Liberals are smarter than conservatives

[Edward theurj Berge]

Continuing this thread from Gaia IPS (Google docs link here), here’s what a new Harris Poll revealed about Republicans:

 

67 percent believe that Obama is a socialist.

 

57 percent believe that Obama is a Muslim.

 

45 percent agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president."

 

38 percent say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did."

 

24 percent say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

[Balder]

Shashank, yes, this is an integrally focused forum, so staying on topic does matter -- except when you're in the Pub! And that's where Edward posted this. I'm not saying what he posted has no "integral relevance" at all; I'm just letting you know the "culture" around here: O'Kenney's Pub is the board where members can talk about whatever they want. In our old days, especially before this transition to Ning, a number of our conversations were pretty intensely focused, so I eventually created the Pub as a place for members to relax and talk about something other than the rather specialized topics of this forum (postmetaphysical, integral spirituality).

Best wishes,

B.

[Shashank Singh]

my bad, thanks for clearing that up Bruce. Drink up.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I'd still like to know how Shashank doesn't find the discussion "remotely integral." If by that you mean the angry tone, or the war-like approach to the conservative "enemies," I'd like to hear about that. What would be an "integral" approach to the topic?

[xibalba]

Such incredible a bunch of ignorant people living in the most powerful economy of the planet and worst they vote thus having the capacity of influencing political decisions.
Kind of scary actually.

[Shashank Singh]

Hi Theuri,

Theuri: I'd still like to know how Shashank doesn't find the discussion "remotely integral." If by that you mean the angry tone, or the war-like approach to the conservative "enemies," I'd like to hear about that. What would be an "integral" approach to the topic?

No i don't mean the angry tone, go for it. i was thinking of the content. Good question, how would i make it more integral? Well for one I'd add the other obvious side, Liberals believe some stupid things.

From: http://www.scrivener.net/2010/02/strange-things-that-democrats-beli...

"No... for the real bias is that there is no mention in any of this of what Democrats believe, as found by other polls. This in spite of the fact that such is very easy to find even with just a quick look around. For instance...

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know... 26% are not sure. [Rasmussen]

That's fully 61% of Democrats there, believing that or thinking it might be so.

Hey, how about this poll finding about Obama supporters?...

The big surprise here – the group of voters most likely to think Obama is the Anti-Christ are Hispanics, who solidly backed Obama in 2008. Only 58 percent of them say, for sure, that their president is not Satan come to wreak havoc here on earth

Now if someone wanted to constructively make the true and important point that "it is a fundamental finding of political science and political economics that the entire electorate is stunningly ignorant and ill-informed, and prone to believe impossible things, on a mass scale", they could easily do so. All one need do is point to the many studies of the topic that document the fact, such as Bryan Caplan's recent book The Myth of the Rational Voter. ("The best political book of the year" -- NY Times)"

That last point that i bolded could lead to a more integral look into what motivates voters(cultral, econmic, psychological) along with what they perport to beleive(the second is more what wilber has talked about so far though he mentions the first part as well http://www.kenwilber.com/writings/read_pdf/73 ).

Now I do think their is an argument to be made that liberals(in the USA) genrally are more strucurally devleoped(singe their core party ranges between orange-green) while Pepublicans range more between(blue -orange).


One of the biggest problems in political discourse right now, is it’s modeled on TV news bites. There’s an interesting site [ http://transpartisan.ning.com/] designed to cultivate real dialogue, not necessarily bi-partisan (which I don’t think can work) but trans-partisan. I'm not a meber of that side, and this isn't some endormesnt thing, it just has some good video's on it.

-shashank

[Shashank Singh]

I totally forgot to edit, check for spelling errors, and ning won't let you edit after 15 min, so sorry about that, maybe I am a stupid Republican LOL

[Edward theurj Berge]

It is true that there are stupid liberals. It’s a matter of averages and orienting generalizations. And a lot of it has to do with education, the more one has the less likely they are to believe in such nonsense. Same with conventional religious belief.

If you’ll follow the link at the top to the original thread the first study talks about the averages in intelligence between liberals and conservatives. Of course there are exceptions. That study pretty much follows your line that a case can be made for the average range in each category. Also in the original thread, in the second post and link, the conservative leaders know their base is stupid and hold them in contempt as revealed in one of their own fund raising memos.

It’s the conservative leaders I hold in contempt, not their constituents. The former knowingly gin up the base with violent rhetoric and blatantly lie to arouse emotional unrest. And all in the name of money, bought and paid for by the insurance companies and banks. Now Democrats are guilty of this as well, and I’ve spent quite a bit of time criticizing them elsewhere. But as a whole, on average, there are less unscrupulous liberals and they are a bit more people- rather than corporate-motivated. Hence the healthcare bill that passed: Still a giveaway to insurance companies but at least there are some human benefits that would never have been in there otherwise. To wit, all those years of Republican control of the Executive and the Legislature with absolutely no change.

[xibalba]

For example the journalist Charles Krauthammer, the neocon "pundit" is stupid in a sense. He is unable to give good solutions to the peace process between Israel and Palestine. I haven´t read any constructive article of him on Obama. He is just a polemist, hired by the populistic FOX news channel, and a voice of ultraism for the Likud politics in Israel. He was great fan of the so called Bush doctrine which as a matter of fact a reproduction of the Israeli state narcisssitic ideology to arrogantly launch pre-emptive strike in middle eatest area,

Not a single word of opening to cooperation toward the health care project either.

