GOP Behaving 'Like Children'
The greatest transition to maturity in this life is the admission that we don’t know everything.
Sometimes I get into political discussions with conservative people and I am shocked by how quickly the conversation degenerates. We start intelligently talking about an issue, and then I get lost in their sudden deluge of illogical debate, hyperbolic opinion and name-calling resulting in one, predominating thought in my head: “How did we go from the issue to THIS?”
It’s more or less the same type of argument a parent has with a child. You’re wired and conditioned to think logically, to problem-solve, and to use the wisdom of your life to help; but the child has less practice in logical thought and problem-solving, and resorts to emotion when frustrated by a problem.
So in this existential crisis of redundant failure I call my political life, I started to solidify an opinion of my own about the louder, more obnoxious conservative voices I run into. And certainly this analogy does not apply to all Republicans, but it seems to be most pervasive in recent conservative candidates, their pundits and commentary, and sometimes in the Republican platform, in general.
This doesn’t need an insult. It just needs to be true, so we can learn from it and sharpen our debate skills to solve our problems. And it goes like this:
Recently, Republicans have become like children. Stubborn, immature children.
It wasn’t always this way. This hyper-divisive rhethoric, ignorance of fact, outspoken obstructionism, and mind-numbing radical agenda is a fairly recent change by political standards (all of this within the last fifteen years). And, believe me, there are some on the left who exhibit these traits as well.
But the analogy is mostly written subtly in the recently-shifted ideology and style of debate in the Republican Party. It is easy to see in their platform if you look for it. To me, one of the centrally inplied tenets in recent radical conservativism is something akin to the following:
“I have a goose. You don’t have a goose. Stay away from my goose.”
Or: “I don’t have a goose. You have a goose. Kill your goose for me.”
These people, like children, don’t share well. They no longer even want things like health care for everyone; or even easier access to health care, for that matter. They see someone with a union job, who has the ability to democratically negotiate for the parameters of their profession, and they seek to ruin that for them.
“I don’t have a union. You have a union. Kill your union for me.”
And, as immature children do, they resort very often to ignorance of fact and logic in preference to jumping to conclusions and using labels without explanation. When the problem of climate change comes on the table, hardcore conservatives tell you it simply doesn’t exist. When someone discusses Keynesian economics, which calls for short-term government spending on infrastructure to boost a struggling economy, they label that person a “Socialist.”
That’s the mark of an immature, teenage bully.
This leads me to the very juvenile tendency towards logical fallacy. Here is a logical fallacy often implied in recent radical Republican rhetoric when it comes to another faith:
“The terrorists who committed the crimes on 9/11 were Muslims. Therefore, all Muslims are terrorists.”
Of course, this is false, and there are millions of Muslims all over the world who have no interest in committing an act of terrorism. And, even if you were somehow unable (and, dare I say, racist enough) to believe that millions of Muslims have no interest in terrorism, know this: it only takes one Muslim who has no interest in terrorism to prove that statement a logical fallacy (because it says “all”). Yet you hear this racially-charged logical fallacy implied whenever someone (incorrectly) refers to Obama as a Muslim, or if the issue of building a mosque near Ground Zero comes up.
Likewise, Republicans, like children, have a hard time with empathy. If you’ve ever dealt with a child, you’ve had to teach them about things like sharing, and to be cautious of judging someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes. Atticus Finch stuff. You impart your wisdom on them until they grow, and mature, and hopefully grow up to be a member of society capable of working well with others despite differences.
But the Republicans, instead, splinter Americans against one another. You hear it in Santorum’s speeches equating homosexuality with beastiality, and Gingrich referencing African Americans “demanding food stamps.” It shows up when Herman Cain says, “If you’re not rich, blame yourself.” You get a sense of it when Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels says Obama is “pro-poverty.”
Let me be clear about something: Whoever you think you are-- Republican or Democrat, Independent or Undecided-- if you think anyone in the nation, at all, is PRO-POVERTY, you should do yourself a favor and institutionalize yourself. Because your ability to mindlessly believe what other people say has grossly outdistanced your ability to think and interact with the rest of humanity. You are, in fact, past the point of immaturity, and very literally near becoming a sociopath.
