Quote:I have reflected on it, and note that in the cases you cited I was expressing a deeply held belief that, taken in large numbers, different groups of people generally exhibit the same mix of good and and bad intent, honesty and deceit, generosity and selfishness, etc. Superficial manifestations of these and other like qualities can vary a great deal, but when one cuts through that, the same spectrum of human behavior usually becomes evident. Individuals are unique, but the central tendencies of core human qualities in large enough groups are generally the same. Thus I find it hard (not impossible) to believe that liberals are more or less honest than conservatives, that (in the same circumstances) Canadians would be more or less intolerant than Americans, and so on.
I happen to agree with you here, george. It's a very Freudian idea, actually. We're all driven by like motivators (sex and aggression, but let's not argue Freudian theory right now) expressed in a variety of behaviors. But it's the variety of behaviors that is the key. And as far as the group goes, I agree again, given a large enough, and
diverse enough group, there is likely an equal representation of those who manage their motivations, defenses and moral concerns better than others.
But take the group, within the conservative wing, of those who are extreme. They are actually, I would argue not really conservatives, but rather subversive revolutionaries. And of course, as you point out, both parties have their radicals. But it's these subverters I'm so worried about. In your party, these people have taken over. They are in some part disguised and at this point well managed for the sake of PR and winning elections, but they are the subversives, none the less. I know I may have further work to do to present this idea to you in a form by which you can be convinced. But I'm willing to do that.....given time. As Blatham points out, this group is not benign.
As another, mostly reading, member of this discussion has pointed out to me back line, the liberals have our radical group as well. These two groups make up a very important component of the voting public. The ability to capture their vote and keep them from splitting off is a crucial element in the art of winning. (Although, I think, if we could make them split off in both parties, it would be very helpful indeed.) Both parties have been the victim of the extreme elements on both sides. We may use them, gather them under the tent, or we may alienate them, but I think no one wants them to be in charge. And in charge they are in the Republican party.
It's your casual brushing off of the fact that they are in control which boggles my mind. I respond to it with wonder and amazement.
