How Much/How Many Republicans are Truly Well Intended?

[prideandfall]

Being from Australia I lack the nuances of US political thought but didn't the South vote Democrat for decades in the 20th century, until the 80s at least? Now they don't?
Genetics would have trouble explaining that rapid turn-around.

The nuance you're missing is that it is perfectly acceptable to denigrate lower class White voters as "poor, uneducated" to explain why they vote the way they do; in contrast, it is absolutely forbidden to called lower class Black or Latino voters "poor, uneducated" to explain why they vote the way they do. Mind you, many of the same voters prideandfall defames as "poor, uneducated" voted for Obama in '08 and '12. But because they voted for Obama in those years, they were spared the slander.

oh, and thank you for the blind assumption based on nothing but your own desire to have a straw man to attack so you don't have to face reality.

blacks and mexicans are just as fucking stupid as whites.

 

[Elixir]

Being from Australia I lack the nuances of US political thought but didn't the South vote Democrat for decades in the 20th century, until the 80s at least? Now they don't?
Genetics would have trouble explaining that rapid turn-around.

The nuance you're missing is that it is perfectly acceptable to denigrate lower class White voters as "poor, uneducated" to explain why they vote the way they do; in contrast, it is absolutely forbidden to called lower class Black or Latino voters "poor, uneducated" to explain why they vote the way they do. Mind you, many of the same voters prideandfall defames as "poor, uneducated" voted for Obama in '08 and '12. But because they voted for Obama in those years, they were spared the slander.

The nuance you're missing is that poor. uneducated black people and Mexicans don't vote for the politicians who are the subject of the OP.
We talking about the scumbags that poor, uneducated white people vote into office despite the fact that their own interest are not served by said scumbags.
Got it?

 

[Tigers!]

blacks and mexicans are just as fucking stupid as whites.

Congratulations on getting all your prejudices into a single neat sentence.

I'll bet you're glad that voting is not compulsory in the US. Imagine how you'd feel then.

 

[Tigers!]

[

The nuance you're missing is that poor. uneducated black people and Mexicans don't vote for the politicians who are the subject of the OP.
We talking about the scumbags that poor, uneducated white people vote into office despite the fact that their own interest are not served by said scumbags.
Got it?

I get the nuance that you are so dismissive and disparaging of your fellow citizens and have nothing but contempt for those you consider your moral, intellectual and political inferiors.

 

[prideandfall]

Congratulations on getting all your prejudices into a single neat sentence.

human stupidity is not a racial trait. you're barking up the wrong tree if you think it's possible to guilt trip me about that.

I'll bet you're glad that voting is not compulsory in the US. Imagine how you'd feel then.

i'd feel like it was compulsory for me to vote, and i'd probably do it if i couldn't figure out some way around it.
so, overall, i'd feel pretty indifferent.

 

[Will Wiley]

It's naive to imagine yourself as well intended and those you disagree with as not well intended (as the poster who started this thread seems to)

Everyone imagines themselves to be the good guy.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxUgei-WKfY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[zorq]

It's naive to imagine yourself as well intended and those you disagree with as not well intended.

That is certainly true but it is also true that the OP did refine his definition of well intended which I believe some posters subsequently highlighted as a major diatinguishing difference between Republicans and their political opposition.

Helping out the people you care about is noble but it doesn't necessarily include some or most of the people your decisions affect.

 

[BH]

I've read that a lot of folks view of government and how a ogvernment should govern comes from your early experiences with family life. People who have a harsh father heavy on discipline tend to grow up conservative. Those who have a father that has a wife who has an equal say as he, or at least has a say and is heavy on showing kindness and affection as well as discipline tend to have more liberal children when grown up.

I've also read that conservatives tend to think if there is a problem in government, a workplace, or the home the problem is caused by an individual. Fix or get rid of the individual and the problem is solved. Liberals can see problems as caused by individuals but all can see that they can be caused by systems as well.

I think both liberals and conservatives form a lot of their views based on fear. It's just that Conservatives tend to fear different things than liberals do.

 

[iolo]

All my life I have wished that I could see conservatives as fundamentally decent but misguided people, and when I was young, there were still a few old 'country' tories who tried, in their dim way, to do something for others. Now, alas, I see no sign that anyone who supports the right is better than a criminal or a fanatic, intent on destroying the world for their own advantage. I wish it were otherwise, but the victory of that fat, spoilt madman seems to put the tin hat on it rather.

