Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Republicans are dumber than Democrats...

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I think we can stop you right here.  My post and this thread doesn't address Objectivist attitudes towards libertarians.  It addresses a poll that says Republicans reject the theory of evolution more than Democrats.  My original point stands.   

Huh? I didn't say your post was about other libertarians. If you'll actually proceed and read on, you'll see there's a point having to with tying one's political commitments with commitments of broader social or religious nature. The comment about other libertarians is that normally Objectivists criticize libertarians for doing what they themselves are doing. So in order for your point to stand you would have to address it. Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can stop you right here.  My post and this thread doesn't address Objectivist attitudes towards libertarians.  It addresses a poll that says Republicans reject the theory of evolution more than Democrats.  My original point stands.  If some politician (it doesn't matter what his party is) comes out and says "I'm very skeptical of theory of evolution" then my reaction is "yes that's a dumb thing to think but what is his platform?".  If he openly endorses a dangerous ideology like socialism on the other hand then I wouldn't consider voting for him.  

 

But believing in Noah's ark is not dangerous. Okay.

 

Try this book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Culture Wars: a struggle between two sets of conflicting social values.

Among the many reasons Objectivism remains a miniscule minority in American politics, is because Objectivism cannot be appreciated nor accepted by mainstream politics as it is currently. This may sound redundant, but my guess is that most people contributing to this forum would wish to see reason usurp non-reason in politics universally, not merely in the USA. We, (Americans) have permitted the corruption of our political system, and our lexicon. The semantic meaning of terms, such as liberal and conservative, have altered greatly from their classic definitions.

Politicizing the theory of evolution is only the result of how or when or if it is presented in public schools. Republicans and Democrats have little choice about their positions on these issues, especially when they "go national." They either fall in line with the party's mainstream platform, or go maverick. Democrats mostly favor public schools, and therefore seek to "indoctrinate" young minds so as to have future Democrats. Republicans never publicly express disapproval for our public schools, so they struggle to control that which they can, in this case, the public school syllabus. It is over this field of battle that we find ourselves taking sides in the Culture Wars. The original Kulture Kampf was the agenda of Otto Von Bismark, and it didn't serve him very well. It would not serve us, (Objectivists), to engage in a conflict that forces us to join hands with either Republicans or Democrats. When discussing the politicizing of public school agendas with others, I usually state very early on that I oppose the public school systems as they currently exist. Then, usually, they stop talking to me.

Speak truth to power.

Edited by Repairman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if I may, without the rude attitude if I can, because I understand where Crow is coming from. Usually, objectivists like to criticize other libertarians on the grounds that they have a too "thin" a conception of liberty, that is, that any set of values and principles can be embraced by anyone, as long as it is non-aggressive (see for example the horrible Craig Biddle article in TOS.) Instead, they advance a "thick" conception of liberty, that is, that libertarians should be committed to additional values other than simply non-aggression, which for objectivists ranges from ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. So it is unusual to see objectivists defending Republicans on the ground that, hey, if they aren't a threat to my rights, then who cares what they think.

Straw man. Sneaky straw man, the kind where you leave it ambiguous who you're referring to on purpose. Still a straw man, because no one in this thread defended Republicans or said that one shouldn't care that 57% of them don't believe in the Theory of Evolution.

Saying that Democrats are dumber than Republicans isn't a defense of Republicans.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything I've observed in my own life says there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats in terms of IQ: at least nothing that stands out. I know some dumb folk on either side, I've seen lots of dumb folk on either side spout nonsense in TV interviews, their more populist commentators on Fox and MSNBC are at the same level of evasion.

This article http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201305/intelligence-and-politics-have-complex-relationship surveys a few studies on the subject. It confirms that there is no statistically significant and relevant difference in the IQ of the two types of voter. In fact, one study claims that independents and centrists might have the higher IQs, but another study contradicts this. Anyhow, it is interesting reading.

Perhaps the real differences between the low-IQ Republicans and the low-IQ Democrats is that the former believe what their grand dad and priest tell them while the latter believe what their teachers and contemporary commentators tell them.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But believing in Noah's ark is not dangerous. Okay.

 

Try this book.

