Home / Culture and Society / A Dream of Morlocks and Eloi Getting Along With Each Other

A Dream of Morlocks and Eloi Getting Along With Each Other

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In the movie Excalibur, Arthur spoke of a hope he knew he'd never see fulfilled. "It is a dream that I have," he said, thereby suggesting that a forlorn hope is better than no hope at all. During the Los Angeles riots Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?" when he saw what was happening in Los Angeles and across the country because of what was at its root a symptom of the divisions between black and white. But what he asked could just as well apply to conservatives and liberals. Unfortunately, in the current political climate, King's plea seems to be as forlorn as the quote from Excalibur.

We liberals often wonder why it is, when the conservatives are presented with facts so obvious, so crystal clear in the health care reform and global warming debates, that they still continue to ignore those facts. But we don't often realize that the conservatives are wondering the same thing about us.

In today's polarized political world, conservatives tend to consider liberals as clueless children, as naive little Pollyannas adrift in a world beyond their comprehension… whereas we liberals tend to frame conservatives as mindless Ayn Rand clones, as Nietzschean fugitives from the wrong side of Pink Floyd's rock opera The Wall.

It's said that there is much truth in jest, and vicious hyperbole aside, it appears that the opinions that liberals and conservatives hold of each other are true at least in some measure. In a 2008 study by scientists at Northwestern University, the scientists found that conservatives tend to fear losing the status quo, the collapse of social institutions such as marriage, family, and government, while liberals tend to fear a life without deep feelings and experiences, a life without real meaning. One of the authors of the study said, "The study findings may shed light on why conservatives prefer more authoritarian leaders while liberals do not."

I suspect that the previous paragraph will only serve to reinforce the opinions that liberal and conservative readers of this article hold of each other.

A 2007 study showed that once a habitual response to a certain stimulus is formed, a conservative is significantly more likely to stick with that response even when the stimulus is changed to something different, whereas a liberal is significantly more likely to give something other than the habitual response when presented with the aforementioned infrequent stimulus. In other words, a liberal adapts more readily to a change in the situation.

The study notes that, "Previous studies have found that conservatives tend to be more persistent in their judgments and decision-making, while liberals are more likely to be open to new experiences." But what this study did was show that the decision-making process went beyond what many of us feel to be a conscious decision.

A more interesting study came in 2009, where the scientists compared how easily one was disgusted by, well, disgusting things. The scientists found a correlation between being more easily disgusted and political conservatism. Participants who rated higher in disgust sensitivity were more likely to oppose gay marriage and abortion, issues that are related to notions of morality or purity. The study references an earlier study that found a similar correlation between higher levels of disgust and disapproval of gays and lesbians. The study makes no mention of libertarians, but it does strongly imply that conservatives are significantly more uncomfortable with things or experiences outside their own personal comfort zones.

If the three studies above share a common thread, it is change, and one's level of comfort therewith. It would seem rather obvious that conservatives tend to resist, even to fear, change, whereas liberals are more likely to embrace, to eagerly anticipate change.

And that leads us to the most troubling of the four studies, one which is published in this month's issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly. In the study, the author postulates that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and that the concept of being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel when compared to the experience of hundreds of millennia of human evolution. The author found that young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Don't get me wrong. I really don't like IQ tests. They may or may not be accurate indicators of a person's intelligence, but in my opinion IQ tests tend to make those who score high think that they don't have to work as hard as 'regular' people, tend to take hope for a better future away from those who score lower, and for those who score normally, the tests tell them that "you're normal, but you're nobody special." But IQ tests — and their close cousins, the SAT, ACT, and ASVAB — are a fact of modern life, and we too often tend to judge others and ourselves on the results. Again, for all their negative effects, these tests are a fact of life.

Furthermore, there are so many factors that go into determining how one might score on such tests. One might have a genius-level raw intellect… but if one is provided a less satisfactory education (as is often found in rural areas as opposed to suburban areas), this will be reflected on such tests.

Nor should we make any assumptions as to one's raw intelligence because of his or her political beliefs, as most who go head-to-head with the BC Politics editors can attest. Furthermore, the study (as previously expected) found that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends. Witness the experience of a certain Rhodes scholar named Bill thanks to his dalliances with a girl named Monica.