 

[ronburgundy]

Republicans and American Conservatives are less empathic and place less value on instilling empathy in children than liberals do.
They also place less value on tolerance and creativity, but place more value on obedience and religious faith (which is a form of authoritarian obedience).

Praying for someone's suffering to end can be empathic, but praying for someone to find God (as many conservatives do) is not an act of empathy or caring, but rather and act of authoritarianism. It is nothing more than hoping that the person fall in line and start obeying.

There is neuroscience brain scan studies that converge with these self-reported values results.
https://braindecoder.com/post/politics-neuroscience-1282982492

 

[ronburgundy]

It's naive to imagine yourself as well intended and those you disagree with as not well intended (as the poster who started this thread seems to)

Everyone imagines themselves to be the good guy.

That's because "good" is whatever you want it to be. Conservatives think that obedience to authority is good, and that inequality is good (b/c its the natural order as created by God).

However, being empathic is not as completely arbitrary and subjective, and people objectively vary on it, and Republicans are objectively less likely to experience it or promote it as a social value. The same goes for being well-intentioned regarding having sincere concern for the well-being of the majority of people.

Assuming that a person you disagree with about some non-moral issue is less moral, solely because they disagree with you about anything is irrational. However, when the source of disagreement is about being moral and empathic (and that is the source beneath many GOP-Dem disagreements), then one is not inferring lack of empathy from the mere fact of disagreement but rather disagreeing because of the evidence for lack of empathy and the resulting policy preferences that increase suffering.

Disagreements about the most effective method to improve the well being of the vast majority of people (which included people in the future who must live in the environment we impact) are had mostly between liberals of various stripes and degrees.
The fundamental disagreement between liberals and conservatives is not "how" to do this, but whether we should even try to do this vs. only care about the well being of a select group and give a big heartless "fuck you" to all others in the form of walls, deportations, more prison, more authoritarian religion shoved down their throats, more shame and humiliation and lack of basic rights for their private personal preferences that harm no one, etc..

 

[ZiprHead]

The comments section at your link was... interesting.

 

[Elixir]

The comments section at your link was... interesting.

Wow. Since when did "interesting" come to mean "fucked up"?

 

[Valjean]

Of course there are organic differences. We're practically different species, both neurologically and psychologically.

We're an evolving species. We were originally a bipedal, hunter-gatherer ape living in small, cohesive bands, in a hostile environment, in competition with neighboring bands. Our minds are designed to 1: unite us into teams, 2: divide us against other teams, and 3: blind us to the truth or big picture.

Today the psychology that served us well during the Pleistocene is no longer so functional, and just as biology is now selecting for lactose tolerance beyond infancy, it's also selecting for traits adapted to life in large, interdependent societies. The degree of adaptation varies, though, just as the degree of lactose tolerance.

We now have the technology to examine these adaptations, and CAT scans, fMRIs, &c, as well as psychologically testing, show clear differences among liberals and conservatives:
https://braindecoder.com/post/politics-neuroscience-1282982492
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

There are dozens of studies like this. One's political orientation can be predicted by a brain scan with >80% accuracy.

This is not all set in stone, though. Our minds are malleable, but we're not likely to modify our behavior and attitudes without insight into our underlying psychology.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are plenty of well intended Republicans and conservatives, both fiscal and social. Haidt's book is just one place to look to try to get a sense of their mindset. Another way is to actually listen to them without infusing your own biases and prejudgmnets. Rubin's show is pretty eye opening for that. Just because people fundamentally disagree with you doesn't make them disingenuous liars or evil monsters. I have even spent some time with fundamentalist muslims an come to appreciate some of where they are coming from, though I fundamentally disagree with them on nearly every possible level. One of the coolest talks I have ever witnessed was between a calm and fairminded fundamentalist muslim and a calm and fairminded nudist hippy. The number of misconceptions they had about one another was astounding and it was fascinating to see where the conflicts were and to see why each thought the way they did.