I am not a Democrat. But, looking objectively as possible, I can’t find the volume of evidence to back up such an analogy to immaturity in their party. Only one party has a near-monopoly on this divisive rhetoric and ideology. Only one party has shifted so radically recently to elicit these traits. And I encourage you to objectively apply this analogy when you watch radical Republicans talk about the issues:
They are stubborn, immature children.
It doesn’t need to be an insult. It just needs to be true. And we need to ignore those voices so we can use our maturity, our logic and our wisdom from all parties to solve our very real problems.
We need the adults in the room to step forward.
And I might be wrong about all this, but don’t call me an “elitist” for bringing it up.
Christine
1:04 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
I very much liked your article. Whether I agreed or not, I enjoyed reading it. It is making me think about reasons behind why politics gives me a headache. It's hard to argue with children, but at least you know what your getting into there because they are as they appear to be....Children.
Nassman
2:02 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
With only a cursory view of this post a person can determine that you are proficient in the behavior you accuse others of!
The fact is that you are intolerant of the opposing views of others and instead of listening and learning why they may have those views, you immediately insult them and label them “behaving like children”.
No doubt rants like yours will continue to intimidate many people, that is precisely why this tactic is employed by liberals. Anyone who dares to question why their hard earned income should not be given freely to less motivated people are sure to feel your hatred. You will not tolerate any contrary opinions. How dare that a republican who “owns a goose” as you put it, insists that it is their goose and that they should be able to do with it whatever they desire.
History shows that conservatives, republicans, ultra-conservatives or whatever other name you call them give of their time and money at a much greater RATE than their liberal counterparts. It’s simple really; we take care of our own and then give what we have left. This is a basic tenant of life.
It is absolutely hilarious that you accuse republicans of “splintering America” when that is the political platform of our current president who continuously employs class-envy in every policy initiative to garner the support of those who give them the free handouts. You further insult the readers of your post by stating; “I am not a Democrat but….” Please..
Diane Smith
4:36 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Ha! How awesome! I have to confess that I previously equated arguing with some Republicans with getting into a .... certain type of match with a skunk. Now I have a better, cleaner analogy. He's simply being CHILDISH. This is someone who hijacks every link I put up that is somewhat innocuous (aka anti-Gingrich, anti-hatred, seeking fairness) by saying that there's no such thing as a Christian Democrat. Huh?
Brandon Scullion
4:53 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Recommended!
James Thomas
5:21 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
Amazing,
"This hyper-divisive rhethoric, ignorance of fact, outspoken obstructionism, and mind-numbing radical agenda" is exactly the modus operandi of Liberalism and yet you assign it to Republicans. Unfortunately for the nation we are being governed by "even younger, far more spoiled Liberal children" with no concept of fiscal discipline.
Mike Rasor
5:42 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
I won't defend the hyperbolic Republican rhetoric, but how short-sighted it is to blame the GOP for these tactics. Have you already forgotten the oodles of nonsense that was said about Bush and his motives? "He doesn't care about black people." "He hates Muslims." "He went to war for oil." "9/11 was an inside job." etc. etc. .... Unfortunately, this is today's politics. I am frankly stunned that someone is trying to pin this only on one party. Stunned.
Elliott Ingersoll
8:43 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
From the perspective of psychology I think you're equating concrete thinking with the GOP - granted there is a lot of that (as there is in society at large) but there are also many conservatives like myself who believe in "the smallest government possible" and can entertain multiple perspectives.
Admittedly, I have not been able to back a Republican presidential candidate since John McCain's first "try" for the White House. To me Gingrich (does anyone remembert the 90s?) and Romney are on par with brain-damaged groundhogs (how's that for concrete?).
Anyway, I would suspect that you and I would be able to have a "broad and deep" discussion on any these issues that you may enjoy.
Brandon Scullion
9:23 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Isn't conservatism all about the status quo? Keeping things as they have been for decades without looking towards real progress - not just trying to force the economy to simply grow at ever expanding and unsustainable rates.
