It's not intelligence, stupid.

[LWolf]

by David Stellfox

If you haven't taken a moment to read the article on DU's homepage today, please do. It's a thoughtful look at a universal frustration for liberals. I particularly appreciated this part:

I think it's a lesson for liberals everywhere. As long as religious fundamentalists (and the corporate junta that uses them) can offer Americans comforting ideology and canned ideas, both religious and patriotic/statist/fascist, that absolve them of the responsibility of thinking for themselves, liberals can argue until we're blue in the face. We will get nowhere.

The answer probably lies elsewhere. I've discovered that I've gotten farther with my family by simply being a good human being, trying, but not always succeeding, to live and model tolerance, justice, forgiveness, equality, etc. than I ever have by argument. It's a much slower process and requires infinite patience, but it works. I can't argue them into submission, but I can still show them the way.

[bigmonkey]

1. I'm not trying to be flip.

I've been troubled by this forever too. I recently came upon a meme that sums it up for me, at least at this moment. It is this: the anger of some on the right can be attributed to a determination to "get back at those damn smart kids". They are tired of being pushed around, they hate that stupid logic stuff, and its time to put those smart kids in their place.

As a result, it's unfair for those smart kids to keep winning the argument, or proving that the right is illogical, or bringing up complicated issues that are hard to accomodate in a simple worldview, so it's the right's turn to be in charge.

For me, this explains why the wall goes up when you try to argue with some of these people. You've identified yourself, and so you need to be put in your place. Or, if you persist in discussing issues, your logic and evidence is somehow "unfair" or inappropriate.

Of course, not everybody on the right has this attitude, but it's major feature of the movement in general.

[elfwitch]

2. you know....

That does explain a lot. It even goes pretty far in explaining why the religious fundamentalism causes that head in the sand act. If these people are feeling insecure about their ability to participate in cogent debate, religious dogma gives them a big warm fuzzy blanket of ideas to pull from that don't require proof. And being that patriotism is a sort of religion of the state, the neo-cons can use that same big fuzzy woobie to cover themselves as well. They truely believe the co-called 1950's style "American Dream" they were all sold. It is dogma, so it is not avilable for debate.

[LWolf]

3. At the risk of highjacking my own thread,

I'll say that one of the unnoticed, unremarked, rarely discussed issues of the day in public education is...

Scripted curriculums. Shoddy research shouted from the political towers as "science" promoting certain "systematic" lock-step, stepford "instruction," and "programs" mandated using them. The programs are, of course, commercially produced by companies with close ties to Bush Inc., and the whole point is...kids are indoctrinated with the only way to learn: listen and do as you're told. Don't think. Don't question. Just memorize what you are told and bubble it in.

I think this is one of the reasons why you can't carry the conversation beyond a certain point; they don't actually *think* about the issues.

The crucial point here being that we have now legislated this sort of indoctrination for all american children.