Now as for Republican Politicians? That's a different matter, as is Democrat Politicians. Politicians are in it as a career, so they are less prone to being genuine and truly well intended, and that applies to both of your political parties and to both Trump and Hillary Clinton, neither of whom I would trust to have my best interests in mind.

 

[ronburgundy]

There are plenty of well intended Republicans and conservatives, both fiscal and social. Haidt's book is just one place to look to try to get a sense of their mindset. Another way is to actually listen to them without infusing your own biases and prejudgmnets. Rubin's show is pretty eye opening for that. Just because people fundamentally disagree with you doesn't make them disingenuous liars or evil monsters. I have even spent some time with fundamentalist muslims an come to appreciate some of where they are coming from, though I fundamentally disagree with them on nearly every possible level. One of the coolest talks I have ever witnessed was between a calm and fairminded fundamentalist muslim and a calm and fairminded nudist hippy. The number of misconceptions they had about one another was astounding and it was fascinating to see where the conflicts were and to see why each thought the way they did.

Now as for Republican Politicians? That's a different matter, as is Democrat Politicians. Politicians are in it as a career, so they are less prone to being genuine and truly well intended, and that applies to both of your political parties and to both Trump and Hillary Clinton, neither of whom I would trust to have my best interests in mind.

The empirical evidence shows that there are relatively few conservatives who place high value on empathy and far more who place high value on obedience and subservience to their authoritarian religious worldview.
That doesn't mean there are not "some" who are empathic and deeply care about improving the well being of all, but it does mean that its a small minority of them that care about that more than about preserving inequalities they believe should exist and preserving traditions and authority for its own sake even when it harms people.

BTW, Haidt's actual data supports this. Only at the most vague, subjective, and meaningless sense of "good" does he argue that liberals and conservatives are both "good" or "moral". What his work shows is that when you define in more specific and objective terms what types of "good" they care about more or less, then libs and conservatives are notably different, with conservatives siding with the highly intolerant and tribalistic authoritarian notions of what is important and "good" that dominated most of human history prior to the Western Enlightenment that gave rise to the notions of individual and human rights, and the importance of reason and democracy.

That said, there is some variance in identification with Dems and Gop (or lib and conservative) that is superficial and based only on use of terms and superficial trappings that people are socialized to embrace or reject. That's much like the fact that their are "Catholics" who are actually far closer to Richard Dawkins than to other Catholics or anything that could be deemed reasonably defining of Catholicism.
But there are still very real and deep differences and oppositions in basic morals, values, and goals between many that are deeply religious and staunch atheistic secularists. The same is true of liberals and conservatives.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ Yes, but that in no way makes the conservatives any less well intended or genuine. They simply differ on what they prioritize and what they consider good to be. They prize the social cohesion of their group (so obedience becomes a virtue and social taboo a vice to them) more than individual or universal rights and freedoms. As Haidt points out, this often leads them to be MORE empathetic and MORE caring towards their inner community. If you are way out with me on the other end of the spectrum (social liberalism), you may not have experienced empathy to the same depth as they have. Your feeling of empathy is likely to be far wider (including all humans, or maybe even going beyond that to other species) but also less deep.

Here is an interesting field observation you can do for yourself: If you can stomach it, sit and actually listen to a calm and well spoken and levelheaded white separatist (Can such a person exist? Actually yes. They are usually quickly branded as white supremecist racists) and you'll hear about "preserving the white race" more than you'll hear about how other races are inferior and should be harmed, etc. It is more a fear of ruining what they see as their "pure" bloodline and society from an external threat of cross-breeding and multi-culturalism. If you accept that their priority is social cohesion and preservation of their social norms (or a return to a golden yesteryear that never was), you can start to follow their logic and why they behave and speak the way that they do.

The more the same we are, the easier empathy is to draw from us for each other. Social conservatives realize that (if only subconsciously) and place more importance on that greater sense of empathy and the resulting social cohesion. To their mindset different (be it black, gay, new fashion trend, whatever) is bad because it threatens the social cohesion of the group. So the notion is that we need to keep THEM out (build a wall!) and away from us so that WE can bond more closely together. And the collapse of the nuclear family unit (mom, dad, children), gay marriage, etc etc threatens this for them, as they see the fabric of traditional society (which they prize) fall apart around them.

