Researchers Find a 'Liberal Gene' 841
An anonymous reader writes "Liberals may owe their political outlook partly to their genetic make-up, according to new research from the University of California, San Diego, and Harvard University. Ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4. The study's authors say this is the first research to identify a specific gene that predisposes people to certain political views."
'Liberal' Gene? (Score:2, Insightful)
And an absence predisposes you to conservativism? (Score:2, Insightful)
As we know, there are only two political viewpoints: right and wrong or, depending on your genetics, left and wrong.
The reason that I'm going to call bullshit on this is that empirically "lefties" tend to become "righties" through age or experience. A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
Re:Instead of a cure (Score:2, Insightful)
You may not have the liberal gene, but you sure have paranoid schizophrenia.
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And an absence predisposes you to conservativis (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, you and I both know this research is bullshit, so let's all get our jokes in. These pukes needed a splashy tag line so they could justify their funding, and they came up with "the liberal gene." This gene doesn't determine your political views any more than one gene determines whether or not you'll be smart. We're not even sure if there's a "gay" gene, and now these guys are so sure they've found a "supports gay marriage" gene? This stuff cheapens science.
Define "Liberalism" (Score:4, Insightful)
What's "Liberal"?
What about moderates? Do they only have a "Liberal" gene from one parent?
I mean come on, this "study" reeks.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they'll use it to create a gene therapy to cure conservatism instead?
Seriously, it's good to have both sides of the coin, because BOTH sides have made a lot of mistakes. Liberals move us forward to try new things, and keep us from falling into some of the traps conservatives seem to favor, and have a flexible/adaptable position. Conservatives keep us from moving to fast, or doing too much of the leap-before-you look, and drop-old-start-new plan before the old plan is done, senselessness that you can see with liberals.
Hmm... Criticism of both. I think that I shall be well flamed now.
Re:New Minority Anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Republican != Conservative.
There is a huge overlap, but there are liberal republicans (just like there are conservative democrats).
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you listening to what you are saying? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not A "Liberal Gene" (Score:4, Insightful)
The gene in question does not "make someone liberal". It is a gene that promotes novelty seeking, and leads to many wide ranging friendships in adolescence, resulting in exposure to many points of view, and this predisposes one to be liberal as an adult (this is all in the TA).
Without the 'wide ranging friendships in adolescence' there is no effect. It is the life experience of being open to other points of view, the additional knowledge gained, that makes you more likely to be liberal.
For the conservatives here crowing nonsense about "curing liberalism", perhaps the fact that absence of this gene promotes the opposite - fewer friends and ignorance of other points of view - should make one be less enthused with this finding. Unless, of course "closed mindedness" is considered a conservative virtue.
Re:And an absence predisposes you to conservativis (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but if we were all going to stop caring about civil liberties and human rights the first time we ran into an asshole, we'd have stopped being liberals the first time we met a conservative.
So how long did it take for the Liberals to convince you that only they care about civil liberties and human rights?
Re:And an absence predisposes you to conservativis (Score:5, Insightful)
I find your premise that conservatives don't care about civil liberties or human rights -- that only liberals care about such things -- laughably pathetic and ill-informed.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
He then attempted to run a few businesses, with some assistance from his dad at getting in to those businesses. Most of those, he ran into the ground (including a petroleum company in a petroleum-rich state when petroleum was only continuing to gain in value).
So what ever happened to this young republican? He decided to follow his dad into politics. There he also couldn't get far without his dad's help; eventually being appointed president of the united states by some of his dad's close friends.
Don't tell us republicans don't get hand-outs.
Re:there is a cure for it (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh, just great (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they'll use it to create a gene therapy to cure conservatism instead?
TFA is firewalled off here (it feels like China... or Soviet Russia). Ten year old PC crawling along at a snail's pace on XP... The only thing good about it is it makes my netbook feel like a supercomputer. I think the head of IT here must need this therapy.
But Google found the story [nbcsandiego.com] for me.
Hmmm... that explains the conservative, (actually, downright selfish and power hungry, which "conservative" is a euphemism for) bent you see at slashdot so often.
It does stand to reason that more social people are going to be liberal. Of course, the conservatives are going to say "dopamine! Liberals are dopes! They're all on DRUGS!"
Does anybody have a link to the actual study? TFA I found is weak on details.
