It is overly simplistic and something a teen might write one hour before the assignment is due. OMG this is such a refreshing and original perspective! What astute observations about the differences in liberals and conservatives. Yes, the conservatives must be restrained. They insist on clinging to their guns and bibles and that simply will not do! Whatever will we do if they continue to insist on such archaic notions as individual freedom, religious freedom, and first amendment rights to free speech. Truthfully, I don't know what the author is smoking but he is certainly feeling no pain.
I think you should find out what conservatives actually believe before you write an article telling us why they believe it. Have you correlated the incidence of mud rooms with rural locations where more Republicans tend to reside? I lived in rural Washington state and I was glad to have a mud room for myself and my dogs. I now live in urban, liberal Seattle and half of the homes I enter request that one remove their shoes.
What does this tell us about the "liberal" and "dirt"? I am a liberal and I don't think any cause is advanced by having such dreck masquerading as "science". Sorry, but you reveal your liberal bias with comments like "They are pro-family because being surrounded by close relatives is the best defense against threats that surround them. Don't worry, though - in general, I agree with the case you make about the paranoia of Republicans.
Sorry to see you did not confront the enabling mentality of the Democrats. I'm curious to know what you think of the psychology of Libertarians. While I concede that stereotyping the millions of individuals in each of the two major parties is a gross exercise, there do seem to be recurring behaviors in the politicians representing each party. Personally, I find both unacceptable and I'm baffled that we continue to settle for self-serving, party-first, powergrabbers whose principal interest is how to get re-elected. I would think we'd recognize by now that these characteristics are the opposite of what we'd really like in politicians - selfless, people-first servantleaders whose principal interest is how to serve effectively and leave office quickly.
I do not own a gun. But believe that others have the right to do so. They do NOT have the right to use that gun to force others to do their will without a thoughtful relation to the situation. I know MANY liberals who are religious How does that play into anything.
Yes Conservatives are more likely to talk about their religion it seems but that almost feel more like learned behavior on the part of Liberal minded people who are religious than anything else, you cannot espouse your belief for fear of being 'closed minded' Which is ironic because you speak of fear and protection often in your article. Really okay, the funny thing about this is how many cases can you see a Conservative actually beating up an immigrant?
A better question is what is the socio-economic realities of immigration without assimilation and how does that change a culture bias moving forward? The funny thing about how you say it is fear rather than realization of cultural change that MUST take place if assimilation is not taken. This is not to say that Cultural change is either good or bad but if you do not fight to preserve your own heritage then what good is it in the first place?
For instance if you want to destroy the Native American culture it is pretty simply done by diluting it over time. Honestly the way you respond it sound like it is out of fear when in reality it is a profound understanding of cause and effect that cause these actions Okay, I lived in Italy for a while.
What is the difference between the Mob and a Government Entity? I will tell you this, The Mob is nicer to deal with. Someone who claims not to have a healthy fear of the Military or the Federal Government and at times the State Government does not have a very good understanding of history or the power that Laws and Governance takes on over time.
The larger the amount of authority and laws the easier it is to justify persecution. Again what kind of tripe have you cooked up here? You mean Pro a Family Unit? Okay, the way a society works is typically as follows. Family, friends, community, government. If you remove Family from the equation then you have a larger unit to start with in order to create identity.
This belittles the support system and frame work on which people can learn, grow, and move up into an understanding into the rest of society.
Poverty is most often the result of a destroyed or broken family structure. So yeah Conservatives would rather people have a happy and whole home. But hey we also understand that this has challenges as well. So for instance a Farmer has a terrible farmer and his farm burns to the ground.
Republicans and Conservatives HATE that there are cut offs in assistance once you reach a certain dollar amount. It should be a sliding scale so as you become more successful in money the government still rewards you for every dollar more you make. Government subsistence programs currently are designed to encourage substance living and dependence. So yes I hate a program in which the system penalizes someone for taking the next step towards self reliance and encourages use of assistance rather then encouraging planning and thoughtful approaches to growth.
I mean imagine if we subsidized peoples grades in school, Viola everyone can have a PhD without effort, that makes everyone equal then right? Yes, I admire people who take initiative. That attempt to create and develop. I admire someone more who without imagination, without a mommy or daddy to pay for them, lays it all on the line and is willing to accept what the world gives them and then work hard to transform it. Someone who recognizes where they currently are and tries to take the next step. Obviously this author is a liberal. Everywhere I go people are being propagated by left-winged ideologies.
That is quite a spotlight on your fallacy. All Americans, other than Native Americans, are immigrants. But, you writing as if whites are not immigrants. I totally agree with this article. It's my experience that conservatives are angry. They are angry about everything. Yes, I consider myself liberal.
