Category Archives: Ideology

Opening the can of worms – blogging politics again

It’s been a while since I’ve written anything about one of my pet topics – the way the changes in the society are resulting in the change in attitudes towards sex and gender, and the change in the institution of marriage, and how it all relates to politics of the moment.
I’ve been playing it pretty carefully since my move here to SEED scienceblogs, not firing away with my biggest artillery yet. I want to get back there again, gradually, so this is going to be just a summary and an opportunity to get you to read some of my older stuff to see where I stand. It is a also a test balloon to see how the new, expanded readership will respond to my political rants. Hopefully, this will get a lot of comments as well, and not all of them screaming insults at me:

Continue reading

War Of The Worlds

War Of The Worlds
This post from September 09, 2004, was my first education about Rapturists:

Continue reading

Postmodern Conservatism

Postmodern Conservatism This post I first wrote on February 28, 2005, then re-posted here on December 10, 2005. About conservative relativism and the assault on academia:

Continue reading

Why Creationists Need To Be Creationists

 Why Creationists Need To Be Creationists This is a long post from January 23, 2005, trying to tie in Creationism and conservatism through psychology:

Continue reading

Logic, or, being gay eliminates the weeds…

The obligatory reading of the day: That right-wing logic:

OK, so I laughed at this one. Because this is what passes for logic not just among rural hicks, but nearly the entire right wing in this country.

Do you know your own political ideology?

If you are in North Carolina you can listen to State Of Things on your local NPR station. Just about to start (12noon EDT):

What Your Vote Says About You: So you think you’re a conservative? Or a liberal? New research shows that you may not know how you fall on the political spectrum after all, and you may be especially confused when you vote. Host Frank Stasio talks with James Stimson, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, about what your vote says about your real political leanings.

This is the second story (after Blakwater and before Depression)
Update: So far, he is saying what I was saying for a couple of years now – there is a huge proportion of Americans who self-identify as conservative yet are entirely liberal (self-professed liberals are mainly correct). Those people go for the symbols, not policies – whichever party controls the symbols, the language and the conversation, wins these people who are the ulitimate swing voters. The term “conservative” is more popular and that is why Republicans are winning no matter how liberal Americans are.

Perhaps I should tell my brother to wait…

Apparently, it’s not over until it’s over. The removal of the cohabitation law I wrote about yesterday may apply only to a few people in NC, not the whole state: Cohabitation law ruling doesn’t apply statewide:

Legal experts said Friday that a Superior Court judge declaring a law that makes it a crime for unmarried couples to live together unconstitutional doesn’t apply statewide.
Judge Ben Alford’s ruling affects only those involved in the litigation: the Pender County Sheriff’s Office, Pender County Sheriff Carson Smith, Ben David, the district attorney in Pender and New Hanover counties, and N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper. A 1A story Friday reported that the judge’s ruling applied statewide. But the ruling would have a statewide impact only if it were upheld on appeal.
The scholars say law enforcement officers and district attorneys elsewhere in the state still could prosecute couples living together out of wedlock.
“It’s not until it gets up to the Court of Appeals that it applies statewide,” said Dan Pollitt, a constitutional law professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.
—————–snip—————
What also complicates the matter is that Alford has yet to sign a final order, which will include an injunction. What that injunction will say is still unknown, and the lawyers who are drafting the injunction will not talk about it.
“The official order has not yet been issued by the judge, so we really can’t comment on the specifics of what it might or might not do,” Jennifer Rudinger, state executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement Friday.

Nurturant is not Coddly!

Nurturant is not Coddly!
I wrote this on September 21, 2004, as a reaction to the misunderstanding of Lakoff’s term “Nurturant Parent”. Slightly edited (eliminated bad links and such).

Continue reading

Ward Churchill? Who Cares?

Ward Churchill? Who Cares?
I wrote this first in February 2005, then republished in December 2005. After War Churchill got fired last month, I think that this post is still relevant.

Continue reading

What is Freedom?

George Lakoff has a new book out – Whose Freedom?: The Battle Over America’s Most Important Idea. You can read short blurbs and reviews on Rockridge Isntisute site, Salon and Washington Post. I have placed it on my wish list as well.

Talking Right

I just finished listening to Fresh Air on NPR. Terry Gross had an interview with Geoffrey Nunberg whose book, Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show just came out. As you know, I am interested in the way the Right has appropriated English language in the US so I listened carefully. You can also hear the podcast (a little later today, I assume) and read a little excerpt from the book on the link above.
While most of what he said is pretty much the same as his University-mate Lakoff says (and interestingly, I did not catch them mentioning Lakoff during the show), I was surprised when he stated that everything comes out of language. Everything else he says implies the opposite – its starts with the human mind, and is converted to language by political wordsmiths like Frank Luntz. Thus, language becomes the element in the feedback loop that reinforces what the mind already thinks, but it is not the starting point of that loop.
Anyway, I have placed the book on my wish list as I cannot afford it right now and I’d like to hear any comments from readers who get to read the book before I do.