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
And all the Patriot Act sunsets removed by who? OH! Right! Obama.
George Bush was no more conservative than Obama is. Stop thinking in terms of Donkeys and Elephants. Think more government and less government.
Expand your political spectrum a bit to actually include liberty. Nothing that George Bush did, with the exception of striking back at the people that attacked us on 9/11, had anything to do with liberty and less government.
Re:Define "Liberalism" (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent point. Polls shows that most americans are "liberal" when it comes to social ideas (like allowing gays to marry), but "conservative" when it comes to political ideas (government is best when it is small). At present neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent that view. Neither do simple labels.
For myself: I just want people to stay out of my damn wallet.
I sweat & labor to earn the wealth, and somebody takes it away for their OWN enrichment. I'm beginning to understand how an indentured servant must have felt (he worked but the wealth went to the landlord). - Yes I'm sorry you ran into a wall and broke your hip, but you've had a job for ~30 years. You have money and should pay the bill yourself out of your personal wages/savings - just like I pay my own bills out of my own account. AFTER you run out of money I'll gladly help you (via welfare, medicare) but nor prior to that.
A safety net should be exactly that - a net. Not an entitlement given to people who are still on the "highwire" of life and don't need it.
IMHO
And who gets to define "liberal?" (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with the word "liberal" is that it can be used for any position in the political spectrum.
To some people, a "liberal" is someone who believes the government should take care of people who have been left behind someway in the economic process, the unemployed, the homeless, those who are at a disadvantage in some way. Under that point of view, Cuba should be considered one of the most "liberal" regimes in the world.
To other people, a "liberal" is someone who believes in liberty, in letting everyone do their own thing, in a minimalist government.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:4, Insightful)
HEY! I'm an old man with a boner, you insensitive clod!
Viagra's dirty little secrets are 1) it's a performance enhancing drug. It gives you control over the whole damned experience, and 2) old guys need it because old women are fugly. If I'm with Amy or someone her age, I don't need it at all. I do with a woman my own age.
BTW, sex is like everything else -- the more you do it the better you get.
However, viagra's not exactly on topic; it doesn't affect dopamine levels, although orgasm does. I wonder if the researchers took into account how much sex the test subjects got? I suspect that liberals get more than conservatives, because liberals are more social than conservatives.
Re:Yay! (Score:1, Insightful)
First off, the Democratic party is, for the most part, not particularly liberal. They are a moderate party and there is really no prominaet liberal party in this country. So you really can't blame "liberals" for anything. I'm going to assume you mean the democrats.
PATRIOT act was pushed by conservatives, though of course both parties voted for it - in the political climate of the time, voting against it would have been political suicide. Of course, it was only political suicide because of the very conservative push to "make us safer".
There's also the wiretapping program initiated by the Bush administration, and the law (again started on the conservative side) that made it impossible to sue the telecoms who cooperated. I list this separately because it's outside the patriot act, but it's in a similar vein - the conservative push for "security" at all costs. Again, the conservative machine, including pundits on all the major news networks, made it impossible to vote against these things without ruining your political career, by spreading partial information and occasionally outright lies.
There is also the question of "how many rights should corporations have". I feel that since they are not really beings, but are created purely by a few legal points, they should have the minimum rights required to carry out their business, and should have no political power whatsoever. The trend towards giving them more rights and political power is taking away the rights and political power of individuals. This is especially true when you look at wealth distribution and how important money is in our political process.
Then of course there's Guantanamo bay, which while not directly harming any citizens, does show that the people in charge didn't really respect personal rights and freedoms.
I will give you the gun control point, though that is generally based on a different interpretation of the second ammendment. I have taken it to mean that freedom of arms was meant for militias, and that with the dissolution of the militia system and installation of a standing army, it is obsolete. The conservative "militias" are not the same sort of groups that would have existed 200 years ago.
I've never really understood the "freedom" argument on health care. There's no central government system, it's all funneled through the existing insurance companies. The mandate is fairly loose, and the government will pay for it if you can't. The big points "single-payer" and "death-panels" never existed and were outright lies spread by a few very popular pundits.
Both sides are equally guilty of porkish spending, and both sides have pork that they claim is important for some reason or other. Other points of contention, like whether government should be run "like a business" (whatever that means - It's starting to be a buzzterm) aren't really about freedom at all.