But the last study does seem to reinforce what the first three studies found: that conservatives tend to resist change more strongly than do their liberal counterparts. I believe I can safely say that, generally speaking, conservatives are predisposed to yearn for the "good old "days" and the change they most desire is to return to the world they once knew — and anyone who grew up down South can attest how the whites there tend to yearn for what they feel to be the glory days of the past. It's not by accident that "Dixieland," one of the most popular songs of the Old South begins, "O, I wish I was in the land of cotton, Old times there are not forgotten!"

It is beyond question that one cannot learn, one cannot grow, one cannot adapt without change; and the more one resists change, the more one handicaps oneself to growing, to adaptation, to learning. For all the flaws of its premise, that is the implication of the last study cited — that (again, generally speaking) those of a conservative bent may be very, very learned, but they may be more resistant than liberals to receiving knowledge that is outside their comfort zone. Sometimes, such knowledge and understanding might be seen as 'disgusting.'  All one need do is look at the opinions of conservatives towards minorities in the past, or towards LGBTs or certain religions (e.g. Islam) even today.

Do I think for a moment that the current polarization between the conservatives and the liberals will someday result in some radical approximation of the symbiotic relationship between the Morlocks and the Eloi of H.G. Wells' The Time Machine? Of course not; such an idea is ludicrous. In the novel, the Time Traveller guesses that the Eloi–Morlock relationship developed from a class distinction present in his own time: the Morlocks are the working class who had to work underground so that the rich upper class could live in luxury. I suppose that the conservative and liberal readers might each be tempted to think of themselves as the Eloi, and of their political opposites as Morlocks — and each reader would be right at least to some extent. But in any case, H.G. Wells eloquently delivered a stern warning to the captains of industry during England's Industrial Revolution of where their policies of exclusion might someday lead.

The propositions and references in this article will have been repugnant to the conservative reader, but I offer no apology. Like the Morlocks and the Eloi, the conservatives and the liberals of the modern world have a symbiotic relationship, as dysfunctional and distasteful and contentious as that relationship may be. We liberals thirst for change, for progress towards that better day that we can see just over the hill, just around the bend in the road. But too much progress too quickly can lead a society to utter disaster, as can be seen in Japan from the arrival of Perry's fleet in Tokyo harbor in 1852 to the Japanese surrender on board the battleship Missouri in an American fleet in the very same harbor 93 years later.

Likewise, conservatives strive to maintain the status quo, to keep the status quo, to live the good old days once more. But too little progress too slowly is also a surefire recipe for devastating consequences, as can be seen in China after the fall of Emperor Zhu Di in 1422. He had built the greatest fleets that ever sailed the seas before the 20th century, and initiated seaborne trading as far away as Africa and the Middle East. Frankly, he might be considered a progressive in today's world. He abdicated after a devastating fire, and his son took the throne and turned China inward. His son discouraged exploration, innovation, and technological progress; and when the Europeans began to explore the Far East, China – with the greatest population, best national health, and greatest resources of any nation on earth at the time – was powerless before them.

Of course in both of the above cases this is an overly-simplistic application of the necessity of mutual respect and teamwork between the liberals and conservatives in a given society, but I am confident I could successfully argue instances.

I'm sure that none of us would ever want our modern society to devolve to the kind of symbiosis shared by the Eloi and the Morlocks; but Wells' warning applies as strongly today as it did during the Industrial Revolution. It's best if we each learn to honestly value what the other has to offer. As with Arthur's quote in the movie Excalibur, it really is a dream that I have, that we can all "just get along." Unfortunately, given the apparent tendency of conservatives to view knowledge and understanding outside their comfort zone with disgust, this may not be a goal they would want to work towards. Witness the many, many times that the Obama administration has tried to work with the Republicans, how many times the Democrats have tried to negotiate, to compromise with the Republicans over health care reform, and how few times – almost none, really – that the Republicans have negotiated in good faith in return.