Isn't conservatism, at its core, about a value system vs a system of equality and tolerance?
The world is changing awfully fast to hope we go back to the way things were 20+ years ago.
Just my line of thinking. Feel free to comment - I'm just a youngin - more or less.
James Thomas
9:39 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
No Brandon,
"Isn't conservatism all about the status quo? Keeping things as they have been for decades without looking towards real progress". It's about not abandoning what is right and what works well in favor of change for change's sake. How does this become the opposite of equality and tolerance? The phrasing of your questions is slanted , if you don't realize it.
Brandon Scullion
9:47 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
It's a question - regardless of how you view it.
Currently, this is how I view a conservative agenda.
If you have something to add to it please do so. Simply disagreeing with my view, answering my question with another question or being condescending towards me isn't really a response.
James Thomas
9:55 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
It's a question - regardless of how you view it.
No, its a loaded question Brandon, with no possibility of a positive answer. Sort of like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Brandon Scullion
10:18 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
I see your point. I should have phrased it as a statement and then asked the question, is this a valid view? If not, where am I veering off course with said belief.
So perhaps,
I've always viewed conservatism as being more in line keeping the status quo and perhaps even fearing change - at least some change. I'm certainly open for feedback on my POV but this is currently how I see it.
I also see conservatism more about values and less about equality (perhaps too extreme of a word and apologize if it comes off that way).
To preach that government should stay out of the private lives of citizens yet demand that we should codify a value system based in religion seems hypocritical.
I know there are subtle tones to each political belief but it really only seems that the most extreme are what we hear about today, especially in an election year.
Brandon Scullion
9:24 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
PS - I am really enjoying the conversations going on here and hope people, all of you, keep posting.
James Thomas
9:47 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
I'm sorry (smacks head),
THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SATIRE WASN'T IT? Using the exact arguments that you rant about to illustrate that those you oppose have no wisdom. Brilliant.
Brandon Scullion
9:49 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
James, you do bring up a great point - one in which I don't often think about - with regard to creating change just for the sake of it. It is a slippery slope that needs to be approached with caution.
*
10:16 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mahatma Gandhi
Jim Patterson
10:41 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Patrick - I love reading your posts. No one here could argue that they are interesting. The proof is in the comments. The Mayor could get arrested for prostitution and your post would probably get more comments. (Actually - a former Avon Lake mayor did get arrested for prostitution - and so far this article has many more comments) so that wasn't humor.
If I ever run into you - I'll buy you a beer. You have a God-given ability to piss off Conservative republicans. That's what I do for a living, and we could use a man like you in our operations.
p.s Brandon - Pay no attention to James Thomas. He just sits in his moms basement and tries to muddle up intelligent conversation. James - Brandons question was not loaded! You could have simply answered "no conservatism is not all about the status quo" and then follow with some sort of documented proof.
A loaded question is one like your wife example - or say for instance
James: When did you move out of your mothers basement and start dating girls that aren't 2nd or 3rd cousins.
Jim Patterson
10:45 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
James - on another note - conservatism by definition is about the status quo. Ummmmm so actually he was right.
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.
kinda like how your cerebral neurons are "conservative" with your neurotransmitters - resulting in very little stimulation or rational thought
Dr. Larry Keller
12:56 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Interesting discussion and I tend to think the GOP has indeed poisoned to some extent political dialogue. Those on the left do also but the Democratic Party has stayed out of it for the most part. Obama is quite articulate and seldom demonizes people or positions. I am not partisan at all and glad to see Lakewood have non-partisan elections.
I was a moderate Republican until the 1964 Convention when the candidate for President, Barry Goldwater, pronounced that "extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice." I could not believe I heard that. As an undergraduate student in DC in the early 1960's I happen to meet Goldwater on the steps of the capitol and had an interesting discussion with him. Nice person and thoughtful in private conversation but his public rhetoric tended to close rather than open dialogue. Talking about Obamacare does the same rather than focus on how do we provide universal healthcare whether through private providers, public providers or a mix.
