What is wrong with you people?

[Riddil]

Ok, admittedly I've been out-of-the-loop for a while, since I've been working in China the past 2.5 years. But seriously, I cannot believe what I see on CNN.

McCain and Obama in a dead-heat? Really? I mean, I tried to be understanding for a while, but as we get farther from the conventions I'd think people would wake up and realize that electing a Republican isn't going to change anything... no matter what McCain says.

When I talk to the other Americans living over here it seems that it's about 95% for Obama, 5% for McCain. That seems more reasonable to me. I can get my head around that.

But 50/50?

Seriously. I'm at a loss. I don't know HOW that's even possible. Hell, in 2000 I was a conservative republican, FOX News watcher. I don't know WHAT more proof people would need to switch their affiliation. Ok... I can understand CEO's may want to vote Republican. But what about the other 99.9% of the population?

Explain it to me. I don't understand it. If anyone can give me an insight I'd be in your debt. At least I won't feel like I'm living in Wonderland anymore.

[Cicero]

I actually haven't met anyone for McCain. That's less than 5 on this end. Anyone know anyone voting for McCain?

[Undertoad]

This extremely difficult, yet extremely rewarding essay appeared over the weekend.

A somewhat easier-to-digest opinion from Penn Jillette, in a short video: The Party of Hate. Republicans are the party of fear, Democrats are the party of hate. Hard to disagree after seeing your thread title. Let me ask you this: if you weren't addressing a group of people -- let's say you were addressing your friend's Aunt, who has said to you that she'll vote for McCain. Would you come back at her with What is wrong with you?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This extremely difficult, yet extremely rewarding essay appeared over the weekend.

A somewhat easier-to-digest opinion from Penn Jillette, in a short video: The Party of Hate. Republicans are the party of fear, Democrats are the party of hate. Hard to disagree after seeing your thread title. Let me ask you this: if you weren't addressing a group of people -- let's say you were addressing your friend's Aunt, who has said to you that she'll vote for McCain. Would you come back at her with What is wrong with you?

How I respond to individuals varies by individual. I try to show respect to all, and the response you illustrate isn't very respectful. I almost certainly would not address her that way, unless I were provoked severely. Highly unlikely and unlikely to be useful in any way.

...the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer.

When I oversimplify the positions of the parties to equal levels, this is what it is reduced to: Reps==intolerant.

But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Pretty good summary, unfortunately.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?

The label elitist is earned as much as close minded is. The labels are practically useless. Why is the author bothering to use them? Did he just call me broad minded, color blind and smart? Is he suggesting that those elitist Dems are name calling? Is that a good thing? Is he calling names? Is that ok?

Back in the United States the culture war was going strong, but I had lost my righteous passion. I could never have empathized with the Christian Right directly, but once I had stood outside of my home morality, once I had tried on the moral lenses of my Indian friends and interview subjects, I was able to think about conservative ideas with a newfound clinical detachment. They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate of schools and discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of single motherhood and weaken the traditional social structures that compel men to support their own children? Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later), and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

So now "moral equivalence" is a virtue?

One critical cultural distinction that is absent in this analysis is that our very foundation as a country "exalts" the individual. "All men are created equal..." Remember that? And that ours is a country of laws. And that there's a bona fide process for creating those laws, obeying those laws and enforcing those laws and penalizing those who don't obey them.

I believe our country's respect for the rule of law is the very essence of what distinguishes us from every other society.

And another thing,

think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

Yeah? So what? What weight does the author assign to "heartfelt-edness"? SonofV has some very heartfelt visions of how our family should be run, at least a heartfelt as his parent's visions. And they're often in direct conflict with each other. But that has no real bearing on their validity. Why not? Because they're bad visions. All play, no work, all dessert, no vegetables, etc etc. I exaggerate for effect. My point is that it is a false premise that how intensely one feels is a reliable basis for deciding the worth of an idea.

