Article by a former Republican

[Craig234]

I think one of the most important types of political discussion is when one of a group changes their view and can help broaden the views of others in the group.

Back when I could have a sig here, I quoted myself saying 'Ideology is the enemy.'

Part of that message is the importance of helping people break free of ideology.

All too rarely I'll see commentary by a person who has adjusted their views. Often I don't find it all that useful for others in the group. For example, right-wing author David Brock renounced his far right politics and started an organization to expose the errors in right-wing media, but what triggered his switch was that he was a closeted gay man who was outed and came to see the Republican treatment of gays as wrong. That's not exactly a big message for most Republicans to benefit from.

But today I saw another such article and while it's still narrow, there is a lot of great stuff in it. As is too often the case, it seems to be from someone who is already 'principled' enough to be more open to new views on things, but it still well tells a lot of valuable information on learning by the author.

It's good for Republicans to see his experiences and if they find information of value, and for liberals to see an example of one Republican who changed and the reason.

I think it's really good at explaining how some dogma gets accepted - like the whole worldview of who deserves what - that blinds people politically.

His comments later in the article about how the truth was in plain sight and why it was not noticed seem right on.

I'm interested to hear reactions to this article. I'd rather not have the demand for false equivalency. Liberals aren't always right, they can have false ideology also. It's less common.

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/

 

[jhbball]

"Like so many Republicans, I had assumed that society’s “losers” had somehow earned their deserts."

Sums up every republican asshole in P&N.

 

[Newell Steamer]

There are two types of people in the world:
1) those who do not know
2) those who do not want to know

'What' people don't know or don't want to know ranges and varies; it can be about death, live, wealth, health, happiness, sadness, etc. etc.

When someone does not know (like the author of the link), he/she comes across a reality and changes, usually on a personal level. Because they think differently and adjust. They don't have, or in most cases, won't turn their own world upside down - but, they will adjust how they deal with people and situations, now that they know what they did not know.

When someone does not want to know, there is no change. Who they were before they were presented with a reality remains as is. It does not matter what is going on - they simply do not want to know, anything, at all. And, they usually go a few steps further,.. they try to paint what they do not know, as something evil, bad, terrible - something that is not worth knowing, thus justifying their dismissiveness.

Republicans are, usually, the latter. They do not want to know - anything. They are not concerned with the reality of any situation. Their reality is their life. And, their life should be respected at all times, even if it entails their life intrudes or dictates how you should live yours - because again, what you feel or think is not of their concern.

And, when someone who does not want to know, is told they have to consider other people - or, usually, their actions did not account for other people - that is when the martyr complex is switched on. How they are being denied their right, to deny you of your right. Because again, you are not worthy of carrying ANY right.

This stems from their alarmist thinking - where something different is a danger. How you can NOT allow something different in your mind, because it will taint you. It will change you. It will kill you to know how someone different from you lives - so, don't allow it to exist!!

Some of the far fetched lies they create is just sad and proves they:
- fear mostly everything out there
- distrust what they do not know
- vilify, bash, demean and try to destroy what they do not know, to ensure it does not come back to hurt them

Their thinking is; since I do not want to know, I have to make sure it goes away,.. I better make sure people see the danger in what I fear and distrust,..

It is so sad to see them live in constant fear,.. perpetual outrage and hate. Such a shame.

 

[Binarycow]

There are two types of people in the world:
1) those who do not know
2) those who do not want to know

'What' people don't know or don't want to know ranges and varies; it can be about death, live, wealth, health, happiness, sadness, etc. etc.

When someone does not know (like the author of the link), he/she comes across a reality and changes, usually on a personal level. Because they think differently and adjust. They don't have, or in most cases, won't turn their own world upside down - but, they will adjust how they deal with people and situations, now that they know what they did not know.

When someone does not want to know, there is no change. Who they were before they were presented with a reality remains as is. It does not matter what is going on - they simply do not want to know, anything, at all. And, they usually go a few steps further,.. they try to paint what they do not know, as something evil, bad, terrible - something that is not worth knowing, thus justifying their dismissiveness.

Republicans are, usually, the latter. They do not want to know - anything. They are not concerned with the reality of any situation. Their reality is their life. And, their life should be respected at all times, even if it entails their life intrudes or dictates how you should live yours - because again, what you feel or think is not of their concern.

