Ten oz

I believe Conservatism as a major political influence in on its last leg. Voting Demographics have been trending against conservatism for 30yrs. W. Bush squeezed in just in time without the popular vote and 9/11 allowed for climate where Bush was able to push a lot of things through (DHS, Patriot Act, two wars, Roberts and Alito, etc). Today the GOP has little chance of winning back the administrative branch. They only win one voting demographic and seemingly every major city/economic driver in the country (Seattle, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, LA, Boston, Philadelphia, etc, etc) votes Democrat. Once the Federalist Judges on the Supreme Court no longer have the majority I believe Conservativism will become a fringe portions of the GOP are be interiorly banished to a third party all together. 5 - 4 decisions like citizens united and all the various assaults on the voting rights act will be repaired. That will essentially be like pulling the life support plug on the GOP. The problem is slowly fixing itself. These days are the death throes. Scalia and Thomas can only out live maybe 1 - 2 more administrations. The GOP has gone too far to turn the corner with Black and Latino voters. Society is becoming more educated, less religious, more diverse, and less afraid of other countries.

Conservatism insanity exhibit Alpha : Once Republican got control of the senate they made James Inhofe (Republican Senator from Oklahoma) the Chairman of the Senate Enviroment Committee. What are his qualifications for such a prestigious chairmanship? Well, he is the foremost Climate Change denier in the Senate. In 2012 he authored the book " The Greatest Hoax: How Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future". In his book Inhofe presents such evidence as "God is still up there" and "it is arrogance to assume we can undue what he has done". Recently Inhofe made news for throwing a snowball on the Senate floor to disprove Climate Change. Nominating a Climate Change denier as CHAIRMAN of the Senate ENVIROMENT Committie is like making Jordan Belfort (Wolf of Wall Street) the Chair of the Federal Reserve. It is insane. It also require a plurality of support within the party and not merely a fringe splattering. There is no Liberal equivalent to this sort of nonsensical execution of governance or rather outright disrespect of.

^ Conservatives do a beautiful job creating false dichotomies. Foxnews attacks all other media not own by newscorp as liberal, Republicans in office use names like Democrat, liberal, left wing, Socialist, and even at times Fascist interchangeably. Everything is us vs them.

@ at marcverhargen, DNA has allowed science to trace human life back to Africa. Observations about body fat, craving is shells, and other circumstantial bits does not trump DNA. The migration out of Africa is rather well preserved in our DNA. "Two pieces of the human genome are quite useful in deciphering human history: mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome. These are the only two parts of the genome that are not shuffled about by the evolutionary mechanisms that generate diversity with each generation: instead, these elements are passed down intact. According to the hypothesis, all people alive today have inherited the same mitochondria" "Genetic studies and fossil evidence show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago,that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, although migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeology finds of tools in the region." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Mitochondrial_DNA The attached files in your post were interesting. However they do not address the gentics. Lots of observations and questions abou different adaptations but no genetics. So while compelling the points are not compelling enough. DNA evidence is simply more conclusive IMO than hypothesis' about why humans have larger nasal cavities than chimps. I was also put off by the papers attack on Wikipedia. Citation for everything on Wikipedia is provided. If there is a problem with a study or theory presented on Wikipedia that should be addressed directly. Going after the the site itself seems like a bait and switch.

Most humans can't do that either. Your example is a highly trained and conditioned person. Most humans have about the same ability to swim or dive underwater as the Japanenese Macaque (monkey).

@ Willie71 The first forum I every joined back in 2003 was a political one. It started off fairly moderate but quickly became conservative. They took the whole place over. I stayed long as I could but I eventually started questioning my own sanity for wasting my time. They were in there to burn the place down and lord over the ashes. So I stopped posting. What I took away from my many exchanges was that they are not interested in what's real, helpful, or logical. To them it is like war or a fight where life and death hangs in the balance. They strive to spare themselves injury the way any of us would if being physically threatened. They apply that most basic fight or flight instinct to ideas and theories. Mexicans, Atheists, Scientist, and etc are things that they feel threaten their existence. So any argument that they feel is clever will do. Name calling as sarcasm serves as a legit debate long as they all team up in support of it. Through it all I never found any of the rhetoric sincere. Their wants are sincere their reasoning isn't. They just want what they want because they want it.

^^^^Which is why I posted that the ones that believe the rhetoric are ignorant. Though you just made a compelling argument for insane.

^^^ I see conservative slightly differently. I don't believe many conservatives actually believe their own rhetoric. In our current society it is not appropriate to be openingly racist, classist, greedy, and etc. So a lot of conservatives true intentions are hidden behind made up arguments meant to mask unpopular themes. I don't believe most conservatives honestly think climate science is wrong for example. I think most of them simply don't care because there is so much money to be made. An exhibition of greed would never work in a debate so they just make crazy stuff up. They are like teenage boy going through puberty. They just try every angle and talking point imaginable that serves their only true desire which is to score. If a teenage boy thinks it will help him score any number of attributes will be exaggerated or faked. In my opinion the conservatives that actually believe the talking points not realizing they're cover are ignorant. While the ones who perpetuate false debates are legitimate sociopaths. Those of us who accept the falsehoods as real points are ignorant as well. With those of us who understand that they are lies but say nothing are cowards.

