Posts Tagged ‘Liberals’

Can Liberals Really Be this Stupid? Apparently they Can

by David GoetschLiberals
I have grown accustomed to the fact that liberals believe they can somehow change human nature and create a utopian world or, at least, a world that fits their definition of utopia. Although I still find it disturbing, I no longer find it surprising that liberals base their opinions and actions on emotionalism rather than logic or reason. A steadfast refusal to let facts get in the way of their presuppositions seems to be in the DNA of liberals, yet they think they are brighter than anyone else. For example, recall when Jonathan Gruber, the puffed up academic from MIT, talked condescendingly about the stupidity of the America public. Frankly, if he had limited his denunciation to just liberals, I might have agreed with him.

Before going any farther down this road, a caveat is in order. If you are put off by my use of the word “stupid” in the title of this column, understand that I spent a good deal of time trying to come up with a softer descriptor. For example, I tried the word “ignorant,” but it did not work because ignorance is just a lack of knowledge that can be cured through reading, listening to those who are more informed on the subject in question, discussing, debating, and keeping an open mind. Since liberals are steadfastly opposed to reading, listening, discussing, and debating with an open mind, “ignorance” failed the test of applicability. So did “illogical,” “unreasonable,” “fact-averse,” and “uninformed.” Finally, I settled on the word “stupid” because it conveys just the right meaning: a determination to continue doing the wrong things even when you know they are wrong simply because you want them to be right. Now that is stupid.

All of this is to say I am rarely shocked or even surprised when a prominent liberal says or does something that is just plain stupid. At least I shouldn’t be surprised, but then liberals have a way of outdoing themselves in the dumb and dumber department. Consequently, even though I am inured to the illogic, lack of reason, and aversion to facts that so often characterize liberal thinking, there are still occasions when I find myself asking, “Can liberals really be this stupid?”

Conservative columnist George Will refers to the fact-challenged ravings and out-of-leftfield actions of liberals as “poppycock,” a less confrontational, more refined descriptor than my term: “stupid.” However, even though I admire Will’s commentary, he is—in this case—letting liberals off the hook too easily by toning down his rhetoric. In a recent column, the conservative commentator shared a long list of examples of what he called liberal “poppycock”; examples he might have more accurately labeled liberal stupidity. In this column, I add my own comments on a few of the examples Wills offered his readers.

In California, a high school principal denied the school’s booster club permission to raise money by selling meals donated by Chick-fil-A because the restaurant chain supports traditional marriage. The principal was supported in his decision by the school superintendent who claimed “we value inclusivity and diversity.” Oh really? Then what about including the overwhelming majority of your student body and fans who support Chick-fil-A’s position or at least support its First Amendment right to hold such a position? If these two politically correct—Perhaps I should say “stupid”—administrators really valued diversity, they would not ban Chick-fil-A on the basis of its point of view. After all, embracing diversity means not just tolerating a variety of different views, but ensuring exposure to a variety of views; especially those you disagree with.

Here was an excellent opportunity for two so-called educators to turn a situation into a civics lesson on the real meaning of diversity and inclusiveness, but these two administrators are apparently so steeped in political correctness that they squandered the opportunity. Rather than teaching students that diversity means respectfully embracing differences, the principal and superintendent in this case taught them that diversity and inclusiveness mean banning all but the approved, politically correct points of view. Don’t look now Mr. Principal and Mr. Superintendent, but that’s what they do in communist nations and other totalitarian states. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.

By now readers of my columns know all about the fracas over the use of “Redskins” for the name of the Washington, D.C. NFL team. Liberals in and out of government are incensed that the team continues to use this non-PC name (although surveys show that American Indians are not bothered by it). The Obama administration has even used the power of the federal government in an attempt to coerce the franchise into discarding the name “Redskins.” Understand that this is the same federal government that spends billions of dollars procuring Tomahawk cruise missiles and Apache helicopters. Further, this is the President who approved the name Geronimo for the mission in which Osama bin Laden was finally brought to justice. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.

One of the best or perhaps I should say worst examples of liberal stupidity comes from the Freedom Socialist Party (FSP), an organization that advocates for a $20 per hour minimum wage. According to George Will, the FSP recently advertised a job opening for a Web developer. The starting wage was $13 per hour. This was not just a proof-reading error. Apparently the FSP sees no irony in advocating that every other organization be required to pay a $20 per hour minimum wage while it pays substantially less. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.

As good (or bad) an example as this one is, even the FSP cannot hold a candle to Vice-President Joe Biden when it comes to making embarrassingly inane comments. Biden makes so many foot-in-mouth gaffes that they are hard to keep up with, but his referring to Africa as a “nation” rather than a continent ranks high on the list of his top-ten most stupid comments. Close behind the “Africa” comment was Biden’s recent statement about the victims of the devastating 2011 tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri. According to our fact-challenged vice-president, 161,000 were killed. Obviously no math major, the vice-president was off by a mere 160, 839 people. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.

