Liberal intolerance

[Doc]

Your definition of liberal would seem to preclude most liberals politicians in the US from being liberals.

Doc,

It isn't 'my' personal definition. I looked it up in a dictionary. I could try a different dictionary if you like?

Alex.

What is in the dictionary does not take into account that the "liberal" or "progressive" label is self identification until it isn't. Most lately "Liberal" in the US has been so discredited that "Progressive" is now the preferred term even with the ugly history of progressivism in the US.

[manolo]

What is in the dictionary does not take into account that the "liberal" or "progressive" label is self identification until it isn't. Most lately "Liberal" in the US has been so discredited that "Progressive" is now the preferred term even with the ugly history of progressivism in the US.

Doc,

I take your point. However, if I see the dictionary definition of 'liberal' as 'liberal' and someone doesn't fit that definition then they are not 'liberal'.

On my understanding a 'liberal' person cannot be intolerant; it is a contradiction in terms. Of course they may be something else, such as conservative, racist, nationalist, supremacist, imperialist etc, but they would not be liberal. As my old prof used to say in the philosophy dept - Its back to basics.

Alex.

[Doc]

What is in the dictionary does not take into account that the "liberal" or "progressive" label is self identification until it isn't. Most lately "Liberal" in the US has been so discredited that "Progressive" is now the preferred term even with the ugly history of progressivism in the US.

Doc,

I take your point. However, if I see the dictionary definition of 'liberal' as 'liberal' and someone doesn't fit that definition then they are not 'liberal'.

On my understanding a 'liberal' person cannot be intolerant; it is a contradiction in terms. Of course they may be something else, such as conservative, racist, nationalist, supremacist, imperialist etc, but they would not be liberal. As my old prof used to say in the philosophy dept - Its back to basics.

Alex.

Then by your understanding a lot of people calling themselves liberal are not liberal. Many people that claim to be liberals are indeed "racist", nationalist, supremacist, and imperialist. Usually not all of the above at the same time. But they hide it by claiming others are all of the above. Most particularly on "racism"

Look at the way for example they demand lifestyle wars like in Afghanistan. I am all in favor of little girls going to school learning and growing up to be something other than a wife and mother stuck in poverty. However it is not a thing to impose rather than encourage from with out as Hillary Clinton was proclaiming not that many years ago.

And here is another ripped from the headlines example of so called liberal "racism" from the so called liberal capital of the US

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2044448

Effigies of black men and women found hanging on UC Berkeley campus

The cardboard photos of a black man and woman lynched by angry mobs more than a century ago were discovered hanging by a noose on the Berkeley campus at the University of California as demonstrations against police brutality took place across the U.S.

[manolo]

Then by your understanding a lot of people calling themselves liberal are not liberal. Many people that claim to be liberals are indeed "racist", nationalist, supremacist, and imperialist. Usually not all of the above at the same time. But they hide it by claiming others are all of the above. Most particularly on "racism"

Look at the way for example they demand lifestyle wars like in Afghanistan. I am all in favor of little girls going to school learning and growing up to be something other than a wife and mother stuck in poverty. However it is not a thing to impose rather than encourage from with out as Hillary Clinton was proclaiming not that many years ago.

Doc,

Yes, I agree that it is quite possible for a person to call themselves liberal and not be liberal. Being liberal is very hard when push comes to shove.

Your point about regime change in other countries imposed by force is a good one. There is something of a moral dilemma here. If we hold 'liberal' values on a social issue it might be tempting to do something about it (such as the invasion of Iraq and so many previous Western imperialist involvements around the world). But, imposing values on a country that has a long history different from our own goes against the very 'liberal' values that we might be espousing. There is the dilemma.

Of course, a conservative does not have the dilemma. A conservative can say, and believe, 'My way or the highway' without cognitive dissonance. I think this may be one of the attractions of conservativism; it is simple, easy to understand and can be expressed in tight soundbites. Maybe that is why Islam has proved so popular in recent years?

I liked the Chinese response to American Neocons. Their ambassador simply said "We are Chinese". It's not easy to misunderstand that one.

Alex.

[kmich]

“Liberal” and “Conservative” have been tribal monikers representing a variety of changing, evolving interests over their history, much like “Tories” and “Whigs” were in the history of Britain. Discussions of “liberal” and “conservative” periodically devolve into one “tribe” accusing the other of intolerance, hypocrisy, tyranny, or general uselessness without really much need for coherence of ideology or practical intention, just a clear demand to distinguish one from the other. In short, it is identity politics on the right and the left.

This kind of politics is particularly strong during periods of government division to the point of dysfunction and breakdown, since one will not come to terms with a party when one fundamentally opposes their nature, nor will one ever be truly willing to compromise on matters of the integrity of identity in order to effectively govern. Such politics has had strong periods of this in America’s history: the Jacksonian era, the Civil War period, today.