I thought the liberal description pretty much fits. I'm religious, but even in that I am not like many other religious people. I Tend to focus on grace, love, and forgiveness. Christian people I know who consider themselves conservative tend to focus on sin, hell, and punishment.
I believe that this is a very accurate view of a liberal and why "their" view makes them a better person. I call it the morally superior theory of liberals. I even wrote a children's book on race. But when I talk to liberals and disagree with the current liberal stances on race they always seem surprised. They say 'but you worked with minorities I'm surprised you think that way'.
It usually takes just a few minutes for me to explain what I have seen that works for helping the poor and minorities. However I disagree that people are hardwired with these views. Nothing is more nurture than nature than partisan politics, IMO. Any alcohol is bad, yet the groups that drink heavily stay healthy and happy.
Darwinian competition makes workers more productive in developed countries. Serious commerce arrived late in history but changed our lives a lot. Back Find a Therapist. What Is the Best Way to Propose? What's the Solution for a Coddled American Mind? The conservative world view Conservatives see the world as a challenging place in which there is always someone else who is ready to steal your lunch. Conservatives are pro-gun because they want to be able to defend themselves against criminal threats of any type.
They are mostly religious because religious rituals foster feelings of safety in a dangerous world such that the most dangerous countries in the world are also the most religious 1. They tend to be more hostile to immigrants, foreigners, and racial or ethnic minorities and to view them as more of a threat. They fear attacks by other nations and therefore support a strong military and a bellicose foreign policy on the theory that a good attack is the best defense.
They are pro-family because being surrounded by close relatives is the best defense against threats that surround them. They oppose welfare for the poor because this encourages dependence so that the failures of a society are parasites on the successes thereby inverting the proper incentive structure. They admire wealth because successful people are seen as having worked hard in pursuing a moral obligation to provide for themselves and their families in a difficult and uncertain world.
The liberal world view The liberal world view is mostly the opposite. Liberals feel that protection of citizens against crime is better left to police and that armed citizens are a threat to those around them.
The Angry Right: Why Conservatives Keep Getting It Wrong [S. T. Joshi, Robert Glisson] on uzotoqadoh.tk *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Since The Angry Right has 12 ratings and 1 review. Louise said: Joshi posits that while conservatives can win elections, they look around and see a stalled age.
They are less religious than conservatives because they perceive the world around them as less threatening. Moreover, they rely more on science, and education , as a means to solve problems. Liberals are more welcoming to immigrants. They favor negotiation and consensus-building over warfare in foreign policy and do not believe in excessive military buildups that drain social spending. Liberals are happy to pay their taxes if they believe that the money is being used to improve the quality of life of others whether they are poor or rich.
Liberals are less interested in family ties as a protective bubble. They support welfare programs for the poor because these may reduce child poverty, as well as reducing crime and social problems. Liberals are suspicious of wealth feeling that much of it is inherited or obtained through sharp business practices or outright corruption. Blog post accessed at: San Francisco Chronicle, accessed at: Be sure to read the following responses to this post by our bloggers: Partisan "Science" is a reply by Loretta G.
Well I expect the wrath of the right will descend upon you for your views. Do you think some of us are born liberal.
I would love more posts from you on this topic Thanks!! As I have seen in my lifetime, We are largely products of our environment. Submitted by Paula Marshall on September 3, - 2: Talk about therapist bias Submitted by Julia on September 18, - Submitted by Dylan Bundy on July 27, - 9: Julia, you're right on the money. Bias is ridiculous on this fake psychology website. This is cherry picking Submitted by rolf on October 9, - 2: Submitted by Dave G on December 10, - 2: Yes -- George Soros is so Submitted by lkfnmjkln on May 11, - 3: Rich liberals are phoneys.
Submitted by Lee C on November 14, - 8: Liberals need conservatives for the same reason a parasite needs a host. Conservatives do not volunteer more. That is an easily disputed myth. What's a mud room? Submitted by Anonymous on October 9, - 6: However, guns war and capitalism are symptoms of those excesses..
Too polarised my friend. Conservatives in the US are not comparable to European conservatives. Submitted by astorian on October 9, - Sorry, but that's incorrect. Submitted by Teresa on June 23, - 7: Charity Submitted by Myrna on December 3, - 1: Bull crap Submitted by Randy on May 3, - To me some aspects of Submitted by Humberto on October 9, - 5: Simplistic over-generalizations Submitted by Susan Heitler Ph. Liberals also tend to include Submitted by Non-Liberal on October 9, - Here is her living last time I knew of it: Jesus, who are you trying to kid!