And, when someone who does not want to know, is told they have to consider other people - or, usually, their actions did not account for other people - that is when the martyr complex is switched on. How they are being denied their right, to deny you of your right. Because again, you are not worthy of carrying ANY right.

This stems from their alarmist thinking - where something different is a danger. How you can NOT allow something different in your mind, because it will taint you. It will change you. It will kill you to know how someone different from you lives - so, don't allow it to exist!!

Some of the far fetched lies they create is just sad and proves they:
- fear mostly everything out there
- distrust what they do not know
- vilify, bash, demean and try to destroy what they do not know, to ensure it does not come back to hurt them

Their thinking is; since I do not want to know, I have to make sure it goes away,.. I better make sure people see the danger in what I fear and distrust,..

It is so sad to see them live in constant fear,.. perpetual outrage and hate. Such a shame.

hey at least many of the ones I know work and pay tax while being whatever it is you mentioned here. They may be bigots and delusional but at least they pay their tax. I know a few at work that are gung ho bleeding heart liberals who care so much for others by organizing this and that constantly and I am like, if they would just work a few more overtime hours like I do they could pay a little more in tax that would definitely be more helpful in terms of social services provided by the gov to those people they want to help.

 

[jackstar7]

hey at least many of the ones I know work and pay tax while being whatever it is you mentioned here. They may be bigots and delusional but at least they pay their tax. I know a few at work that are gung ho bleeding heart liberals who care so much for others by organizing this and that constantly and I am like, if they would just work a few more overtime hours like I do they could pay a little more in tax that would definitely be more helpful in terms of social services provided by the gov to those people they want to help.

Just so I understand, you believe that federal government action is more efficient than local citizen action when it comes to delivering aid?

 

[Craig234]

Just so I understand, you believe that federal government action is more efficient than local citizen action when it comes to delivering aid?

I think it can be. Who can better deliver an anti-poverty program for elders and the disabled, medical care for the elderly and needy?

Clearly, the federal government can do a lot better at those programs.

Just one issue - if it were local, then any local government offering more tends to attract a lot of people to come there, and the program is quickly overwhelmed.

How would a local government deliver social security or medical healthcare?

There are these cultish ideologies for some people - local government is always better than central government, the private sector is always better than government - that are as Mencken said, solutions that are simple, and wrong. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're not, but following them to extremes is extremely harmful.

All of these things - individuals, private, local, central - have important roles.

I don't think I need to bring up when things are out of balance on the other side - too much central government - as flawed also, do I? Communist systems?

Because you are trying to frame this as a simplistic black and white issue - either local is always better or centralized is always better - I'm concerned you are being ideological.

 

[jackstar7]

I think it can be. Who can better deliver an anti-poverty program for elders and the disabled, medical care for the elderly and needy?

Clearly, the federal government can do a lot better at those programs.

Just one issue - if it were local, then any local government offering more tends to attract a lot of people to come there, and the program is quickly overwhelmed.

How would a local government deliver social security or medical healthcare?

There are these cultish ideologies for some people - local government is always better than central government, the private sector is always better than government - that are as Mencken said, solutions that are simple, and wrong. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're not, but following them to extremes is extremely harmful.

All of these things - individuals, private, local, central - have important roles.

I don't think I need to bring up when things are out of balance on the other side - too much central government - as flawed also, do I? Communist systems?

Because you are trying to frame this as a simplistic black and white issue - either local is always better or centralized is always better - I'm concerned you are being ideological.

I never said local government.

And you're trying to put me on the opposite side of an issue of which I am not. I just asked for clarification from the other poster.

 

[inachu]

Ideology always fails when it is made as a sticking point to support war.

 

[Greenman]

"Like so many Republicans, I had assumed that society’s “losers” had somehow earned their deserts."

Sums up every republican asshole in P&N.

And the DC begins it's spiral into P&N 2.0.