The political philosophical issues around these terms are interesting, but not terribly relevant to our political life today, at least in the US, other than for posturing, speech making, blame, and projection. The overwhelming dominance of wealth and militarism on our political process limits our political cast of characters to shows of political self-hood and not much else.

[YMix]

“Liberal” and “Conservative” have been tribal monikers representing a variety of changing, evolving interests over their history, much like “Tories” and “Whigs” were in the history of Britain.

I sort of disagree, although I'm pretty sure that some people did identify with these labels in a tribal manner. However, this old observation still holds true:

"In view of an old-fashioned liberal manufacturer like J.G Marshall of Leeds the harmless, political divisions into whig and tory, liberal and conservative, prevented the emergence of sharper and more dangerous social confrontations." - Norman Gash.

[kmich]

“Liberal” and “Conservative” have been tribal monikers representing a variety of changing, evolving interests over their history, much like “Tories” and “Whigs” were in the history of Britain.

I sort of disagree, although I'm pretty sure that some people did identify with these labels in a tribal manner. However, this old observation still holds true:

"In view of an old-fashioned liberal manufacturer like J.G Marshall of Leeds the harmless, political divisions into whig and tory, liberal and conservative, prevented the emergence of sharper and more dangerous social confrontations." - Norman Gash.

YMix, James Garth Marshall's comments to Lord Fitzwilliam on the state of the manufacturing classes in the 1840's reflected his understanding of his times where peace was in the interest of his propertied, industrialist class.

Whatever the label, whether they are helpful or harmful, fragmenting or conducive to civil society, how they are defined and applied, or the aspirations they contain, depend entirely upon the challenges and sensibilities of the period, so such a statement could hardly claim historical universality.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The early advocates of U.S. Federalism, the Democratic-Republican Party, were often called the Jacobins.

Now that the Modern Democratic and Republican Parties are reunited as the two grasping hands of the oligarchy, perhaps we should go back to Jacobins vs. Sans-culottes?

DJpTxONxvoo

[kmich]

The early advocates of U.S. Federalism, the Democratic-Republican Party, were often called the Jacobins.

Now that the Modern Democratic and Republican Parties are reunited as the two grasping hands of the oligarchy, perhaps we should go back to Jacobins vs. Sans-culottes?

DJpTxONxvoo

Could be, if we actually enter a revolutionary era. Up to now our contemporary versions of “Sans culottes” have been nothing more than political fashion statements.

Elizabeth Warren is interesting, but I am not sure what to make of her yet. She is clearly intelligent, informed, and passionate about economic justice. She is making points that need to be made. Still, she may be unable to lead real change and be easily marginalized unless her effort coincides with a populist groundswell on these issues.

She also seems to miss the incompatibility of justice and decency at home with a nihilist, militaristic culture that spreads injustice and violence abroad. Martin Luther King made that connection in his “Beyond Vietnam” speech in 1967 much to the consternation of many of his supporters. He was right then and he would be right today. There is no one in our contemporary politics that I see willing to take that courageous step. I am not sure such a critical step could be made for someone who had any chance for national office today. I hope I am wrong.

[Doc]

The early advocates of U.S. Federalism, the Democratic-Republican Party, were often called the Jacobins.

Now that the Modern Democratic and Republican Parties are reunited as the two grasping hands of the oligarchy, perhaps we should go back to Jacobins vs. Sans-culottes?

DJpTxONxvoo

How about the tax payer party vs. the tax taker party?

I am still thinking about suing the DNC. If someone were successful doing that we would end up with neither party in the end.

Or better yet repeal the 16th amendment Then party affiliation will mean much less as it will severally limit pork barrel spending and federal bribes(coercion in the form of do what we say or you don't get this money) to the states

[Nonc Hilaire]

Boehner and Obama just handed the rights to your pension fund & savings account over to the banksters. Both parties are 98% corrupt, but at least Warren is talking about it.

[manolo]

Boehner and Obama just handed the rights to your pension fund & savings account over to the banksters. Both parties are 98% corrupt, but at least Warren is talking about it.

Folks,

Warren is the best you guys have over there.

Alex.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Left-wing corporate capitalism from the lady of the Mohicans? That's what American needs?

[Doc]

Boehner and Obama just handed the rights to your pension fund & savings account over to the banksters. Both parties are 98% corrupt, but at least Warren is talking about it.

Folks,

Warren is the best you guys have over there.

Alex.

She is about the only person in America that would make a worse president than Obama

[noddy]

if i consume too many liberals i get all phlemmy and congested.

[Nonc Hilaire]

if i consume too many liberals i get all phlemmy and congested.

Phlemmy? Isn't that the language spoken by the Belch?

[noddy]

if i consume too many liberals i get all phlemmy and congested.