Originally Posted by philosopher David Hume

that reason is "the slave of the passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them."

Author Jonathan Haidt argues for rational thought to rule our decisions. He then lays the very cornerstone of the foundation of his arguments in the sand of his passions. I am wary of structures built on sand.

I struggled considerably with the feeling that I was on the hook for his accusations of Democrat's shortcomings, especially that *I* don't get it. But I'm over it. I'm not bitter. Really.

The end of his article was quite good. The addition of three channels comprising his definition of morality, ingroup/loyalty, purity/sanctity, authority/respect was understandable and reasonable. I"m not certain of my level of agreement yet, but I'm willing to keep an open mind.

In the meantime, the difficulties in ascribing motivations to groups as large and diverse and contradictory and amorphous as political parties aside, I'm more concerned with understanding smaller collections of politically tainted people, namely candidates. That's a lot easier for me to process with confidence.

Thanks UT for the informative article.

[morethanpretty]

Our opinion is completely right and everything else is completely wrong. That's the problem.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Our opinion is completely right and everything else is completely wrong. That's the problem.

Some opinions are left.

[Big Sarge]

I don't know anybody supporting Obama. I guess we all gravitate to groups of similarly minded individuals

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

I don't know anybody supporting Obama. I guess we all gravitate to groups of similarly minded individuals

Maybe it's a new spin on "don't ask, don't tell."

[Shawnee123]

Riddil. Yeah, good question. I'm at a loss myself.

The party of hate. Are you kidding me? How about the party of "what the eff have you been doing to our country?"

I do not know specifically of anyone for McCain, aside from the folks who would rather roll over and die than see a black man as president.

'Cause Bush has done a bang-up job. Let's have MORE!

It's a sad sad sad sad sad sad sad world.

[classicman]

Hmmm, I'm pretty much in the middle. Completely undecided. I know many people for McCain and some for Obama.

Its common that people of like interests gravitate towards each other. When I was young and smoked weed - everyone I knew did so too. Now that I am older I can't think of many IRL that I know of who does. Or similarly, doctors hang out with doctors; lawyers with lawyers and teachers with teachers. Its normal.

[Pie]

And I'm the lone liberal in the defense industry. I feel like such a sell-out.
(Still voting for the big O though!)

[Sheldonrs]

Personally I think it's a case of battered wife syndrome. You get used to getting beaten up and your too affraid to leave because you don't know what else to do.
And if you DO happen to get out of that relationship, you usually wind up finding someone who will treat you as bad or worse than the last one.

New Slogan: "Vote for Obama. You don't have to get beaten up every day!"

[Shawnee123]

Nice parallel, Sheldon.

Vote for Obama: Wouldn't you rather have a black guy than a black eye?

[Sundae]

I found my peer group - finally! - when I found the Cellar.
Sad that it's international in a way, because it doesn't easily translate to face to face meetings. But far more interesting in all other ways.

I'm always quite shocked when people fulminate about the internet separating people. I think they mean families with teenagers though, who prefer spending time in their bedrooms chatting online than with their parents. But they'll grow out of it - I spent hours alone in my (shared) room reading, until the cold in our unheated house drove me downstairs to the living room. Now I love spending time with Mum & Dad.

Back to the OT - UT has a point. I've been quite shocked at the vitriol displayed by both sides online (not so much here, but in various blogs & articles I've surfed). But then I am not confrontational and rarely say anything online that I wouldn't say in person and yet even I have been known to rant a little before realising my views aren't shared.

I see it happen all over though. Check out any YouTube clip of Al Murray, Pub Landlord for some really nasty international exchanges or pretty much any football (soccer) clips montage for all Brit slanging matches.

If people don't share your viewpoint it is very easy to see them as "other". The great thing about here is - for example - UG likes poetry and chilli, TW occasional zings off some amazing one liners, Radar has a beautiful daughter etc etc. We come together more than we drift apart I think.

[Shawnee123]

Nicely said, SG.