The Psychology of the Right and Left (as well as a rant)

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

Let me first say...I'm not a psychology expert. I am told I have a good judge of character--I can tend to read people very well and determine their motivations and what drives them. People come to me with counsel because of this--I'm not bragging, it's just the truth. And I like giving advice. I love psychology in all of it's forms--Since one's psychology is what ties together and gives rise to pretty much every aspect of a person.

Now, as psychology is so important to us as individuals, and even as groups, I thought we'd try to examine the psychology of both the political sides. I'd love if it can be as objective as possible, and if we can leave our biases out of the equation. I think an understanding of what drives Liberals, Moderates, Conservatives, Socialists, Anarchists, Libertarians is important because if you understand those with whom you disagree, you can debate them better. If you know your opponents mind, you can use his points of view against him.

Personally, myself, I believe in compartmentalization when it comes to politics. I believe in common sense, and pragmatism. I don't really chain myself to anyone one ideology because I see goodness in both Liberalism and Conservatism. My mindset is thus: While I have very Liberal tendencies, I would govern as a center-rightist. Some have called me a fraud for doing so; I simply call it pragmatism. I admire a man like Eisenhower for the fact that he wasn't rigidly tied to his personal ideology and thus was able to work with respect and to good results with his opponents. I don't believe emotions should cloud one's judgement.

I believe in individualism, but I don't believe in utter individualism where every man fends for himself. I think there's a danger in that, because we are a nation. Yes, a nation of individuals, all different, but a nation, and thus a collection of individuals under a single banner nonetheless. We are not all individual islands inside this Union. When a man joins the army, he's serving with people he probably utterly disagrees with on quite a few things, yet they are still one army; one united front, but composed of individuals--There is balance in that.. I believe that there must be such a balance between individualism and collectivism when dealing with our government.

Veering toward the other end--Collectivism--is also dangerous. To be an utter collectivist--The extreme of collectivism as manifested in Communism- is to strip away a person's individuality, their identity; The individual becomes just a number. It takes away all that makes one unique, and when put on a national scale, it threatens the whole uniqueness of a nation. All men are created equal, but not all men will know equality--I don't mean racial equality, but economic quality.

I believe that the existence of the Rich, Poor, and Middle Classes are fundamental and natural facts of our experience as Americans. That is, in my mind, the main flaw underlying the theory of Communism--To eliminate all classes is to eliminate the individuality and identities of those living under it. I mean true, Marxist, stateless Communism--that ultimate end goal which Marx dreamed of.

That's why I consider myself a moderate. I recognize the importance of businesses, and of profits; I don't view business as the enemy, but I also feel that there must be certain controls and regulations placed upon them. I believe a function of our government is to act as a regulator--Not a controller, not a master--but a regulator, or overseer, of certain industries.

I like that balance, because I don't believe in Socialism, but neither do I believe in the Laissez-Faire Capitalism that we once had. There are certain industries which should be supervised, but not controlled, for the national interest. Supervising an industry is different than the government controlling it.

I do not believe it is the interest, right, or duty of the President to fire a CEO of a corporation--That is bordering right on the edge of Fascism, and represents a very dangerous precedent. There are lines, and that is crossing a grave line and undoing that fine balance. The government should act as the Night Watchman of a Business--Not as the de facto Board of Directors.

Such measures can be in place and we'd still be a Capitalist system. Regulation, to me, is not a big issue. It's when you get into the issues of Welfare and the like that the issues become murky, at least for me; I will not comment as I am still trying to figure out my stance on those issues and so it would be disingenous of me to comment on something I don't even know everything about or am totally sure about it.

I think forcing individuals to buy insurance kind of violates that concept--that concept of balancing individualism and collectivism, and becomes the Collective over the Individual. I'd support some form of Universal Healthcare, but it has to be done in such a way which is , but not one that punishes individuals for making their own decisions in life. However, I can understand why one would want an individual mandate in that if a person doesn't have insurance and they get sick, who ends up paying for it--The hospital and even sometimes the Tax Payer.

But treating that kind of systemic problem by punishing individuals is wrong. You could reform that problem by for example taking the 1986 law off the books which stipulates that Hospitals MUST treat all those who cannot pay--Then, there would be no need for a MANDATE to buy insurance because people would be compelled by consequence to buy insurance.

If you take that law off the books, and the hospitals turn away people who don't have insurance, or can't pay, people be compelled NOT by the government, but by the consequence of their own actions (IE, Refusing to buy insurances and being turned away from being treated by a Hospital). That might be a good remedy for a systemic ill--A better one than forcing individuals to buy insurance under the penalty of fines and even imprisonment. It's more of an Individualist solution, but it ultimately would also benefit both businesses and society as a whole.

I have some other ideas, but I've ranted far too long. I enjoy sharing my ideas with you guys, though.

[noonwitch]

My observation:

Liberals (including me) tend to be conceptual thinkers. Conservatives tend to be detail-minded thinkers. This leads to clashes even when the two parties agree on the overall ideas involved.


I've only learned to pay attention to details because of my government job.

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

My observation:

Liberals (including me) tend to be conceptual thinkers. Conservatives tend to be detail-minded thinkers. This leads to clashes even when the two parties agree on the overall ideas involved.