Phlemmy? Isn't that the language spoken by the Belch?

yes, too many trappist ales and you start dropping the silent 'g'

[kmich]

Boehner and Obama just handed the rights to your pension fund & savings account over to the banksters. Both parties are 98% corrupt, but at least Warren is talking about it.

Folks,

Warren is the best you guys have over there.

Alex.

The "best" we have in our political cast of characters in the US is faint praise indeed.

In spite of her recent speech and actions in the Senate, Warren has yet to come to real terms with the grievous failures of her own party and its collaboration with rigging the "system." She is also clueless as to how the National Security State and militarism promoted by both parties has gravely poisoned the well of our public life and culture. I like her, at least she is not an incompetent, warmongering harridan like Hillary. I suspect though that she will, in due time, either be co-opted by the system, leave it, or be chewed up and spit out by it.

It will likely require harsh leverage from the pitiless crowbar of events to redirect the nation, and that may just as likely turn out to be harrowing as redemptive. I hope I am wrong about that.

[noddy]

the president is a figurehead on a system and can only do as much as is possible within that system.

american wants stable energy and america wants to be in charge of the rules of the market, once you have identified that then the policies are mostly obvious no matter who is the current CEO.

this will also be true of whichever other empire is in charge if america did somehow go all hippy and isolationist.

[manolo]

“Liberal” and “Conservative” have been tribal monikers representing a variety of changing, evolving interests over their history, much like “Tories” and “Whigs” were in the history of Britain. Discussions of “liberal” and “conservative” periodically devolve into one “tribe” accusing the other of intolerance, hypocrisy, tyranny, or general uselessness without really much need for coherence of ideology or practical intention, just a clear demand to distinguish one from the other. In short, it is identity politics on the right and the left.

This kind of politics is particularly strong during periods of government division to the point of dysfunction and breakdown, since one will not come to terms with a party when one fundamentally opposes their nature, nor will one ever be truly willing to compromise on matters of the integrity of identity in order to effectively govern. Such politics has had strong periods of this in America’s history: the Jacksonian era, the Civil War period, today.

The political philosophical issues around these terms are interesting, but not terribly relevant to our political life today, at least in the US, other than for posturing, speech making, blame, and projection. The overwhelming dominance of wealth and militarism on our political process limits our political cast of characters to shows of political self-hood and not much else.

kmich,

Your last sentence is on the money IMO. Politicians of right and left (all over the world) are in hock to capital.

Ronald Reagan's brilliance was to cripple government in the domestic sphere by loading it with debt. This meme of deficit financing has gone so deep into public consciousness that all kinds of governments live in the paralysis of debt, just as Reagan liked it. Thatcher followed suit, running up massive debts in the Lawson boom. The current British Tories are doing the same, in the name of 'austerity'. They will hand on a £1.5 trillion + debt to the next administration, ensuring public sector weakness and a good income stream to the markets.

Alex.

[Doc]

“Liberal” and “Conservative” have been tribal monikers representing a variety of changing, evolving interests over their history, much like “Tories” and “Whigs” were in the history of Britain. Discussions of “liberal” and “conservative” periodically devolve into one “tribe” accusing the other of intolerance, hypocrisy, tyranny, or general uselessness without really much need for coherence of ideology or practical intention, just a clear demand to distinguish one from the other. In short, it is identity politics on the right and the left.

This kind of politics is particularly strong during periods of government division to the point of dysfunction and breakdown, since one will not come to terms with a party when one fundamentally opposes their nature, nor will one ever be truly willing to compromise on matters of the integrity of identity in order to effectively govern. Such politics has had strong periods of this in America’s history: the Jacksonian era, the Civil War period, today.

The political philosophical issues around these terms are interesting, but not terribly relevant to our political life today, at least in the US, other than for posturing, speech making, blame, and projection. The overwhelming dominance of wealth and militarism on our political process limits our political cast of characters to shows of political self-hood and not much else.

kmich,

Your last sentence is on the money IMO. Politicians of right and left (all over the world) are in hock to capital.

Ronald Reagan's brilliance was to cripple government in the domestic sphere by loading it with debt. This meme of deficit financing has gone so deep into public consciousness that all kinds of governments live in the paralysis of debt, just as Reagan liked it. Thatcher followed suit, running up massive debts in the Lawson boom. The current British Tories are doing the same, in the name of 'austerity'. They will hand on a £1.5 trillion + debt to the next administration, ensuring public sector weakness and a good income stream to the markets.

Alex.

Reagans mistake is that he thought Liberals weren't stupid. Always a fatal mistake.

[manolo]

She is also clueless as to how the National Security State and militarism promoted by both parties has gravely poisoned the well of our public life and culture. I like her, at least she is not an incompetent, warmongering harridan like Hillary. I suspect though that she will, in due time, either be co-opted by the system, leave it, or be chewed up and spit out by it.

kmich,

...and there we have the nature of politics. There are few who are not screwed by the three graces you mention.

