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: Lane3 who wrote (12874)	2/21/2006 7:52:36 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541648

"Extreme Makeover Scientific evidence that political anger is dangerous. BY ARTHUR C. BROOKS Monday, February 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST The Republican National Committee chairman publicly criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton after a series of intemperate remarks on her part, saying she "seems to have a lot of anger." While it made the news, this was hardly an earth-shattering observation. The criticism was also ironic, given that anger has become a standard tool for both parties. In fact, overheated political rhetoric has become so ordinary that most of us don't even take it seriously. But we should. When one party's chairman calls the other party "criminal" (as one actually did recently, and the other might before this page goes to press), he is hoping to pull people to the fringe where they will be reliable voters. There is some evidence that this tactic is working: The percentage of people willing to say they are "extremely liberal" or "extremely conservative" is higher than it has been in over 30 years. And the data tell us that the people with these strong views often display a disturbing lack of compassion and ethics in their personal relations. As such, angry politics may be spilling over into our broader culture. To begin with, there is abundant evidence that extreme political opinions lead to the personal demonization of fellow citizens. Consider, for example, how those on the far left and far right respond when asked for a zero-to-100 score of their feelings toward people with whom they disagree politically. Political scientists find that scores below 20 on these so-called feeling thermometers are very unusual--except on the political fringes. Indeed, according to the 2004 National Election Study, one in five "extremely liberal" people gave conservatives a score of zero, a temperature you or I might reserve for Osama bin Laden. The same percentage of "extremely conservative" people gave liberals a zero. Ironically, these angry folks tend to feel that they are more compassionate than others--while their personal actions tell a different story. Take people on the far left. According to the General Social Surveys in 2002 and 2004, those who say they're "extremely liberal" are 20 percentage points more likely than moderates to say they feel concern for less fortunate people. But this doesn't appear to translate well to a deep concern for any individual: This group is also 20 points less likely than moderates to say they'd "endure all things for the one I love." To some, this might support the stereotype that the far left loves humanity--but only in large groups. Like extreme liberals, extreme conservatives are more compassionate in theory than in practice: They are slightly more likely than centrists to say they "feel protective of people who are taken advantage of." Unless, it seems, they are the ones taking advantage: It turns out they are substantially less likely than moderates to act honestly in small ways, such as returning change mistakenly given them by a cashier. It may or may not be that extreme politics is by itself what makes a person angry and uncompassionate; but it certainly cannot be improving the situation. After all, the partisan political machine today is geared toward the destruction of opponents--to convince us that the other side is not just misguided, but evil. Mounting evidence that adherence to extreme political attitudes correlates with a fundamental lack of compassion is not encouraging for the future of our civic culture, as long as rage is used as a political device. For our political leaders, a bit of anger management would be in the public interest. Mr. Brooks is a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs." opinionjournal.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (12874)	2/21/2006 8:56:55 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541648

So they need a plan for getting from where we are now to where they would like to see us. "Would you just look at this mess we've made? What are you going to do about it?" <g>

To: Lane3 who wrote (12874)	2/21/2006 9:40:32 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541648

Up until now they've been focused on what they wouldn't have done and what a mess was made. They can't or won't offer anythng on where we go from here. It's a very sticky place for them to be. I don't know if they can win either way. If you look at policy proposals rather than what the public believes about policy proposals, I think it's different. The Bush administration clearly has no idea what to do now. Walk across the various foreign policy issues--Iraq, Iran, UN/NATO, nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Palestine/Israel--and you see it's very hard, if not impossible, to get a sense of direction. So, at one level, your diagnosis is characteristic of both sides. At another level, I think it's characteristic of neither. If you look beneath the surface, off to the side, around the corner, pick your preferred metaphor, and the woods are filled with proposals/policies/directions. On both sides of the aisles. They just don't get air. On the Dem side they don't get air because the voices are, at best, multiple, at worst self contradictory. All in the absence of a unifying voice. On the Rep side, all the voices are a bit timid, less the big voice accuse them of all sorts of perfidy. I don't think the 06 election will do anything to clear this up. I don't see any way a single dominant voice can emerge on the Dem side. And oppositional voices emerge on the Rep side only if the Bush admin gets even more in trouble. Which may well happen with the Abramoff stuff floating around.