking about the fate of our country, I would think it would deserve more respect than the conduct at a sports stadium, where fans heckle their rivals during a basketball game or something. it's nuts.

The main reason I will never vote for a member of the U.S. Republican Party is because they can not admit that our current economic system simply does not allow for enough people to access and benefit from the wealth generated by it. At least the Democrats understand this to some extent, and realize the only way to keep more and more people from falling into poverty under our current economic system is to forcefully redistribute the wealth in the form of social welfare programs. The only other option is to completely transform the economic system itself, and I think we all know the Democrats have no intention of doing that. Even most millionaires don't benefit from republican policies. The only people who do benefit from their policies are those who control vast amounts of capital. They are the party of Kings and Queens, unfortunately many of the peasants are too dumb to realize this.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think the repubs have a hard time imaging anything but what's fair for them personally.

I've noticed that people often start off with their understanding of others by assuming that people are rather like themselves. and then differences are noticed. People recognize that the obviously insane think differently than they do, and many might come to generalize that a different group - say the opposite gender or another race - think differently than they do, but few tend to see how people just think differently. That seems very strange to me, especially when parents can see that one child only behaves under the thread of a spanking, another doesn't care about a spanking but doesn't want his Nintendo taken away, and another might just thrive off of positive attention for good behavior. Adults are similarly motivated by different stimulus.

An adult Republican who had generally been able to hold down a job and has had reasonably good luck with his health probably resents having some of his money taken away to give to others. He might assume that others would be similarly unhappy with their money being taken away - and to an extent, he is right. That's why there are more than one Republican.He might reason that he wouldn't do extra work unless he were to get an extra reward, and therefore others would be similarly unmotivated. Again he is right to an extent. I've heard many nurses say that they won't work overtime because it would put them in a higher tax bracket, and they would end up not getting paid for their overtime because they would have to pay it back out in extra taxes.

Having not experienced poverty themselves, they assume that those receiving public assistance are living comfortably off of the work of others out of laziness. There is likely some degree of that, but strangely, these Republicans keep going to their jobs, and living better lives than the poor, although they may not always recognize that. A lot of people, whatever their station in life, tend to feel put upon.

So I'd say yes, I agree that the Republicans have a major focus on what is fair to them personally, but they think that by considering what is best for them and fighting for everyone to have the same thing as they want and what would work for them, that it would work for everyone. It's a sheltered view, but at least they think that they are putting themselves in the shoes of others.

Cory Duchesne wrote:using policy to put limits on destructive human behavior, (e.g., overconsumption). and this would be a more democratic/liberal focus as well.

Yes, that wouldn't go over too well with Republicans. Our current economy is based on overconsumption, so in order to keep everyone employed the pattern would have to continue. Besides that, Republicans are right that there are a lot of people who just want more and more. It is not wise, but the wise thing is not always the most short-term rewarding thing. Our current Western society has been conditioned against delayed gratification, so however wise, it will be a tough sell.

Cory Duchesne wrote:they have a very limited sense of fair. Conserving our limited resources and taking care of the planet is part of being fair too, but it's like they can't think that big.

True.

Cory Duchesne wrote:While the dems I think are a usually trying to put themselves in other peoples shoes, trying to figure out whats Just for all, and with this I think there is more self hating/loathing, and some might say they are not fair enough to themselves.

True at not being fair to themselves sometimes, but I think that rather than self hate/loathing, it's more from either having experienced what it's like to go through really tough times and not having anyone on your side that makes them more generous when they do have enough to go around. This is even more true of those who were never looking for a handout due to greed or laziness, but out of true need.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Yes, they have a very limited sense of fair. Conserving our limited resources and taking care of the planet is part of being fair too, but it's like they can't think that big.

Agreed.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Now, I'm wondering......is the republican who refuses to think beyond monetary and material reward....more feminine or masculine? Is it even appropriate to use these concepts in this context?

Cory Duchesne wrote:I don't think everyone is like this, at least not in terms of monetary and material reward. There are some people who pursue knowledge and art for it's own sake.

I know a lot are motivated by money, but they are usually converatives/repubs.

Aw, man, trotting out that old horse. No, I don't think that it's appropriate to perpetuate and reinforce the stereotypes because much of the stereotyping reflects behavior and attitudes that were socially imposed. Some behaviors are more hardwired into one gender or the other, but much of it is also a reflection of the human tendency to behave more in accordance of the way that they are expected. I don't believe that we can get to the truth until the stereotypes have been lifted long enough for true behavior to emerge. This is starting to happen, which is how people have discovered that men can be very good with children, and women can be better managers than men. - which are opposite of the old stereotypes.