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:1, Insightful)
It works for things that have completely and utterly failed. For everything else... well, if you ask a conservative how well our embargo of Cuba is working to promote regime change, after 40 years and Fidel Castro handing down the reins of the country, they'll tell you "any day now... any day now..." while curled up in a ball rocking back and forth. And the wars in the middle east were going aweome until the surrender monkey liberals forced Bush to change his course and hire Gates. And the stimulus bill would have worked, if only the Republicans hadn't forced the liberals to "compromise" and pass a bill that wasn't enough stimulus.
50 years later and we still have arguments over whether FDR's new deal made the depression longer or not.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:3, Insightful)
"Conservatives keep us from moving to fast, or doing too much of the leap-before-you look, and drop-old-start-new plan before the old plan is done,"
Guess you haven't seen Meg Whitman in action.
She's the one responsible for the current global Paypal bullshit. Without her, Paypal wouldn't exist.
Remember, PayPal fucks people over for their own gain, pretending to be a bank while following NONE of the USA regulations.
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well first, to take your example of Amtrak, whether it worked and why it worked or didn't work is still open to interpretation. I notice you limited your "results" to Amtrak's overall balance sheet. You haven't taken into account the benefit Amtrak brought to the people who do take trains, nor the alleviation of car traffic brought to congested cities. There's also the fact that some routes are more heavily trafficked than others, and Amtrak could be said to be very successful if you only looked at those routes. So in some ways, I'd say that Amtrak is a successful program.
But also your criticism of "not enough customers" doesn't begin to address the question of "why weren't there enough customers?" There are tons of socioeconomic issues involving culture, infrastructure development, and civic design that lead to a situation where taking a train is undesirable or infeasible-- but most of those things can be changed.
In reality, most people decide first whether they like/dislike public transportation on emotional grounds, and then find arguments that support their position.
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Most political differences are a result of disagreement of premises, not conclusions.
What do you mean? It seems like logic would work. You create a program (say Amtrak), look at the results (near-bankruptcy), and then decide whether or not it worked (it didn't unfortunately - not enough customers).
Case in point: Your premise is that the purpose of Amtrak was to make a profit. In fact, the purpose of Amtrak was to preserve valuable infrastructure that the private sector was no longer able to maintain due to heavily-subsidized air and road competition. In that regard it was mildly successful, in spite of funding problems, and has proven its worth many times (including the post-9/11 grounding and the Katrina evacuation, to name a few).
Re:And who gets to define "liberal?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but no, communism is NOT being more of a democrat than the democrats. Communist politics simply do not fit on this spectrum.
There's a qualitative difference between saying that the underclass should have a better standard of living than they do now, and saying that the existence of an underclass should be abolished.
Re:Define "Liberalism" (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is perfect if life is fair and people have control over what happens to them.
unfortunately it tends not to be.
Shit quite often happens to people effectively independent of their own actions.
Some drunk swerves onto the sidewalk and hits you or your home floods.
That's not reasonably within your control.
If poverty wasn't a highly inheritable affliction then it would be fine.
unfortunately it tends to be.
You have to be either extremely unlucky or extremely foolish or inept to be born to rich parents and then become poor. It happens all the time but only to a minority.
You have to be either extremely lucky or exceptionally driven and capable to be born to poor parents and become rich.It happens all the time but only to a minority.
In a Brave New World or Logans Run style society where your chances of doing well in life are completely independent of your parents and in a fair perfect surveillance society where liability for harm could always be assigned to those responsible in a perfectly fluid economic system where everyone has perfect information, is a rational actor and can move freely your approach is completely and utterly rational and fair.
unfortunately the real world is none of those things.
People often get hurt through no fault of their own.
People who grew up with shitty parents, went to a shitty school, live in a shitty neighbourhood and now have a shitty minimum wage job often simply can't afford insurance against unexpected medical problems or natural disasters so when they happen they get screwed over far harder than people who had better chances in life.
Even those who have medical insurance but had to go for the cheaper option often end up screwed because the policy turns out to cover everything except what happens.
But of course that's unfair on you, the poor guy who gets injured in a hit and run should drag himself home and care for his own injuries rather than being irresponsible and going to a hospital.
If he ends up with a massive medical bill it's only his fault and before he gets any help whatsoever he should declare bankruptcy and forego any chance of ever getting a loan to buy a house or start a business ever again because if the government pays his bills then that's just making you as a taxpayer an indentured servant.
