Skip to comments.Psychologist Analyzes Liberals
Posted on 06/28/2010 7:45:21 AM PDT by bs9021
Psychologist Analyzes Liberals James F. Davis, June 28, 2010
Recently I attended a lecture explaining the Liberal Mind by PhD. psychologist, Timothy C. Daughtry. He gave his explanation as to how such a minority (30%) in the United States has been able to impose its politics on the majority. When using the word Liberal below we are talking about the political Liberal.
Liberals dominate our institutions, i.e., the schools, universities, media, arts, cinema, nonprofits, government bureaucracies, etc. Anyone challenging their monolithic views is ruthlessly attacked to be silenced.
Daughtry stated there are two types of liberals. First are the hard liners. He suggested one is wasting his time trying to convince them of anything since they will not or cannot think about their underlying contradictory assumptions, for example, their contradictory belief in equality for all and affirmative action, i.e., special preferences for a favored group.
If you try to discuss facts, they generally respond with personal insults, try to marginalize you by getting a group of like-minded individuals to condemn you, demonize you by suggesting you have dark motives, make you a laughingstock, etc. Sara Palin comes to mind. One can always tell who in the mainstream that Liberals are frightened of by the ferocity of their personal attacks.
The second type of liberal is the uninformed liberal. That person may listen and analyze factual information if you can get them away from their monolithic liberal group.
In his overview Daughtry explained that the liberal character is all about dominance and power. They use the rules and the goodness of their opposition against them. For example, most people do not like conflict....
(Excerpt) Read more at academia.org ...
Here’s a GREAT column from a former life-long socialist in Berkeley...”Liberals Are from Mars, Conservatives Are from Earth” - By Robin of Berkeley
“...since they WILL NOT or CANNOT think about their underlying contradictory assumptions...”
This is the point in a nutshell. Liberals have invested so much in their stance, that it is impossible for them to admit they’re wrong. They don’t have the emotional maturity to do so.
Correct. Much of their personality is rooted in their perceived rectitude of their opinions, and the obtuseness of the rest of humanity in failing to recognize that rectitude.
Yep. That's one of the big differentiators. Their views are not based on facts, they're based on dogma. "Global Warming" is an excellent example of this.
Conservatives have a few hang ups of their own. But, IMHO and in general, I think that conservatives are more fact-driven, and liberals are more emotion-driven.
And, I'd argue that's a good thing, until the balance between the two sides gets too far out of whack....which is where we are right now.
The so-called 'war on drugs' comes to mind. Conservatives normally make arguments based on facts, but the Drug Warrior crowd that self-identifies as 'conservative' always falls back on emotional arguments to justify tyrannical overreach in the name of the WOD (ie. 'if just one child can be saved' yadda yadda yadda).
great article and links in posts.
Liberalism gives passionate, angry expression to all of these and proposes solutions that are irrational and vengeance seeking, which appeals to a lot of people. Liberalism is like a surreal dream where nothing makes sense but everything is compelling. Liberalism takes legitimate concerns and moral feelings, and then goes too far. Liberalism is moral anxiety untempered by wisdom.
The question is more one of, "Where do you draw the line?", IMHO. Is a little pot on the weekend OK? What about heroin or coke? What about the middle aged housewife who has a friendly doctor write a scrip for a few extra pills of OxyContin? Is it OK if it's just for her own use, or is it OK if she gives a few to a friend? What if she sells them?
Then, once a "line" has been determined, how is it enforced? Do you cut off the source? Or do you go after the demand? Right now, we're trying to do both, and accomplishing neither.
Or, do you say "All rightee....anything goes. Sell it all and tax the hell out of it!" I dunno. Society has dug ourselves so deep that I don't think there's a good answer to any of it.
I think that it's entirely possible that America will become a tyrannical state, and it will all be done incrementally "For the Children".
Liberalism is chaos. I recall in college when the Black Student Union took over our Admin. building for a week. It totally disrupted classes and did absolutely nothing but prevent kids from going to school. This is what I see happening now with Obama. He’s disrupting our lives and creating chaos. You cannot run a great country like America based on outdated principles of radical 60’s socialism. OBAMA IS CHAOS!!!
It’s possible to oppose drug legalization and still oppose the war on drugs.
I support laws against recreational drug abuse. But I don’t support no-knock warrants, seizure of assets, or the presumption of guilt.
Bump for later
Also, some conservatives become hypocritical when they have to be responsible, personally.
I have a friend who opposes welfare, social spending, government subsidies, supposedly.
When his dad got sick he went to great lengths to hide his asssets, so they could get MediCare or what have you to cover his permanent placement in a nursing home. He complained about how you had to get the house and the car and the money market funds all switched to other people’s names for a certain length of time before you could “collect.”
So our tax dollars go for the permanent care of a man in a nursing home who could have paid for several months if not years of that care by himself.
Basically, it’s just hypocrisy. There is a lack of principle there in my opinion.
I simply have to call BS on this. There is no way he said this. If he did, the man is a hero, seriously. Or crazy, or both! Wow...
This goes both ways, however. This issue has become so politicized, that the facts don't seem to matter to either side. Evolution, the same thing.. sigh...
Postmodernist liberals approach to restructuring society calls forchallenging power on a day-to-day level. Lyotard suggests we gnaw away at the great institutionalized narrative apparatuses... by increasing the number of disruptive skirmishes that take place on the sidelines." Such as:
pick a quarrel with your conservative neighbor;
refuse to buy a certain brand of condensed milk;
surf the net at work;
sell pirated copies of CDs;
buy fake designer labels;
celebrate fragmentation, diversity, and deviancy;
teach a safe sex course in church or school;
turn vices into virtues;
make the abnormal normal;
legalize same-sex marriage;
praise the concept of a living Constitution;
subscribe to MTV;
attend art exhibits by Andy Warhol, a Madonna concert, a performance of the V-Monologues;
view X-rated movies;
protest Christian prayer in government schools;
support the A.C. L.U;
label Christians and conservatives as right-wing religious fanatics or Fascists;
support the Green Party;
protest under Godin the Pledge;
remove In God We Trust from U.S. money;
support all tax increases;
publicly burn your fur coat;
drink French wine;
help an illegal alien across the border;
keep Intelligent Design out of the schools;
join the anti-globilization protests;>
These can all be viewed as valuable as disruptive skirmishes in the social system by postmodernist liberals.
that kind of event wen I was in college was one of the things that woke me out of liberalism.
I had a boss who was the same way.
The disgusting part is that he had FOUR brothers who could have shared the load.
There is indeed some hypocrisy among conservatives, as evidenced some on FR, and that we all practice in some ways. For my money conservatism is rationally assuming, and insisting on, personal responsibility to the most comprehensive levels, e.g. behavior, respect for others, health care, retirement, blah, blah.
In that light Leftism is clearly exposed.
The drug thing is a nice issue for discussing such.