 

[sm625]

The reason to leave the GOP is because they are beholden to big banks and council on foreign relations and every other globalist interest. The constituents who elect this filth are seen merely as tools, to be used and manipulated. There is no respect for the american people. They hate the people. They have contempt for the people. It's hard to fault that, because the people, especially those in the GOP, love to live in complete and total ignorance of how groups like the CFR really do control 90% of every policy and action taken or enacted by our government. The one and only reason anyone should ever leave the GOP (or its democrat equivalent) is because both of these parties are completely controlled by globalist interests. But you dont see that theme presented in this article. It's just a mishmash of halfbaked thoughts totally bounded in political correctness. Why does he care so much about political correctness if he left the party? Screw being politically correct. That's what all these people get wrong. That's why the Grand ol Party never gets cleansed of this filth. Remove the bankers, the lawyers, the lobbyists, the CFR members, the trilateral members, and anyone linked to them. Remove all the gay crap, the abortion crap, and focus solely on the constitution and getting the federal government the hell out of people's lives. Or surrender the party to perpetual servitude of wall street and globalism.

 

[Craig234]

sm625, you have a greatly exaggerated idea if the influence of groups like the CFR. You're almost viewing them like another 'Illuminati'. They do have some influence and views, groups like that can represent 'conventional thinking' of the foreign policy bureaucracy and some interests, but it's not nearly as effectual as you think.

Contrary to some right-wing reactionaries' thinking, a global view can be a good thing. Concern for the world and picking policies that respect others. That global view is different than supporting 'globalization' or power interests with global reach. For example, opposing poverty globally increases all the people's wealth, including ours, but can cut into the profit margins reducing cheap labor.

Sorry but your comment about the article as 'halfbaked' and 'politically correct' is just gibberish. It's an article showing a right-winger evolving, and is neither.

Not all bankers are 'bad'. Not all lawyers are 'bad'. You asking to remove them all - a formula for making the party as irrelevant as the Libertarian Party (I wouldn't mind).

That's not how you get rid of pro-wealth policies. You use the power the people still have to outvote them, which requires organizing and reducing the power of money in our elections (see my thread on that, with so few responses). That's a main harm of the tea party - directly preventing those people from uniting with concerned people on the left, splitting the vote - divide and conquer. You're right about a lot of contempt by those who use groups like the Tea Party for their votes.

We're' well on the road to plutocracy, what you call 'perpetual servitude'.

Funny thing - I've pointed out, the only major political faction who really opposes those things is not Republicans or corporatist Democrats, but progressive Democrats.

Have you supported them? No. You seem unaware of them, as you wrongly assert the 'Democratic equivalent' of Republicans.

The only group who has a shot to fix these things IMO are those progressive dems, but try to get them a majority or the Presidency.

We've never really had a progressive Democrat in the presidency, other than FDR, if he can be counted as one. We've had a few who are close - JFK, LBJ domestically, Carter.

And we sure aren't close to electing one today. The closest we've come in decades was Howard Dean. But he yelled to a crowd of young people, so he couldn't be elected.

 

[Mursilis]

Back when I could have a sig here, I quoted myself saying 'Ideology is the enemy.'

Part of that message is the importance of helping people break free of ideology.

No, true enemies are self-interest and apathy. Good luck beating those.

Idealogy is hardly a threat. Most people lack a coherent idealogy, but just repeat whatever talking points they hear on TV which align with their percieved self-interest.

 

[Dannar26]

He left....and went where?

Where is the party without corruption? Where is the party that's truly for the people, and isn't beholden to toxic corporate interests?

Again, these threads making out conservatives to be ass backwards are always funny. Nothing to stand on? No worries! Do the most mature thing possible, and declare them brain defective!

These strident liberals treat ideology like it's like the emperor's new clothes. So what if nobody can see it!? Those conservo-noobs just aren't *wise* enough to see them! They're totally there!

 

[Craig234]

He left....and went where?

Where is the party without corruption? Where is the party that's truly for the people, and isn't beholden to toxic corporate interests?

Again, these threads making out conservatives to be ass backwards are always funny. Nothing to stand on? No worries! Do the most mature thing possible, and declare them brain defective!

These strident liberals treat ideology like it's like the emperor's new clothes. So what if nobody can see it!? Those conservo-noobs just aren't *wise* enough to see them! They're totally there!

That's not discussing, it's partisan ranting - fact free, misplaced sarcasm, and so on. Content free, fact free, logic free.