I've only learned to pay attention to details because of my government job.

Really, those two mindsets--A conceptual mindset, and a detail minded mindset--should compliment each other rather than be at odds.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Let me first say...I'm not a psychology expert. I am told I have a good judge of character--I can tend to read people very well and determine their motivations and what drives them. People come to me with counsel because of this--I'm not bragging, it's just the truth. And I like giving advice. I love psychology in all of it's forms--Since one's psychology is what ties together and gives rise to pretty much every aspect of a person.

Yeah psychology is important. I studied it in college, got some pieces of paper with my name on it that claim I did it well and i had a little experience in a lab or two.


Now, as psychology is so important to us as individuals, and even as groups, I thought we'd try to examine the psychology of both the political sides. I'd love if it can be as objective as possible, and if we can leave our biases out of the equation. I think an understanding of what drives Liberals, Moderates, Conservatives, Socialists, Anarchists, Libertarians is important because if you understand those with whom you disagree, you can debate them better. If you know your opponents mind, you can use his points of view against him.

Psychology is very important and can lead to many great things but you cannot set out to use a tool against someone and expect good results. While psychology can offer much insight into yourself and others, the best way to understand other people (even opponents) is simply to talk to them with an open mind, rather than trying to trick them.




Personally, myself, I believe in compartmentalization when it comes to politics. I believe in common sense, and pragmatism. I don't really chain myself to anyone one ideology because I see goodness in both Liberalism and Conservatism. My mindset is thus: While I have very Liberal tendencies, I would govern as a center-rightist.

It seems to me, this is what Obama is doing.



Some have called me a fraud for doing so; I simply call it pragmatism. I admire a man like Eisenhower for the fact that he wasn't rigidly tied to his personal ideology and thus was able to work with respect and to good results with his opponents. I don't believe emotions should cloud one's judgement.

Emotions are not the same as ideology. There are sometimes when the fight is a good fight and it's better to push for something. There are other times when compromise is really the only way to go.

Should Martin Luther King Jr have compromised his message? Should MLKjr have resorted to violence rather than the extremely painful and soul-testing method of non-violent resistance because it would have been "faster" or "more practical"?

Compromise doesn't always mean trying to find the middle between two options. Remember that the scope of the debate can shift just as much as the content.


I believe in individualism, but I don't believe in utter individualism where every man fends for himself. I think there's a danger in that, because we are a nation. Yes, a nation of individuals, all different, but a nation, and thus a collection of individuals under a single banner nonetheless. We are not all individual islands inside this Union. When a man joins the army, he's serving with people he probably utterly disagrees with on quite a few things, yet they are still one army; one united front, but composed of individuals--There is balance in that.. I believe that there must be such a balance between individualism and collectivism when dealing with our government.

Veering toward the other end--Collectivism--is also dangerous. To be an utter collectivist--The extreme of collectivism as manifested in Communism- is to strip away a person's individuality, their identity; The individual becomes just a number. It takes away all that makes one unique, and when put on a national scale, it threatens the whole uniqueness of a nation. All men are created equal, but not all men will know equality--I don't mean racial equality, but economic quality.

Individualism is important. Self-growth is important. Your own personal spiritual journey is important. However, we shouldn't assume that anything related to a group is anti-individualistic.

There is a big difference between Collectivism and Community. Collectivism serving the group at the expense of the individual. Collectivism crushes the individual for the group. This is not Community. Collectivism aims to break down the individual ,so that his only identity is an identity as part of the group.

Community is a collection of individuals working together. Community actually benefits from having unique individuals with different abilities and skillsets. Community strengthens each individual through his/her ties and relationships with other individuals in the community. Community is a lot like church organizations that rely on volunteer labor and donations from the community, people who all view the goals of the church as good and where the members of the community all gain from their communal efforts.

Communism is rooted in Community, not Collectivism.




I believe that the existence of the Rich, Poor, and Middle Classes are fundamental and natural facts of our experience as Americans. That is, in my mind, the main flaw underlying the theory of Communism--To eliminate all classes is to eliminate the individuality and identities of those living under it. I mean true, Marxist, stateless Communism--that ultimate end goal which Marx dreamed of.

Interesting. I'm not sure how much you've studied all this but what are are describing sounds close to Structural Functionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism) (link)

This is a theory of society that views each of it's parts, including the very rich and very poor and all that comes along with it, as necessary components for the system to function. It's analogous to how organs function in a body, where every part is necessary for the functioning of the people.


That's why I consider myself a moderate. I recognize the importance of businesses, and of profits; I don't view business as the enemy, but I also feel that there must be certain controls and regulations placed upon them. I believe a function of our government is to act as a regulator--Not a controller, not a master--but a regulator, or overseer, of certain industries.

I like that balance, because I don't believe in Socialism, but neither do I believe in the Laissez-Faire Capitalism that we once had. There are certain industries which should be supervised, but not controlled, for the national interest. Supervising an industry is different than the government controlling it.