Nationalism and Patriotism

OK, today I’d like you to superimpose a couple of very different articles that all look at the difference between patriotism and nationalism, but each from a different angle and see if, and how, they inform each other. First, I’d like you to read one of my old posts (which I may decide to re-post here one day, but for now, check it out on my old blog) – Nationalism is not Patriotism. That would be a bare-bone introduction to political psychology of patriotism and nationalism:

Why is there a widespread belief that the difference between patriotism and nationalism is one of degree: loving one’s country versus loving it even more? I think that the difference is not quantitative but qualitative – the phrase “love for one’s country” used by the two kinds of people (patriots and nationalists) is based on very different meanings of the words “love”, “for”, “one” and “country”.

Now, let’s move from bare bones to the results of some real research on the topic, ably dissected and distilled by Chris in Two Types of Patriotism:

To these people, the political landscape in the U.S. is composed of two villages, one populated by patriots, and the other by America haters. There doesn’t seem to be any room in between, and a patriot seems to be defined as adopting a less than critical attitude towards one’s country. For me, this raises interesting questions about what patriotism is, and as a psychologist, questions about the psychological makeup of a patriot. Since today’s the 4th of July, it seems like a good time to talk about a little of what I’ve learned.

Small Grey Matters responds to Chris’ post with one of his own – What are authoritarians like?:

One of the many interesting findings to come out of the behavioral genetics literature is that the heredity of political orientation (defined in terms of variables such as conservatism vs. liberalism, right-wing authoritarianism, etc.) is about as high as that of general intelligence and most major personality dimensions-typically around 50-65%. That’s to say, over half of the variance in questionnaires including items such as “Our country needs a powerful leader to overthrow the radical and immoral values that are present in today’s society” is attributable to genetic influences (most of the remainder is due to unique, or non-shared, environmental influences).

I think that the idea that psychological traits related to political orientation are heritable is true, but NOT VIA GENES! It is inherited via a developmental process. Conservatives raise their children in such a way that their emotional development results in them becoming conservatives when they grow up, thus perpetuating the trait across generations – that is the definition of inheritance. And it is not teaching conservatism directly – it is providing an environment in which a child will develop conservative traits.
Furthermore, ideologically like-minded people tend to live in the same place – thus the broader community (village, church, school, local media, etc.), not just parents, adds to the developmentally important aspects of the social environment. In a sense, it is niche-construction – a trait results in the modification of the environment in a way that favors the perpetuation of that same trait. Move to a different environment (e.g., college town, Europe), and different traits develop which build a different environment which favors that new (liberal) trait. No DNA is involved here at all. I have touched on this many times before on my blog (see, for instance this post).
Finally, once you have absorbed lessons from Chris’ post, apply his analysis to the symbolism in some ‘patriotic’ songs, provided to you by Josh in What isn’t clear about ‘This Land is Your Land’?:

My (least) favorite line: “I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.” “At least”? Really? We could basically boil the song down to “America: sufficiently better than Russia.” This isn’t patriotism, it’s blind nationalism. And the difference is instructive. Why exactly Lee Greenwood wants God to bless America is really left to the imagination of the reader, and it’s not clear that Greenwood has a good idea beyond that it’s where he happens to live.

Now you have academic and instinctual all tied together and you really grok the difference between nationalism and patriotism, don’t you?

Why Is Academia Liberal?

Why Is Academia Liberal?When I posted this originally (here and here) I quoted a much longer excerpt from the cited Chronicle article than what is deemed appropriate, so this time I urge you to actually go and read it first and then come back to read my response.

Continue reading

It’s Conservatism, Stupid!

Again, an article echoing Lakoff’s argument, with which I agree:
Why Conservatives Can’t Govern:

If leaders consistently depart in disastrous ways from their underlying political ideology, there comes a point where one has to stop just blaming the leaders and start questioning the ideology.
The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush’s incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president’s principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay’s ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.

The Political Brain

The Political Brain
This post was initially published on September 16, 2004. It takes a critical look at some UCLA studies on brain responses of partisan voters exposed to images of Bush and Kerry:

Continue reading

Creationism Is Just One Symptom Of Conservative Pathology

Creationism Is Just One Symptom Of Conservative Pathology
This is one a couple of posts about Creationism, written originally on May 1st, 2005.