Is it that President Obama's proposals have been so terrible — since they are at heart very, very close to what the Republicans themselves proposed in the mid-'90s? Or are the Republicans just too disgusted at the prospect of actually having to work with the Democrats? I remember all too well how conservative America hated the Clintons — "Hillary's the anti-Christ!" — and most of us have seen the same kind of hatred foisted toward the Obama administration today. In his question time with the Republican legislators, President Obama pointed out that it's hard for them to negotiate legislation with the Democrats and with him when they (the Republicans) are allowing, even encouraging and initiating, such hateful invective towards him. After all, regardless of how sensible Obama's proposed legislation may be, would a Republican legislator really want to work even the least bit with the Obama administration when so much of the Republican electorate believes that Obama's a Kenyan, or that he's somehow racist, or that he's Muslim, or that he "pals around with terrorists?"

In summary, it's apparent to me that in the big picture, one of the main reasons that the Republicans don't want to work with the Democrats isn't simply because they believe our policies are so wrong. It's also because we're outside their comfort zone, and we disgust them. I don't expect many conservatives will agree with that statement; but any liberal reader can probably think back to how many times he or she has been viewed with utter pity, disgust, or even scorn the moment that his or her liberal views were found out by a conservative friend or co-worker. Of course there are many, many times that liberals and conservatives experience mutual respect and friendship — but these tend to be the exceptions to the rule.

"Can't we all just get along?" It really is a dream that I have, that many liberals have, that we shared with a different King, with Mandela, with Gandhi. However, in a different, darker part of the movie Excalibur, Merlin says, "A dream to some… a nightmare to others!"

"Getting along," indeed. When it comes to conservatives and liberals, for whom is the dream, and for whom is the nightmare?

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • You’re asking for it, Glenn, but I’m certain you already know it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Yeah, you’re right. The trench is already dug….

  • I agree with roger, Glenn. You are going to get what I would have should I have beaten you to this topic. Enjoy the calumny, my brother, for it will make your case for you!

    Your use of the forced opening of Japan by Commodore Perry is an apt one. I’m sure that the conservatives of 1852 cheered as loudly at the news of new profit opportunities as the modern version did after 2000 (see: Iraq and Afghanistan).

    But put the shoe on the other foot, and put the conservatives in the place of the people of the forced to offer that opportunity, and all of a sudden that situation isn’t such a good thing.

    I’ll use Andy Griffith’s mythical Mayberry as the template to explain. Suppose one day Andy is strolling about the town keeping an eye on things, and someone flies a plane into the Mayor’s office. He finds evidence that the incident was not an accident, and the perpetrator didn’t act alone. This conspiracy is made up of non-WASPs, and they intend to force Mayberry to do something (pick your own poison here) they aren’t willing to do. Would the people not call upon Andy to pick up that forsworn gun and fight in their defense? Would they not insist that Barney be given a full load for that revolver and sent into their midst? Would they not expect Andy to restore that lost delusional innocence? What happens to Andy when he cannot deliver?

    It is not without reason that conservatives tend to look backward with longing, for the past is completely known and unsurprising. They want life to ever be so predictable. To preserve that delusion is why Buckley proclaimed the effort to stand athwart history to yell STOP. Unfortunately for such a learned man, he didn’t seem to accept or understand that history will never stop, and allowed a mass of lesser-educated people to believe that such a thing was even possible through his example.

    But Buckley wasn’t nearly as staunch as the Tea Baggers are today. We can’t say for sure, but his son publicly stated that his father was an Obama supporter and probably would have voted for him. It’s a good thing for Obama that he died before he could, for no one would be more vituperative in his condemnation of Obama today than a betrayed Buckley!

    Suffice it to sum up that current-day conservatives are the embodiment of Jim Morrison’s famous demand: They want the world and they want it NOW! For Free! And don’t you dare expect Sales Tax!

  • Glenn,

    I have tried to break through to many conservatives here, and I probably should give up and go home right now.

    However, I’m too stubborn to leave.

    The one thing that you did not talk about here was the learning curve. The learning curve is tied in with a persons IQ, and this really is what determines someones’ comfort level when they’re faced with new experiences, challenges, and obstacles in their respective environments.

    Are you saying that Liberals have a narrower curve, and that they learn more easily? or Are you saying that conservatives have a wider curve and are slower in adjusting to change?

    Because this curve does not know politics.

  • I like this article, but you really shocked me! I was expecting an article on health care reform.