The writer had some fun. And the title of this thread has a question mark at the end not an exclamation point. So I think you are missing some of the context here.As for picking out a few key issues; how parties vote matters. If you look at the record number of filibusters against Obama and Congress doing nothing at a historic rate itis clear that the whole party in towing the line. They don't just cherry pick. They are united and push a specific agenda and the public that donates money and votes for them supports that specific agenda. Perhap some more out of ignorance than insanity.

The OP and subsequent studies are the point of conversation in this thread. So if one does not wish to continue discussing them why read and or post in this thread? Here is an article from "Psychology Today" looking at 10 sign of mental illness within the Republican party. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201206/conservatism-mental-illness

I do not believe all black people share specific views. Some Black people like Clearance Thomas are crazy conservatives while others are brilliant advocates of science like Neil Degrasse Tyson. Nor do I believe all black people share a common environment. Jaden Smith for example has had a different unbringing than Tamir Rice had. The overwhelming majority of people who have religion have the religion they were born into. People born in Muslimmdominant areas who become religious become Muslim overwhelmingly. The numbers of people raised Christian who become Muslim or vice versa is very low. All religions in the United States other than Christian combined (Hindu, Muslim, Buddist, etc) are less than 5% and the overwhelming majority of them moved to the U.S. from a country where their faith was in the majority. If you need citation Pew Research and the Cencus Bureau have the statistics. Even if you could prove that people often change faith, blacks share common attitudes, or etc it doesn't lend a defense to container ions of this thread. This is not a thread about the insanity of black culture. Switching it to that does not serve as a logical defense of conservative ideology.

@ Overtone, bait and switch is a common debating tactic for conservatives. I wouldn't get too worked up over it.

You do not have any statistical analyst to support your assertion. A breakdown of the actual voting shows that their is no difference in the support Obama received vs other democrats:Al Gore in 00' received 42% of the white vote John Kerry in 04' received 41% of the white vote Obama in 12' received 39% of the white vote. The difference between all 3 democrats was marginal. What effected the outcome was a drop in the total portion of that specific demographic of total voters. In 2000 whites made up 81% of total voters. By 2012 that number had fallen to 72% of total voters. The trend continues for other groups: Al Gore in 00' received 90% of the African American vote John Kerry in 04' received 88% of the African American vote Obama in 12' received 93% of the African American vote Again, the difference in marginal. If you look up other groups (women, Asians, Latinos, etc) you will see the same consistantcy in rewards for which party they support. The race of a candidate, home state, age, and etc does not change the numbers. The idea that Obama won election because he is black is a fallacy. Obama received all the same support Democrats typically receive nationally. I used the last three national candidates as an example but the trend goes further back. 2000 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_00.html 2004 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_04.html 2012 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

All points of view deserve to be heard but I see nothing wrong with labeling destructive ones as destructive. Labeling in itself is not a childish thing. We label any number of groups in society. People who willfully commit crimes are labelled criminals for example. If conservatives are not deserving of being labelled insane please provide an explanation that addresses their political beliefs. Simply calling labels unfair does not speak to the sanity/insanity of conservative dogma.

It did not go over my head. I simply wasn't compelled by your examples for the reasons I outlined. The application of a political philosophy for most people is voting. When it comes to that you can paint with a broad brush. Most all conservative vote the same way. In that regard their personal beliefs are actually more lock step than that of religious people.

Your examples don't work for several reason. First off there are groups of people out there who basically call Muslims insane. Islamic states are often singled out for there mistreatment of women and various other human rights violations. In the western world the idea of terror and terrorism is nearly sunomymous with Muslims. If you were to start a thread asking what people thought about Sharia Law as a form of governing I think many people would call it insane. Including myself and the other posters you mentioned. Conservative ideology as a form of governance is insane and so is Sharia Law as a form of governance. Black is not an ideology. What is shared amongst black people is genetic. Amongst black people there is a large dichotomy of opinions and beliefs. Drug dealers and gangster who break the law go to prison in this country. Society does not tolerate drug dealing and gang banging by any group of people black, white, asian, latino, or whatever. Such behavior is treated criminally and perpetrators of those actions are labelled as criminals. It is okay to label conservatives because it is a political philosophy. It is different that calling someone insane for thing beyond their control like being tall, a specific race, a female, or etc. One must willfully choose to be a conservative.