You don't actually want answers to your questions, it's clear. 'Brain defective' is a sarcastic trivialization of some valid science not discussed in this thread. Not about 'mature'.

Your argument is like saying 'don't like big oil? Be mature and accuse them of threatening the climate!' Nevermind that, well, the science is valid.

'Strident' isn't an argument. You might use that word in your, well, strident rant if you backed it up with an actual argument, but you don't.

Sorry, ideology is a serious problem, and it's possible - and evident - you don't see that.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Institutional Theory
The idea of an institution is the idea that there are groups of people that look alike, talk alike, and at times even think alike: and they have power. Power is that thing that keeps some people form getting what they want and allows others to get what they want. The power of an institution comes from the very conformity that it demands. But what does it really mean to demand conformity? The term for how institutions demand conformity is called isomorphism, which can be appropriately summed up in as "the process that makes one thing look like another"; and it comes about via three mechanisms: Coercive, Normative, and Mimetic.

Coercive
The normative mechanism of isomorphism emanates from the element of social interaction that comes from regulative bodies. Coercive isomorphic influences are followed quickly by others subject to the institution because without following these rules (laws, sanctions) some sort of 'legitimate' recourse occurs. For example, if the council on labor relations or OCEA demand that workers not suffer 100+ degree heat, then some sort of 'legitimate' recourse occurs (such a fine or jail time). Another example is in the movie industry. If the law precludes the showing of NC17 films in many theaters, then because of the sanction of reduced ticket sales that comes from the legal ban on such movies mass distribution, a producer looking to maximize income will likely fight for the R rating if at all possible. The power of the authority that creates the rating system is coercive because the decisions of the ratings-board are backed up with the "lawful" power of the government. That said, this example is a blur between the coercive power of the state and the normative power of the ratings board.

Normative
The normative mechanism of isomorphism is enforced by others within the institution: through things like certifications, ethics review boards, and accreditation standards. This sort of power to cause an entity to change happens as the social norms of the institution change. The basic governing power here is a 'moral' sense of duty to follow what is right. For example, while you will not go to jail for being a gay republican, you will be judged as 'morally wrong'. Such a judgment is unlikely to get you to actually change your behavior, but it is likely to drive you out of trying to be part of that institution. Similarly, if your company fails to obtain this year's flavor of "sustainability certification" there will be other companies that see your company as "doing evil" and thus fail to work with you. This example rides the cusp of normativity due to accreditation and a mimetic desire to simply be 'like' those in the institutional center.

Mimetic
The mimetic mechanism of isomorphism works on the individual cognitive level. While the other two have manifest expressions that can be seen in terms of black-and-white official documents, the mimetic is something one imagines "they" would like to see. This is what fiddler on the roof was all about: Tradition, TRADITION! And tradition works its way into the normative, and eventually coercive, as it becomes ever more embedded. This is where we get the majority of our disagreements on this forum; and people willing to fundamentally change other levels regarding this or that institution seen as more radical. For example, when a republican argues for moving social security to the public sector, the argument is not to remove the coercive power, or even regulatory power: But to shift that power based on the 'orthodoxy' of economic freedom. Similarly, when a democrat argues for single-payer universal healthcare they rarely argue for socialization of hospitals and making all doctors government employees; instead they simply want to move around the distribution of medical coverage and costs that are presently controlled by the private sector based on the 'orthodoxy' of democratic control.

Discussion

When Craig says "Ideology is the enemy." He is saying quite a bit more than one might be able to unpack without systematically thinking through the issue.

At the very basic level we have some ethos, a fundamental definition of what one's ethical-self should look like, and we take this ethos for granted. To this ethical ethos we ascribe basic 'conceptually correct' ideas like: "I stand for freedom" or "I stand for equity", usually summed up in very simplistic narratives like "I just think people should be able to keep what they earn" and "I don't think the rich should get richer while the poor get poorer". The conflict between these ideas is, for the vast majority, something that they never even think about because their orthodoxy acknowledges the 'problem' and explains it away in terms of a dominant narrative (i.e. "only lazy people are poor" or "people are MORE free when things are equitable").