One final example comes from California Governor Jerry Brown. Apparently the governor buys the liberal party line on global warming. Concerned that global warming is going to cause a four-foot rise in the Pacific Ocean, Governor Brown fretted that the Los Angeles International Airport would one day be under water. Actually, LAX is more than 120 feet above sea level. Global warming notwithstanding, California’s math-challenged governor need not worry. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.


Those Darn Facts: Liberal professor shocked to discover Tea Party smarter than average.

Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School was curious about the relationship between ”science comprehension“ and political outlooks. His findings shocked him: tea party supporters are actually more scientifically literate than the non-tea party population

I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.

But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party. All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the “paper” (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico).

I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.

Here’s a graph of his results…
Of course Liberals are claiming his study is flawed, thus demonstrating why Tea Party supporters ranked higher: Liberals view their political ideology as more important than reality, whereas, Tea Party supporters base their political ideology on reality.


Now that Joe Scarborough has launched his nihilistic campaign to destroy the future of the Republican party, and has wasted months turning his program into a desperate exercise in left-wing emotional blackmail on the issue of gun control, the customers have spoken and they are not happy. Compared to this same time last year, Scarborough’s ratings have collapsed 14% in the key 25-54 demo, and 6% overall.
Only four MSNBC shows saw a drop in both areas, and “Morning Joe’s” fall in the 25-54 demo was the worst. Moreover, “Morning Joe” was the only daytime MSNBC show to lose viewers. Every show between 9AM and 2PM saw double digit increases:
During dayside, MSNBC actually [sic] some substantial growth, with every show from 9AM-2PM up in both total and demo viewers. The most “Andrea Mitchell Reports” was up +14% in total viewers and +47% in the demo, while 12PM’s “Now” was up +16% in total viewers and +19% in the demo. “Martin Bashir” was up at 4 PM, improving +6% in total viewers and +41% in the demo.
It is pretty obvious that even liberals are tired of Scarborough’s played-out sanctimonious preening as he never stops holding court about gun control with guests who plaster stiff smiles across their face to hide the embarrassment.
Watching the equivalent of a pathetic drunk ruin a party because he won’t let something go, does not make for fun viewing, even if you agree with the pathetic drunk.
To those of us on the right, the back-stabbing Scarborough is becoming just another Keith Olbermann — a destructive, ego-fueled blowhard whose fall will be something to relish.
We’re just hating you back, Joe.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

The Liberal Media Cleanses Iranian Link to Al Qaeda Despite Canadian Plot Being Uncovered

by Steve CooperIranian-president-Mahmoud-007

Liberals want the illusion that Al Qaeda is a Nationless entity, but that is false #IRAN

The plot to derail an American bound train in Canada was linked to Al Qaeda terrorists based in Iran. Beware of ‘self appointed’ Muslim terrorist experts on the Internet that constantly rant about ‘Sunni Muslims, the Saudi’s or Wahhabism’. I suspect that these people are unpaid propagandists (useful idiots) for Russia and Iran to deflect blame for terrorism away from Iran and towards Saudi Arabia. The Iranians are mostly Shiite Muslims.

I am no fan of the Saudi’s or Sunni’s…I am just warning ya.

Several weeks ago one of these self appointed experts engaged me on Twitter, because she was alarmed that I dared to mention Iran and Al Qaeda in he same sentence. I sent her a news link stating that a Federal Judge declared that Iran was linked to the 9/11 attacks and that they must pay restitution to the families of the victims. She BLOCKED ME. – Beware of Self Appointed Experts on Islam

Iran is clearly linked to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Truthers are propagandists to confuse and distract people from the Iranian connection to the 9/11 attacks acting on behalf of Russia. Notice that the Russian media pushes the 9/11 Truther issue and stooges like Alex Jones for a reason? To cover for Iran and possibly themselves.

Yes, the Sunni and Shiite Muslims hate each other, but they hate everyone. Yet, they will unite for the cause to attack the US and Israel.

It is interesting that radical Muslims are spewing the same propaganda that Communists and Libertarians do these days. Words like ‘imperialism, occupation, Zionism and BANKERS’ seem to be used frequently.

Libertarians, communists and Muslim terrorists are much closer in ideology than you think. This is why nuts like Ron Paul and his followers blame US and Israel for Muslim terrorism. This is the same as siding with the enemy.

Libertarian ideology on Foreign Policy is closer to the views and talking points of Muslim terrorists than they are to Conservative ideology.

US Military leaders have testified to Congress on many occasions about the Iranian link to Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban. These terrorists are directly linked to killing US Soldiers on the battlefield and nothing has been done about it. These are DOCUMENTED FACTS.