Should've read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
after reading the title, that is exactly what i was hoping for.
Awesome, let's make everyone exactly the same! I, for one, welcome our new heterosexual, uniform-skin-toned, drugs-and-alcohol-hating, women-should-be-in the-home-not-working, lets-pretend-the-world-never-changes population! </sarcasm>
Actually, it seems you should've read the article:
people with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends' points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average
So, according to the hypothesis, liberals seek out novelty and challenges, have more friends, and gain more life experience. Those are generally acknowledged as positive traits - maybe the true genetic flaw is in those who lack a copy of this specific gene variant? Anyway, interesting to see this follow on from similar news in 2008 [newscientist.com].
Re:Oh, just great (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a nice idea to think that conservatives and liberals are flip sides of the coin, and we need both. Yadda yadda. But it just doesn't work out that way. Conservatives are on the wrong side of history. Consider Afghanistan for instance. There are liberals there, and there are conservatives there. Do they really need those conservatives holding them back? What good does it do them? From our modern perspective we can see just how wrong-headed they are. But left and right over there is the same thing as left and right over here, just centered around a different origin. There's no reason to believe our conservatives are any better than theirs, and in the future we'll look back and see just how wrong-headed they are today. The people calling for the persecution of homosexuals and drug users and mexicans today are no different from the people calling for the persecution of women, blacks, and catholics 100 years ago.
Now of course liberals aren't perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. But at least liberals make new mistakes, instead of glorifying the same old mistakes. At least liberals look to a future where everyone is better off instead of conservatives who simply try to maintain a power structure that is favorable to them alone.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives keep us from moving to fast, or doing too much of the leap-before-you look
Yeah, the Iraq war is a good example of that.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:5, Insightful)
Hrm. Since "conservatives" in the U.S. rung up 80% of the National Debt, and it was the "liberal" President in the 90's that balanced the budget and is the only President in recent memory to actually try and pay the Debt down... your claim doesn't seem to have much basis in fact. I mean, Reagan tripled the debt, Bush Sr nearly doubled it, and Bush Jr doubled it again.
I am liberal and have been debt free for over ten years. I am very responsible with money, as are my liberal parents, and virtually every liberal friend and relative I know. I know anecdotal evidecne isn't proof, but it sure seems to discount your blanekt characterization of liberals.
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give a logical reasoning test to subjects and correlate with political affiliation.
Here's an interesting one. Alcohol ranks higher than cannabis on all measures of harm to both oneself and society at large. Logically, if the aim of drugs policy is as stated - to minimise the harm that drugs cause - then either both drugs should be treated the same (legal/illegal) or cannabis should be legal and alcohol illegal. That is the only logical result given the stated premise for drug control (a premise that appears to be accepted by the population at large). Conservatives are generally opposed to legalising cannabis. Liberals are generally supportive of legalising cannabis. Which is the more logical in this case?
Re:Oh, just great (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, just great (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, just great (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right that throughout history "conservatives" have usually opposed positive change - they oppose change by definition. By that same definition, "conservatives" almost always oppose negative change as well. Conservatives opposed communism, Nazism, eugenics, and a lot of other things that they were right to oppose.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:2, Insightful)
Bible Jesus was most certainly a Socialist. Give unto Ceasar... , It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven... , love your neighbor... etc, etc.
American Jesus is an ass kicking, name taking, blonde haired, blue eyed Republican Super-Soldier in God's Army who hates fags, liberals and minorities, and is leading the charge in Crusade v2.0 at the moment.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservatives opposed communism
In favor of Tsarism. Great principled stand there guys.
Nazism
Hitler was a liberal? Yeah, he did confiscate guns, but nothing characterizes Nazism better than extreme nationalism, a conservative trait.
eugenics
Eugenics was supported by both sides. Progressives who thought they could make humanity better, and conservatives who wanted to use genetics to enforce the class structure. Notice how it was always the lower classes who got sterilized.
Re:In the end, conservatives always lose (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure about that. There's still plenty of time for us to end up back in caves.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I presume that we learn things by trying, and it's better to know than not know. If we make a mistake, the liberals will be the first to suggest change, while the conservatives will want things to stay the same.