    :)I bookmarked this so I’ll see you tomorrow, nite

  • cannonshop

    I’d rather be a Morlock, than an Eloi, honestly.

    READ the WHOLE book, right to the end, wehn the Traveller saw how the Eloi devolved, and consider how that relationship must have come to be-the productive, the builders and makers, they wound up living under ground and preying on the unproductive in their dream-bliss surface lives.

  • Cannonshop,

    Re-read Glenn’s article, will you? He places himself and other Democrats in the place of the liberal Morlocks – and his rendition of Wells’ stern warning is against that kind of symbiosis.

    Unfortunately, it uses American divisions of “liberal”versus “conservative” – rendering useless outside of the United States. And worse, at the end, it degenerated into a cheesy piece on Democrats and Republicans working together to push the Obama agenda.

  • Cannonshop,

    I saw the movie.

    they wound up living under ground and preying on the unproductive in their dream-bliss surface lives.

    The people on top had clean energy and a wonderful social system where everyone happily worked, until the greedy Morlocks surfaced to kidnap them and force them underground to work in slavery.

    :)I’m a blissful Eloi.

  • Ruvy,

    It’s way too early to mention cheese.

    :)Good morning.

  • Jeannie,

    I read the book. The Morlocks kidnapped the Eloi to eat them. The Eloi were like calves for the meat eating (and liberal) Morlocks. The Eloi weren’t conservatives at all – they were food. Nice innocent calves who barely ever grew to adulthood.

    Now, what is it you were saying about cheese again?

  • Jordan Richardson

    I bought the T-shirt.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop –

    Notice that I didn’t give my own opinion on who were Morlocks, who were Eloi, and which was preferable.

    My whole point was the unwilling symbiosis that existed between the two. The Eloi and Morlocks both despised and (at least in the case of the Eloi) feared the other. Neither wanted to be like the other. Neither wanted to socialize with the other.

    But like the conservatives and liberals of today, both needed the other, whether they liked it or not.

    That was my point.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jeannie –

    Thanks for your kind encouragement.

    Are you saying that Liberals have a narrower curve, and that they learn more easily? or Are you saying that conservatives have a wider curve and are slower in adjusting to change?

    I would say that we liberals are more open and accepting to things outside our comfort zone. I believe that the raw intelligence of conservatives is just as great as our own (which was the reason for the small rant against IQ tests in the article), but their own conservatives personalities may hinder their mental agility by deeming this or that certain understanding too “disgusting” to learn, to accept – or, in the case of the health care debate, it is too disgusting for them to accept the Democrats’ idea…not because it’s a Democratic idea (since the centerpiece of HCR is a Republican idea from 15 years ago), but because it’s the Democrats who are supporting it!

    They are just as intelligent as we are (of course), but they do not realize that their own conservative bent is hindering their mental progress…and I feel that is precisely the root cause of what the fourth study found.

  • A Star Trek episode based on the book offers a somewhat different interpretation.

  • Thanks, Glenn, for a lively and highly enjoyable article.

    I would say that the conservative approach is often – not always; often – characterised by the following assumptions, in ascending degree of error:
    1. It worked before.
    2. It worked for everybody.
    3. It will always work.

    On the opposite side, liberals often tend to be so open to change that they have few to no concrete ideas of how to effect it, simply because it is outside the bounds of experience.

    I suppose Wells’s world is what might happen if Left and Right were to become so utterly polarized that they could no longer tolerate one another at all, and eventually evolved into two biologically distinct species… 🙂

  • For all practical purposes, they already have.

  • Glenn,

    I never read a truer statement than this!

    They are just as intelligent as we are (of course), but they do not realize that their own conservative bent is hindering their mental progress…and I feel that is precisely the root cause of what the fourth study found.

    :0 You should see how much energy I feel as though I wasted today. Well maybe it wasn’t a waste, they were young Conservatives and we all change eventually, whether we want to or not.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc and Jeannie –

    Thanks for the support – I figured I would either be roundly denounced from all sides, or if the BC liberals did agree, the conservatives might reply little if any at all…and so far, that’s the case.

    “This article is repugnant and I’m not going to dignify it with a reply.”

    I suspect the above statement is a close approximation of what wen through the minds of a few certain BC conservatives…and if that’s the case, it only strengthens my point.