Tim Goebel added it Dec 02, John Adkins marked it as to-read Feb 11, Dominic marked it as to-read Jun 30, Tori marked it as to-read Jul 07, BookDB marked it as to-read Sep 16, Brittany marked it as to-read Apr 10, Cheryl marked it as to-read Jul 06, Dean marked it as to-read Jul 08, Michael Joseph Schumann marked it as to-read Dec 03, Micah marked it as to-read May 17, John Brown marked it as to-read Jun 20, There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
Sunand Tryambak Joshi b. Besides what some critics consider to be the definitive biography of Lovecraft H. Mencken, Lord Dunsany, and M. James, and has edited collections Sunand Tryambak Joshi b. James, and has edited collections of their works. His literary criticism is notable for its emphases upon readability and the dominant worldviews of the authors in question; his The Weird Tale looks at six acknowledged masters of horror and fantasy namely Arthur Machen, Algernon Blackwood, Dunsany, M.
James, Bierce and Lovecraft , and discusses their respective worldviews in depth and with authority. Klein and others, from a similar philosophically oriented viewpoint. Hartley, Les Daniels, E. Benson, Rudyard Kipling, David J. Schow, Robert Bloch, L. Joshi is the editor of the small-press literary journals Lovecraft Studies and Studies in Weird Fiction, published by Necronomicon Press.
He is also the editor of Lovecraft Annual and co-editor of Dead Reckonings, both small-press journals published by Hippocampus Press. In addition to literary criticism, Joshi has also edited books on atheism and social relations, including Documents of American Prejudice , an annotated collection of American racist writings; In Her Place , which collects written examples of prejudice against women; and Atheism: Joshi is also the author of God's Defenders: In he published The Angry Right: His faith talk allowed him to relate easily to Christian conservatives without talking about any of the specific issues that had a downside on the left and in the center.
He cast himself as the prodigal son, the repentant sinner, the transformed man. Describes President George W. His polarizing strategies infuriated Democrats and liberals while his moves toward moderation alienated the right. Progressives saw a socially conservative president who cut taxes on the rich, pushed the country to war on false pretenses, and bogged it down in Iraq.
How Republicans lost the Latino vote. The failure of President G. The tax cuts of the Bush years had produced, at best, a modest recovery in the mids—and, when combined with war and national security spending, they had turned the large Clinton surpluses into deficits. A look at the rise of the Tea Party. The obstruction of President Obama. The progressive philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt. The impact of the NRA. Describes the need to reform conservatism. Frum offers a demanding standard. Notes are not linked, sad! At over pages, this book will require an investment of your time.
Lack of visual material to complement the excellent narrative. No charts, graphs to speak of. There is a brief bibliographic essay but I would prefer a formal bibliography. In summary, I enjoyed this book. This is as professionally written book in every sense. Dionne does the topic justice and deserves my five stars. I highly recommend it! Apr 25, Ian Vance rated it really liked it Shelves: What a time for nervous schadenfreude among left-leaning survivors!
Beneath the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the Conservative Entertainment Complex, a certain wary acknowledgement and despair lurks in the outraged tones and timorous typesetting of the talking head horde: Trump's bulldozing blather is, after all, the consequence of many years of sustained populist manipulation and mercantile scandal-riding, timeless demagoguery echoing loud and ceaseless across faux-fair media propagation.
As What a time for nervous schadenfreude among left-leaning survivors! As this book assembles for its central thesis, Trump's upset against the Establishment is nothing particularly new for the Republican party or for Conservatives in particular, as there is a long history of suppression, nurtured grievance, and temporary victories-turned-sour to fuel the troglodyte tumor of aggrieved entitlement, currently manifested in the so-called Tea Party.
Overall, the text is fairly comprehensive in its summary of modern political history. Starting with the Goldwater campaign of '64, Dionne exposes the repetitious nature of the central conservative quandary: Capitalizing on the unrest of the 60's, Republicans were able to dominate four out of five presidential elections from '68 to '92, but the realities of governing in a constitutional system of separate and balancing powers requires, of course, compromise.
Again and again the hardc0re righties, "betrayed" and increasingly isolated by modern society's gradual progress, formulated and clung tight to the idea that, with every hesitation, every negotiation, every crushing defeat, the fatal flaw was in choosing moderates--RINOs if you will--and if only, if only a Crusading Champion might arise to roll up his blue jean sleeves and fix everything back to the halcyon good ol days of suburban serenity, segregation, apple pie, consistently mown lawns. Again and again the stench and sting of betrayal--Nixon's fall from grace; Ronnie's careful compromises conveniently forgotten in the need to find some object of hindsight worship ; Bush Senior raising taxes; Bush Jr.