The government is the problem not the solution. Private business can do things better than the government. Too much red tag is hurting businesses. The government needs to step aside and allow business to flourish. Politicians are nothing but a bunch of empty suits. I would not want a Doctor who hated medicine to operate on me. Conservatives hate government yet want responsibility to run it. It would be insane to give them. By their own words they want to tear down. It is self destructive. As matters of policy they claim to care about spending and deficits yet Presidents Reagan and Bush both increased spending and deficits at mind blowing rates. Despite the small government pleas republicans when in office have grown the government and consolidated power in the administrative branch. The war on drugs was started by Nixon and double down on by Reagan one of the main reasons the United States has the largest prison populations in the world. Nothing small government about that. Bush's war on terrorism gave us the patriot act which increased policing authority and saw the green light of new agencies like Department of Homeland Security. By their own actions Conservatives support policies contrary to their cries. It isn't simply a matter of disagreeing with their political philosophies. Conservatives don't seem to truly have any. They want what they want and what that is changes as they get it. It is an insane way to govern.

I think you are quibbling over semantics here. Illegal Immigrants by definition are already in the U.S..What do you think it would cost in terms of law enforcement, courts, labor production loss, and etc to local and detain tens of millions of "illegal immigrants" and deport them? It is completely impractical. Yet anything sort of that by default is supporting the status qou which currently has tens of millions of illegal immigrants living in the States but not pay full taxes, unable to start businesses, purchase various types of insurance, and etc. Of course we control who is and isn't "illegal". Simply choosing pass a bill allowing for their continued presence in this country to be legal would eliminate the whole "illegal" thing. Allowing the millions here to be legal would immediately allow for millions of more payroll taxes. It would also allow communities with high portions of "illegal immigrants" in their communities to see more productive participation from those residents. People who are "illegal" have a much harder time securing loans, starting businesses, purchasing property, and etc.

You seem to have your own strict definition for what is or is not insane: "in·san·i·ty noun \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\ : severe mental illness : the condition of being insane : something that is very foolish or unreasonable plural in·san·i·ties 1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) 2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility 3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity I think posters have done a good job in this thread illustrating why political conservatism is "something that is very foolish or unreasonable".

Approximately half of the American population is accurate in a broad sense. However if we break it down by demographics the "near half" notion disappears. Only one group of people in this country broadly support conservatives. Not merely in recent years but for the past few decades.http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

@Acme, I have not forgotten this thread either. I have been waiting till I got around to reading The Authoritarians link previous given http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf before commenting further. I admittedly probably could've already made time for it.Perhaps tomorrow I shall make getting through a healthy chunk a priority.

@ Acme, I read the first study referenced in the OP http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/ConsevatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.pdf You are referencing other material I have not read. I will have to read through it and get back to you.

Interesting you mentioned religion. I had initially thought religion played a role in Conservatism and the research you presented should have made more mention of that. The two things most conservatives have in common are race and Jesus. As I that about it I realized that the race component trumps religion. There are many people of color that are very religious and thus socially conservative yet they won't vote Republican. IMO this implies that most people in general liberal, moderate, or conservative vote based on what they believe is in their best personal interest. As more people become educated and the global economy becomes less driven by a monopoly, change becomes inevitable. Since white male Christians have unequivocally had the most authority and influence in the 11 countries mentioned in the research (ironically even in Israel) they have the most to lose from any change or push toward greater equality. While at the same time minorities, ethnic or religious, have the most to gain. So if "reasoning" is the driving force of change conservatives will be against reason. Being against reason makes them appear insane.

Okay, you caught me. I have been purposely avoiding a direct reply to "Conservatism as a motivated social cognition". My views wade into areas that are difficult to discuss openly and can polarize people. I assume that is why it (it will be defined shortly) was left out of the research on this issue. So I will just apologize in advance to anyone may be offended. I am merely trying to be honest about my thoughts toward the supporting research presented toward original topic. That send I can already feel all the negative reputations coming. Of the several theories presented IMO only Social Dominance comes close to exampling the conservative state of mind as it applies to the western world: "According to social domi- nance theory, human societies strive to minimize group conflict by developing ideological belief systems that justify the hegemony of some groups over others". Still, in outlining this theory RACISM was carefully avoided as the root cause. Racism was replaced with hegemony. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 LBJ famously said "we have lost the south for a generation". The "we" was a reference to the Democratic party. He was right. The southern states of the United States have staunchly been Republican since. The switch to "conservatism" having everything to do with race and little to do with: Fear and aggression, Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, Uncertainty avoidance, Need for cognitive closure, and Terror management. The Republican Southern Strategy is a real thing. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy A quick look around the United States at voting regions which are safely conservative reveals the role race plays. States like Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and etc where the populations are overwhelming white the politics also happen to be overwhelmingly conservative. The only demographic the Republican party wins is whites. All other groups: blacks, hispanics, and Asians heavily favor Democrats. http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.U-ayL2t5mSM http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html Of course the analysis did not only look at the United States. It looked at Canada, England, South Africa, Israel, Germany, New Zealnd, Scottland, Poland, Sweden, and Italy. However all those countries have similar ethic strife and racial division that mirrors that of the United States past. The research fails to acknowledge or address the reason those countries were chosen. I am not calling anyone who votes conservative a racist. There are legitimate agruments made by Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Socalists, libertarians, and so on. I am just pointing out what I feel is a rather obvious component that has been talk around rather than directly about. When groups like the Tea Party scream "we want our country back" who is the we?

This is your thread. If it is your preference that I not comment in it I will most certain respect that?