Skip to main content

View Diary: The Deconstruction of The LIBERAL Mind (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I dunno. I don't think you can generalize about (9+ / 0-)

    liberals in this way--that they are pure rationalists. In fact, I would think that because they have a more complex worldview than conservatives, liberal thinking is more fluid. Also, think of the work of Lakoff and Weston and others ...

    still, I appreciate your efforts here and hope it generates good discussion.

    There are moments when the body is as numinous as words, days that are the good flesh continuing. -- Robert Hass

    by srkp23 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:23:20 PM PDT

    •  The problem I see is that there is an innate (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6ZONite, Odysseus, Smoh, aliasalias

      dislike of concepts related to high degree of organization and strategic thinking, as well as the acquisition and use application of power by the average Liberal, while there is not such doubt on the right.

      I'm trying to figure out how you win like that...

      •  Have BO lullaby them to sleep for nearly a decade (0+ / 0-)

        and then Hillary rides in on her 2016 broom and kicks their asses while they are napping? 3d check mate!

      •  You're right about the disorganization, a (7+ / 0-)

        propensity to accept if not prefer a wide divergence in behaviors over coordinated effort, with GOTV being an interesting and useful exception to the rule.

        But the brain science behind the thing is that liberals are actually much more capable of entertaining ambiguity than the conservative mind is. They even have the brain region nailed down, noting that, in conservative brains, it is smaller, but I'm forgetting the name at the moment. I think the acronym is ANC, with the A being anterior and the C being cingulate, but then again it may just be something in S. Africa. :)

        So, it's not that the liberal is rigidly attached to the rational that makes it weak for the task of recognizing that rationality is not enough, but perhaps the over-flexibility of mind that limits it from seeing things in black in white that conservatives find so useful for galvanizing them in a unity in thought and action. Couple that where their sensitivity to disgust and fear, also grounded in brain science, and you've got a potent spear tip indeed.

        If you've experienced the Unitarian Universalist Society, you know that in their purist form, collectively liberals are a herd of cats... a mile wide and an inch deep. They don't do pyramids. Not naturally.

        And if you tend to be goal-oriented, it can be frustrating. Especially if the goal is important.

        This attribute was both the beauty and strength of Occupy -- because its ambiguity of both intent and purpose prevented it from being quickly defined and then marginalized  -- and then ultimately its weakness, because it lacked the ability for complex organization.

        So the question is: how do we embrace the intellectual diversity of our clans in such a way as to maximize its impact on governance?

        Your assessment of and interest in propaganda are spot on. I'm just convinced how to apply them, other than to subversively plaster the country with stickers with Guy Fawkes, the 99%, and the rich guy from monopoply in a red circle with a slash across him.

        But I'm listening.

        Mindfulness is the first necessity of sanity and survival and the first casualty of Consumer Culture.

        by Words In Action on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:59:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Plaster the country with stickers of Guy Fawkes." (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina, Words In Action, Smoh, aliasalias

          Now you're getting me.  If you study every successful social justice movement, including the late 1800's, early 1900's progressive movement, there has always been a "propaganda" (or public education) element to the successes.

          Also, the progressive movement did not achieve major successes until disparate factions united, big time, in the early 1900's.

          My argument is that it is utterly impossible to defeat an enemy that's highly focused, organized, and strategic, if your faction totally disorganized.

          That's what I'm trying to drive home with my writing.

      •  Well said. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, DelilahOhMy

        I think very highly of your series on this subject and I do think your assessments are rather accurate, though not entirely so.   I agree with WORDS IN ACTION's comment below.

        The thought I would add is the following:

        Liberals do respond to the "visceral emotional" stimuli just as much as do the conservatives, the difference however being that the type of "visceral emotional stimuli which the conservatives respond to tends to be far more of the base emotions variety. Namely, the conservatives in general are responding to "fear" and "survival" emotions, which tend to overshadow any logical rational thinking. Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" comes to mind. Consider the voting characteristics of the following two conservative groups, who we liberals find as strange bedfellows, yet as strange as they seem to be, they none-the-less, are in bed together:

        -- rich conservative industrialists (RCI)

        -- poor conservative Christians (PCC)

        Both of these groups are voting out of fear. 

        Note: the qualifier of "poor" and "rich" are not really necessary here, but are accurate to illustrate a point and reveal the characteristic, but can be replaced:

        Rich --> Fiscal 

        Poor --> fundamentalist 

        RCI are afraid of loosing their wealth.  No matter how much wealth they have, they feel insecure and afraid if they are not earning more, and they are deathly afraid of loosing their lifestyle. 

        PCC see the entire world as engaged in a battle between good and evil: GOD and SATAN. They are afraid of going to hell. They are afraid of Satan. They are afraid of Satan's influence. They are afraid to even listen to anyone whom they see has not embraced their religious beliefs in the exact same manner that they have, because this means that those people are in league with Satan and are going to hell. (My own aunt deleted my FB comment because I linked to Daily Kos, and she was made to believe, because of what she saw on FOX NEWS, that Daily Kos is in league with Satan. 

        An examination of Obama's success is an excellent case study to appreciate how to beat conservatives and why he won. Namely and specifically, Obama's calm cool level-headed diplomacy alleviated the fears of enough of the conservative faction of the populace that they were able to see the logical rationale of Obama's positions. 

        In some ways, Obama's second election was a shoe-in, or would have been, because he had not realized the big fears that the RCI's were concerned with, but then, because of Obama's overly diplomatic tendency, he was reluctant to expose Romney's lies during the first debate, which almost cost him the election. Obama was dominating in the polls until that debate. Obama avoided the confrontation. Romney lied about himself and he lied about Obama. This allowed Romney to paint a false picture of reality, making the RCI afraid of Obama. Fortunately, Obama saw the flaw of his approach, and corrected it during his second and third debates, as well as, in his speeches going forward. Romney's lies made the RCIs afraid, and Obama calling these lies out, alleviated those fears based upon falaehoods, and this (re)earned their trust, causing them to be  able to listen to Obama's rationale. 

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site