Interesting. Even in the US the terms are undergoing transformations. The current Obama administration (like Clinton's) is nowhere near "liberal" compared to Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. Even more bizarre is that when the Clintons pushed for single-payer health care system in the 1990s, many conservatives were ok with a public-option instead - the same public-option they now completely reject. Given these inconsistencies in the US, I have two off-the-top-of the head political theories (1) the Republicans are in a "I am opposed to anything the Democrats are CURRENTLY in favor of". This would explain the tea-baggers odd sentiment "Keep big government's hands off my Medicare!", since Medicare and Medicaid and social security were vehemently opposed by the republicans but now quietly accepted by all Americans. And Americans accept food labels and seat belts and higher CAFE car standards as good things, even though conservatives railed against them in the past (thank Ralph Nadar btw). My second theory is more "freudian" and can subsume the first. (2) What is really driving political bitterness in the US is a vestige of the 1960s "cultural wars" in which marijuana smoking, feminism, Roe-Wade, and sexual permissiveness have been linked to the left. I mean, Stupak's quibbling abortion funding language threatens to derail the entire health-care overhaul, modest as it is. My memory from the 60s is that older people were horrified by the amorality of the hippies, reaction-formation style. This would explain why conservatives are quick to claim religion as their issue, as well as their hold on the lower/middle class south were millions would benefit from policies pitched to the working class. There used to be many union-supporting, labor-centered politicians from the south (Sam Nunn, Lyndon Johnson) but they are all gone now. And of course there is still racism, which is still lingering beneath the surface.
OK just Saturday morning rambling, not really teaching related and not genuine Freudian either ... but thanks Allen Esterson for the information .. ========================== John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 ==================================================================== Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame - A. Einstein ==================================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Esterson" <[email protected]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 5:49:26 AM Subject: Re:[tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent From "Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?", by John Cloud in "Time", cited by Stephen Black: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html "These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics." Oh, dear, the perils of translating from the UK to the US! Do not conflate the American use of the term "liberal" with what is meant in Britain by "Liberal". First the name Liberal Democrats comes from a 1987 merger of the traditional Liberal Party (always traditionally a strong supporter of capitalist free enterprise, with safeguards) with the Social Democratic Party. The Social Democratic Party was an offshoot of the Labour Party set up by four prominent Labour Party members from the Right of the Party. Second, the Liberal Democrats are regarded as a more middle-of-the-road Party than the left-of-centre Labour Party (at least the traditional part of the Labour Party). Second, while the leadership tends to be responsible in its formulation of policies in the sense of maintaining policies that recognize the realities of what can be achieved by any Government in the specific circumstances of its election to power, the Liberal Democrats have the advantage over the two main parties in that they have no hope of achieving power in the immediate future, so their policies can be more "idealistic" without their having to be put to the test of actually having to be carried out. And third, there is a vocal wing of the Liberal Democrats that advocates all manner of mostly unrealistic idealistic policies that would be virtually impossible to accomplish, and which wouldn't help the Party if they were to be accepted by the leadership because they don't have any great support among the wider population. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [email protected] http://www.esterson.org ------------------------------------------------------ From: Paul Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:59:04 -0600 On the other hand, self styled conservatives like Bush and Cheney worked very hard at avoiding actual combat. May be more a style of verbal aggression. On Mar 8, 2010, at 7:38 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: As a follow-up to my post drawing attention to this paper, I've noticed that _Time_ magazine also has an essay on it, probably published immediately after they spotted my note on TIPS. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html The author, John Cloud, refers to a study which found that physically stronger men tended toward a belief in the use of force to solve personal and international conflicts. Identifying this with a conservative philosophy (a bit forced, perhaps), Cloud concludes his piece with this bit of advice: "If you are a liberal who believes you're smarter than conservatives, you probably shouldn't bring that up around them. You might not like them when they're angry." Which suggests that it might not have been a good idea for Ed Pollack to have, as he said, send the article around to his right wing friends, even if he did get a lot of pleasure out of it. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=1263 or send a blank email to leave-1263-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1264 or send a blank email to leave-1264-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