He critized the Borat novie and the actor Sasha Baron for him having exposed the antisemitic feelings of rural America by arguing that it was undermining the cohesion of the american people to support Israel. An amazing condescendent attitude of a well educated metropol journalist toward the "savages" of the midwest, but as long as they are supporting his lobbying agenda they are fine folk.



theurj said:

It is true that there are stupid liberals. It’s a matter of averages and orienting generalizations. And a lot of it has to do with education, the more one has the less likely they are to believe in such nonsense. Same with conventional religious belief.

If you’ll follow the link at the top to the original thread the first study talks about the averages in intelligence between liberals and conservatives. Of course there are exceptions. That study pretty much follows your line that a case can be made for the average range in each category. Also in the original thread, in the second post and link, the conservative leaders know their base is stupid and hold them in contempt as revealed in one of their own fund raising memos.

It’s the conservative leaders I hold in contempt, not their constituents. The former knowingly gin up the base with violent rhetoric and blatantly lie to arouse emotional unrest. And all in the name of money, bought and paid for by the insurance companies and banks. Now Democrats are guilty of this as well, and I’ve spent quite a bit of time criticizing them elsewhere. But as a whole, on average, there are less unscrupulous liberals and they are a bit more people- rather than corporate-motivated. Hence the healthcare bill that passed: Still a giveaway to insurance companies but at least there are some human benefits that would never have been in there otherwise. To wit, all those years of Republican control of the Executive and the Legislature with absolutely no change.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Keep in mind that the Harris poll that started this thread included Republicans, Democrats and Independents. I showed some of the results for Republicans. This link depicts a graph comparing the 3 political affiliations.

While 67% of Republicans thought Obama was a socialist just 15% of Democrats also thought so, with 42% of Independents agreeing. Is Obama a Muslim? 57% Rep, 15% Dem and 29% Ind. And so on. So yes, there are some stupid Dems and Indies but the averages and the percentages seem rather indicative. And yes, there are questions of poll validity that Harris has answered.

And this link to Harris Interactive breaks down the results into further categories, including education, noting that “the less education people have had the more likely they are to believe all of these statements.”

[James Barrow]

Hi guys

I'd like to add something here which may or may not be on topic, but which relates directly to the interaction between theurj and shashank and theurj's example of the high school bully.

I think theurj's conclusion "punch them in the face and mean it" is a highly integral response, and I also think this real life example is what, for me, grounds these discussions. After all, if you can't apply integral in your daily life then what's the point?

Red doesn't get Orange or Green or..... As in Ken's great example, it's like reading Macbeth to your dog when it's only thinking about food. So as a good responsible dog owner, you use the food (not Shakespeare) to make the dog do what you can see is better for everyone concerned.

Same with rabid red/blue conservatives. They don't get "nice", they don't get bipartisanship. They only understand a punch in the face. So thanks theurj.

James

[Shashank Singh]

theurj's: Also in the original thread, in the second post and link, the conservative leaders know their base is stupid and hold them in contempt as revealed in one of their own fund raising memos.

The former knowingly gin up the base with violent rhetoric and blatantly lie to arouse emotional unrest. And all in the name of money, bought and paid for by the insurance companies and banks. Now Democrats are guilty of this as well, and I’ve spent quite a bit of time criticizing them elsewhere. But as a whole, on average, there are less unscrupulous liberals and they are a bit more people- rather than corporate-motivated.

This kind of stuff from liberals comes off as basic Nietzschean resentment and envy. The Republicans are great at fundraising; they are excellent at manipulating their base and thus solidifying it. Part of the reason is that they know exactly what their intentions are and are not sorry about it. Democrats tend to be uncomfortable with their red motivations, and thus are either hesitant (come off flakey) or too unwilling to play the red/blue game to be very successful. If anything the Democrats should learn something from Republicans about lying well, not badly.


theurj's : “the less education people have had the more likely they are to believe all of these statements.”

It doesn’t surprise me, and that is also greatly true of IQ testing, one of the major things it measures isn’t innate intelligence but education level. All of which points to environmental needs, and makes people look very determined in their views. And to a great extent they seem to be.

theurj's : While 67% of Republicans thought Obama was a socialist just 15% of Democrats also thought so, with 42% of Independents agreeing. Is Obama a Muslim? 57% Rep, 15% Dem and 29%

That’s a silly question to ascertain views, it’s like asking red socks fans, neutrals, and New York Yankee fans whether New York buys its championships. If anything the fact that independents answered 42% yes is more telling about how Obama is viewed then the other stats.

I think the problems with Republicans has been sated clearly by you all, but one of the biggest problems with the left over the last 100years is its excessive paternalism. Somewhere over the last 200 years it has lost touch with its individualistic roots. And for someone like me who is by temperament inclined toward a moderate anarchism, this isn’t very good. The argument we know better can lead down some nasty alleys.

James: I think theurj's conclusion "punch them in the face and mean it" is a highly integral response

Again, I’m not saying that aspect isn't integral.

[Edward theurj Berge]

If anything the Democrats should learn something from Republicans about lying well, not badly.

So there should be no honesty and transparency in politics? Isn't this one reason Obama was elected, with the hope that this sort of thing would change? Should not the political "line" of development evolve toward such qualities? And if not, why not? Why should politics be the only line that stays in the gutter?