Nevertheless, being inappropriate never stopped a topic on GF before - especially this old theme, So here it goes. QRS woman would be associated with not thinking beyond money and material reward, but a real woman will often put everything she has into her child or children not for a monetary or material reward, but for the emotional reward, or at least the hope of emotional reward - in other words "for its own sake." Even when child-rearing is or becomes non-rewarding in any way and a woman predicts that it will never be rewarding, she will still put a great deal of time, effort, and whatever other resources she has into that child - with no idea why she's doing that.

As for the masculinity or femininity of each of the parties:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Injustice happens both when someone is punished who needs to be nurtured (such as being financially ruined due to an illness), and when someone is nurtured who needs to be punished (those who abuse the welfare system).

The Democratic party seems to be the one that is nurturing, or "mothering" the population. and the phrase "just you wait until your father gets home" generally heralds punishment, and it is the Republican party that is more punitive. Yes, it seems ironic to me that the feminine, nurturing liberal viewpoint is supported on a site dedicated to masculinity.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Transparency is a very interesting topic to me. I think the ideal intelligent species would have no secrets, no privacy, pure transparency.

... perhaps even a telepathic aspect that prevents both deception and misunderstanding. Yeah, that would be ideal. It might even encourage enough maturity that privacy/secrecy would not be needed.

Cory Duchesne wrote:You might know, in Canada, when high level discussions are held in the house of commons, someone will speak his views, but other people in opposition are allowed to yell, hoot, hollar and just heckle the guy when he's speaking,

No, I did not know that. That is absolutely horrible.

I think that all the House, Senate, and other important debates be held typed online. Absenteeism would be less of a problem, they could get rid of those time limits, people's time would not be wasted by some of the nonsense that ends up on the floor, and since people can read faster than they can talk, it would be more time-efficient.

Nick Treklis wrote:Even most millionaires don't benefit from republican policies. The only people who do benefit from their policies are those who control vast amounts of capital. They are the party of Kings and Queens, unfortunately many of the peasants are too dumb to realize this.

True.

You might know, in Canada, when high level discussions are held in the house of commons, someone will speak his views, but other people in opposition are allowed to yell, hoot, hollar and just heckle the guy when he's speaking, which happens all the time.

Oh man! As a resident of Canada, I cannot stand to watch question period or any other such proceeding. It doesn't bother me that people are able to speak up with information, but the heckling is indicative of the quality of people in government.

I used to watch a lot of Alex Jones type stuff and specifically Alex Jones. Although I think Jones has some infantile impressions he does uncover a lot of interesting material which I sometimes investigate on my own. My view, unlike Jones', is not of a group of individuals, but of a systemic inevitability. The individuals involved in the "plot" don't even have to be aware of the "plot". J.D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan can believe to their hearts content that they have civilizations answers and consequently bring its ruin. That is all that is required, individuals with heavily distorted perceptions of reality, warped by their lofty status. Our history is such as to give rise to this system. Consumerism became popular post-war when mass-production had been instantiated to supply military forces. These assets were redirected at civilian consumption with consideration for Freud's psychoanalytic theory and notions of the subconscious. Pavlovian conditioning and other subliminal techniques were used in advertising (and still are today). All the people at the "top" -- or anyone else -- has to do is accept and maintain the current system in order to create the appearance of an "Illuminati" and because everything is causally interrelated this evolution can be traced back through history.

We've made idiots of ourselves through these propaganda techniques. The propagandists are victims of their own medicine. The human psyche is such that social polarization is inevitable. In the age of super-boredom and instantaneous communication polarization is amplified. In my personal experiences on social networking sites, disagreements about politics can lead to detachment between close relatives. I don't consider myself a "Canadian" any more than I consider myself a "Liberal" or "Conservative". All of that politicking is just an excuse to ignore one's own conscience. A game of rhetoric where the winner makes the rules for everyone else. Its a completely failed enterprise, not because its fundamental rules are faulty, but because people don't grow up.

There is no system of education in Canada that provides an understanding of psychology other than a university/college course. I find it fundamental to being a human, far more important to know how I work than to know math or history. Even formal psychology is an exoteric study, approached from the third-person. Modern religion is but a hodge-podge of irrational fantasies that satiate man's desire for penance. Which brings me to prisons, penitentiaries. Which should be, if anything, a way of isolating an individual to their own thoughts and mild stimulants while providing security for the patient and society. They should be regarded as patients, evaluated on individual bases. This view was put forth by the famous American civil liberties lawyer Clarence Darrow in his book Crime Its Cause and Treatment published in 1922.