 

See, this is really annoying.  I specifically said that if a candidate of any party expresses skepticism of or rejects a well supported theory of science like evolution, I would regard this as dumb.  Now I could stop here and maybe people would be satisfied but since a candidate for office is to be judged by his politics, not his understanding of science, I proceed to ask what this candidate's political ideology and policy preferences are and since he has an opponent in any election (unless he's running unopposed in which case it will make no difference) I have to evaluate both candidates on their policy preferences and choose the one who's policies will be the most beneficial or the least destructive depending on how you want to look at it.  If the scientifically ignorant candidate has a better political platform I will vote for him.  If not, I will not.  This seems logical enough.  What am I missing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a distinction that should be made between a politician who is "dumb" in a realm of religious ideology which can be in some ways connected with politics, rather than a politician who is simply dumb in regard to sciences divorced from religious ideology, i.e. in realms divorced from politics.

 

Specifically, a politician who consciously opposes "evolution" in the face of facts, has revealed something of his character, which is relevant to his role as a politician.  This is in sharp distinction from a politician who simply doesn't know electrons are fermions with half-integer spin.  The fact of this innocent scientific ignorance reveals far less of the politician's character which is connected with his role as politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is really annoying.  I specifically said that if a candidate of any party expresses skepticism of or rejects a well supported theory of science like evolution, I would regard this as dumb.  Now I could stop here and maybe people would be satisfied but since a candidate for office is to be judged by his politics, not his understanding of science, I proceed to ask what this candidate's political ideology and policy preferences are and since he has an opponent in any election (unless he's running unopposed in which case it will make no difference) I have to evaluate both candidates on their policy preferences and choose the one who's policies will be the most beneficial or the least destructive depending on how you want to look at it.  If the scientifically ignorant candidate has a better political platform I will vote for him.  If not, I will not.  This seems logical enough.  What am I missing here?

I don't wish to annoy you, but I think that there's an important point here.

Imagine two politicians running for office, Republican and Democrat. The Republican dismisses evolution... and global warming, while the Democrat believes in both things and wishes to pursue legislation to abate the negative effects he fears from global warming. By my understanding of what you've said above, we should prefer the Republican, because his political policy preferences are superior to the Democrat's (in that the Republican's beliefs on evolution will not matter politically in our example, and his non-action with respect to global warming is far superior to the actions that the Democrat will undertake/support).

However, suppose that the Democrat's position on global warming -- in this particular scenario -- is based upon exposure to biased evidence and a misplaced trust in the scientific community... while the Republican's position on both evolution and global warming is based upon an utter rejection of "science" as being flawed when compared with religious faith. Suppose the Republican has come to the policy views that he has, because he has prayed upon these subjects, and this is what God told him was correct.

You might say that none of that is relevant, still. That what matters is their policy platform. But to me, it matters *how* a person arrives at the conclusions they reach -- their process -- and the more fundamental philosophical beliefs that underlie their politics. In this case, which I've obviously contrived to tease out these points, I think that I would prefer the Democrat. Because although I would rather not have legislation on global warming, I would rather political power be in the hands of a man who generally believes in following logic or reason or the evidence (even while he is sometimes mistaken in his conclusions) versus someone who relies on faith or gut instinct or divine revelation (even though he may sometimes be correct). Just in terms of political policy and that alone -- not just forming some free floating "judgment" of who I prefer as a person, or who I find "smart" or "dumb" -- I expect life under politicians who respect reason to be superior to life under politicians who embrace religious faith instead.

Now, to be clear, am I saying that I find the above to be *generally* true of Republicans and Democrats? Am I arguing along with the OP that "Republicans are dumber than Democrats"? Not at all. I find them equally awful, in general. But if we'd like to know the potential "problem" with a politician's rejection of evolution, this is my problem with it at least. Not for the sake of one more soul in the world believing in evolution, when that has no impact on policy, but for the sake of the rejection of reason that I believe such a view often represents and is reflective of, and the potential consequences a rejection of reason has for governance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing drives further polarization more than always reacting to and against what those 'others' are doing, or stand for. They want higher taxes, we want lower. They want to legalize 'x', OK, we'll ban it. And so on, in a vicious cycle, increasingly disconnected from principle. Probably not new to you all, but I venture that's what has been moving American opinions lately.