Re:And who gets to define "liberal?" (Score:1, Insightful)
Because the word 'liberal' begins with the same first 5 letters as 'liberty' does not mean the two have anything at all to do with each other. In fact, they don't. "Apply lotion liberally," means "use a lot of lotion." Liberals take these instructions far too seriously, dump out the entire bottle of lotion and spread it all over everyone they can find (well, everyone who isn't white, anyway - white people can get their own damn lotion.)
Then tomorrow, the liberals will be pissed because they used all their lotion, and demonize conservatives because they conserved their lotion for when they need it, and refuse to share it with the irresponsible liberals.
Thomas Jefferson said it best during his first inaugural address, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'"
Re:Oh, just great (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have met many intelligent people who had very unintelligent views. Academics sometimes live in such a different world that they'll advocate action that makes perfect sense on paper, but that would fail in practice.
There is a significant difference between intelligence and wisdom. I would argue wisdom is much less common than intelligence, and that people who are wise are not a strict subset of people who are intelligent.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:2, Insightful)
That's great for you and your parents, and in fact for Bill Clinton.
But you're new guy Obama is the most mindblowingly fiscally irresponsible President this country has ever seen. Are you going to call him out on that too?
All these, "I'm an liberal and I'm like this, and I'm so great, and conservatives are just like this and are so evil," comments are utter bullshit. Those kind of arguments are no better than "my Dad is stronger than your Dad" kindergarten arguments. You define both sides by attributing only positive aspects to your side and only negative ones to the "other" side. Intellectually your case is ridiculous and inconsequential.
This black or white, good vs. bad political posturing onslaught that overwhelms us right now is divisive and destructive. The political debate needs to be just that, a debate. Right now a lot of the political arguments are the equivalent of "You bad, me good."
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:1, Insightful)
Replying as anonymous to preserve moderation:
Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Except it holds true even before university.
IQ tests are not a good measure of intelligence. Consider that most people living outside of cities are conservative. Most people within cities are liberal. People in cities are more accustomed to spending time in doors and are better at concentrating on things like IQ tests. Those outside of cities usually spend more time outdoors doing things like riding motorcycles or hunting. When they are indoors taking a long multiple choice test, they are likely thinking about what they will do when they get back outside.
Setting may not be the only factor. Questions may also affect performance. Consider the following question:
What goes with a tea cup?
a) Plate
b) Saucer
c) Lemon
d) Napkin
A child raised in a city is more likely to have spent time at a social functions where tea cups sit on saucers. A child raised in the country may have never had hot tea and thinks a tea cup is large and filled with ice, tea and a lemon wedge. A country raised child is also more likely to confuse plate and saucer.
However, if questions were more not geared toward urban centers or given as a hands on evaluation, you may find the results will widely vary. For example, a child raised in the city may not know how to properly dress a deer, clean a fish or rebuild a motor. A child who has never seen or used a saucer (thinks it is a UFO) may have no problems preparing game for the dinner table or fixing his dirt bike.
Re:Not A "Liberal Gene" (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the life experience of being open to other points of view, the additional knowledge gained, that makes you more likely to be liberal.
I guess it depends on your definition of liberal. Most self-proclaimed liberals I know are not very open to other views. The open-mindedness they are interested in is MY open mindedness to THEIR ideas.
I also don't like the comment about 'curing liberalism'. I admit that's the first thing I thought, too, and I'm sure it was meant in jest, but this recent trend of linking everything to a gene - the "gay" gene, the "smart" gene, the "religious" gene, and now the "liberal" gene. Every time I hear a new one, I wonder how long before someone will use it to justify some kind of "cleansing".
Lack of gene makes conservatism more likely (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's read that again, so that it's more clear.
Researchers have found a gene which, when lacking in humans, leads them to be far more likely to fall into conservatism.
People without the novelty-seeking gene variant would be less interested in learning about their friends' points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition may be more conservative than average.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:5, Insightful)
That just means that Obama sucks. He rode a wave of hope and change into the white house and then sold us out and pandered to the republicans. He is a failure. If it wasn't for Reagan and Bush II, Obama would be the worst president of my lifetime.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, just great (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Stimulus spending is considered by economists to be essential in pulling out of recessions. Putting the war spending IN the budget, instead of dishonestly pushing through money during the year is far better than the previous administrations policy. Healthcare is something that needs to be addressed, and while I think the bill sucks, at least it does SOMETHING.