  • May I refer you, Glenn, to an earlier article of mine, “A Political Quiz and Its Implications.”

    It sort of accords with what you’re saying, so there it is.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Rog –

    Moreover, facts never convince! “You have to win hearts before you can win minds!”

    Hm. Where’ve I heard that before? And while I do agree with your maxim, I have yet to learn to follow it.

    Long ago, I made a decision in my life that it is more high-minded and noble to be other-directed rather than self-directed, that taking the side of an underdog represents a more enlightened state of being.

    And again, I strongly agree with you…but I have yet to truly learn to abide by it. I think I’ve achieved the first step by doing my best to remain sincere and to refrain from insults, but the hardest part, the most difficult is to learn to go for the heart and not the mind, and that a position of weakness may well mask a position of strength. In fact, I remember very well that Sun Tzu said precisely the same thing, that one in a position of strength should endeavor to appear weak, while one in a position of weakness should endeavor to appear strong. Of course, you’re referring to a state of being while Sun Tzu was referring to conflicts between armies and nations…but I think the basic principle is the same.

    Please have patience with me – I’m working on it. And I really do appreciate constructive criticism.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And I should agree that the idea was yours before it was mine. Give credit where credit is due, I always say…

    …but when I point that out to the banks, they still won’t increase my credit limit. They said something about a credit score should be more than two digits….

    (couldn’t resist)

  • Glenn,

    Please, I didn’t mean to claim any credit for your article.

    We are on the same page, that’s all that counts. I tried not to come across as strong as you did, but we both know that the essence of conservatism – what really defines is – is a stubborn resistance to change. How can anyone deny that?

    I don’t want to say more for fear of estranging our online friends.

    Good job, but I am glad that this time it’s you rather than me on the receiving end. I’d like to think I’ve learned my lesson.

  • Roger,

    I don’t want to say more for fear of estranging our online friends.

    Spoken like a true politician? Who cares what people think.

    Speak you heart and mind so that you can find the truth.

    :)I’ll still like you and I bet so will everyone else.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    When it comes to a discussion between conservatives and liberals on this thread, it’s starting to remind me of the sound of one hand clapping….

  • Roger,

    I stand corrected, buddy, after having just read your #37 on the other thread…:)there’s hope for you yet.

  • I can use all the vote of confidence I can get, Jeannie. So I do thank you for not giving up on me.

  • Glenn,

    I recognized my credit score, how did you know?

    :)Don’t be discouraged, maybe we are all getting along too well to argue.

  • Roger,

    You gave me a real shot in the arm today, and I really needed it…thanks

  • Poor Glenn, he wants us to argue.

  • Where is everyone tonight, home freaking out over health care?

    :)That should bring someone around.

  • Glenn Contrarian



    [desperately reaches for iPhone with old rant from Keith Olbermann]

    Ah…much better….

  • You have built a wonderfully structurally sound house with this article, Glenn. I love the bay windows, the French doors, and you’ve chosen a stunning exterior paint. Bob Vila would be mighty proud of this beveled molding — is this maple? Although I have one question about the acreage: why did you choose to go with sand?

    If one isn’t getting along with anyone they don’t agree with — not based on the MLK “dream” of racial harmony but on intelligent conclusions — then, here’s a novel concept, maybe they’re the one going the wrong way about it.

    As for Congress, they are getting along. Oh, they’re miles apart on agreeing upon critical issues, and they’ve been bickering for weeks/months/years, but hey. Conflict sells, and most of these businessmen did not flunk Marketing 101. In the end, the senators and representatives can say they voted on this and this and this, despite the outcome, and they can string along the recidivism to continue arguing for another day.

    Seriously, though. Is this maple? I’d love the name of your contractor.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Matt –

    Of course, of course! How could I have missed it!

    It cannot matter that the Republicans are holding back 237 Democratic administrative nominees, some since last March!

    It really makes no difference that the Republicans are using the filibuster at a record pace…even against legislation that they themselves co-authored or co-sponsored!

    It surely is of no consequence that there are something like 140 Republican amendments on the current Health Care Reform bill that they’re opposing in lockstep!