Dr. Larry Keller
12:59 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Conservative and liberal tags were inverted by FDR and his definitions, ironically, have stuck in our political dialogue. Liberals feared institutions of all types and preferred a society with minimal institutions, whether governmental, religious, etc. Conservatives focused on conserving basic values and often promoted large government as in changing times preservation of basic values required public action. These definitions have remained in the rest of the world and Liberal Parties in countries such Great Britain have tended to fade.
The Republican Party currently seems a mix of liberal and conservative. Many Republicans talk about limiting government but yet want a national definition of marriage and government intervention in some of the most intimate aspects of life. Same with abortion. Interestingly, abortion was legal under the common law for hundreds of years as long as the fetus was not quick, that is, could live if born at that stage. In the 1880's many states prohibited it under health regulations.
The strength of American politics has been its pragmatism, its willingness to adopt whatever works and limit ideologies, from socialism to anarchy. Sad to see that tradition fade with overblown rhetoric and dividing to win offices.
Dr. Larry Keller
1:05 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
A final note. I am not sure how Obama can be accussed as class warfare. Millionaires are not a class in a Marxist or any other sense. Rather the discussion is about fairness in taxation. If one believes in a progressive income tax, which Jefferson among others did, than raising taxes on higher incomes makes sense. Others may believe in a flat tax and that is one definition of fair also. Neither option can be classified as class warfare. Again such rhetoric stops thoughtful dialogue on the issue of how we finance our government.
Brandon Scullion
1:07 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Ironic, I was just reading him today:
"I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress."
Frederick Douglass
SharEd
12:09 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Loved the article. My Cuban-American Republican in-laws are the most intolerant/close-minded people I've ever been around which shocks me due to the situation they came from (an intolerant Communist regime). They are the most hateful people when it comes to blacks, gays, President Obama, etc., and these people were given a lot of help when they first came to the United States. Most recently the debate about "Obamacare" came home when one of them was dropped by their health insurance company once he was diagnosed with high cholesterol but he is so ignorant he is blaming President Obama! The Deomcrats' premise of affordable health care with premiums tiered to income should be available to every American. In addition to denying access to health care, would Newt Gingrich would even deny food to needy Americans as he calls the President the "food stamp President"? Conservative Republicans have gone beyond class warfare to a form of genocide. Deny healthcare and food. Big corporations are not charities and left unregulated will not do the "right thing" (sell health insurance to sick people or keep them insured once they are sick!). The only hope I have is that those who are so "privileged" find themselves in a situation someday which teaches them a valuable lesson of compassion. America is the richest nation on earth and if someone is getting some food (whether due to an economy President Obama inherited), how does that compare to tax breaks, bail outs, etc.?
James Thomas
12:49 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
SharEd,
before you go accusing your opponents of being mass murderers shouldn't you at least have demonstrated proof of the charge? I guess annonymity gives one courage if not truth.
James Thomas
12:23 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Mr. Patterson,
"Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society." This is an acceptable definition and reasonable statement, so how is it bad to use this as a governing philosophy?
"kinda like how your cerebral neurons are "conservative" with your neurotransmitters - resulting in very little stimulation or rational thought" and "James: When did you move out of your mothers basement and start dating girls that aren't 2nd or 3rd cousins." are not reasonable. They are just rude, wrong, ignorant assumptions which are proved wrong by my posted profile.
*
12:29 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Honest discussions - even and perhaps especially on topics about which we disagree - can help us resist hypocrisy and arrogance. They can also help us live up to the basic ideals, such as liberty and justice for all, on which our country was founded.
David E. Price
Cory Shaffer
1:35 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Keep the dialogue ball rolling everyone, but please be civil and refrain from personal attacks, per our terms of use: http://lakewood-oh.patch.com/terms
russell leisenheimer
2:49 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Just came across this quote from Thomas Mann of Brookings and Norman Ornstein of the AEI: “One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
Jack Kelly
7:33 pm on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
It should be noted that the Republican Party is not associated with being "conservative" anymore, nor are they all about "less government" as they love to tout time and time again. All you need to do is look at the actions of Republicans over the last decade -- and their actions today.
