I too have devoted a lot of mental effort to trying to make sense of the conservative mind. It's important on both the large but abstract scale, and the small and personal scale: We all know rightwingers, and I know some doozies.
I think that it's a legitimate subject of discussion and inquiry, and quite a few distinguished social scientists seem to have thought so too. The study of "authoritarian conservatism" began after World War II for obvious reasons, and over the years institutions as respectable as the University of Minnesota and UC Berkeley have studied the question.
Yet, conservatives are always deeply offended by the results, and always go ballistic, attacking the most sober scientific studies as political hatchet jobs (same MO as the attacks on climate change science). So your caution about the subject being perceived as inflammatory is understandable.
But should we let the right shout down the discussion? As a matter of principle I'd say no, and then there's the practical consideration that when it comes to exploring a psyche, the patient's judgment is the most suspect. In conventional therapeutic terms, the more the patient squeals like a stuck pig, the more on-target is the inquiry.
You should've heard Tom shriek in indignation when this subject's come up before. In fact, I see over on Flame he's trying to bait me with it right now. And god knows, he's a master baiter...
Current Events » in reply to Re: fiery rhetoric
understanding the conservative mind
The whole thread (44 posts)
- Why Canada's banking system is holding up better than ours.
- Interesting. Not sure I buy it all, but still... n/t (n/t)
- (moved)
- Re: Why Canada's banking system is holding up better than ours.
- Re: '“pro-lender†environment'
- '“pro-lender†environment'
- Horseapples.