"Why not eleven days? Why not twenty-four days? Why not forty days? Why not seventy days? Why not four months or five, or eight or nine or ten months? Is there no place between six months in jail and a year in jail? The bids at an auction or the flipping of pennies are exact sciences compared with the relation between crime and punishment and the process of arriving at the right penalty. If in the wisdom of the members of the legislature the crime calls for imprisonment in the penitentiary, then the ordinary sentences run one, two, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years, and life, according to the hazard of the legislature, the whim of the court, the gamble of the jury, or the feeling and means of expression of the unthinking and pitiless crowd who awe courts and juries with their cries for vengeance." - Clarence Darrow Crime Its Cause and Treatment

I can't see it as appropriate to put a term on any prison sentence from the beginning. How can one possibly know how long it is going to take to teach a particular person a lesson, or to rehabilitate them? If the prison system could be trusted to be fair, it would be better to put everyone in until they were rehabilitated and had repaid their debt to society and the victims.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I can't see it as appropriate to put a term on any prison sentence from the beginning. How can one possibly know how long it is going to take to teach a particular person a lesson, or to rehabilitate them? If the prison system could be trusted to be fair, it would be better to put everyone in until they were rehabilitated and had repaid their debt to society and the victims.

Yea, in more recent times the prevailing method has been referred to as retributivism and Darrow's style closer resembles consequentialism. The latter view was proposed by a few criminologists with an ear for neuroscience. However, in response to this the Dana Foundation hosted a conference with hand-picked neuroscientists and lawyers which unanimously defended the current method. There are very few people who look at seriously re-inventing the justice system. They only propose patch-work.

.

-Cory Duchesne-
You might know, in Canada, when high level discussions are held in the house of commons, someone will speak his views, but other people in opposition are allowed to yell, hoot, hollar and just heckle the guy when he's speaking,

-Elizabeth-
No, I did not know that. That is absolutely horrible.

-tomas-
The both of you have never watched the British House of Commons on C-Span? Tony Blair (and Maggie Thatcher, John Major before etc.) were dragged over the coals by members of their own party! On a visit to Parliament back in the 1980s, had an opportunity to sit in and watch both Commons and the House of Lords. Lords was much like the US Senate, rather deliberative whereas the House of Commons was quite raucous that day (but Maggie Thatcher held her ground), the US House of Representatives has been pretty tame on most visits over about 20 years, with the exception of Barney Frank and James Traficant (probably a couple/few other members too).

Cory,

very in depth description of typical yin and yang opposites in politics. I agree totally.

Liberalism is a bit more warm, compassionate, giving, almost womanly, and sometimes naive. Sometimes Liberals get taken advantage of giving out too much money, and making government too big. However, Liberals often want to control behavior with things like gun control, carbon tax, etc and so on. Liberals want less capitalist choice, more regulation, less individualism. Liberals have a better futuristic vision usually. Liberals are like a controlling mother figure.

Liberals often demonize corporations excessively while ignoring flaws in government, whereas Conservatives often demonize government while ignoring flaws in corporations.

Conservatives are much more rigid, superstitious, good with money, cold, callous, and critical of government, but in bizarre ways. Conservatives often want more privacy, bigger military, smaller government, more capitalist choice, more individualism. Conservatives are generally more likely to say no to policy changes mostly because they cling to tradition, and they see spending tax money as potentially dangerous. Conservatives are often nostalgic over the past as if it is something that was lost. Conservatives are like the stern father, who is cheap with his money, and overly self-protective.

However, both sides have a tendency of blinding following the policy choices of their party, and ignoring the supposed principles of their political ideology. Many individuals are afraid to stand alone and vote agaisn't their party. Not very individualistic eh? that is why I respect Ron Paul, he had balls, and even though he was too far left, he exhibits a sort of individualism that is important in politics.

You definitely need a balance of some views within each group. Conservatives represent a sort of feeble masculine, while liberals tend to represent a feeble feminism. Combine the best ideas from both sides, and you have a sane political philosophy.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Liberalism is a bit more warm, compassionate, giving, almost womanly, and sometimes naive.

I think it depends who you ask. If you ask bankers and corporations, specifically those that the liberals want to restrict and tax, I don't think "giving" is the first thing that would come to their minds.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Liberals want less capitalist choice, more regulation, less individualism. Liberals have a better futuristic vision usually. Liberals are like a controlling mother figure.

