"I thought that the Democrats would be a whole lot nicer"

Tiny enchants us with a crazy-hour moment this morning, plucking a superball out of her collection and pursuing it throughout the house. In the above photo, the ball was just off camera to the left as she prepared to -- are you ready for it? -- go for the jugular.

“I certainly had all kinds of prejudices, and doing the study got me to change them,” says George Vaillant, lead researcher of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, as cited in Erin O'Donnell's provocative yet blind-sighted Harvard Magazine article, "Twigs Bent Left or Right."

"I thought that the Democrats would be a whole lot nicer and more altruistic, and that wasn’t the case at all,” reveals the earnest but clueless -- despite/because of? his intellectual brilliance -- fellow from within his Pauline Kael bubble. We'd read the first few paragraphs of the Harvard Mag article awhile back but focussed on it only today when we started reading our own snail copy this afternoon, as it rose to the top of the pile of must-reads on the kitchen counter:

Some argue that what makes us conservative or liberal is a particular way of seeing the world. In his book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, cognitive scientist George Lakoff of the University of California, Berkeley, argues that political choices come down to personal visions of the ideal family.

Conservatives, he says, prefer the "strict father" model, while liberals prefer the "nurturant parent." We couldn't disagree more, but let's suspend our diselief for the moment as we follow the argument:

“If an event impoverishes large numbers of the electorate, like the Great Depression, or slaughters large numbers of the electorate, like the Civil War, or introduces lots of new people into the electorate by enfranchising people who had previously been disenfranchised, like the Voting Rights Act, then the event has a lasting impact,” [J. Russell Muirhead] explains. “Events that affect our moods or our passions may have consequences for policies, but those consequences last only as long as the mood. September 11 affected our mood, but it didn’t change the demographic character of the country.

Not. But again, let us continue to suspend our disbelief:

The policies passed on account of 9/11 -- like invading Iraq -- will have long-term impacts on our politics, to be sure,” Muirhead continues. “But I don’t think 9/11 will generate a realignment of the parties, because it hasn’t altered the basic opinions or demographic makeup of the electorate.

Frighteningly true. But here's the key to what's wrong with Erin O'Donnell's Harvard Magazine worldview:

There’s also the case of Kansas, described by political journalist and Kansas native Thomas Frank in his 2004 bestseller, What’s the Matter with Kansas? Frank examines why poor Kansans living in decaying rural towns identify so strongly with conservative views and vote overwhelmingly for Republicans whose party platform promises to dismantle social programs to aid the poor. Frank maintains that they vote not according to their economic best interests, but according to their positions on cultural ideals and values issues like abortion, gun rights, and same-sex unions. Glazer agrees. “I think it’s the value issues, the notion of defending a traditional society and traditional values, which explain this kind of orientation,” he says.

Get it? It's against a poor person's best interests to reject welfare. Forget about the record of welfare's destroying self-esteem and producing self-reproducing generations of helpless "victims," with single moms, irresponsible dads and delinquent kids whining for more of their self-sufficient fellow citizens' hard-earned dollars. Can you say unexamined assumptions? For what's totally wrong with all of this, check out our dear friend Neo's ongoing series of testimonials of former liberals who have left the circle of those who "dance in a ring." Natan Sharansky puts it in terms of fear societies vs. free societies. Neo puts it all under the umbrella of "A Mind Is a Difficult Thing to Change." It's a good thing.

Comments

[Johny A Belgarde]

Author way off base.
I grew up in am impoverished area of the US.
We were conservatives in our belief system and life style.
We called it "personal resposibility".
Even though we did not have much what we had was ours. Our home, our money, our personal pride in paying our way. It used to be called Hauling Your Own Freight.
I imagine those in rural Kansas feel the same way we did.
Our parents had a generational outlook where they worked so we would have it better. I did not say easier just better. My parents would never have envisioned the massive spending on social programs. Why should they support someone they did not know. That would be their family or communities responsibility. It certainly would not be our job to support someone across the country. When we had extra we helped our nieghbors and contributed to the church.
The important thing to remember is that it was our choice to give and help.
God Bless
John

[John Blake]

Democrats "nicer and more altruistic"? Try debating one-- any give-and-take whatever degenerates into spluttering incoherence, liberally (pun intended) sprinkled with gross obscenities. "Altruistic"-- if you mean vote-buying at productive citizens' expense, you got it, Charlie. Last I saw, not one in ten Democrat Senators had a net worth less than seven figures, and as we know from Kennedy, Kerry, and their ilk, their proportional tax payments amount to low single-digits with virtually no charitable deductions mentioned.

Leftists in general exhibit severe bi-polar disorder, ranging from extreme narcissism on personal levels to megalomaniacal Statism in public arenas. The conflict is absolute: Collectively, they "are as Gods" [Lenin]; as individuals, they amount to zip-squat-- nichts, nada, nichevo; nothing. From T.S. Eliot's "hollow men" to Erich Hoffer, we know them well... depressed, dysfunctional, lacking integrity, incapable of coherent rational argument. Labels hardly matter... but when the same derangement syndrome persists in identical political circumstances, as it has with these strange-os since the days of Andrew Jackson, we are entitled to think such attitudes, such moods, are petulant mewings for attention rather than "politics" as commonly understood.

Imagine-- the heirs of Wild Willy Clinton, of Jane and John, presume to address any issues in terms other than personal incumbency? Change partisan labels in any controversy since 2000, and all of them would go away, except where opposition to any Defecrat claptrap entails termination with extreme prejudice.

D-rats are not made, they're born. Fortunately, there's an appropriate Darwinian solution: If they don't abort their young, they perish early of intellectual starvation, moral neglect. How about a DYFS for Dean, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin et.al.? Or maybe Ward Churchill could ping 'em with a flaming arrow. George Galloway's eulogy would indeed be a fun thing.

[goomp]

I think Natan has it right. The so-called liberals fear freedom. Thanks for a most insightful discussion.

[Teresa]

"...they vote not according to their economic best interests..."

Obviously this Frank person has zero clue of how economics works. In other words - the people of Kansas may feel that a stronger economy (less taxes more jobs) would be better for them economically in the long run. AND far far better for them economically in the future.

Looks like Frank only looks at the immediate picture... you need money, we'll give you welfare to subsist on... it will never get better and never be more, but it's in your self interest in the immediate time frame.

So, he is completely and totally wrong about them not voting for their own economic self interest. But what else can you expect of a liberal who thinks the government should be taking care of everyone all the time, instead of people taking care of themselves with maybe a little help when they hit a bad patch.

[Brad]

Great post! John Blake hits it on the head too.
Brad

[Kierstin]

Just wanted to say I love your photos of Tiny and Baby. I'm too young to properly understand your talk of politics...
~