Menu

Home › Forums › Other › OT: The Partisan Mind…..

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 41 total)
1 2 3
  • Author
    Posts
  • December 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM #18239
    DWCAP
    Participant

    Sorry if this has already been linked here, but I really liked the article. It explains so much about what I see in the media, and even here on the pigg. I think below was the best summination of this:

    [Quote]This role reversal is a case study in the awesome power of the partisan mindset. Up to a point, American politics reflects abiding philosophical divisions. But people who follow politics closely — whether voters, activists or pundits — are often partisans first and ideologues second. Instead of assessing every policy on the merits, we tend to reverse-engineer the arguments required to justify whatever our own side happens to be doing. Our ideological convictions may be real enough, but our deepest conviction is often that the other guys can’t be trusted.
    …….

    Now that a Democrat is in the White House, the pendulum is swinging back. In 2006, Gallup asked the public whether the government posed an “immediate threat” to Americans. Only 21 percent of Republicans agreed, versus 57 percent of Democrats. In 2010, they asked again. This time, 21 percent of Democrats said yes, compared with 66 percent of Republicans.

    In other words, millions of liberals can live with indefinite detention for accused terrorists and intimate body scans for everyone else, so long as a Democrat is overseeing them. And millions of conservatives find wartime security measures vastly more frightening when they’re pushed by Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano (as the Drudge Report calls her) rather than a Republican like Tom Ridge. [/Quote]

    I try daily to fight this, and look at what the story really said rather then bash it down because ‘the other side is eviler’. I sometimes think of it as “yes your honor, I raped that woman, but I only did it after that guy did, and I said please and thank you, so I am not guilty like that guy is.” Is this really a serious defence? We sure treat it like it is. So often I think we get caught up in who ‘said’ what that we forget to judge them on what they actually did.

    Anyways, sorry to add an OT political post, I hope it doesnt start a slap fest. I just hope people take a look at themselves and think about it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29douthat.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    December 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM #634579
    blahblahblah
    Participant

    And this is why the Quigley Formula is so effective. Never more than about 20% of the population at any time is able to think outside of the two boxes. Another way of saying it is that only about 20% of the people are willing to consider that their side might be in the wrong. About 80% of the population, therefore, can be counted on to think in a rigid, predictable manner; their team is always right. By maintaining a very near 50/50 ratio between the two teams, wiggling back and forth every few years, a very predictable outcome is assured. No one gets enough time to become completely disillusioned with “their side” since it isn’t allowed to stay in control for too long. Once a side is out of power, the 80% blind followers can be counted on to blame the other side for all of their problems.

    Whoever came up with this thing was really smart. Evil, but really really smart.

    December 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM #635232
    blahblahblah
    Participant

    And this is why the Quigley Formula is so effective. Never more than about 20% of the population at any time is able to think outside of the two boxes. Another way of saying it is that only about 20% of the people are willing to consider that their side might be in the wrong. About 80% of the population, therefore, can be counted on to think in a rigid, predictable manner; their team is always right. By maintaining a very near 50/50 ratio between the two teams, wiggling back and forth every few years, a very predictable outcome is assured. No one gets enough time to become completely disillusioned with “their side” since it isn’t allowed to stay in control for too long. Once a side is out of power, the 80% blind followers can be counted on to blame the other side for all of their problems.

    Whoever came up with this thing was really smart. Evil, but really really smart.

    December 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM #635361
    blahblahblah
    Participant

    And this is why the Quigley Formula is so effective. Never more than about 20% of the population at any time is able to think outside of the two boxes. Another way of saying it is that only about 20% of the people are willing to consider that their side might be in the wrong. About 80% of the population, therefore, can be counted on to think in a rigid, predictable manner; their team is always right. By maintaining a very near 50/50 ratio between the two teams, wiggling back and forth every few years, a very predictable outcome is assured. No one gets enough time to become completely disillusioned with “their side” since it isn’t allowed to stay in control for too long. Once a side is out of power, the 80% blind followers can be counted on to blame the other side for all of their problems.

    Whoever came up with this thing was really smart. Evil, but really really smart.