It is often hard for us liberals to truly appreciate just how much these social conservatives feel they have to lose and why they feel they must fight us liberals and our placing concepts like fairness, equality of all, etc, over the social cohesion of their group. And for those of us who have never been deeply indoctrinated into an in-group, and especially a religious one, it is especially hard to see. Maybe thinking of our own children or parents will help. You care more for them than you do for your neighbours, and more for your neighbours than for random citizens of your country you haven't met. They just have a more extreme version of the same.

"Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.” - Haidt

So no, Conservatives, Republicans, etc, are not diabolical monsters or lying liars who lie and are not ill intentioned or evil. They are just wired or conditioned to have a different sense of what is best best for them, their families, and their societies.

 

[Elixir]

^ Yes, but that in no way makes the conservatives any less well intended or genuine. They simply differ on what they prioritize and what they consider good to be. They prize the social cohesion of their group (so obedience becomes a virtue and social taboo a vice to them) more than individual or universal rights and freedoms. As Haidt points out, this often leads them to be MORE empathetic and MORE caring towards their inner community. If you are way out with me on the other end of the spectrum (social liberalism), you may not have experience empathy to the same extent as they have. Your feeling of empathy is likely to be far wider (including all humans, or maybe even going beyond that to other species) but also less deep.

Here is an interesting field observation you can do for yourself: If you can stomach it, sit and actually listen to a calm and well spoken and levelheaded white separatist (Can such a person exist? Actually yes. They are usually quickly branded as white supremecist racists) and you'll hear about "preserving the white race" more than you'll hear about how other races are inferior and should be harmed, etc. It is more a fear of ruining what they see as their "pure" bloodline and society from an external threat of cross-breeding and multi-culturalism. If you accept that their priority is social cohesion and preservation of their social norms (or a return to a golden yesteryear that never was), you can start to follow their logic and why they behave and speak the way that they do.

The more the same we are, the easier empathy is to draw from us for each other. Social conservatives realize that (if only subconsciously) and place more importance on that greater sense of empathy and the resulting social cohesion. To their mindset different (be it black, gay, new fashion trend, whatever) is bad because it threatens the social cohesion of the group. So the notion is that we need to keep THEM out (build a wall!) and away from us so that WE can bond more closely together. And the collapse of the nuclear family unit (mom, dad, children), gay marriage, etc etc threatens this for them, as they see the fabric of traditional society (which they prize) fall apart around them.

It is often hard for us liberals to truly appreciate just how much these social conservatives feel they have to lose and why they feel they must fight us liberals and our placing concepts like fairness, equality of all, etc, over the social cohesion of their group. And for those of us who have never been deeply indoctrinated into an in-group, and especially a religious one, it is especially hard to see. Maybe thinking of our own children or parents will help. You care more for them than you do for your neighbours, and more for your neighbours than for random citizens of your country you haven't met. They just have a more extreme version of the same.

"Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.” - Haidt

So no, Conservatives, Republicans, etc, are not diabolical monsters or lying liars who lie and are not ill intentioned or evil. They are just wired or conditioned to have a different sense of what is best best for them, their families, and their societies.

I wouldn't argue with most of that. But it describes "conservatives" in a broad sense. I tend to agree with Loren who observed early in this thread on the question of whether there are well-meaning republicans:

Republicans, yes, plenty.
Republicans in office, basically zero. The decent ones don't support the party anymore.

 

[ZiprHead]

The comments section at your link was... interesting.

Wow. Since when did "interesting" come to mean "fucked up"?

I was trying to be PC.

 

[ronburgundy]

^ Yes, but that in no way makes the conservatives any less well intended or genuine. They simply differ on what they prioritize and what they consider good to be. They prize the social cohesion of their group (so obedience becomes a virtue and social taboo a vice to them) more than individual or universal rights and freedoms. As Haidt points out, this often leads them to be MORE empathetic and MORE caring towards their inner community. If you are way out with me on the other end of the spectrum (social liberalism), you may not have experienced empathy to the same depth as they have. Your feeling of empathy is likely to be far wider (including all humans, or maybe even going beyond that to other species) but also less deep.

