Republican, or 'Conservative'-minded private citizens tend to be motivated by complacency, often to the detriment of justice, social and otherwise.
IamFry said 02/21, 03:48 PM
First of all, the other side of this coin is that Dems or 'Liberals' are motivated by something to the detriment of something else, but that's a separate argument for another time.
Secondly, I'm using this definition of complacent: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complacent
If you don't agree on that, please don't accept the argument.
Now, I'll use the following to support my claim:
The argument that global warming is fictitious is indicative of a complacent mentality (e.g. I don't want to have to worry about the plight of future generations, therefore, Rush Limbaugh saying that it's made up is all the evidence I need to disbelieve it.).
The popularity of conservative politics with religious groups (i.e. People with a strong need of 'answers') suggests that the Conservative ideology appeals to people who want ready answers and explanations.
And finally, I find that, when presented with an argument, Conservatives are more likely to 'shoot the messenger' (e.g. The man's a professor, and all professors are liberal, and now that I've wrapped him up into a neat little package, I'm free to disregard his possibly disarming argument without even hearing it.).
LiveforReason said 02/21, 05:55 PM
While this is an interesting proposal, I found that there were a few jumps in logic in your support of this Conservative-Complacency concept.
Your global warming proof has two flaws that are closely tied together. First, the assumption is made that global warming is a proven, unquestionably verified fact. However there are a significant number of scientists who flatly disagree with the theory of global warming, and even more who aren???t ready to label it as fact.
But back to the big issue. This assumption on global leads into your notion the Rush Limbaugh and conservatives ???know??? that global warming exists; that it is humanity???s fault, that it can be stopped; but are merely to ???complacent??? to address the issue. On the contrary, many people, conservatives and others, need more proof before they allow the government to spend their tax dollars on environmental initiatives that may or may not work.
Moving on to the overall relationship between the ???conservative platform??? and complacency, I believe the one needs to examine the fundamental belief of conservatives to understand the issue: Individuals can handle societies problems better than the government. If a person believes
IamFry said 02/21, 07:22 PM
That's right, my first 'point' relies on the belief that global warming is real and that human beings do effect it. Also, I believe that the very few scientists who say g.w. is false are political shills. Even Bush, at this point, has acknowledged that greenhouse gasses are part of the problem - and this is from a guy who wanted to teach Creationism in Biology class. My logic doesn't "jump around", it simply relies on certain principles which you've mentioned and I, hopefully, have explained.
I didn't mean for this to be a global warming debate...
"Individuals can handle society's problems problems better than the government?" That's the fundamental conservative belief as evidenced by what? Our current two-term Republican president has increased non-defense government spending by 35%! But conservatives vote for him anyway! Why? Because he uses rhetoric about keeping the bad terrorists (or wolves) away, he'll keep the scary gays under wraps, and he'll protect your core religious beliefs (which, by the way, are under attack on all sides!). People will betray, or vote against, the fundamental principle of their ideology (size of government) for perceived security? Comfortability?
LiveforReason said 02/21, 09:16 PM
That conservative belief can be evidenced by the champion of ???conservatives???, Ronald Reagan. (Some conservatives don???t believe that Bush embodies conservative). In his first inaugural, Reagan said, ???Troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government, we achieved so much??? because we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man.???
His accomplishments in office both exemplify conservative values and are vacant of any complacency. Prior to 1981, seven million Americans were unemployed, there was a 13% inflation rate, family income was dropping, we were on the verge of recession; all of this despite the numerous existing government programs that were supposed to counter these development. Voters gravitated towards Reagan, because they wanted something different and they were not pleased with the current situation. Not very complacent behavior, is it?
In office, Reagan created 17 million new jobs, reduced inflation, and cut the minority unemployment rate in half. Clearly his policies were developed for the benefit of America as a whole, not for any complacent group.
IamFry said 02/22, 06:55 PM
Ronald Reagan's presidency is debatable. For one thing, the number of families living below the poverty line increased by a third. Another thing, the national deficit tripled. It's true that the unemployment rate went from 7.18 before he entered office to 5.49 when he left, but it also hit a 50-yr high (9.71) while he was in office.
I agree that Reagan has become the iconic conservative, but how is it that he was able to leave office (as the only president in modern history) more popular than when he went in, in spite of the fact that more people suffered financially under him than those who benefitted?
His campaign ads engendered ultra-nationalism, as did his rhetoric. He was a Hollywood actor, and he sold the American people on the pride of living in the greatest country in the world, and his 'anything is possible' rhetoric made them so comfortable that they they didn't mind that only the top 2% were experiencing economic growth while 33% more Americans found themselves below the poverty line.