    And it is folly to think that there’s anything strange about the beyond-rabid Republican opposition to the health care reform and cap-and-trade bills…even though both are in large part identical to Republican bills put forth in the mid-90’s (HCR) and the late 80’s (cap-and-trade).

    Nah, it’s the DEMOCRATS’ fault! How could I have missed it! It’s just like ol’ Bill O’Reilly (or was it Rush) said after the girl was viciously raped in a park – it’s HER fault because she was dressed ‘seductively’.

    But you did do one thing, Matt – you reminded me of a corollary of what I’ve found about conservatives: they LOVE to blame the victim, and blame liberals for what they (the conservatives) do to a significantly greater extent e.g. gay sex scandals, deficit spending, doing business with our enemies, voting fraud…

    …in fact, Matt, I’ll give you the SAME challenge I gave Dave a long time ago. Show me one, even ONE indictment or scandal against a Democrat (or group thereof) since the beginning of the Nixon administration where I can’t point out an example where the Republicans have done the SAME thing…but to a greater extent!

    Care to take me up on that challenge, Matt?

  • Apple spatula zydeco tyrannosaurus.

    (Confused? Hey, it’s as relevant a response to your comment as your comment was to mine.)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Didn’t think you would. That’s why you dodge it altogether.

    Don’t worry – Dave didn’t take me up on it either…

    …because at least since the Nixon administration, Republicans have been significantly more corrupt than the Democrats. That, sir, is what the numbers show.

  • Walter Mondale murdered his Colombian gardener.

  • Ruvy


    Since you want to grab metaphors from all over the place and mix them up, go look up vorlorn hoop, and see what you find….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ruvy –

    You know, whenever someone gives me a term that I haven’t seen before, I really am very grateful. ‘Forlorn hope’, or ‘lost troop’, the fate of skirmishers…

    …and perhaps of liberal bloggers? Avast, ye swabs! Here there be Munsters!

  • Mathew T. Sussman,

    I remember when you first came to BC, Eric, gave you a wonderful introduction here when you aired your first call in sports show.


    “How’s that show going? “Are a lot of people still calling in?”

    Now you are at the big T and when you swoop down to comment here at BC, sarcasm just drips off of your every word.

    Please allow me to ask you a question about health care, “Are you a healthy person?” Good…:)

  • Glenn,

    I brought this comment over here, because it wasn’t apreciated over there and I also know that you will take care of it.

    As all can see this bill will not allow the government to take over our health care or wedge itself between our doctors and ourselves.

    This is what health care reform is going to do for all of us:

    *Children will now be covered until age 26.

    *All previously out-of-pocket costs for tests that are now used for preventative care will be covered.

    *The development of high blood pressure, diabetes, or asthma will no longer exclude a person from receiving health care.

    *If a person develops cancer, they can not exclude treatment or dictate to the doctors what type of treatment may be given.

    *They cannot place a ceiling on your coverage, if you have a catastrophic illness or accident.

    *Doctors will now be free to treat their patients without interference from the insurers, and they will also be able to lower the costs that they are currently passing along to their patients right now due to high malpractice insurance rates.

    So although the insurer will gain new accounts when health care becomes a requirement, it will not be any different from having to register with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Motor Vehicles doesn’t dictate what kind of car that you buy, does it?

    :)Have a nice day!

  • Maurice

    Interesting article and well written. Jimmy Carter is credited with having the highest IQ of any president. It didn’t help him. Personally I would like to see much more tolerance from both sides.

  • michael agroskin

    I thought, the battle cry of liberals was “Do not label, do not generalize”, but that’s what you guys are doing: unfair generalizations and labeling people.

    The Tea party people, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman, etc, used to be called “liberals” because they are for individual liberty and against big government, even if that big government has the best intentions at heart.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions, remember?

    That’s why you will never convince them that FORCED health care, FORCED equality, FORCED brotherhood, FORCED political correctness, FORCED charity (taxes) are good for the society.

    You quote some “scientific” research, but have it ever appeared to you that all your “scientists” are definitely very liberal and biased?