Frankly, I can't think of anything more fiscally irresponsible than going to war without raising taxes (indeed, while LOWERING taxes).
While I wish that both sides were more fiscally conservative, I cannot support the idea that Obama is worse than Bush as far as spending goes.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking as a (moderate, Republican) conservative who is married to a (moderate, Democrat) liberal I question your premise. It might apply to the radicals of both stripes but the radicals are a minority. An irritatingly overexposed, embarrassingly vocal and obnoxiously militant minority but still a minority.
I'd love to see a nationwide, scientifically/statistically accurate survey looking at where people actually are on the Radical Conservative---Moderate Conservative---Undecided---Moderate Liberal---Radical Liberal line. It'd be very interesting to compare those results to the "unbiased news reporting" we get from the various news outlets. If you listen to them it sounds like 99.9% of the people in this country are either radical Conservatives or radical Liberals. My personal belief is that the bell curve distribution would apply but we're only hearing about the extremes because of the "If it bleeds, it leads" policies that the various reporting agencies use either to espouse their own beliefs or kowtow to/curry favor from their advertisers.
Just my $.02 worth.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservatives are on the wrong side of history.
First, I'm going to disagree with this statement due to the unspoken premises which evidently lead to it being made.
Your view of 'Conservative' appears to be quite myopic and castigating, cast along a specific political divide, not a first-belief like 'liberalism' or 'conservativism'. What is 'conservative' in your mind? Was it a conservative mindset that kept us out of WWII until Pearl Harbor, or was it a liberal one? Was it a liberal or conservative mindset that led to the British colonizing the world?
Consider: early Christianity. It wasn't the conservatives who lost those theological battles - it was the liberals (gnostics, etc). Or the liberals who started the French Revolutions (look how well those usually ended for everyone). History is full of many winners and losers of different political stripes, with examples why each was "good" or "bad". (For a counter-example, look at every liberal/populist/Marxist movement that's resulted in significant political change in the last century - none of them have ended well, and most culminated in genocide.)
Of course conservatives look wrong-headed by your "modern" perspective. The problem with liberalism is that its proponents usually think (due to lack of education and retrospective examination, I suppose?) that their ideas are new, fresh, and intrinsically modern/superior.
Second, you are actually correct: in this case conservatives (as you cast them) are on the wrong side of history. Liberals are, unfortunately, casting the lot together, and viewing "conservatives" as one stripe, which simply is not true, and is not beneficial. The world body (in the West) has swung so incredibly far "liberal" that even the most wobbly moderate will be viewed as a conservative to the 'educated Western liberal'.
In my mind, liberalism and conservativism are defined as such:
* Conservativism is easier to define than liberalism, because it can be summed up as 'appreciates the status quo' or 'is content with the status quo. They're resistant to change until they can no longer resist within reason, and then they quickly accept the change, making good use of it through incremental innovation. They're the societal breaks, so to speak: these people will try to stop any abrupt social or political change.
* Liberalism likes the new and shiney. Proponents are the inventors of society, pushing new ideas, new technology, and so on. They're the societal motor, and they need the breaks of conservatives to help them around the turns and when there are walls approaching - so the liberals don't kill everyone aboard.
* The 'moderates'. These people probably don't care, at heart, but are conservative in practice due to the fact that they just want to be left alone. This is the bulk of human kind. It takes a lot for these people to be bothered to get involved.
* And then there are split-brain people, who seem to be quite conservative in their worldview but are adaptive and welcoming to change. They're somewhat the exception.
I'd say that, looking at history, countries/nations have done better with fewer liberals and more conservatives (but certainly some liberals). The proportion is likely important, but I'd wager a 20:80:10 ratio of conservative, moderate, liberal would be best for a culture.
Are you sure you're not referring to fanaticism? It fits within your post better, assuming I adjust for a preference for Marxist dictators.
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:5, Insightful)
I boil down to only this: Amtrak is a company. It should survive or fail without help from the government. I didn't say anything about the countries entire train system.
And the reason you disagree is because you start with different premises. Your argument is:
P1.) Amtrack's purpose is to make a profit
P2.) Amtrack did not make a profit
C.) Amtrack failed.
His argument is:
P1.) Amtrack's purpose is to provide public transportation.