I do not believe it is the interest, right, or duty of the President to fire a CEO of a corporation--That is bordering right on the edge of Fascism, and represents a very dangerous precedent. There are lines, and that is crossing a grave line and undoing that fine balance. The government should act as the Night Watchman of a Business--Not as the de facto Board of Directors.

How do you feel about a government that actively works for the interests of Big Business, rather than as a watchman?

[Wei Wu Wei]

This is where you lost me....




I think forcing individuals to buy insurance kind of violates that concept--that concept of balancing individualism and collectivism, and becomes the Collective over the Individual. I'd support some form of Universal Healthcare, but it has to be done in such a way which is , but not one that punishes individuals for making their own decisions in life. However, I can understand why one would want an individual mandate in that if a person doesn't have insurance and they get sick, who ends up paying for it--The hospital and even sometimes the Tax Payer.

Yeah I get the idea behind the mandate, it makes sense but I consider it wrong to force people to buy insurance from a company.

If they had offered a low-cost or subsidized public option for people who do not want private insurance that would be different.




But treating that kind of systemic problem by punishing individuals is wrong. You could reform that problem by for example taking the 1986 law off the books which stipulates that Hospitals MUST treat all those who cannot pay--Then, there would be no need for a MANDATE to buy insurance because people would be compelled by consequence to buy insurance.

What?! Whoa now. Hospitals lose a lot of money because of this mandate but this mandate is necessary. I mean for the love of God, this highlights specifically what is wrong with a privatized health care system. Their primary concern is money, so if you cannot pay you are not admitted in.

But remove the stipulation that requires treatment for people? I mean seriously right now they can still refuse to give you decent treatment unless it is life threatening. This causes many people to sit and suffer and slowly become dangerously ill until they are "sick enough" to be admitted.

If you remove this stipulation what you get is millions of people simply not getting health insurance. In the real world, some people simply cannot afford health insurance. Not all jobs offer decent health insurance, if at all, and most low paying jobs do not offer anything.

It is expensive as hell and some of these people have stomachs or children, they have rent payments they can barely afford and they cannot find good jobs.

This is absurd to me, changing the system for the purpose of denying care to millions of people sounds like the most cruel, sick, inhuman thing imaginable.

People aren't going to suddenly jump up and strut down to the Job Store and get a really good job when their kidneys are failing, they are going to go to the hospital and if they are turned away they are going to die. Simple as that.

There is something sickly wrong with the spirit of our society when we decide, as the wealthiest nation in the history of humanity, that a little bit of money more is important than treating sick people who need it.


If you take that law off the books, and the hospitals turn away people who don't have insurance, or can't pay, people be compelled NOT by the government, but by the consequence of their own actions (IE, Refusing to buy insurances and being turned away from being treated by a Hospital).

Some people cannot afford it. Some people are living off of $150 a week and have to use that to pay their bills and feed themselves.

If you are so eager to save money for private entities we should at least set up a Public Option. A network of insurance, hospitals, and doctors that work on people for very low cost or free, and is subsidized by the government, the money saved from dropping the hypothetical mandate could go towards funding a public option.

There is a myth out there that if you strip away the safety net that millions of people who depend on it are going to just jump up and create jobs out of nowhere and suddenly have money to spend because they are "motivated". lmao no. in the real world, when you do not live off of your parents money, when you run out of money and you get sick, you just pray.


That might be a good remedy for a systemic ill--

No. It doesn't address the problem of millions of people getting subadequet health care. It doesn't address the contradiction that 400 individuals own over $1.5 Trillion in personal wealth, but a few billion dollars is too much money to treat millions of sick human beings.

[NJCardFan]

Just my own observations, liberals tend to be more elitist. Actually, even they are split between to camps: you have what George Carlin referred to as the Bourgeois liberals, these consist of those in academia and are often well to do. They think they're smarter than everyone else and believe that everyone should live their life according to their tenets. These are your greenies who drive $50K Volts and $35K Prius'. They often live in large McMansions, shop at whole foods, and dominate the entertainment industry as well. They are hypocrites of the highest order. The "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" mental set. The Pelosi's, the Gore's, Hollywood, etc. These are the people who live these lavish lifestyles with the finest things money can buy yet tell us that we should live in tepees and our only mechanical mode of transportation should be no more than a bicycle. These are the true nanny staters except these are the ones who want to be the nanny.

Then you have the proletariat. The welfare queens and other moochers. This is the class envy crowd(weewee, wilbur, hazldick, ect). These are the ones who lap up every bit if pablum thrown at them no matter how outlandish. These are people who either can't or won't take care of themselves so they enlist the government to provide for them and they don't care where it comes from. They are children living in a perpetual Never Neverland who never want to grow up. Self reliance is a foreign concept to them. Personally, I don't get their mindset. It's no coincidence that most of your prison inmates are liberals. Following the rules isn't something they hold dear. Again, being the children that they are, they want to do what they want to do no matter what. But when it comes to basic needs, well, that's someone elses job, not theirs.

[noonwitch]

Really, those two mindsets--A conceptual mindset, and a detail minded mindset--should compliment each other rather than be at odds.



Sometimes they do. A society needs it's big dreamers, and it needs the guys who come and say "well, that sounds nice, but it's going to cost billions of dollars we don't have".