Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (9718)	1/25/2006 10:38:31 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541582

The right challenged Meiers because she wasn't conservative enough, i.e. didn't play to their emotional biases and agenda. Bush was challenged because he tried to do something less than the most conservative choice possible. To my mind, it reinforces the study's POV. Meiers was a so-so qualified candidate who was chucked because she didn't thrill the partisans. Alito fits the bill of what they want, and happens to be both qualified and acceptable to a majority of Americans, even if he is not the first choice many would make.

To: MrLucky who wrote (9718)	1/25/2006 11:16:52 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

I was attempting to provide an example where the "right wingers" did not let Bush off the hook. I get it. You are trying to say that that is true of the partisans on the left but not of the partisans on the right. Or maybe only that there are exceptions on the right but not on the left. (The bit about the media was an aborted red herring.) >>The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.<< I don't see how anyone with half a brain reading the political threads on SI could miss the utter mindlessness that occurs on both sides. I sure didn't need some MRI study to confirm that what the article says is true. If you really think that this syndrome only occurs among Dem partisans, then I suggest that you, yourself, are suffering from a variation of the syndrome. <g> If, OTOH, you are suggesting that all affiliated voters do not suffer from this syndrome, I would agree with you. I don't think that brief article meant to suggest otherwise. There are thoughtful people on both sides, people who are affiliated out of rational self interest and whose brains and temperaments have the capacity to function above the primordial ooze. Sometimes they speak up and gain traction igniting or pulling along the afflicted. Good for them. Now, for the example you offered. I think it demonstrates something independent of the syndrome on the table. The article talked about partisanship and it used loyalty to the leader in its experiment as a proxy for partisanship. I think the proxy served its purpose well but, like all proxies or examples, there are elements that don't fit perfectly. Those who opposed Meiers acting on partisanship even as they were opposing their leader. That's a bit too much nuance for a simple experiment on the grey matter of partisan fanatics. It was a rational partisanship that lead them to take that position. Which goes back to the point that not all partisans are irrational. Some don't fall victim to the syndrome or do so more mildly. Now, re your Clinton/Obama example, I think there is more diversity in the Republican party so it's more likely to find internal opposition among Republicans than Democrats at this point in time. I also think that there is a cadre of intellectual partisans among the Republicans now where that is not so apparent among the Dems. But that in no way means that there aren't large chunks of each party afflicted with the syndrome as the article asserted.

To: MrLucky who wrote (9718)	1/25/2006 12:39:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

I was attempting to provide an example where the "right wingers" did not let Bush off the hook. They loudly challenged his judgement when he nominated Meiers. They supported ideology and possibly judicial philosophy over Republican partisanship. The same thing can happen on the left. If "your guy" doesn't support your ideas on something important you have a choice to either go with your ideas in this important area or to support "your guy" with the thought that if he stays strong you might get better overall results than if the "other guys" win. The first example is supporting ideology and ideas over partisanship. The 2nd is supporting partisanship over ideology. In different situations there are good reasons to choose one method or the other. Tim