I'd say that it's because Reagan's supporters were motivated more by the feeling they got rather than his actual job performance, and that's my argument in a nutshell.
LiveforReason said 02/23, 10:53 AM
Anyone???s tenure as presidency is debatable, that???s the beauty of American politics. Nevertheless, voters in 1980 were unpleased with Carter and were drawn to the conservative values of Reagan. Desire for change can hardly be attributed to complacency.
As for the claim: more people were worse off financially than those who benefitted, one would be challenged to find economists who say Reagan left the economy worse than he inherited it. The peak in unemployment occurred in 1982, when Carter???s policies were still taking their toll.Afterwards the rate consistently declined. Reagan led the US out of recession, increased economic potency, and achieved bipartisan cooperation. To say that it was merely his rhetoric that allowed him to be reelected is to be unmindful of his lasting achievements.
Reagan is an example of individuals drawn to conservative principles because of the desire to change and to better the US as a whole. If one said that conservatives who reelected Reagan were motivated by complacency, one needs to say the same for Bill Clinton(an equally popular president). Conservatives or Republicans are no more drawn to complacency than Democrats, moderates, or independents.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Ya'll just lost me with that there title! But I can not agree. Here's why. The old joke goes like this: Plane full of Republican ladies crashes and they mistakenly get sent to hell. Satan didn't wanna give 'em up, but 'bout a month later, Satan appears in heaven with all the ladies in tow. "How come?" asked God. "Well," said Satan, "after a month of charitable events, sewing circles and bake sales, these ladies have just about got enough money together to air condition hell!"
Disgruntled | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
My text was cut off, and I accidentally submitted it. I'll be sure to finish that statment next argument.
LiveforReason | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry your argument was cut off LFR, and thanks for the debate. It's sometimes tough to keep it under 1200; I had to omit a few thoughts as well...
IamFry | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Anytime iam. For those reading the debate this is the acceppted definition of complacent: pleased, esp. with oneself or one's merits, advantages, situation, etc., often without awareness of some potential danger or defect; self-satisfied: The voters are too complacent to change the government.
LiveforReason | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Hey, Reason guy, when was the last time you saw such involvement and enthusiasm during an election? Over a span of decades voter complacency is the norm, but here in 2008 complacency fades with a tenacity not seen for some time. Revel in it. It may not come around for another set of decades!
Brian PG | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Hey, iambligh, your open sentence of the face off is "doo-doo-caca". I only say that because they won't print the word I really want to say to you!
Brian PG | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Brian, i don't think you understand what we are debating. I am arguing that conservatives are not always motivated in their beliefs by complacency. The fact that the 2008 election has so much tenacity, which I agree with completely, neither detracts from my point nor adds to iambligh's. But again I do agree with you about 2008, and I am actually an Obama supporter.
LiveforReason | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
iambligh, you're an intelligent person. thanks for creating this faceoff, you have a lot of good arguments in here. Liveforreason, you're failure to acknowledge global warming as a problem tells everyone reading this of your ignorance; and, for the record, the vast majority of the scientific body supports the theory of global warming. It's as simple as this. Greenhouse gases have ALWAYS been acknowledged as raising global temperatures. The more people on earth, the more greenhouse gases produced. The more people, the bigger the problem. Especially with the crude and outdated technology we use.
papabear | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Papabear, as a disclaimer, I do believe that global warming is real and that it needs to be addressed. That being said, I was trying to point out that the reason some conservatives don't believe in it is not because they "don't want to have to worry about the plight of future generations," but because they are not sure if their government will effectively solve the still DEBATABLE problem. And yes, there are scientists who still need "convincing," see the 15,000+ scientists who were against the kyoto protocol. However, iambligh is right, this isn't a global warming debate :)
LiveforReason | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Nice debate, LFR; I think it could go on and on if they gave us room...
IamFry | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
But I kinda like the format; it makes you chose your words and points carefully. On the web, some people like to write a book for every comment (especially political) and that just isn't productive.
IamFry | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks iambligh, I definitely enjoyed it. Hopefully we'll do ths again.
LiveforReason | 02/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
And thanks in kind, LFR; In fact, I too live for reason. Reason, for me, takes precedence over most other 'virtues' but that's another topic for another day, I suppose.
IamFry | 02/24/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Sheeple are people too. Seriously though, I agree. There are studies showing a positive correlation between conservatism and "complacency" as well as a slew of other correlates including Racism, and Prejudice (Reyna, 2006).
Bird Turgler | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment