Why leftests just don't get it

[Liberty1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opini ... yt&emc=rss

Conservatives may not like liberals, but they seem to understand them. In contrast, many liberals find conservative voters not just wrong but also bewildering.

One academic study asked 2,000 Americans to fill out questionnaires about moral questions. In some cases, they were asked to fill them out as they thought a “typical liberal” or a “typical conservative” would respond.

Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.

Now a fascinating new book comes along that, to a liberal like myself, helps demystify the right — and illuminates the kind of messaging that might connect with voters of all stripes. “The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.

Those latter values bind groups together with a shared respect for symbols and institutions such as the flag or the military. They are a reminder that human moral judgments are often about far more than just helping others. Some of Haidt’s most interesting material is his examination of taboos.

His team asked research subjects pesky questions. What would they think of a brother and sister who experimented with incest, while using birth control? Or of a family that, after their pet dog was run over, ate it for dinner?

Most respondents were appalled but often had trouble articulating why; we find these examples instinctively disturbing even if no one is harmed. (One lesson of the book: If you see Haidt approaching with a clipboard, run!)

Of course, political debates aren’t built on the consumption of roadkill. But they do often revolve around this broader moral code. This year’s Republican primaries have been a kaleidoscope of loyalty, authority and sanctity issues — such as whether church-affiliated institutions can refuse to cover birth control in health insurance policies — and that’s perhaps why people like me have found the primaries so crazy.

Another way of putting it is this: Americans speak about values in six languages, from care to sanctity. Conservatives speak all six, but liberals are fluent in only three. And some (me included) mostly use just one, care for victims.

“Moral psychology can help to explain why the Democratic Party has had so much difficulty connecting with voters,” writes Haidt, a former liberal who says he became a centrist while writing the book.

In recent years, there has been growing research into the roots of political ideologies, and they seem to go deep. Adults who consider themselves liberals were said decades earlier by their nursery-school teachers to be curious, verbal novelty seekers but not very neat or obedient.

How many times have I said leftests view the world through the eyes of victimhood.

[rubato]

How many times have you posted big fat lying strawman arguments like this one?

"... for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. ... "

Not even a plausible lie.

Are conservatives all gullible and stupid enough to believe this shit ?




yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

Yeah for liberals like rubato showing yourself to be better than everyone else is number one.

(note not all liberals are like rubato but he is hardly alone)

[Liberty1]

I didn't write it, a leftest did. I'm just trying to help provide some insight and thought it was an interesting article. If you didn't, well OK then.

[dgs49]

Keep in mind,Lib, that the people who post here think of differing views as "lies," as they have stated on countless occasions. This is completely consistent with this essay. Liberals cannot countenance any other world view than their own.

[rubato]

I didn't write it, a leftest did. I'm just trying to help provide some insight and thought it was an interesting article. If you didn't, well OK then.

Psst, "leftist" and "liberal" do not mean the same thing.

And the quoted statement was not his:

"... Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity. ..."

yrs,
rubato

[Liberty1]

Psst, "leftist" and "liberal" do not mean the same thing

In contemporary US society, yea they're pretty much the same.

[Scooter]

When conservative values are the result of thing like this:

Anything that prods us to think of disgust or cleanliness also seems to have at least a temporary effect on our politics. It pushes our sanctity buttons and makes us more conservative.

A University of Toronto study found that if people were asked to wash their hands with soap and water before filling out a questionnaire, they become more moralistic about issues like drug use and pornography. Researchers found that interviewees on Stanford’s campus offered harsher, more moralistic views after “fart spray” had been released in the area.

At Cornell University, students answered questions in more conservative ways when they were simply near a hand sanitizer station.

it is not difficult at all to understand why liberal were less able to predict them. How much more irrational can one get than to determine one's moral code based on what one smells?

[Gob]

Psst, "leftist" and "liberal" do not mean the same thing

In contemporary US society, yea they're pretty much the same.

That's why the US contemporary US society is screwed.

To equate

Leftism; the support for social change to create a more egalitarian society.

with

Liberal; rooted in a belief in freedom of the individual.

Just goes to show what a confused bunch you are.

[Sue U]

I am a leftist, but not a liberal, although I find myself aligned with liberals on a variety of social issues.

If you don't understand what the difference is, you probably shouldn't claim they're the same thing.

[Rick]

Psst, "leftist" and "liberal" do not mean the same thing

In contemporary US society, yea they're pretty much the same.

That's bunk.

I'm a liberal compared to some of the folks the Ozarks, and a right winger to some folks in Little Rock.

Buy my thinking I'm Moderate/Conservative Independent...

[Rick]

I am a leftist, but not a liberal, although I find myself aligned with liberals on a variety of social issues.

If you don't understand what the difference is, you probably shouldn't claim they're the same thing.

Then Sue comes up with this...

[Gob]

If you don't understand what the difference is, you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Fixed that for you.

[Sue U]

Psst, "leftist" and "liberal" do not mean the same thing

In contemporary US society, yea they're pretty much the same.

That's bunk.

I'm a liberal compared to some of the folks the Ozarks, and a right winger to some folks in Little Rock.

Buy my thinking I'm Moderate/Conservative Independent...

Then Sue comes up with this...

Keld, if it's any consolation, I have always considered you a "Moderate Conservative." I also think you're a very reasonable guy, and I totally understand your perspective. I think we actually agree on most things most of the time -- certainly the goals, if not exactly how to get there. I'd say the same thing about Jim, too.

I will say that the one thing I cannot stand about liberals (as a rule) is their slavish devotion to capitalism.

[Liberty1]

Liberal; rooted in a belief in freedom of the individual.

That is the classic definition of a liberal Stropp, which bears virtually no resemblance to who are called liberals in the US today.

The classic liberal is more in line with who is called a libertarian.

[Liberty1]

If you don't understand what the difference is, you probably shouldn't claim they're the same thing.

Perhaps there are some differences. But both liberals and leftests as you find them in the US today are a subset of statism.

[Sue U]

Statism? I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Liberty1]

Statism: the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government

That pretty much sums up who are called liberals in the US these days. Just becasue they have a hard time implementing their utopia (or your desired level), doesn't mean they are not trying.

[Lord Jim]

That is the classic definition of a liberal Stropp, which bears virtually no resemblance to who are called liberals in the US today.

The classic liberal is more in line with who is called a libertarian.

That is correct....

Liberals in the contemporary sense and "leftists" are basically two points along the same ideological continuum....
(Just like "conservatives" and "rightists"....)

When a Liberal moves far enough along the political spectrum to the left that they become sufficiently ideologically doctrinaire, they move into the spectrum of "leftism"

[Sue U]

Statism: the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government

That pretty much sums up who are called liberals in the US these days. Just becasue they have a hard time implementing their utopia (or your desired level), doesn't mean they are not trying.

You are deranged. You should actually try to find out what liberals stand for, rather than what Ann Coulter and the Ghost of Andrew Breitbart tell you they stand for.