Search Box

Friday, June 10, 2016

"Science that liberals can no longer love"

Remember that study which came out in 2012 which said that conservatives were much more likely to be authoritarian personalities? Turns out it was a mistake and the opposite is true.

This makes perfect sense:

There's only one side which wants to clamp down on free speech.

There's only one side which prevents speakers from the other side from speaking.

And there's only one side which shows up at the rallies of the other side to disrupt them.

The authoritarian side.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

So, conservatives aren't really such bad guys after all. Amazing!

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
But liberals are!

As the linked article said, let's see if this reversal gets as much air time as the original, mistaken conclusion did.

Steven said...

Satisfying on a number of levels.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Exactly.

Anonymous said...

Lately I've been seeing Trump referred to as a fascist (or neo-fascist).

One definition of fascism: "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

Trump is undoubtedly nationalistic, it is the primary reason for his success.

Right wing? Let's see - he wishes he could have the money back from the Iraq war, and appears to be very unlikely to engage in nation destruction (Syria, Libya). Its the primary reason that the right-wing neo-cons (like Kristol) hate Trump so much - they want the US to destroy Iran, and Trump is not the man to do it. He wants to renegotiate globalist trade agreements and bring manufacturing home (by recent standards, these are leftist positions). Trump will take enough of the blue collar vote here to beat Hillary, in my opinion. His anti-immigration position is considered right of center. But enforcing immigration law and stopping out-of-control illegal immigration has huge popular support. As such it is not 'right-wing', which implies marginal extremism.

Authoritarian? I don't see it. As business deal maker, compromise and negotiation are essential. As President I see Trump right at home 'dealing' with congress and negotiating for legislation he can sign-off to advance his agenda. Will he get 100% of what he wants? Of course not.

On the other hand we have Obama. Obama jammed through the Affordable Care Act - under which my personal health care costs have sky rocketed, particularly through gigantic deductibles. The bill did not have popular support, passed on a party line vote with key votes purchased, through handouts, to 'punch it through'.

Obama couldn't get much through congress. He failed to get what he wants through the legislative process, as the US government is designed to work. But he has his pen and his phone and jams his ideas through, to the extent possible, through executive action. That's authoritarian. In addition, not enforcing law he disagrees with (like immigration law) is another form of authoritarianism. His job as president is to enforce US law, even if he disagrees with it.

But we never hear Obama referred to as authoritarian in the mainstream press.

The fascist label for Trump is another deceptive attempt by the mainstream media to paint him with a scary and evil sounding label.

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
Great summary of the Left's and the media's hypocrisy. Obama's executive edicts are the definition of authoritarianism, but of course nobody in the mainstream press ever paints it that way. And, of course, his drone attacks would be condemned if he were a Republican, but nobody in the mainstream media sees fit to criticize him for it.

I agree, Trump strikes me as a negotiator. My guess is, as the longtime CEO of his own company, he has acquired some authoritarian habits. But he's a smart enough guy to negotiate well, and savvy enough to get some of his agenda through Congress (I think). I'm not nearly as sure as you sound about his electoral chances. I think they're better than the current poll numbers show, but he's still got an uphill battle. I certainly hope you're right.

And yes, fascism has traditionally had much to do with repressing the other side, not allowing them to speak out and be heard. Who does that these days, the Left or the Right? Case closed.

But, the press, being what it is, we're going to be hearing a lot of comparisons between Trump and Hitler over the next four and a half months.

Rona said...

John wrote: There's only one side which wants to clamp down on free speech.

There's only one side which prevents speakers from the other side from speaking.

And there's only one side which shows up at the rallies of the other side to disrupt them.


You're right John, in their dealings with ideological opponents leftist show they are ultimate authoritarians. They advocate complete authority of academic "experts" to dictate opinions and values of entire citizenry and authority of state to impose those values via schools and punishment to those who publicly question them.

In fact, it goes beyond the borders. Liberals actually demand that African countries submit to values of the current year regarding sexuality or US/UN stops sending aid to starving children.

Hundred years ago they were horrified by the loose sexual morality of African tribes which offended their (at the time) liberal Christian sensibilities and demanded Africans adopt Western values of that current year.

Right recognizes natural authority and hierarchy embedded in nature. Father may be the head of the household but his authority stops at the door. Same goes for military or CEO of the company. If you don't agree, leave and do your own thing.

With leftists, one cannot leave. Their utopia is border less world with one world government where unaccountable commission of finger wagging academics and government officials dictate what you may think, read, watch, say, who your neighbors are, how you raise your children and every other aspect of your life down to acceptable curvature of your cucumber (not an euphemism, see European Union rules dictating the size and shape of fruit and vegetables).

John Craig said...

Rona --
Great point. Liberals have no boundaries to the authority they want to exert. in fact, they want to control how people think, which is as invasive as you can get, when you think about it.

Had never thought about Western attitudes toward African sexuality that way, but that's true, too. (I'm not so sure I'd characterize the Christians who tried to proselytize in Africa 100 years ago as "liberal," certainly not in the same sense the word is used today, but yes, they did demonstrate the same desire to export their values.)

Rona said...

I'm not so sure I'd characterize the Christians who tried to proselytize in Africa 100 years ago as "liberal," certainly not in the same sense the word is used today, but yes, they did demonstrate the same desire to export their values.

Don't think about specific policies. Think about the kind of people these are. It's the same Puritan mindset of creating paradise on Earth. It's the Christian humanism without Christ. They killed God but religion just got rebranded progress.

The narrative today is that whites went to Africa to enslave blacks and extract recourses but a big part of British colonization of Africa was the project of uplifting the black man. Idea of white man's burden. Like libs today, they also believed in essential equality of races, and the dream was that under tutelage Africans will be civilized, adopt Christian humanism and eventually become indistinguishable from whites.

What we have today is an evolved strain of virus, present in all political parties, albeit in different forms. Remember George Bush's wars to spread democracy to Muslim countries and export women's rights. I don't think it was just a cover for getting oil and fighting Israel's enemies.

John Craig said...

Rona --
When viewed in that light, yes, that's true. I know a knee jerk liberal who happens to have Mayflower antecedents on both sides of her family. And I've often thought of her attitudes as Puritanical, in the sense that she wants to punish others for not agreeing with her positions. (The Puritans came over here for "religious persecution" alright -- so they could persecute others.)

But I wonder --did the British of 100 hers ago REALLY believe in the equality of all races? I believe that they wanted to "uplift" the Africans, and give them Christianity, and civilization along with it. But back then you didn't have the same sort of near hysterical insistence that any noticing of racial differences was evil.

"An evolved strain of virus" -- well put.

Anonymous said...

liberal conservative? its like asking would you rather freeze or be burned alive one process is extremely horrendous but quick the other extremely slow but not that painful. Both cons and libs in this country asnwer to the elites who truly pull the strings. i have lost hope for america aka the new inevitable rome