    December 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM #634658
    blahblahblah
    Participant

    And this is why the Quigley Formula is so effective. Never more than about 20% of the population at any time is able to think outside of the two boxes. Another way of saying it is that only about 20% of the people are willing to consider that their side might be in the wrong. About 80% of the population, therefore, can be counted on to think in a rigid, predictable manner; their team is always right. By maintaining a very near 50/50 ratio between the two teams, wiggling back and forth every few years, a very predictable outcome is assured. No one gets enough time to become completely disillusioned with “their side” since it isn’t allowed to stay in control for too long. Once a side is out of power, the 80% blind followers can be counted on to blame the other side for all of their problems.

    Whoever came up with this thing was really smart. Evil, but really really smart.

    December 1, 2010 at 2:53 PM #635679
    blahblahblah
    Participant

    And this is why the Quigley Formula is so effective. Never more than about 20% of the population at any time is able to think outside of the two boxes. Another way of saying it is that only about 20% of the people are willing to consider that their side might be in the wrong. About 80% of the population, therefore, can be counted on to think in a rigid, predictable manner; their team is always right. By maintaining a very near 50/50 ratio between the two teams, wiggling back and forth every few years, a very predictable outcome is assured. No one gets enough time to become completely disillusioned with “their side” since it isn’t allowed to stay in control for too long. Once a side is out of power, the 80% blind followers can be counted on to blame the other side for all of their problems.

    Whoever came up with this thing was really smart. Evil, but really really smart.

    December 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM #635267
    briansd1
    Guest

    I personally look at my own life and see what ideology works better for me.

    For example, I’m not perfect so I can’t relate to conservatives because they condemn those who don’t live perfect lives. To me, a social conservative who has sex outside of marriage or otherwise “sins” is a hypocrite.

    I’m not that responsible so I support giving some slack and help to those who aren’t perfectly responsible. To me, a fiscal conservative who takes government handouts, whatever forms they come in (such as farm subsidies or defense spending or tax loopholes) is a hypocrite.

    December 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM #635396
    briansd1
    Guest

    I personally look at my own life and see what ideology works better for me.

    For example, I’m not perfect so I can’t relate to conservatives because they condemn those who don’t live perfect lives. To me, a social conservative who has sex outside of marriage or otherwise “sins” is a hypocrite.

    I’m not that responsible so I support giving some slack and help to those who aren’t perfectly responsible. To me, a fiscal conservative who takes government handouts, whatever forms they come in (such as farm subsidies or defense spending or tax loopholes) is a hypocrite.

    December 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM #635714
    briansd1
    Guest

    I personally look at my own life and see what ideology works better for me.

    For example, I’m not perfect so I can’t relate to conservatives because they condemn those who don’t live perfect lives. To me, a social conservative who has sex outside of marriage or otherwise “sins” is a hypocrite.

    I’m not that responsible so I support giving some slack and help to those who aren’t perfectly responsible. To me, a fiscal conservative who takes government handouts, whatever forms they come in (such as farm subsidies or defense spending or tax loopholes) is a hypocrite.

    December 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM #634693
    briansd1
    Guest

    I personally look at my own life and see what ideology works better for me.

    For example, I’m not perfect so I can’t relate to conservatives because they condemn those who don’t live perfect lives. To me, a social conservative who has sex outside of marriage or otherwise “sins” is a hypocrite.

    I’m not that responsible so I support giving some slack and help to those who aren’t perfectly responsible. To me, a fiscal conservative who takes government handouts, whatever forms they come in (such as farm subsidies or defense spending or tax loopholes) is a hypocrite.

    December 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM #634614
    briansd1
    Guest

    I personally look at my own life and see what ideology works better for me.

    For example, I’m not perfect so I can’t relate to conservatives because they condemn those who don’t live perfect lives. To me, a social conservative who has sex outside of marriage or otherwise “sins” is a hypocrite.

    I’m not that responsible so I support giving some slack and help to those who aren’t perfectly responsible. To me, a fiscal conservative who takes government handouts, whatever forms they come in (such as farm subsidies or defense spending or tax loopholes) is a hypocrite.

    December 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM #634718
    Ricechex
    Participant

    Good post. And, Brian, you definitely are of one side.

    December 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM #635421
    Ricechex
    Participant

    Good post. And, Brian, you definitely are of one side.

    December 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM #635739
    Ricechex
    Participant

    Good post. And, Brian, you definitely are of one side.

    December 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM #634639
    Ricechex
    Participant

    Good post. And, Brian, you definitely are of one side.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 41 total)
1 2 3
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.