Willie71

Robert Reich is quite brilliant. His economic ideas are evidence based, not ideologically or faith based. He has a lot of short clips on that website that anyone interested in fact checking economic policy proposals for any of the candidates could benefit from.

This makes me sad. I don't remember a Democrat who has used a racist platform in decades, but there might be some I don't know about. Modern democrat policies include amnesty, minority equality, increasing the minimum wage, decreasing the increasing disparity in the distribution of wealth, and foreign policy based more on diplomacy than war. While democrats do get bought through the legalized bribery that is American Democracy, the policies are not racist. Welfare as racism? Totally laughable and an insult to reality. The welfare system needs an overhaul, but don't forget that there are states where 90+% of food stamp recipients are white. People in poverty are locked into a winless cycle in spite of race, not because of race.

I wish I could give you unlimited positives for this post. As I learn more about American history, the more I realize the bizarre belief that the U.S. is a free nation is as far removed from reality as it is. All of the evidence points to an emerging fascist state. History will see the Americans much like we see Nazi Germany today. I an quite frightened as to how far this will go before it is stopped.

I just finished reading The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, and that book answers the questions pointed out here quite nicely. There was a divergence on the right, and particularly the far right isolating itself from academia and evidence in the 60's, exacerbated by Reagan in the 80's to the point that laws were passed that made it nearly impossible to influence policy with science, giving significant advantage to big industry, such as tobacco, oil, and sugar. George W. Continued to totally dismantle any chance for the government to utilize evidence to inform policy, and the propoganda has led many conservatives to believe that science is just a liberal brainwashing field. When they use the term "junk science" they are referring to real science that hasn't passed the conservative standard that is unrealistic in real practice. They call valid science "sound science" and the definition is quite rigid, meaning if it isn't direct laboratory cause and effect, it cannot pass the standard. Because of this, anything involving modelling is out, probability is out, psychology, economics, climate science, sociology, medicine etc. cannot meet the minimum standard and gets labeled "junk science" by conservatives. Is this delusional, on the same scale that religion is. They believe what they are taught, and in the strongly conservative states, there is a concerted effort to remove critical thinking from schools. They feel it promotes liberal ideation, and socialism or communism will follow. I personally believe the big industry buys these guys to do their bidding, and doubt many of them actually believe what they are saying.

I think the people buying the politicians, and some of the politicians are just using the fear based rhetoric to maintain their control of the economy, and convince people it's ok to give up civil rights. I post regularily on a political subforum run by right wingers, and they seem to truly believe the rhetoric. They threaten to ban me repeatedly, call me a mental midget, and believe all research is a liberal communist propoganda campaign to indoctrinate students. The moderator claims to have three phd's, but he can't follow basic logic, and is convinced climate change is a liberal conspiracy to raise taxes. It would be fun for a few of you guys to post there to see how absurd it is. Self deception is associated with decreased abstract reasoning. The more polarized one thinks, as in either/or, black/white, for me/against me, the less cognitive dissonance one experiences. In therapy, almost every class jumper has been a person with advanced visual spatial thinking, a heightened experience of cognitive dissonance when exposed to BS, and an exceptional ability to connect the dots. It's like they see the world in hi def color, and conservatives see low res black and white. They simply don't see the diversity in the issues. On the conservative forum, I repeatedly get paraphrased into an either or position, and they claim I'm lying or back tracking when I try to explain the idea of gradients.

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/TEMPO%2520Police%2520Interactions%2520082014.pdf Summary: conservatives thinking is overridden by fear. They fear things that aren't real threats, but cannot be convinced the threat isn't real. Recent examples are Ebola, islamaphobia, systemic racism, and fear of others that is so strong they can convince themselves they need to be armed to protect themselves from random attacks. Let's check with reality. None of these risks are greater than being struck by lightning. Yet, these are very real concerns to the conservative population. They just aren't real in terms of measured risk. The belief that everyone in America has the same opportunity, and success and failure is based on personal character, motivation, or morality is an absolute myth. There is not a single paper from a respected source that could make this case. Conservatives are much more likely to be religious, and the more right, the more fundamental. Policy on the environment, and medical sciences are based on mythological teachings from a couple millenia ago. Economic beliefs on the right actually decrease the average citizens prosperity. The GDP, or per capita wealth may look better at a glance, but the 1%ers prosper so much at the expense of everyone else, that the general stats look good. Liberals aren't stealing from the citizens, they are establishing a more even distribution of wealth, at the expense of the peak value statistic. It goes on and on. There is no conservative belief that stands up to scrutiny. It's simly a religious faith.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/study-predicts-political-beliefs-with-83-percent-accuracy-17536124/ http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_beliefs_of_academics http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/secrets_of_the_right_wing_brain_new_study_proves_it_conservatives_see_a_different_hostile_world/ Read this and get back to me.

This is incorrect. As a psychiatric nurse, I give diagnosis on each case I see. Psychologists and social workers at the masters level can too. There is no diagnosis of insanity either. The specific condition will be lured based on the manual used, the DSM5, or the ICD10. Insane is not the correct term. Are they scizophrenic, bipolar? No. They have a belief system that is not connected with reality, but as with religion, a shared group delusion is a faith, not an illness under current standards. If it is learned, then it is belief. Outside of this caveat, conservatives, when asserting the world is 6000 years old, or that evolution is untrue, or that climate change is not happening, are clearly and unequivocally out of touch with reality. It's simply delusional, but taught just like the various magic man beliefs of the Abrahamis religions. One read of the bible should confirm the nonsensical nature of the assertion, but we are told repeatedly that this is truth, and questioning is not acceptible.

If you don't toe the party line, you aren't a conservative. That label doesn't fit you. I think most would refer to you as unaffiliated, or independent.

Being conservative is agreeing on some specific philosophical tenets. Those tenets are clearly not supported by science, and therefore the philosophy is misguided at best, and outright insane in the more extreme forms. There are differences in the way conservatives in general reason, and respond to fear. There are differences in acceptance of differences in others, as well as in rigidity of thinking. If someone varies from these tenets, do we still call them conservatives?

Sam Harris, The Moral Landscap, also The end of Faith and Free Will. Not purely philospohical, but there is enough discussion of philosophy that they fit.

I think philosophy has a use, not in answering questions, but in encouraging metacognition. If we don't stop to think "why is it like this?" something common to science, but also philosophy, we can get caught up in assuming everyone else sees and experiences the world the same way.