Here is an interesting field observation you can do for yourself: If you can stomach it, sit and actually listen to a calm and well spoken and levelheaded white separatist (Can such a person exist? Actually yes. They are usually quickly branded as white supremecist racists) and you'll hear about "preserving the white race" more than you'll hear about how other races are inferior and should be harmed, etc. It is more a fear of ruining what they see as their "pure" bloodline and society from an external threat of cross-breeding and multi-culturalism. If you accept that their priority is social cohesion and preservation of their social norms (or a return to a golden yesteryear that never was), you can start to follow their logic and why they behave and speak the way that they do.

The more the same we are, the easier empathy is to draw from us for each other. Social conservatives realize that (if only subconsciously) and place more importance on that greater sense of empathy and the resulting social cohesion. To their mindset different (be it black, gay, new fashion trend, whatever) is bad because it threatens the social cohesion of the group. So the notion is that we need to keep THEM out (build a wall!) and away from us so that WE can bond more closely together. And the collapse of the nuclear family unit (mom, dad, children), gay marriage, etc etc threatens this for them, as they see the fabric of traditional society (which they prize) fall apart around them.

It is often hard for us liberals to truly appreciate just how much these social conservatives feel they have to lose and why they feel they must fight us liberals and our placing concepts like fairness, equality of all, etc, over the social cohesion of their group. And for those of us who have never been deeply indoctrinated into an in-group, and especially a religious one, it is especially hard to see. Maybe thinking of our own children or parents will help. You care more for them than you do for your neighbours, and more for your neighbours than for random citizens of your country you haven't met. They just have a more extreme version of the same.

"Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.” - Haidt

So no, Conservatives, Republicans, etc, are not diabolical monsters or lying liars who lie and are not ill intentioned or evil. They are just wired or conditioned to have a different sense of what is best best for them, their families, and their societies.

Acting to preserve the purity of your race is ill intentioned and immoral in the sense that anything can be. It is a notion inherently rooted is selfish bigotry and lack of caring about other people except for when it benefits oneself. The very idea of racial purity stems from hateful notions of other groups as lesser and impure, like a poison that must be kept outside of one's lineage. It isn't just lesser empathy for outgroups, but going to great lengths to promote anti-pathy and hate towards those groups for the selfish benefit to ones in-group. In addition, their empathy for their own group member is NOT at all "deeper", in fact it isn't real empathy at all. Conservatives are far more likely than liberals to throw an in-group member (even a family member) under the bus and harm them, the second that person gets out of line in even the most vacuous inconsequential way, such as wearing the wrong clothes, haircut, etc..
They care more about the order than about the people in it. It isn't about protecting the order to protect the people, but to protect the order in itself even if it means harming most of the people within it, because they have an emotional preference for the feeling of certainty that the order gives them. It is entirely selfish. They provide aid conditional on group membership and following the group order, because the aid isn't about empathy for the person but about reinforcing the order for selfish reasons.

IF that isn't ill intentioned, then nothing is.

Your argument wrongly presumes that their beliefs are arrived at honestly and innocently, and then those beliefs happen to make well-intentioned goals lead to actions that are harmful to others.

The beliefs are not incidental. They are willfully manufactured and maintained for the selfish purpose of justifying harm to others in service of the selfish goal of protecting a narrow order that quells their existential fears and uncertainties. Most of the beliefs are so patently absurd and contradicting by their own experience and knowledge that maintaining them requires effortful self-delusion. This leads to the fearful insecurities that prompt very aggressive and often pro-violent responses to the mere questioning of those ideas. That means they are not merely puppets reacting to their "conditioning", but willful participants in using ideas they know are shaky to justify harming others, not to help their family, but to preserve the order they emotionally rely on even if it means harming members of their own family.

It is a lot like the religious belief that gays will go to hell (not coincidentally a belief held mostly by conservatives). This absurd belief doesn't make ill-intentioned actions to harm gays really a loving action to "save their souls". The belief itself is actually an immoral result of self-serving delusion maintained to rationalize harming gays in service of protecting the order and their simplistic authoritarian notions of morality they prefer. Many people exposed to such beliefs reject them, and many people not socialized to accept them go out of their way to accept them (choose to be more religiously conservative than their upbringing). Thus, it is psychologically incorrect to treat those beliefs as simple conditioning. They are, in large part, choices and reflect upon the decency, selfishness, lack of empathy and willingness to live with greater existential uncertainty for the sake of others.