But for those of us who do think about the conflict between basic ideas like this a voluminous array of problematic situations occur, particularly if we want to be accepted by any orthodoxy. For this I'll use my own example:

I was once a conservative Christian. I am still a Christian but after reflecting on the orthodoxy of the conservative side of things, I can see clearly that the policies are clearly, and starkly, in opposition to the ethos of that dude with the red-lettered words in the new testament. Similarly I often truck with those who share, and write academic papers on the benefits of, a marxist perspective. But still, I can see that the fundamental insights of Marx are degraded by what it is to be a 'proper' member of the critical theory crowd. For example, I run into what I call "pro rape" feminists; which is to say feminists that are so against 'blaming the victim' that they would prefer policies that would reduce rape not be enacted (for example, teaching dating safety)... This is as ludicrous as a Christian that's pro-death penalty! But to maintain upstanding membership amongst the institutional center of conservative christians, or berkley liberals, one must for-go the fundamental ethos of the group and agree to the brain-washed definition of 'self' that comes with being part of the group.

Fundamentally, my ethos is pro-human. I want to minimize suffering while maximizing human potential. I think that the meaning of life is in caring about other people. And when focusing on these things we find quite quickly that there's a "deal with the devil" made by every political and social group. There's always an excuse, always another 'reason' this or that hypocrisy, or behavior, or law is OK... and if you think you are in ANY ideological, political, religions, or identity group and are not subject to such hypocrisies then you've got yourself fooled and you need to wake up.

 

[sm625]

sm625, you have a greatly exaggerated idea if the influence of groups like the CFR. You're almost viewing them like another 'Illuminati'. They do have some influence and views, groups like that can represent 'conventional thinking' of the foreign policy bureaucracy and some interests, but it's not nearly as effectual as you think.

You can go on believing that all you wish, but in the real world we have clear evidence that these groups wield real appreciable power. For example you have a country like Israel, sucking up hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money to commit atrocious acts, and there's never once been a vote on it. Who voted to use our tax dollars to create more settlements? Which candidate will frame this in the proper way or even mention this at all? If we never vote for any of this crap, and it is never put on a ballot or mentioned in any of the debates, who in blazes has the power to keep thigns that way? And why doesnt anyone give two frickin craps about it? But the most important question of all is.... Who has the power to make people not care the way we obviously dont? Clearly it does go way past the CFR, but the CFRs and trilaterals are very important conduits that should deserve our attention.

Sorry but your comment about the article as 'halfbaked' and 'politically correct' is just gibberish. It's an article showing a right-winger evolving, and is neither.

Please.... this guy will vote for Jeb or whoever the next country-screwing slob they throw up to compete with the slobby sow that the democrats throw up there. And whoever wins wont matter because they will ALL, each and every last one of them, steer the country in the same EXACT direction. More wars in the middle east based on total bs. More undocumented immigration and wage suppression. More globalism and destruction of sovereignty, more wealth transfer away from the core middle class and into the top 1%, more money to israel to wipe away more palestinians, more more more. All the same. No matter who gets "elected". Did I hear that guy say any of that? No. And it is simply the truth. Because he doesnt understand the power structure.

And we sure aren't close to electing one today. The closest we've come in decades was Howard Dean. But he yelled to a crowd of young people, so he couldn't be elected.

You clearly do not understand how our political system works. The fact that it was something as simple and silly as an audience-appropriate shout that did him in should prove to you that true power rests elsewhere. It is the raw power of total social control. Like most people you've been blinded by the sheer power of this system, the totality of it. That power is the power of death. This system is at its heart, luciferian. The power that they have over the masses, to make the masses make such idiotic choices; That is real true political power. And its not random; it is controlled, directed energy. It is a power so great that it could make the majority of people accept whatever is the absolute most absurd nonsense you can mentally conjure. It is in fact only limited by your imagination. Want everyone to wear a hat with a birdcage in it? They can do it. Want everyone to submit their firstborn daughter to rape by government official on their wedding night? They can do it. Such things have been done throughout history, seemingly for the sole purpose of proving the absurdity and totality of this power. And still the masses do not question it or try to explain it. That is our political system. If you do not challenge that then you do not change anything. There are two forces at work in our political system: those that wish to get people to question things, and those that wish people to accept anything without question. It is quite clear which side is winning right now.