P2.) Amtrack has provided public transportation.
C.) Amtrack succeeded
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Amtrak. Very little transit is self-sufficient, economically: mass-transit or personal. In the case for an airport, a city may spend many dollars building roads to and from an airport, provide security, and so-on. This money is rarely collected directly back from the airport via the airline tickets, but the city expects that the net economic benefit to itself will be best due to tourism, etc. Thus, in their own way, airports are subsidized.
Roadways are another example: roads are built using tax dollars, usually derived from a general fund and not distinct from gas taxes. The roads are built under the premise that allowing people to get where they want will be a net-positive economically for the area.
No mass-transit system I can think of survive solely on fares. Amtrak has the added curse that many routes and stops were added during its inception purely for political pork; a legislator's vote for initial and continued Amtrak funding could be best assured by giving the train a stop in their district. If you've ever taken Amtrak, you'd know that many of the stops are in the middle of nowhere - some trains carry more than the town population.
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:1, Insightful)
And you've just defined the crucial difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" when it comes to economics. Conservatives believe that companies exist to make money. Liberals believe that companies exist to provide a product to the market.
The conservative viewpoint is essentially the same as believing that people exist so that we can breath. This is, of course, patently absurd. We breath so that we can exist. A company, in fact the entire market, exists because it provides something that we need: products. Making money is a means to an end. A company that doesn't make money will cease to exist, and therefore will fail to achieve its goal of providing a product for the market. Therefore companies strive to make money. But that is the means, not the end.
Science: Deficient gene causes Conservative views (Score:3, Insightful)
from the let-the-flame-war-begin dept.
science
politics
Scrameustache writes "Conservatives may owe their political outlook to their genetic make-up, according to new research from the University of California, San Diego, and Harvard University. Ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4. Lead researcher James H. Fowler and his colleagues hypothesized that people with the novelty-avoiding gene variant would be less interested in learning about other points of view."
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a libertarian but I have to say, there's a fair argument to be made that Amtrack is having to compete against a heavily subsidized road program. It's definitely not a level playing field but when the government is involved, what is?
Re:Whew... So there is hope for a cure? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a fact.
This is a value proposition on which rationality has nothing to say, and furthermore on which there is, in practice, no consensus. Its a controversial value proposition in the case of "companies" generally, and its a particularly controversial value proposition in the case of companies established by the government for the purpose of acheiving government policy goals.
Yes, once you assume that everyone agrees with you on all value propositions, its easy to further conclude that rationality is all you need to get to consensus on policy. The problem there, though, is with that first assumption.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives opposed Communism? In general, yes, although that also meant supporting some pretty unsavory regimes. One could argue that supporting the Tsarist regime or the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-Shek radicalized the opposition, so they were forced to the extreme.
Conservatives certainly did support National Socialism. Hitler was given power (as Chancellor) by right-wing politicians who thought they could control him. One reason for his rise to power was Goering's association with the industrialists, who tend to be conservative. Outside Germany, many conservatives supported Hitler's rule, even if they deplored some aspects.
Eugenics? Both ways. Conservatives opposed eugenics movements, and opposed the move away from eugenics.
On the whole, the world has been becoming a better place for a long time. The role of conservatives in this has been to generally slow down change, which on the good side has often meant restricting changes to ones people were confident would be good.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, my anecdotal evidence suggests that your anecdotal evidence is a load of crap. Assholes come from all parts of the political spectrum.
But sure, keep calling names, keep the holier-than-thou attitude, and keep thinking that your shit don't stink. It's really constructive.
--Jeremy
Re:Yeah, Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you actually buy into what you're saying?
Of course. I never argue a position I don't believe is valid.
Do you actually think anybody with a liberal ideology actually is smarter, better, and less likely to repeat their mistakes?
Oh, no not at all. I didn't mean to say that all liberals are smarter than all conservatives, or that any specific liberal is smarter than any specific conservative. These are admittedly generalizations, frequently wrong but with an element of truth.
Consider the debate between science and religion. Both claim to be ways of finding truth. Now I've met some pretty stupid scientists and some really smart priests. But science on the whole has a much better track record for finding facts and improving the lives of people than religion does.
And yet here we are with arguably the most liberal president and congress ever.