Held hostage to the clumsy puzzle pieces of yesteryear's bigotry, seeking some anchor in a world increasingly perceived as that of quicksand and snares, the Entertainer thus emerges and soothes with tough-guy talk and promises of the quick fix--yeah, when Trump emerged, those cognizant frowned, flinched, but mostly went DUH. Overall, the first half is better than the second.
Dionne extensively covers the Obama era but the result is curiously diffuse, diluted by minutia and event-listing rather than sophisticated analysis, perhaps to no surprise, given how recent and rather disorienting the last six-eight years have been in political history. Apr 29, John Kaufmann rated it really liked it Shelves: Dionne is a respected columnist on national politics. As a result they have promised more than they have been able to deliver in order to forge their unlikely alliance between economic interests business, the wealthy, and market fundamentalists on the one hand, and social issues the South, conservative Christians, and the white working class on the other.
Failure to d E. Failure to deliver on their promises and to consistently win presidential elections has driven them to continually double down and take even more extreme, purist positions. Dionne further argues that the current trajectory of the conservative movement and conservative politics in the Republican party owes more to Barry Goldwater's failed candidacy for president in than to the election of Ronald Reagan in Goldwater took a sharp right turn from the moderate Republicanism under Dwight Eisenhower in the s.
Freedom individual freedom and market freedom and order were the highest values, and he referred to the rot and decay in the nation's moral fiber under liberalism. He also set the tone for the eventual uncompromising conservative politics with his statement, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. He discusses both the McCain and Romney candidacies and Republican obstructionism against Obama, and concludes with a discussion of the emergence of Donald Trump through Oct.
Dionne keeps an eye toward the central contradictions of the conservative movement, i. Aug 04, Bonnie McDaniel rated it really liked it Shelves: This book, it seems to me, is a must-read to explain the elections and the sorry state of today's Republican Party. Dionne states in the introduction, "This book offers a historical view of the American right since the s. Its core contention is that American conservatism and the Republican Party did not suddenly become fiercer and more unyielding simply because of the election of [President] Obama. The condition of today's conservatism is the product of a long march that began w This book, it seems to me, is a must-read to explain the elections and the sorry state of today's Republican Party.
The condition of today's conservatism is the product of a long march that began with a wrong turn, when first American conservatism and then the Republican Party itself adopted Barry Goldwater's worldview during and after the campaign. Dionne documents this central thesis in exhaustive, well-researched detail. It takes nearly pages to wend his way through more than 50 years of Republican history, showing exactly where they went off the rails and why. He makes the point that, unfortunately, Donald Trump is the logical endpoint of the ever-increasing conservative extremism and insistence on purity, and ends the book with this.
Conservatives rightly revere those who came before us, but they will not prosper if they continue to yearn for a past they will never be able to call back to life. They may win some elections, but they will not govern effectively on the basis of an ideology rooted in the struggles of a half-century ago. But it was an enlightening look into why one of America's two major political parties is currently thrashing itself to bits. One cannot blame Dionne for being far more objective and critically reliable about events before his own life in politics than he is about the current situation being the election and the rise of Trumpism , but it does make this a book that starts out as a broad critique of the entire conservative project from Goldwater on, and closes as an inside baseball account that recycles talking points lifted from interviews done by Dionne during his day job.
The upshot is that there is nothing new One cannot blame Dionne for being far more objective and critically reliable about events before his own life in politics than he is about the current situation being the election and the rise of Trumpism , but it does make this a book that starts out as a broad critique of the entire conservative project from Goldwater on, and closes as an inside baseball account that recycles talking points lifted from interviews done by Dionne during his day job.
The upshot is that there is nothing new in here about what the GOP can do to rescue itself from its own success appealing to the radical rich and the angry tide of white resentment. That the GOP leadership is so totally willing to sink ever lower, even at the risk of the nation's well-being, should doom the party to minority status for a few decades.
Instead a reader has to notice that in the shadow of Trump's victory the problem Dionne simply cannot address is the degree to which the party has incentivized stupidity, racism, and fraud as a winning electoral strategy. In the end Dionne just has too much faith in the conservative movement's own declarations that they are patriots doing distasteful things in order to someday achieve higher goals, not the scoundrels they appear to be.
It would be interesting to read this book rewritten in the cold light of the Trump electoral victory to see if Dionne has changed any of his opinions about how committed the GOP is to its own stated policies. I highly recommend this book to friends who are politically engaged and like to discuss issues and political philosophy beyond the sound-bite level. This is a history with analysis of the conservative movement from Goldwater to the Tea Party, with some discussion of the Eisenhower years and a few references back to Roosevelt and Truman.