Liberals seem more comfortable with gay marriage, legalization of cannabis, and the use of alternative forms of therapy, which seems to result in more choice, less regulation, and more individualism.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Liberals often demonize corporations excessively while ignoring flaws in government, whereas Conservatives often demonize government while ignoring flaws in corporations.

I think liberals fear being as critical of government as they are of corporations because they often want to expand government in ways that help the working class and the poor. They think that by criticizing one part of government, like the conservative backed intrusive elements found in the Patriot Act, their constituents will end up viewing all aspects of government as intrusive and inherently wrong. This is something that liberals must get over if they want to make real progress instead of reverting to a more conservative stance every time they catch some flack from republicans and Fox "News".

Liberals should take a page out of the conservative playbook, where they blame government for every problem yet manage to expand it in ways only dreamed of by liberals, e.g. Reagan and both Bush's.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Conservatives are much more rigid, superstitious, good with money, cold, callous, and critical of government, but in bizarre ways.

Conservatives on the national level in the U.S.A. are not even close to good with money. Instead of making sure the various government programs they start up are paid though with progressive taxation, they put it all on credit resulting in economic disasters the likes of which we are currently in.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Conservatives often want more privacy, bigger military, smaller government, more capitalist choice, more individualism.

Conservatives are usually the first to demand a police state when something goes awry (ironic they are the ones who accuse liberals of wanting a "nanny state"), and it's very hard to find a conservative who favors the expression of individuality that violates tradition and other such formalities, especially when it comes from blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, and atheists.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Conservatives are generally more likely to say no to policy changes mostly because they cling to tradition, and they see spending tax money as potentially dangerous. Conservatives are often nostalgic over the past as if it is something that was lost. Conservatives are like the stern father, who is cheap with his money, and overly self-protective.

Cheap in the sense that they want to hand out massive government defense contracts to private corporations on credit? Overly self-protective in the sense that they are fearful of anything that deviates too far from traditional, white, christian culture? I think you're focusing too much on what conservative pundits say, rather than what conservatives end up actually doing.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:However, both sides have a tendency of blinding following the policy choices of their party, and ignoring the supposed principles of their political ideology. Many individuals are afraid to stand alone and vote agaisn't their party. Not very individualistic eh? that is why I respect Ron Paul, he had balls, and even though he was too far left, he exhibits a sort of individualism that is important in politics.

It's best not to lump Ron Paul in with the Conservative movement as a whole. Where as the republican party which he is a part of over-whelmingly votes against civil rights and a responsible foreign policy, Ron Paul has always voted in contrast to his party on these issues, so much so that I'm certain the only reasons he caucuses with the republicans is for political reasons. His economic views are the only thing that him and other republicans share, but even then he goes much further in wanting to limit government to a role as nothing more than an arbitrator and enforcer of property rights.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:You definitely need a balance of some views within each group. Conservatives represent a sort of feeble masculine, while liberals tend to represent a feeble feminism. Combine the best ideas from both sides, and you have a sane political philosophy.

We basically do have their ideas combined in the U.S.A., with a mix and match of liberal and conservative policies being put in place depending on who controls congress and the presidency, and it is far from sane. In fact it is highly inefficient. To rebuke what your post seems to be imply, both liberals and conservatives want to expand and limit government, but they want to do it in very different ways. What's important is that we do what we can to make sure they expand and limit government in ways that help the most people. From my point of view, liberals, although far from ideal, are simply smarter at making the government and the economy work for the individual and society as a whole, rather than the other way around. Either that or bankers and corporations haven't been paying them as well as they do the conservatives.

Also, if you want to view liberals and conservatives through a sexual prism, I would say the liberals remind me of a worn out husband who had his spirit broken long ago from his marriage to a crazy maniacal wife, and the conservatives are that crazy maniacal wife who runs up your credit cards and unnecessarily drags you into things that cause way more harm than good. Kind of like if she were to take you to hang out with her friends (Israel) and you happen to run into her ex-boyfriend (The Taliban). :)

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Cory,

very in depth description of typical yin and yang opposites in politics. I agree totally.

Liberalism is a bit more warm, compassionate, giving, almost womanly, and sometimes naive.

I understand the temptation to think like this, but I can't agree. When I described liberals in my first post, I was referring to instances of liberals who fail, not liberals in general. I don't think it's generally the case liberals are as you describe, the majority aren't like that, probably not even half of them are like that.