You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. Consider the two biggest things this president has done, passed health care reform, and stimulus spending. His health care plan is more conservative than Nixons, so he's certainly no liberal there. His stimulus policies were just a continuation of Bush's, so that doesn't sound too liberal either.
Guantanamo is still open, the Iraq war is still ongoing, and most of the Patriot act is still in place or is being expanded. The poor will probably become slightly less poor, the middle class will become poor, and the really rich will stay really rich and in power.
And all these things are happening because of insufficient liberalism on the part of our government. Conservatives created the fiction that Guantanamo was outside of US jurisdiction. Conservatives lied their way into the Iraq war. Conservatives wrote the Patriot act (though the Democrats (none of them liberals) who voted for it are not without blame). And the gap between the rich and poor has gotten ever wider in the last 30 years of Conservative rule.
These policies continue because our government can in no way be described as liberal.
Now of course conservatives aren't perfect. But at least they usually aren't willing to force their untested ideologically-based and ridiculously expensive systems on people.
War on Drugs? Don't Ask Don't Tell? The War in Iraq? Border fences? Abstinence only education?
Re:Oh, just great (Score:3, Insightful)
So long as we're sticking to anecdotes, this comment exchange seems to demonstrate that both "liberals" and "conservatives" are assholes. Just sayin'.
Re:Looking at this another way: (Score:1, Insightful)
See, I think when I hear this whole nonsense about "redistribution of wealth" that you're showing you aren't at all better, you're just picking one particular phrase to justify your ideology and ignoring the rest of the shibboleth.
Doesn't make you better. It's really just a way for you to be divisive. Perhaps you don't realize that?
Here's a clue, almost nobody wants to redistribute wealth in a coercive manner. There may be some few radicals out there with that in mind, but most folks? What they want is equitable opportunity and fair compensation for work done. IOW, while you want everybody to pay their fair share, others want everybody to be offered to be paid their fair share. (Can't make everybody take up the opportunity though, some people just want to sit rather than work, and well, it turns out to an extent, we can let them. Go figure.)
It's really not that unreasonable a position, but your quoting of a particular distorted phrase tends to obscure that. Try to think of it this way, that others feel that their labor is their labor, and should be compensated in an appropriate manner, not just sucked away as the rich keep getting richer off our sweat.
BTW, you failed to specify your essential functions of government very well. Defense is a widely cited thing nobody argues with(though perhaps they ought to do so!), but it turns out the details do matter. Infrastructure is such a broad term that you'd have been better off not saying a thing, because it has no distinct meaning, and administration?? Administration of what, the prior two? It should go without saying. You want to say government functions should be pared down, well, instead of working from a top-down, you might want a bottom up approach. That's something I've found a bit distressing about the "Tea Party, Small Government advocates" that they keep failing to tell us what they'd cut. Except the Department of Education. Which at 70 billion dollars is hardly a vast government money pit. And given that it does serve a reasonable role in the coordination of education nationwide, I just don't see outright elimination as feasible. Perhaps if they wanted to get rid of all federal spending on education, that'd mean something, but you know they don't want that, because then local school districts would have to find ways to pay for it.
And please don't even give me any insane argument about education not being a vital piece of infrastructure, because it is essential to the development of the populace. If anything, I'd say it's the first and last line of defense of a free state from the most dangerous enemy, that which comes from within.
Re:Oh, just great (Score:3, Insightful)
Shrug. I think stimulus spending is a valid part of a response to an economic downturn, especially in the current situation, where the Fed had kept rates so low for so long (fueling the inevitable crash) that when the crash came, their power to adjust rates to stimulate lending was largely blunted.
Likewise, tax rates are exceptionally low right now (lower than Reagan!), so cutting taxes (especially taxes on the wealthy) isn't likely to have much effect either.
Lot of businesses in this country are keeping their money in their mattresses, even as we speak. We have a large rebound in profitability that isn't matched by hiring. At the same time, retail and tax-driven government services are forced to cut workers (due to shrinking revenues and/or tax base) and that's prolonging the problem.
Finally, I think that we're in dire need of infrastructure spending anyway and this is a way to build what is needed and stimulate the economy at the same time.
As far as the healthcare thing goes, my buiggest problem with it is that it perpetuates the effective monopoly of insurance companies, so in that we agree. I think that a public option, and the granting the ability for insurance companies to collectively negotiate against pharmaceutical companies would help immensely.