 

Another thing is that while we always hark back to the Fairy Tales (i.e. Creationism) of the religious groups (and the doubtful premise- to me- that when in government they will force it down all our throats) - we seem to miss the Fairy Tales of the 'other side'. Progressives have as much Faith as anyone has. Faith that all are men equal (and must be kept so) - NOT merely equal rights, but "equality". Of what, exactly, they never quite specify. As I point out (and it is a drum I do keep beating :)) this lot is very much in the business of force.

 

"If we don't get everybody, but everybody, to agree to the Faith of self-sacrifice, it will all fall apart" - like a sleazy pyramid scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't wish to annoy you, but I think that there's an important point here.

Imagine two politicians running for office, Republican and Democrat. The Republican dismisses evolution... and global warming, while the Democrat believes in both things and wishes to pursue legislation to abate the negative effects he fears from global warming. By my understanding of what you've said above, we should prefer the Republican, because his political policy preferences are superior to the Democrat's (in that the Republican's beliefs on evolution will not matter politically in our example, and his non-action with respect to global warming is far superior to the actions that the Democrat will undertake/support).

However, suppose that the Democrat's position on global warming -- in this particular scenario -- is based upon exposure to biased evidence and a misplaced trust in the scientific community... while the Republican's position on both evolution and global warming is based upon an utter rejection of "science" as being flawed when compared with religious faith. Suppose the Republican has come to the policy views that he has, because he has prayed upon these subjects, and this is what God told him was correct.

Why suppose those things? Those assumptions are obviously wrong. Many religious people are highly skilled at tasks that require massive reasoning ability. 

 

Asking us to assume that religion makes people incapable of using reason is asking us to ignore clear proof that that's not the case.

 

The Republican position on evolution is informed by religious beliefs, yes. But the Republican position on climate change very obviously isn't, it is informed by a rational evaluation of facts Democrats are simply incapable of. And, again: while neither position is entirely irrelevant, a politician's views on climate change are far more important than his views on evolution.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why suppose those things? Those assumptions are obviously wrong.

The assumptions I made about... the hypothetical people that I constructed for my example? My assumptions about the scenario I constructed are absolutely correct; I authored the scenario.

 

Many religious people are highly skilled at tasks that require massive reasoning ability.

So what? Many liberals are equally skilled at reasoning tasks. It doesn't excuse either the liberal's socialist views or the conservative's religious views, which are both irrational, and which both reflect philosophical problems. Those problems -- including epistemological or ethical problems -- can manifest themselves politically, which is the point. Philosophy is hierarchical: Politics rests in part upon Epistemology, and I don't trust those who rely upon faith as a means to truth to defend Capitalism.

 

Asking us to assume that religion makes people incapable of using reason is asking us to ignore clear proof that that's not the case.

When did I ask you to assume any such thing? When did I say anything like "religion makes people incapable of using reason"? If I never said anything like that -- and I haven't, in either form or meaning -- then why would you act as though I had?

 

The Republican position on evolution is informed by religious beliefs, yes. But the Republican position on climate change very obviously isn't, it is informed by a rational evaluation of facts Democrats are simply incapable of.

I don't trust those who are incapable of understanding the science behind evolution to have some suddenly sophisticated grasp of the arguments either for or against global warming. I don't see how you could. The approach to things like science, evidence, logic, etc., that a person must take in order to reject evolution and possibly embrace creationism, or what have you, does not allow for that same person to be able to honestly investigate a matter like climate change.

If you're the kind of person who has the intellectual honesty, the learning, and the proper philosophical attitude to be able to examine climate change fairly... then how can you turn around and reject all of the evidence for evolution (which implicates geology and meteorology and so many of the same disciplines upon which discussions of climate turn)? I don't see how a mind can be so bifurcated with respect to such difficult and advanced studies. I think such a person, if any could exist in reality, would be fundamentally unstable: his mind would be constantly at war with itself.

 

And, again: while neither position is entirely irrelevant, a politician's views on climate change are far more important than his views on evolution.