Sometimes Liberals get taken advantage of giving out too much money, and making government too big. However, Liberals often want to control behavior with things like gun control, carbon tax, etc and so on. Liberals want less capitalist choice, more regulation, less individualism. Liberals have a better futuristic vision usually. Liberals are like a controlling mother figure.

I don't see why we should consider the party who generally has the most respect for science to be exclusively motherly. Perhaps aspects might be considered such, but other aspects are fatherly. Conservatives generally don't seem to care about thinking big or truthfully at all, it's all about egotistical self interest.

Conservatives are much more rigid, superstitious, good with money,

I think liberals tax in order to spend, and maybe too much. But I think conservatives reduce tax in order to spend like drunken sailors. A lot worse!

Other than that, Nick puts it all better than I can.

You definitely need a balance of some views within each group. Conservatives represent a sort of feeble masculine, while liberals tend to represent a feeble feminism..

When I started this thread, I was very hesitant to look at it through masculinity and femininity, and this is precisely why. It's very slippery material to look at through a linear, one dimensional line such as masc/fem.

aha!

This may turn out dumb, but at the moment, it's the only way I can be somewhat satisfied with using masculinity and femininity as principles which can help explain why people belong to certain political affiliations:

When considering the femininity and masculinity of an individual, you need to look at it in two dimension, rather than one. Here, take a look at this graph:




Now, I don't know much about the personalities of the people I put on the graph, I was just trying to fill it in just to show how it works. It could certainly be filled in with a lot more reasoning behind the placement. For now I'm just vaguely tacking these people on, just to demonstrate how I want to think about this.

So yeah, a person has two ways in which he can be masculine, and two ways in which he can be feminine. After all, we can have feminine biology in person, yet they can hold relatively masculine ideas. Or they can have masculine biology, but be full of feminine ideas. Are you double masculine? Meaning, masculine biology ANd masculine ideas? Double feminine?

Anyway, tell me what you people think of this.

*note: another thing that occurred to me is that much of conservatism, in theory, appears masculine, which might be why such feminine people are drawn to it.

In other words, convservativism might work if people were masculine enough, but because most of humanity has a poor temperment, the only people masculine enough to be good conservatives have to become liberal in order to protect humanity from the conservatives who aren't man enough to be good conservatives!

lol. Have fun!

now that I read Nick and Cory's critique, I wasn't communicating what I was trying to say properly. I wasn't even interested in examining how typical republicans and democrats behave in congress, and I didn't state that clearly.

I was thinking of liberalism and conservatism in terms of the ideology of what their base is supposed to represent. I shouldn't of phased if as if all instances of liberals and conservatives behave like "X". I was imagining of how both groups behaved if each followed their ideology fairly strictly.

For instance: conservatives would generally want to reduce the size of government if they followed their ideology strictly, and liberals would want to add new social programs, regulations and safety nets if they followed their ideology strictly. Basically, I was thinking of one as a force that subtracts while the other adds, but of course, each will want to add some, and subtract others, and vice versa. But the overall tread might be positive and negative if they behaved according to their base. This is why I first came up with the idea of yin and yang opposites.

For example: I think the "ideal" politician would resemble something like a cross between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, Kucinich representing the liberal base strongly, and Paul representing the ideal libertarian base, or what a republican base is supposed to resemble. Futhermore, the overall trend with Kucinich is he wants to improve government through additions, whereas Paul wants to improve government through subtractions, but each will want to add and subtract, but I see Kucinich as a much more positive force, and Paul as a more negative force overall, but one is not better than the other. They compliment each other. So when I say Kucinich is more feminine, I'm not using it as a negative term. I'm merely suggesting that he is that yin force that compliments Paul's yang force.

tricky language.

Nick Treklis wrote:lol. Have fun!

political compass

hey what are you lol'n at, man!

This isn't very different at all from what I was aiming for in my chart. I really don't think they are very different.

So where do typical American conservatives land on the political compass? I was thinking mix of bottom and top right quadrants. And that's about where they would land on my chart, except they'd be on the opposite side of the chart, because I organized mine in an opposite way, but it reflects the same.

Cory Duchesne wrote:This isn't very different at all from what I was aiming for in my chart. I really don't think they are very different.

That's why I was laughing! Plus if we combine the two charts you have PETA as the equivalent of Hitler and Rosie O'Donnell as the equivalent of Stalin!

Cory Duchesne wrote:So where do typical American conservatives land on the political compass? I was thinking mix of bottom and top right quadrants. And that's about where they would land on my chart, except they'd be on the opposite side of the chart, because I organized mine in an opposite way, but it reflects the same.