    Btw, try to label me. I believe all drugs should be legal, but the government should keep fighting against their use (verbally). I believe that abortions should be legal, but the government should keep fighting against them (in the same non-violent way). I believe in free and open capitalist market, that’s why corporations should not be allowed to grow bigger than 1000 employees or such (to prevent unfair competition, collusion with government, too great influence on politics). I have 2 Masters degrees but appreciate the role Rednecks play in life (for instance, weren’t Rednecks the major force in the American revolution and in the creation of America in general? don’t Rednecks fight in all wars to defend your behind? don’t Rednecks serve as policemen and firefighters?).

    I believe in Marx’s theory (yes, the ultimate goal of the society evolution is Communism), but I reject so-called “Marxists” and “socialists” who are too stupid and single-minded to realize that Communism is the IDEAL, the mathematical limit of the evolution of the capitalist society when you take the time to the infinity. Btw, Karl Marx believed exactly the same, if you read his last works. He also rejected half-backed speculations of so-called “Marxists” about FORCED transition to Communism, communist revolution, socialism, etc. Society will EVOLVE into communism eventually. You can not FORCE it to become communism, no way, no how.

    “If they call this Marxism, then I am not a Marxist” – Karl Marx

    How would you label me? Atheist? Daoist? Marxist? Conservative? Liberal? Anarchist? Left? Right? Pro-abortion/Anti-abortion? Pro-democracy/Anti-democracy? Who cares?

  • Robert

    “In summary, it’s apparent to me that in the big picture, one of the main reasons that the Republicans don’t want to work with the Democrats isn’t simply because they believe our policies are so wrong.”

    But this is the main reason! To understand conservatives is to understand that conservatives love their country and want to ‘conserve’ their legacy and way of life (and their liberty), and are not open to ‘blank check’ change that leads ultimately to socialism or worse, robs economic incentive and expedities the deterioration of freedom and liberty. Conservatives want individual choice and the least measure of governmental control possible, while progressives seem obsessed with imposing on their fellows, that governing force called ‘control’ over all facets of life, and promoting fear where no justification can be proven as a means to realizing socialism. For example, how can global warming be proved as the result of man? There is no control available for a scientific experiment to decide the matter: Another earth to look at under the same conditions without a human on it, to see what the average temperature or percentage of CO2 is. Who can resolutely say that current climate is not a product of natural cycles? What is that photograph of a ship passing through the Arctic Circle in 1923 all about, how did more ice get there since then that would preclude such a voyage today, if we are in a one-way melt down? The only melt down I see is in the economy due to tampering, control freak policies and runaway spending.

    The notion of setting up a society based on charity is not the America that I remember, nor did it shape our history as a nation. Charity should never be a role of government. Charity, help and aid are what organizations like churches, synagogs, non-profits, or individuals or family members or friends or neighbors are for. The early Americans under our constitution were a people characterized by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, not a mass of whining job duckers wondering when the government is going to dole out some benefit they did not contribute to paying for. If it be said that many of the unemployed are not so due to their own fault, I would have to agree, because financial speculators and our leaders are making a cataclysmic mess that is affecting the entire world.

    People of both persuasions (liberal and conservative) can and should get along, but ideologies are destined to clash, and cannot be compromised without losing their potency or luster. The people, in the process of getting along, must be allowed to thresh out the best of the two dipoles currently at hand, and should not be force-fed legislation — to be passed in haste and under duress, contained in thousands of pages of ranging but nonrelated (porky) concerns — in the name of the welfare of poor ignorant, dependent masses who are now, more than ever before, acquiring the need for Big Brother to take care of them. At least not without ample time to read, debate and streamline legislation that will affect our common posterity.

    The passion in politics, if non-violent, respectful and on point, serves a useful purpose. There is no reason why a fervent democrat and republican, each thinking he or she is in the right, cannot enjoy a coffee together after their quibble and agree to disagree. Remember what Aristotle said, “Plato is a friend, but truth is a greater friend”. I submit, that Morlocks ate Elois for breakfast. Opposing ideas cannot get along, and only one of those, if any at all, is likely right.

  • yellowhammer

    You said, “The study findings may shed light on why conservatives prefer more authoritarian leaders while liberals do not.”

    Not the conservatives I know. Every conservative that I know wants smaller weaker government – by definition less authoritarian. Let’s look at it from the other side, liberals favor government that confiscates more of people’s earnings to give to people who think they deserve it just for gracing us with their presence. That sounds pretty much authoritarian to me.