What is important is fidelity to reason and reality. Neither party has that in spades, and neither ought to be defended, even to put the other down. My purpose here has been to demonstrate why a person dismissing evolution represents a problem politically, because that has been at issue. Dismissing evolution reflects a fundamental irrationality, and we don't want our leaders to be fundamentally irrational. Irrationality works out poorly. But I believe that playing the "who's worse" game is mostly a waste of time -- and if you want to think that Republicans are better than Democrats, and if Crow wants to think that Democrats are better than Republicans, then you're both welcome to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Republican position on evolution is informed by religious beliefs, yes. But the Republican position on climate change very obviously isn't, it is informed by a rational evaluation of facts Democrats are simply incapable of. And, again: while neither position is entirely irrelevant, a politician's views on climate change are far more important than his views on evolution.

 

I must say, that sums it up for me.

 

First of all, it's absurd to imagine the typical Republican position on GW being "informed by a rational evaluation of the facts". If you believe that, you might as well believe in Santa Claus. Typical R's believe that because they know it will reduce industry profits, or it's something the non-believer party believes in and thus must be wrong, etc. They believe that the implications of GW would be more regulations or taxes etc. so therefore it must be scientifically wrong a priori. Its just fantasy to imagine its a "scientific conclusion", which of course would contradict the core, anti-science philosophy held by a growing (see the OP) number of Republicans.

 

Roughly speaking, we have the "reason and welfare state" party versus the "god and lower taxes" party. Reason trumps God regardless of the particular present situation, which is not fundamentally challenged by either side. Higher taxes will move us backward toward the 1950s whereas God will take us to the 1350s.

Edited by CrowEpistemologist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Apropos of nothing, 20 years ago I used to be strongly in favor of the Republicans (as a compromise solution). However their core message and cultural stance has changed drastically in that time--the t-party notwithstanding. Sara Palin was the coup de grâce for the Republicans for me. There is simply no major Democratic voice that is even in the same league of badness as the former Republican VP candidate and still a primary spokesperson for their party. They now stand for UNreason. The poll in the OP verifies that trend.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say, that sums it up for me.

 

First of all, it's absurd to imagine the typical Republican position on GW being "informed by a rational evaluation of the facts". If you believe that, you might as well believe in Santa Claus. Typical R's believe that because they know it will reduce industry profits, or it's something the non-believer party believes in and thus must be wrong, etc. They believe that the implications of GW would be more regulations or taxes etc. so therefore it must be scientifically wrong a priori. Its just fantasy to imagine its a "scientific conclusion", which of course would contradict the core, anti-science philosophy held by a growing (see the OP) number of Republicans.

 

Roughly speaking, we have the "reason and welfare state" party versus the "god and lower taxes" party. Reason trumps God regardless of the particular present situation, which is not fundamentally challenged by either side. Higher taxes will move us backward toward the 1950s whereas God will take us to the 1350s.

Pity, since it looked at first glance like a nice aphorism. "Reason and the welfare state party versus..."

"Welfare state" and "reason" have no place together.

 

And more - this is not reason, not rationality- but logic devoid of concept, that Statists practise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many leftist appeals to reason and evidence amount to nothing more than cargo cultism. Lysenko comes to mind. This kind of pretend "reason" is no less creepy or destructive than biblical literalism. It is also an appeal to faith, dispite the dishonist and emotionally manipulative objections of the people who use such appeals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DonAthos, do you worry that your choice might not be between a candidate who employs faith versus one who unsuccsessfully but honestly employs reason, but rather one who employs faith versus one who bows to appeals to authority and emotionalism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DonAthos, do you worry that your choice might not be between a candidate who employs faith versus one who unsuccsessfully but honestly employs reason, but rather one who employs faith versus one who bows to appeals to authority and emotionalism?

Often.

I don't think that those who speak of valuing reason necessarily use it, or even respect it in truth, and I'm afraid that I'm cynical enough that -- where modern politics are concerned -- I generally extend the doubt of the benefit.

To me, the state of the modern US political scene is... something like a big garbage dump. I'll entertain the notion that there might be some objects of limited value, buried deep. And to those brave souls who wish to hold their nose and go diving, I wish them as well as I can manage. But for me, the ceaseless and ceaselessly hostile discussions of "which brand of trash is slightly less rancid?" are... enervating, and serve little practical purpose so far as I can tell. You know, it's kind of like asking who was worse -- Stalin or Hitler. Rather than participate in such a thing for any purpose other than marginal entertainment value (like debating the merits of Captains of the Enterprise), when taken as a "sincere" philosophical argument, I guess I'd rather do any number of a million things (including watching more Star Trek).