People used to say to me: "Join the system and change it from inside." It doesn't work like that.

Alex.

[kmich]

She is also clueless as to how the National Security State and militarism promoted by both parties has gravely poisoned the well of our public life and culture. I like her, at least she is not an incompetent, warmongering harridan like Hillary. I suspect though that she will, in due time, either be co-opted by the system, leave it, or be chewed up and spit out by it.

kmich,

...and there we have the nature of politics. There are few who are not screwed by the three graces you mention.

People used to say to me: "Join the system and change it from inside." It doesn't work like that.

Alex.

Probably not, Alex. We have, though, traditions that support real critique and stimuli for change: both intellectual from the Greeks and moral form the prophetic traditions of the Hebrew bible. Typically, though, such traditions operated outside of the centers of power from Thucydides who had the experience of exile, articulating the corrupting effects of the Peloponnesian War on the Athenian politic to Isaiah, a voice from the wilderness, calling Jerusalem a “whore” for her injustice to the poor and the helpless. Power tends to demand conformity as a price of participation leaving intellectual and practical coherence a distant second and questions of morality and decency mere conveniences for the connivance of authority. Consequently figures of genuine, intellectual depth and genuine moral fiber are typically not welcome in the halls of government. If they happened to be let in, they arrived in disguise.

But change will occur one way or the other. Events may compel some transformation which is most common. There likely are contemporary Thucydides and Isaiahs, but once a state claims a kind of self-hood as the voice and conscience of all, these voices tend to be lost under the shroud of conformity.

[Doc]

http://theweek.com/article/index/273736 ... al-science

How academia's liberal bias is killing social science

A blockbuster new report includes some unsettling revelations


By Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry | December 17, 2014

Social science should be non-partisan.

Social science should be non-partisan. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

I have had the following experience more than once: I am speaking with a professional academic who is a liberal. The subject of the underrepresentation of conservatives in academia comes up. My interlocutor admits that this is indeed a reality, but says the reason why conservatives are underrepresented in academia is because they don't want to be there, or they're just not smart enough to cut it. I say: "That's interesting. For which other underrepresented groups do you think that's true?" An uncomfortable silence follows.

I point this out not to score culture-war points, but because it's actually a serious problem. Social sciences and humanities cannot be completely divorced from the philosophy of those who practice it. And groupthink causes some questions not to be asked, and some answers not to be overly scrutinized. It is making our science worse. Anyone who cares about the advancement of knowledge and science should care about this problem.

That's why I was very gratified to read this very enlightening draft paper written by a number of social psychologists on precisely this topic, attacking the lack of political diversity in their profession and calling for reform. For those who have the time and care about academia, the whole thing truly makes for enlightening reading. The main author of the paper is Jonathan Haidt, well known for his Moral Foundations Theory (and a self-described liberal, if you care to know).

Although the paper focuses on the field of social psychology, its introduction as well as its overall logic make many of its points applicable to disciplines beyond social psychology.

The authors first note the well-known problems of groupthink in any collection of people engaged in a quest for the truth: uncomfortable questions get suppressed, confirmation bias runs amok, and so on.

But it is when the authors move to specific examples that the paper is most enlightening.

They start by debunking published (and often well-publicized) social psychology findings that seem to suggest moral or intellectual superiority on the part of liberals over conservatives, which smartly serves to debunk both the notion that social psychology is bereft of conservatives because they're not smart enough to cut it, and that groupthink doesn't produce shoddy science. For example, a study that sought to show that conservatives reach their beliefs only through denying reality achieved that result by describing ideological liberal beliefs as "reality," surveying people on whether they agreed with them, and then concluding that those who disagree with them are in denial of reality — and lo, people in that group are much more likely to be conservative! This has nothing to do with science, and yet in a field with such groupthink, it can get published in peer-reviewed journals and passed off as "science," complete with a Vox stenographic exercise at the end of the rainbow. A field where this is possible is in dire straits indeed.

The study also goes over many data points that suggest discrimination against conservatives in social psychology. For example, at academic conferences, the number of self-reported conservatives by a show of hands is even lower than the already low numbers in online surveys, suggesting that conservative social psychologists are afraid of identifying as such in front of their colleagues. The authors say they have all heard groups of social psychologists make jokes at the expense of conservatives — not just at bars, but from the pulpits of academic conferences. (This probably counts as micro-aggression.)

The authors also drop this bombshell: In one survey they conducted of academic social psychologists, "82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate." Eighty-two percent! It's often said discrimination works through unconscious bias, but here 82 percent even have conscious bias.

The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not.

I hope this paper starts a conversation. Again, this is not about culture-war squabbling — it is about something much more important: the search for knowledge.

[Nonc Hilaire]

We would be better off if we just killed off social psychology. Attributional BS tested to the .05 level. Bleah.