Yeah the typical American Conservative, if they were more open about their racist sentiments, would bare no difference from Hitler and the Nazis.

Did you take the test yourself? If so where did you end up?

I took it and landed in the middle of the bottom left quadrant between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I imagine that the average American citizen would probably end up right smack in the middle and most mainstream politicians are more upper right.

That's why I was laughing!

Ha!, I honestly never seen that chart or anything like it before, I just suddenly had the idea. Turns out someone already had conceived something very familiar, which is usually how ideas are.

However, does the masc/fem chart I posted stand on it's own as a good compliment to the other political compass chart? Is it an improvement, or just a good complimentary chart?

It'd be interesting coming up with a good questionnaire for it.

That's why I was laughing! Plus if we combine the two charts you have PETA as the equivalent of Hitler and Rosie O'Donnell as the equivalent of Stalin!

ahahaha :D

Did you take the test yourself? If so where did you end up?

I was bottom left quadrant, too. Pretty much exactly in line with Mandela. If the questionnaire was more detailed, I'd of course stray from him in a significant way.

I would say the hardest part is making a questionnaire that taps into the most important issues of a person's personality. The results of these tests are always a bit distorted by the values of the person who made the questionnaire.

Cory Duchesne wrote: However, does the masc/fem chart I posted stand on it's own as a good compliment to the other political compass chart? Is it an improvement, or just a good complimentary chart?

I think there's a correlation, but when you get down to it, all political positions and solutions are merely ways of coping with the ramifications of mass human delusion. For instance, if everyone were enlightened, politics would be entirely redundant. All coping mechanisms are a result of some sort of delusion, so when talking about politics, we're not really talking about the underlying problem of unconsciousness, which is tied into one's psychology and how much of it is comprised of masculinity or femininity. I don't think this really answers your question, but I think this sheds some light on what you're getting at.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I would say the hardest part is making a questionnaire that taps into the most important issues of a person's personality. The results of these tests are always a bit distorted by the values of the person who made the questionnaire.

I think you could devise a questionnaire that determines how conscious or unconscious some one is. Of course, it would have to be devised by a highly conscious person who knows how to ask the right questions.

Nick,

all political positions and solutions are merely ways of coping with the ramifications of mass human delusion. For instance, if everyone were enlightened, politics would be entirely redundant.

that might be too strong of a statement, as there are many political issues that are not directly caused by delusion. IE: global warming, human disease and infection, natural disasters, falling meteorites, famine isn't always related to delusion.

therefore, there might always be a pragmatic use for a global panel of representatives that have the ability to move collective action on behalf of all individuals, regardless of what percentage of the planet is enlightened.

although, I agree with the idea that the more enlightened the population is, the less problems there will be, as many are related to human delusion.

Ryan,

That's true, but I didn't mean to imply that coordinated efforts and group organization would disappear if everyone were enlightened. It's just that if everyone were enlightened the whole process would be streamlined and in sync, so much so that it seems to me that the term politics would lose much of its meaning in relation to such a society.

Just a thought:

I think liberal/leftist and even communist ideology as a whole, is largely a creation of the masculine mind much like woman is the creation of the masculine mind. Men tend to look at a woman and imagine the best qualities a person can have, divinity, intelligence, fairness, nurturing, etc. Likewise, he creates his highest politics in the same spirit. So a lot of times men look at liberal/politics and they think, wow these ideas are so wonderful, deep, caring and considerate of all people and things. Reminds me of the way I like to think of my mother or wife! Well, the masculine mind wants to make things divine.

On the other hand, conservatism seems like it attracts very insecure and emotionally unstable men. There's a certain type of man who is just scared shitless and full of envy and shame, and he's like, "wow, these conservative ideas make me feel so powerful and motivated to compete and protect myself against harm from others". And he goes and makes a bunch of money, gets rich, and attracts women, because women like the feminine.

If women get involved in the left, perhaps it is because they had a very masculine upbringing, or it's because they aren't pretty (and so they compensate), or they did the whole make babies thing, and so they are looking for some greater meaning, so they go and join PETA or get neurotic about some dubious Greenpeace issue.

Ron Paul on the appearance that Dems and Repubs actually are political opposites today in the U.S., said before the last election:

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes.

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/quinn/quinn17.1.html

Well, there is theory and practice. There is definitely a strong polarity between parties when you look at them in theory. But I agree, politics in practice often shows opposing parties behaving pretty indistinguishably, sometimes. But sometimes not.