While Dionne acknowledges his own place in the political spectrum somewhat left, although I'd argue he's far from extreme left , this is an even handed treatment I highly recommend this book to friends who are politically engaged and like to discuss issues and political philosophy beyond the sound-bite level. While Dionne acknowledges his own place in the political spectrum somewhat left, although I'd argue he's far from extreme left , this is an even handed treatment of the political landscape of the last half century.
The book is long could have been a bit shorter, to my thinking , and the only way I made it through in a reasonable time was via an audio version and a few long drives. You may not agree with Dionne's analysis in every instance, but he'll definitely give you some additional perspective and some food for thought. View all 3 comments. Feb 16, Andrea rated it really liked it Shelves: A fascinating jaunt through American political history from the s to the present.
The focus is largely on campaign maneuvering, but there is also discussion of significant achievements and failures between elections and their effects. The author admits his own liberal leanings, but paints a nuanced and generally fair picture of the players and situations, and gives fairly realistic assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of both the Republican and Democratic individuals he discusses.
He A fascinating jaunt through American political history from the s to the present. He also does not neglect the role of the media in the events described. He offers some general thoughts on possible directions for the future of conservatism, but for the most part sticks with what has been done, what worked and what didn't, and why. Overall, it's a very good read for anyone feeling bewildered by the current toxic political climate and looking for some more in-depth historical context, especially those like me who aren't old enough to remember Reagan and his predecessors.
Mar 23, Ed Kohinke sr. I'm always reluctant to overuse the phrase "this is a must read", but this book is so readable yet thorough that I would call it a "must read" for anyone both interested and engaged in today's politics. And it doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum. Dionne covers conservatism from Goldwater to roughly the beginning of , when the book was published, giving both a critique and many ideas on how it can be fixed to the betterment of everyone.
As a progressive, it gave me an his I'm always reluctant to overuse the phrase "this is a must read", but this book is so readable yet thorough that I would call it a "must read" for anyone both interested and engaged in today's politics. As a progressive, it gave me an historical view and understanding of conservatism to gain a much better idea of what we are up against these days.
I'm looking forward to a sequel that will cover the election and beyond! Jan 22, Jean rated it really liked it. The book explained a lot how Republicans pushed farther and farther right, until they alienated the moderates and attracted mostly religious fanatics. These people who want to be way too involved in people's personal rights are now the Tea Party, but the author shows how there was always this element in history, just called by other names, who opposed all the social changes of the New Deal. It's a little long winded and repetitive, you may have to read it along with something lighter.
May 24, Beverly Kent rated it really liked it. This is a very interesting analysis of political history from Reagan to Obama. I have lived through and voted during this period so I felt it was an interesting refresher course. He is unsparing of both parties and all aspirants to the highest office. He references both conservative and liberal authors, equally. It is not a simple book, but it is an interesting critique of where the country is and where it is going. Members of both parties can benefit from this fair and equal analysis.
Dec 12, Scott Welfel rated it it was amazing. Required reading for any progressive. Oct 18, Lncropper rated it it was amazing. I listened to this book on CDs and really enjoyed it.
It is quite long, but worth the 17 CDs. Whether you are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, it helps to understand how political ideas evolve over time. He analyzes where Pres. Obama made mistakes, too. It was written just before Trump won the election, and I would love to read what this author would write about the right since Trump became president.
I see quotes from him here and there, and hope he will write another book. A very thorough look at how the Republican Party has moved more and more conservative over the years. It's intensely frightening reading it now, given how much power the Republican Party has now. Jun 09, Charles Ray rated it it was amazing. This extreme rightward shift has changed the tenor of politics in this country.
While having opposing viewpoints in politics ordinarily helps keep the country on an even keel, preventing rash change that can be destabilizing, while preserving worthwhile traditions, the current situation is an example of the dysfunction that can result when one side decides to adopt a scorched-earth approach to politics. A prime example of this has been the GOP reaction to the Affordable Care Act, which is, in fact, almost identical to the health plan they themselves had previously proposed and supported.
They would rather see the government shut down, or in default, rather than compromise.
What do they do with their time Liberals also tend to include support from the many "special interest" groups. He pushed through three tax increases as president, one of which made Social Security solvent for the past 35 years. Yes, the conservatives must be restrained. The baby during delivery has a pair of scissors inserted through it's skull to penetrate it and make a hole in it.
Until this situation changes, American politics will continue to be dysfunctional, and we will see a continuation of chaotic and aimless leadership such as we have in