liberals are irrational

[dead man walking]

so are conservatives

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books ... wanted=all

[DrDonkeyLove]

What I walked away with was that liberals are more one sided with less of an ability to even understand the other side than conservatives. Further, liberals are so narrow focused that left unfettered by conservatives, they endanger the good of the whole. If I read this correctly, he sees liberals as a necessary counterbalance to conservative extremes. I'd agree with that.

Unfortunately the non-family institutions that guide society: media, entertainment, education, and at least 1/2 of religion are disproportionately powerful and liberal.

These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal.

You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

This is where Haidt diverges from other psychologists who have analyzed the left’s electoral failures. The usual argument of these psycho-­pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters’ neural roots — playing on our craving for authority, for example — to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there’s something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

One of these interests is moral capital — norms, prac­tices and institutions, like religion and family values, that facilitate cooperation by constraining individualism. Toward this end, Haidt applauds the left for regulating corporate greed. But he worries that in other ways, liberals dissolve moral capital too recklessly. Welfare programs that substitute public aid for spousal and parental support undermine the ecology of the family. Education policies that let students sue teachers erode classroom authority. Multicultural education weakens the cultural glue of assimilation. Haidt agrees that old ways must sometimes be re-examined and changed. He just wants liberals to proceed with caution and protect the social pillars sustained by tradition.

[dead man walking]

. . . If I read this correctly, he sees liberals as a necessary counterbalance to conservative extremes. I'd agree with that.

Unfortunately the non-family institutions that guide society: media, entertainment, education, and at least 1/2 of religion are disproportionately powerful and liberal.

think about the power of business and financial institutions, which are predominantly conservative (i think). so the counterbalancing is essential.

further, but for liberals, we'd still own slaves, women couldn't vote, and children would be working in coal mines. hell, but for liberals, we still be bowing to the kind of england.

oh, and anal sex would be a crime.

[Yes, I'm drunk]

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.

- Winston Churchill

[WildGorillaMan]

This just in: People are stupid.

[kreator]

You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

Agreed for the most part except he missed a very obvious one. And it's probably the only core value in liberals that I value over that of conservatives: tolerance. Liberals are tolerant of people and ways that are different from them. Conservatives are not. Too often liberals try to make everyone else be tolerant too by being politically correct (which is over the top). Other than that I share more values with conservatives than liberals.

[powerlifter54]

think about the power of business and financial institutions, which are predominantly conservative (i think). so the counterbalancing is essential.

further, but for liberals, we'd still own slaves, women couldn't vote, and children would be working in coal mines. hell, but for liberals, we still be bowing to the kind of england.

oh, and anal sex would be a crime.

While i grant that lefties are huge fans of buggery, most of the rest of what you posted is incorrect. Small businesses tend to be conservative, but east and left coast big money folks, espescially Wall Street, are libs almost without fail. The Republican Party was founded on the cause of anti-slavery, and it was the Democrats who fought against civil rights in the 60s. Woman's suffrage happened without much fuss, and kids never worked much in coal mines. They did in factories and fields, but that was ended mainly by the Depression and the Fair Labor Standards Act, authored by Senator Hugo Black, D-AL, future supreme court justice and prior KKK member. Amazing the number of KKK members who are defined as "liberal"...

[dead man walking]

so you are saying some r's were liberal, as least on some issues and southern dems were conservative regarding racial matters. no news there.

as i said, this country was founded on liberal ideals and it was liberals got rid of slavery (no matter their political affiliation), of exploitation of children and who pushed for equal rights for women, not just suffrage. it's good to know you embrace liberalism.

it's appears that you like yesterday's liberalism, not today's. i think that's what it means to be conservative.

[powerlifter54]

it's appears that you like yesterday's liberalism, not today's. i think that's what it means to be conservative.

Hmmmm......That is an interesting take on things. Will do some reading and research and see if that holds water.

[cleaner464]

Southerners have always hated blacks. Didn't matter what party they were in and Tricky Dick exploited that fact. The current GOP carries on that "proud" tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[Protobuilder]

This just in: People are stupid.

A further summary is not required.

[Turdacious]

it's appears that you like yesterday's liberalism, not today's. i think that's what it means to be conservative.

Hmmmm......That is an interesting take on things. Will do some reading and research and see if that holds water.

Where to start:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative- ... 1607960699

IMHO it summarizes so many different thinkers (including influential ones like Randolph and Calhoun that nobody outside of Stormfront espouses anymore) that it should be required reading for anyone interested in US political history.

And modern conservatism is more complex than even Kirk says it is: modern welfare policy started because 'Mr. Conservative,' Robert Taft, pushed it through Congress; it includes the traditional elements of progressivism (like those espoused by Al Smith); and the influence of lefties turned traditionalists like RJ Neuhaus.

[Turdacious]

Southerners have always hated blacks. Didn't matter what party they were in and Tricky Dick exploited that fact. The current GOP carries on that "proud" tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Actually he exploited the fact that Yankees hated blacks too. He got southern Senators to stop opposing desegregation in committee by promising to desegregate the North too. Northern Dems, for the most part, only wanted to desegregate the South. There's a reason that desegregation only got legs in both the North and the South after Trick Dick got elected.