Conservativism: "a set of neuroses rooted in 'fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity'."

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/13/1060588464388.html

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

this sounds about right. the key word is "fear."

― King Kobra (King Kobra), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

with Rush Limbaugh im pretty sure sure penis envy plays a part too

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:24 (twenty-two years ago)

The exact same thing can be said of liberalism if you change "aggression" to "passive aggression".

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Dan Perry soooo OTM.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

This is why politics gets me so riled; the further out you get on the extremes the more you realize that a nut is a nut is a nut and having someone (delete as applicable) [mentally imbalanced/focused on a completely self-serving agenda/dangerously stupid] agree with your position does you no favors.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Let's go lynch some conservatives!

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)

This would have been a candidate for the "post you'd never be expected to make" thread, but, er, George Will OTM: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

(Having said that, perhaps now ultra-conservatives will understand why black people were outraged at _The Bell Curve_ but I'm not gonna hold my breath because ultra-conservatives are people and therefore fucking stupid.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

the ambiguous part is not true of liberalism at all, in fact the tolerance of ambiguity is an age old problem with liberalism.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Problem?

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Julie Burchill was OTM when she says that Daily Mail readers are haunted by the idea that someone, somewhere might just be having fun.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Trying to explain complex social-political phenomena with facile psychological diagnoses: DUD.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

She might have been OTM, Dave B, but unless she mentioned that she borrowed that from, I believe, H L Mencken...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Gah. The magic fades. I shall never read her again.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

american politics = dud

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:51 (twenty-two years ago)

problem

problem in galvanising opinion etc etc.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 14:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I think by over-tolerance of ambiguity Ronan means approximately what American conservatives like to call "moral relativism."

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

(I like to imagine "moral relativism" where the "moral" is the modifier -- i.e., there's a degree of relativism that's moral, and lack of it immoral.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Nietzche once said "Morals make stupid", and in many ways i agree

Ive often thought that hard and fast rules for everything get pretty stupid, you gotta weigh things up in light of the situation.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:04 (twenty-two years ago)

indeed.

Socrates to thread.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:04 (twenty-two years ago)

This poll reminds me a bit of a political version of one of those "Black people like..." skits, where everyone is a bit complicit in their own dehumanization. This is just rotten conventional wisdom (see the comments about liberalism toward the end of the piece) dressed up as psychology.

(Nabisco: that's genius.)

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, I'd be the first to suggest that there's something wrong with, say, President Bush, but I think any diagnosis would have to be considerably more shaded than this, and would have to illustrate how he differs from his compatriots (profoundly, in some cases). A recent Harper's piece made a good stab at a kind of psychological profile of Bush that wasn't simply patronizing or wishful thinking. I'll try to track it down.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't ask me, I was only every in it for the 'tang. Bein a philosopher in ancient greece was like being Dave Lee Roth in a sorority house

― Socrates (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Isn't the bigger distinction between ppl who are actively 'political' and ppl who aren't? (IME ppl who were 'campaigners' [all along the spectrum, from pro-life to NDP/SWP/Green etc] were bags of frustration and resentment with weird fixations about shit, noticeably more so than more apathetic[normal] types)

― dave q, Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:09 (twenty-two years ago)

id agree with dave q there.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:10 (twenty-two years ago)

This is an old story, isn't it? This is that Berkeley thing that was in the news a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway, Adorno did it better decades ago.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

What did Adorno have to say?

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Adorno (et al.) wrote The Authoritarian Personality. I think it is out of print, but if you scroll down on this site, you can get a pretty good idea of the conclusions he drew.

Also, Frank Sulloway is really famous in the psychology field, having written a landmark birth order study and a bio of Freud. Whether one agrees with Sulloway or not, he's a really interesting read. Anyway, here is the article from Berkeley on this.

I'd like to see "liberals" also get a study like this, ha ha.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

As much fun as it is to have a laugh at conservatives' expense, I've got to say that this study is pretty silly. People can have conservative views for well-thought-out reasons, and it doesn't convince anyone to try and dismiss conservatives as suffering from a neurosis. No doubt there are plenty of neurotic liberals, as many have pointed out.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

lord knows that i'm not particularly sympathetic to the current batch of "conservatives" infesting the American government. i put scare quotes around "conservative" because, AFAIC, the likes of gee dubya, tom delay, rush limpblob, antonin scalia, etc. are really right-wing radicals and not true conservatives. for instance, a fiscal conservative would be in favor of balanced budgets (which would make Howard Dean a "conservative" and Gee Dubya something else). i also question their adherence to principles in the first place -- i think that all that that bunch cares about is power.

that said, i do recognize that there is such a thing as a "principled" conservative, and that there are principled reasons for adhering to conservative views. when i hear such a person and such views, i would respond respectfully to them and respectfully disagree where appropriate. however, it seems as though the GOP has hunted principled conservatives to death (see barry goldwater) or have otherwise compromised them (see tom ridge and justice anthony kennedy).

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I would like to see this study. Dollars to donuts it isn't actually slanted to one political party or another, and that it was purely the choice of this writer to leave the part about liberals until the next to last paragraph.

― dleone (dleone), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

the ambiguous part is not true of liberalism at all, in fact the tolerance of ambiguity is an age old problem with liberalism.

Conservatives fear ambiguity about "the rules".

Liberals fear ambiguity about "the meta".

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Dan did you just step out of The Matrix?

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Shh!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Ive often thought that hard and fast rules for everything get pretty stupid, you gotta weigh things up in light of the situation

But you must admit, some objectionable absolutes are not without merit. (i.e Sticking your weenie in an active beehive)

Unless, of course you are a single, horny little bee I 'spose.

― rudeboy (rudeboy), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

id say some things are near absolutes, but i dont think you can rule out anything completely. i mean some people doubtless really love beehive sex.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:30 (twenty-two years ago)

also slugs

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:30 (twenty-two years ago)

TS: bee-sex, slug-sex, or pie-sex

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

right-wing radicals and not true conservatives. for instance, a fiscal conservative would be in favor of balanced budgets (which would make Howard Dean a "conservative" and Gee Dubya something else).

it seems that the ideology driving the administration is that the federal government is too large and that most power over private wealth and property should be devolved first to the states and then to the localities at perhaps a quasi-governmental level. if you want to drastically reduce government regulation and social programs, a fiscal crisis gives you a good excuse to cut non-defense spending and bureaucracy.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

that's true, gabb. none other than Grover Norquist (not a member of the Bush Admin., but one of the right's ideological sparkplugs) has openly said as much, and more ... he also said that he hoped that at least one state would go bankrupt. long way of saying -- i stand corrected somewhat.

of course, that was not how the Bush tax cuts were actually sold to the american public. which is another story altogether.

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I should stress I wasn't slating the tolerance.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.