While it's true that some things were said during the GWB administration, it pales in comparison to the extreme over-the-top rhetoric that quite a few in the Republican Party have resorted to over the years. Heck, you don't need to look any further than the RNC Chair over the weekend. And people can spare me the "well, the other party did it" because my response will be something along the lines of "are you 12?" Is there an ongoing contest of which party can one-up each other in elementary school-level remarks?
And, at the rate the Republican Party today is going, they really have NO room to take their shots from the grassy knoll. They've done nothing (spare me the so-called "jobs bills") & currently have the WORST and most pathetic bunch of candidates ever put on a national stage for President. The party has been involved in its' own "civil war" for quite some time. The RNC has been trying to break away from the "big government republicanism" since GWB's second term that has taken over the party over the last decade. And the Tea Party isn't helping them either. They're gonna be swept out as quickly as they were swept in (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Jim Renacci). $174k/yr do-nothing.
Tom Stephan
4:47 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Author Giusto says, "I am not a Democrat." Please.
qbnimport
9:02 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
I am a progressive because I used to be a Republican but could not take all of the ignorance, racism, sexism, hatred, blaming the victim mentality, homophobia, attempts at taking away civil liberties and choice, and I deplore the idea of a theocracy when the US is a democracy, and I am a born-again Christian with strong Godly values. Thank you for this article because every once in a while it's nice to get affirmation on what I have observed and experienced, and what we see in research. Conservatives tend to be more uneducated, religious (as opposed to spiritual), have concrete and black and white thinking - difficulty with abstract thought and putting themselves in the place of others, less empathic, less able to see the grays in life and more pessimistic. When I'm around my progressive friends there is so much love, hugs, kindness, open-mindedness, willingness to help. When I go to Trader Joe's (an obviously liberal institution), it's as though I'm in heaven. No one in a hurry, everyone is helpful, apologies if they accidentally bump into you, casual conversation, well wishes. When I'm around conservatives it's as though they lack social skills, they're so fearful, pessimistic, critical, judgmental, legalistic, it's so sad. I pray that liberals and progressives will somehow rub off on conservatives and Republicans and help them find the new life they so desparately need. Their religion isn't working because they don't know what love is - God is love.
James Thomas
10:13 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Mr./Ms.? qbnimport,
If you can reconcile the oxymoronic claim of being a progressive born again Christian with Godly values, more power to you. While I can not discount the real life experiences that you may have had to form your opinion of Conservatives, I find them awfully stereotypical and in no way representative of the Conservatives I know.
*
11:01 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Arrogance, pedantry, and dogmatism; the occupational diseases of those who spend their lives directing the intellects of the young.
Henry Seidel Canby
James Thomas
11:10 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Oh come now Karyn,
I don't think Patrick's that bad.
*
11:56 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Peace among religions is a precondition for world peace. But religions, as religions, can never be at peace with each other. To enable religions to be instruments for peace we need to enable, first, religious communities to progress from religion to spirituality. For the world order to be one of peace and justice, for the global village to be a theater of right livelihood, it is imperative that a new and proactive spiritual vision commensurate to the challenges of the emerging world order be enunciated without delay. The challenge is to make “right livelihood” a universal goal. Recognizing this value in a symbolic way through an award like this is a significant step in the right direction. This is not, however, our journey’s end. We must not rest until right livelihood is within reach of every human being upon this earth we love and cherish. We all have a role to play in achieving this goal.
-- Swami Agnivesh
Scott Rollins
10:27 pm on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
I dont really trust any political group at the moment. They all do the same things to each other. Telling me that so and so voted yes or no on bill XXXX means nothing if you cant tell me WHY they voted how they did. Also from the examples that qbnimport lists, i have seen everyone show all those traits, conservatives and progressives, no one is innocent or in the right more than anyone else. Our political system seems like a cycle of school yard name calling. I do tend to lean more towards social conservative things, but when it comes to science and tech, i wonder why we dont have some human testing going on and more manned missions into space, so im not sure what if any political party i could ever truly belong to.