What I do find important in this thread, and dangerous, is the idea that "faith," and the fundamental irrationality that faith represents, as such, has no important connection with politics generally. That it largely doesn't matter what epistemological, metaphysical, or ethical views a potential candidate holds, so long as his political platform sounds good.

That's the same kind of thinking that has been shown flawed, in my view, with respect to libertarianism. Philosophy is hierarchical, Politics rests in part upon Epistemology, and yes it matters whether a political candidate dismisses reason and clings to faith as a means to truth. This is why a candidate's views on evolution matter. Not necessarily for themselves, but for what they say about the candidate who holds them. Because I do not want irrational people in positions of power, be they Republican or Democrat, or anything else.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about his answer was "collectivist thinking"? I didn't find his answer complete since I think there's a tendency to dumb people to shift to the party that makes the most sense to their prehistoric superstitions, and hence it wouldn't solely be the "tribal effect". Clearly the answer is some combination.

 

But what about that analysis is "collectivist thinking"?

 

By blaming "group think" on the direction people are taking.  People don't have free will, the go with the group. 

 

I understand that siren song of the idea since it is easy to point to people turing off their minds and just "going with the flow" but at the end of the day it's about ideas and choices.  An individual mind reads that story and thinks of what makes a person choose that idea, a collectivist mind looks at it and sees group trends.  One group simply impssed itslef on another in some bizzar organic path of group evolution. 

 

Does that clear it up (I might be saying it bad - admittedly I'm running on impulse power today)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know R's that are very well informed on global Warming and I know D's who get their opinions from Comedy Central.   Further, claiming the Democrats as bastions of reason is fantastic to put it politely.  They just choose a different a priori to work from, assuming their thinking isn't run amok with skepticim like Obama, then point the gun appropriately.  In fact Obama's only real theme is bald faced Egalitariansm which makes him the worse politician out there on either side.  That is certainly not due to reason. 

 

There is no difference outside of indvidual differences and those have to be judged accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By blaming "group think" on the direction people are taking.  People don't have free will, the go with the group. 

 

I understand that siren song of the idea since it is easy to point to people turing off their minds and just "going with the flow" but at the end of the day it's about ideas and choices.  An individual mind reads that story and thinks of what makes a person choose that idea, a collectivist mind looks at it and sees group trends.  One group simply impssed itslef on another in some bizzar organic path of group evolution. 

 

Does that clear it up (I might be saying it bad - admittedly I'm running on impulse power today)

 

So if you identify any sort of group, or use aggregated knowledge, then you are a collectivist. Okay. Do you think it would be bad if a lot of people thought that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you identify any sort of group, or use aggregated knowledge, then you are a collectivist. Okay. Do you think it would be bad if a lot of people thought that way?

 

You can identify a group, that easily happens from integrating similarities.  Whether a group of people think something or not is really irrelavent, just a statistical data point really.  Sort of how the economy is just a sum of people's decisions to save or spend money.  It is a data point but it doesn't really represent anything more than what it is - a sum of individual actions.  He makes that error a lot, and in fact I slammed him hard in a previous thread for it. 

 

My issue is that he went looking for a group excuse for people's motivation much like he looks at groups in economics.  The fact is it common enough to appear in a group tells you something is up, but then you need to go from there and look at the ideas involved and people's decision process.  That is when science actually starts. 

 

In this case there is a number of alarming reasons why people can accept something as pitiful as creationism, but I'd rather devlve into that then simply wave the hand as if group think templates that on one group or individual versus another.  In that scenerio all of us would cave. 

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you are "thinking like a collectivist". Just like Krugman.

 

Wow. Reading part of the sentince then smearing someone because you couldn't integrate the whole paragraph.  Just like talk radio in the afternoon.  et tu Ditto Head? 

 

See how easy that was?  The mind reals.  I forgot how unusually attached you are to Krugman and how you have painted some warped right wing nonsense around any rebutal of the man. 

 

As for my post, please read the rest of my paragraph before blurting out nonsense.  I quite clearly explained the difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...