Pathologizing Conservatism

Recently, a rather interesting debate transpired in my somewhat tongue-in-cheek comparison of religious cults and the Cult of Liberalism. An anonymous poster basically gave credence to a report from researchers at UC-Berkeley. My point in dismissing the report as liberal bias was that it only compared conservatives and liberals were not targeted in the study (not to mention it came from UC-Berkeley, one of the most liberal universities in the country). If the study was truly unbiased, it would have included members from the entire political spectrum. Sadly, that was not the case.

The article also mentioned a panel that did make a comparison of liberals and conservatives...with similar results. I don't think I need to elaborate on the results...I'm sure you can guess.

Recently Reason.com (Reason is a objectivist/libertarian site) had an interesting take. The article (though sarcastic) does make a point that I did not consider...that liberals are trying to pathologize conservativism as a mental disorder! Though I'd like to say liberals have a mental disorder that is curable, it's not something I believe to be true.

My view is that liberals (meaning most liberals and liberals other than Charles Melin) just tend to view the world from an emotional perspective and lack the ability to think logically (which is why they can't make a logical argument). That is part of the allure of liberalism. Because they feel, they care. Because conservatives (minus the Religious Right) tend to be more analytical and logical...we're portrayed as cold and callous.

If anyone knows a cure to liberalism, please share it!

From Reason.com:
"Whether it be an unfortunate evolutionary holdover or a mental disease transmitted by our parents--the science is apparently still up in the air--academic researchers have surely amassed enough evidence of psychopathology that conservatism can listed in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Reasonable people, such as the distinguished academic researchers cited here, will no doubt agree that until effective treatments can be developed, we should reconsider whether sufferers of conservatism, like other mental defectives, should be allowed freely to exercise the franchise. "


Blogger eskadoni said...

i have to say that the righteous indignation is wearing a little thin. your vehement denial of any facts that come from a source you deem liberal is a gaping weakness in all of your arguments, as you only support views that are from conservatives. where is the objectivity there? both sides make arguments of passion, and to dismiss the religious right seems a bit unfair, as they drive the conservative bus at the moment. i see many of your arguments as an attempt to see things in only black or white, and to characterize those that see the gray as emotional weaklings. while anonymous might not have been the best liberally minded individual to make a case for the ideology, you cannot paint us all with his shameful ignorance, just as i cannot hold you, dear sir, in fault for all of the president's shortcomings. my plea is this: admit you use passion and that you know liberals who are knowledgeable and factual. embrace the grey. thanks. dingleberry. (sorry, i still can't believe he used that term in an "intellectual" argument)

October 27, 2004 at 10:46 AM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...


LOL. Sometimes I just can't help myself. 'Tis true, this post is from a conservative viewpoint and I believe this is the first time I've posted from a conservative site. Yes, this article may have tainted my objectivity. However, if you read Reason.com, the vote is split between Kerry and Bush (with a few Badnariks thrown in). To be honest, had it not been for Anonymous' ridiculous assertations, I would have let it go. But if you read the article, Reason makes a good point (and one I didn't consider). Conservatives are painted with a sour brush in the study and the panel. The point I was making if the study was on the personality traits of leaders throughout history and AND it looked at liberal leaders through the same microscope then I wouldn't be so apt to defend conservatives.

The President is NOT my ideal candidate...not by a longshot. I am NOT a Republican (and haven't been for 12 years) so I have bashed the Republican Party fairly regularly here. However, if someone attempts to make a point just by reciting the same old tired liberal rhetoric (such as Anonymous), I'm going to jump all over them and attack with righteous indignation.

The reason I sent you the e-mail was that you are still the only liberal ('tis true) I've debated that can distill it down past the rhetoric to a philosophical difference. I can't really argue logic there as you can defend your opinion as I can defend mine. Hence, you are in the minority of the liberals I've come in contact with which is why I can respect your position (though I don't agree). From now on, I'll say "liberals (other than Charles) cannot make a logical argument."

My dismissal of the Religious Right is due to the fact that they are driven by religious ideology, not logic. Because of that they are certainly less flexible than the rest of the public. Judging by your blog postings, they drive you nuts too. The major reason for my split with the Republican Party is that the Religious Right is the minority in the party...but they hold too much weight and power.

I was actually considering helping Anonymous out by arguing against myself...but that would have been kinda boring for me. Either that, or I would have appeared even more psychotic than I do with the election almost here.

Cheers dingleberry! :-)

October 27, 2004 at 3:59 PM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

when/if bush loses can you get other people that agree with you to take over the reps and kick out the zealots. we could give them their own third party. hell, give two parties. i'm just sick and tired of them. your notion that only conservatives are logical would greatly benefit from this as well. is it too much to ask?

October 27, 2004 at 9:45 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

I wish that were possible, but my feeling is that the Religious Right stranglehold on the Republican Party has veered the party into a position of inflexibility. They feel the need to be the moral arbiters of society which is something I strongly disagree with. In the Republican view, government is responsible for personal behavior. Things like the legalization of drugs and prostitution (which will never go away) will never be discussed by a Republican. The Republican view is in direct contrast with the Consitution (as is the Democratic view of big government). Though the Democratic party is action without responsibility (more personal freedom, but government will take care of you if you screw up), the current Republican view of government enforcing personal behavior is equally dangerous to our personal freedom. As I've stated previously here, I prefer personal freedom with the caveat of personal responsiblity. You are responsible for your own behavior and if you screw up, you'll have to look outside the government for help.

Additionally, the Republicans have proved that they are no longer the cut taxes and cut spending crowd I grew up with. They spend as much, if not more, than liberals. I'm seriously disgusted with the Republican Party as a whole in terms of domestic policy. Sure, they cut taxes (not enough in my estimation, I would have preferred a tax cut down to pre-Bush I levels), but they dumped the largest Federal entitlement on OUR generation (Medicare) and an education bill that does little to really solve the problems with education (lack of competition and too much administration).

I used to post regularly on Free Republic (which is supposed to be a conservative site). The problem with Freep is that they are solidly Republican and they oppose other conservative views such as the LP or Constitution Party. I grew tired of being flamed for being a Libertarian. In fact, one guy continually led off his replies as "Typical Libertarian Lunacy." The RRR (Religious Right Republicans) are as irrational as most liberals and are unable to debate a point logically.

Despite my own disenchantment with the current state of the Republican Party I find myself in a quandry. My disdain for John Kerry exceeds that of President Bush and Michigan is a toss-up again. My disdain for Kerry might be an understatement. In my estimation, Kerry makes Bubba look like George Washington. I loathe Kerry. If my loathing turns to hatred, I may end up switching my vote to...ugh...and I hate to say it...Bush.

October 28, 2004 at 7:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home