Continue reading

Comissar in the Seventh House

There is a whole slew of responses to this silly post by Comissar/
It is a typical effort to make “balance” between Left and Right in order to make the Right appear more palatable, …or palatable at all. The typical He-said-She-said approach that tries to equalize the enormously dangerous policies of the Right (see my previous post below) with follies of some powerless, silly people on the fringes that nominally belong to the Left (and vote Nader when it really matters!).
But, since when was Astrology part of the Democratic Party platform, even at state level, like Creationism and Global Warming Denial are in the GOP? Which party did Nancy Reagan belong to? And who the hell is Jerome Armstrong and why should I care? Is he just another Ward Churchill, a nobody that the vicious Right can beat up on blogs every day?
So, read the responses (and excellent comments) by:
PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, DarkSyde, Brent Rassmussen and Alon Levy.
It is funny that Comissar lists people who are so different from each other politically, some closer to Comissar himself than to the DNC. It is also funny that Comissar lists people who have, originally, when it was still fun before more dangerous and pressing things happened to the world in November 2000, written against astrology and other pseudoscience. It is also funny that he lists people who have invented the Skeptic’s Circle and Carnival of the Godless where such stuff is debunked (and the founder of Tangled Bank in which such stuff was debunked before the founding of the Skeptic’s Circle).
And I have chimed in on this topic before in Lefty and Righty excesses of pseudo-science.

Obligatory Reading of the Day

Bush Is Not Incompetent by George Lakoff:

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush’s plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush’s “failures” and label him and his administration as incompetent. Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault.

The article is long and elaborate, but the core idea is exactly what I wrote back in September 2005: Stop Beating on Bush!

Moral Order

ClockWeb%20logo2.JPG This was an early post of mine building upon George Lakoff analysis of the psychology underlying political ideology. It was first published on September 04, 2004 (mildly edited):

Continue reading

The Future of Terrorism

The July issue of Discover Magazine has an excellent article on The Future of Terrorism. You should readthe whole thing, online or in hardcopy. Here are some choice quotes by people interviewed for the article:

“The war on terrorism is really a proxy for saying what is really a war on militant Islam. If we can’t confront the ideology, if you’re not willing to take on the ideology and try to develop a reformist, moderate Islam that makes militant Islam a fringe element, we haven’t much hope to stamp it out.”

Andrew C. McCarthy, former federal prosecutor who led the case against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.

“A nuclear terrorism attack is inevitable if we continue on the autopilot path we’re on.” The odds of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil in the next five years are “51-49.”

Graham Allison, assistant secretary of defense in the first Clinton administration and now director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University

“I’m less worried about terrorists becoming biologists than biologists becoming terrorists”

Gerald Epstein, senior fellow at the Homeland Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

“It’s easy to go around whipping up hysteria. I’m not a terrorism expert, but they seem to favor things that blow up and make loud noises rather than subtle increases in deaths from infectious agents.”

Biologist Craig Venter, who is skeptical of the bioterrorism threat.

“The current leadership of the terrorist organizations are of a generation that doesn’t trust cyber means of attack. Once we see a new generation of leadership that is more comfortable with technology, we’re going to see more of this.”

Mike Skroch, Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

“You can never get a fingerprint online, but you can get a writeprint.” If there is a new message, I can tell you if it’s from Bin Laden or his lieutenant.”

Hsinchun Chen, designer of the Dark Web Project

“Do I think we’ll ever stop it? Could we get it to a manageable level? I think we can do that.”

Howard Safir, former New York City police commissioner

“We know from the basis of past periods of terrorism that they don’t last forever. This is a phenomenon, as troubling as it is, that will turn out to have a beginning, middle, and end.”

Michael Barkun, political scientist at the Maxwell School in Syracuse, New York

The most advanced technology that terrorists have at their disposal is television. “Essentially, it’s an image war. PR is everything in terrorism. Why? Look at what the terrorists are trying to achieve: political or ideological change. And if people don’t buy into a doctrine, the terrorists can’t succeed.”

Graham Dillon, heads the financial-crime advisory service of the London branch of the accounting firm KPMG

“There would be such enormous pressure for an immediate and devastating political response. Three Algerians from Paris blow up a bomb in Washington; we vaporize Tehran and get rid of everybody we don’t like: anyone who’s strategically culpable, whom we believe either supports terrorism [or] sponsors it directly or indirectly. If that happens, the world would be as different a place as after World War II.”

Scott Atran, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan and at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris

“You can do preventative things. And you can make people safer. You can’t make people safe. You are never safe, because in an open and free society you’re always vulnerable to people who are extreme.”

Howard Safir