Why are liberals constantly trying to deflect blame for terrorism from Iran?

The answer is they want to make Israel look like the bad guy in the region. Also, liberals are aware that Moscow has sided with Iran and they want to please their masters in Russia (and China) by protecting their terror proxy against American capitalism and Israel.

The plan was to be automatically launched if America did not accept Iran’s nuclear program, if sanctions increased or a military confrontation took place. The regime felt it must act because current sanctions, which have already devastated Iran’s economy, could spark civilian rioting.



The Blamer In Chief: Obama Blames Everyone Other Than Himself and His Failed Liberal Policies

[youtube][/youtube]Liberals always get their way, and Zo thinks that’s why the world is in an economic crisis. Hear how Obama is distorting the facts about the budget deficit and the economy in order to hide the truth about his record.

Imperial Decree Puts America on Notice

by Craig Andersen

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled on Arizona’s SB 1070 striking 3 of the 4 sections of that bill.

That simply wasn’t good enough for the Emperor so, he and he alone, has gutted the only remaining provision of that bill. The Supreme Court voted UNANIMOUSLY to UPHOLD Section 2B of Arizona’s SB 1070 but the EMPEROR ruled UNILATERALLY to strike that provision as well.

Regarding SB 1070, immigration is indeed the prevue of the federal government and according to the Supreme Court, Arizona is not allowed to do what the federal government refuses to do and THAT is where Obama has won.

That’s right, OBAMA wins on SB 1070 but, Patriots…That is FAR from the end of it.

Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security instructed their agents in the field to…not…NOT…cooperate with Arizona law enforcement should they, the federal agents, be called upon.

This is because Obama, by decree, is deciding which laws will and will not be enforced or defended.


Upon his rise to the throne, the now EMPEROR Obama swore an oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

“Preserve, protect and defend…the Constitution of the United States.”

Within that Constitution which he is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend” one will find:

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Right there, near the end of Section 3 in Article 2 it states, and states clearly, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and that is VERY important.

With Obama’s decree regarding deportation policy and work visas, as well as with the order by DHS that federal agents in Arizona NOT cooperate with state of local law enforcement on matters of illegal immigration and deportation…

The EMPEROR is wantonly and deliberately disregarding existing immigration and deportation laws passed by congress and therefore, wantonly and deliberately refusing to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and thus…is acting UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.

Clearly, when you take the Imperial decree from 10 days ago and pair it with the order for federal agencies to cease and desist cooperation with the state of Arizona, both regarding illegal immigration and deportation, the Emperor has absolutely no intention of either faithfully executing or protecting and defending anything but his own agenda and to HELL with existing laws and the Constitution.

Also clear, regarding illegal immigration and deportation, and again coupling Obama’s Imperial decree from 10 days ago with his order that DHS cease and desist cooperation with the state of Arizona, the Emperor is actively engaging in turning the State of Arizona into a SANCTUARY STATE for illegal aliens.

With the Imperial decree that children up to the age of 30 having been brought to this country by their parents NOT being deported and GIVEN 2 year work visas AND with Arizona law enforcement being able to do NOTHING with those they find to be in the state illegally BECAUSE the federal agencies, on the orders of the Emperor NO LONGER COOPERATING with them…


There can be but 2 reasons for this move by the Emperor.

1) The Emperor is punishing Arizona for everything from Sheriff Joe’s Cold Case Posse to attempting to enforce federal laws that the Emperor’s administration refuses to enforce.

2) 2) It’s a warning shot to any other state who would attempt to enact laws similar or try to keep illegal aliens off their voter rolls.

It’s not an either, or choice folks…It’s BOTH.

What Arizona should do now, is continue to identify illegal aliens as per the new SB 1070 Section 2B and each time they do…contact federal agencies and then TRACK each and every response to those contacts. They should THEN provide that information to the RNC and any Super PAC working to remove the Emperor from the throne.

Those statistics, compiled by the state of Arizona and subsequently ignored by the Emperor’s administration should become the subject of advertising campaigns!!

How bad IS it? The numbers, compiled by the Federation For American Immigration Reform are STUNNING!!!

From 2001 – 2010, 47% of ALL illegal entries into the United States came across the Arizona/Mexico border.
From 2001 – 2010, an average of 1374 illegal aliens entered the United States through Arizona.
The total education, medical, and incarceration costs in Arizona due to illegal immigration are $2.6 billion a year.
Consider this and consider it very carefully.

Over a TEN year period, an average of 1374 illegal aliens PER DAY entered the United States through Arizona. Using that statistic…


Now that they know, south of the border, that Arizona is a safe haven, that OBAMA has ordered federal immigration authorities to DO NOTHING IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA…that number will SKYROCKET!!!

Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion of yesterday’s Supreme Court Ruling wrote this:

“But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.” 1 Records of the Federal Convention 19 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (statement of Edmund Randolph). Through ratification of the fundamental charter that the Convention produced, the States ceded much of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. But much of it remained jealously guarded—as reflected in the innumerable proposals that never left Independence Hall. Now, imagine a provision— perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.”

Justice Scalia wrote his dissent BEFORE yesterday’s Imperial decree that no longer would federal authorities cooperate with Arizona’s local and state law enforcement entities…Imagine how Justice Scalia feels regarding the situation this morning.

There can be NO doubt. ANY state which acts according to federal law, should that law be in opposition to the Emperor’s agenda, WILL be subject to punishment at the whim of the Emperor.



He did solemnly swear (or affirm) that he would faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and would to the best of his Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” which contains this phrase: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” But he doesn’t see himself as the president, does he?

He is the Emperor to whom the existing laws in conflict with his Imperial agenda do not matter and to whom the constitution does not apply.

If his Imperial decree NOT to defend the Defense of Marriage law was a trial balloon for his Imperial decree NOT to defend immigration laws in Arizona…What laws, by Imperial decree will he choose next, NOT to defend?

Election laws?

John Wayne on liberals



By Craig Andresen on June 6, 2012 at 7:26 am
Last night, liberal/socialists were crying in their beer. Governor Scott Walker won Wisconsin…Again…in stunning fashion. Walker becomes the first Governor to face a recall and win which makes his victory historic.

This morning, liberal/socialists will stop crying and start denying.

It will start with the fact that conservatives outspent liberals in the Wisconsin reelection. Of the 63 million dollars spent in total, only 14 million was spent by liberals. To this, liberals will say that most of the money favoring Walker came from outside Wisconsin while his opponent Barrett, garnered most of HIS money from WITHIN the state and THEREFORE…Conservatives BOUGHT the election.

Nice spin.

While it’s true that Walker’s coffers were filled in a large part from outside the State of Wisconsin, the bulk of his donations came in $50 increments. Yes, big donors DID put in, but this was a grassroots-level funding machine; and what liberals KNOW and won’t ADMIT is that Walker’s support from OUTSIDE Wisconsin signals a conservative Tea Party element HIGHLY engaged…NATIONWIDE.

That does NOT bode well for liberals in November, and they are in denial.

Next will come the liberal spin on the ramifications of last night’s Wisconsin vote. It’s already started. Last week, Debbie What’s-Her-Name-Schultz tried to spin it this way: “I think, honestly, there aren’t going to be any repercussions.”

Starting today, expect Jay Carney to give the official White House spin that Wisconsin is only one state and that they are confident they will carry Wisconsin in November as they did in 2008.

The fact is, Wisconsin is now IN play and the conservatives have a solid ground game in place there. Yes, Obama is leading the polls there over Romney, but that’s about to change. Bolstered by last night’s victory and last week’s poor jobs numbers, expect a shift in those polls. As summer drags on, if unemployment figures do not DRASTICALLY turn around, Obama’s rating in Wisconsin will drop while Romney’s numbers rise.

To say the State of Wisconsin means nothing puts liberals in a state of denial.

Then, we will see liberals trying to sidestep the broader issues of what led to last night’s conservative victory and THIS is VERY important.

Liberals will do everything in their power to recast the recall into a Walker vs Barrett vote but NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Yes, those were the names on the ballot; but names are just names and this wasn’t about names.

THIS was about ideology.

THIS was about Capitalism vs Socialism.

Walker stood straight and tall for capitalism. He put into place, measures which took Wisconsin from a 3.6 billion dollar deficit to a $154 million dollar surplus. His measures saved Wisconsin state and local governments 1 billion dollars. His measures opened the door for the creation of more than 30,000 new jobs.

Walker’s opponent, Mayor Barrett, stood for socialism. Socialism in Wisconsin led to the 3.6 billion dollar deficit, over spending by state and local governments and a stagnant jobs picture. Barrett wanted to maintain entitlements, larger government and more spending.

The reason this has NATIONAL implications despite the liberal spin is that Barrett wanted exactly what Obama wants and Obama is a socialist. What happened in Wisconsin last night is NOT confined there…The entire NATION watched it unfold.

The entire nation now KNOWS, via Wisconsin, that socialism doesn’t work and capitalism DOES. Put another way, a conservative in office made thing BETTER in Wisconsin while a liberal is making things worse nationally.

This was about a socialist takeover of the nation and last night, they watched Wisconsin slip away and they KNOW their socialist dream for the rest of the nation is in deep, deep trouble.

This was about unions.

Unions in Wisconsin, notably, public sector unions, were a BIG part of the problem. Union pensions, paid entirely by taxpayers, were breaking the bank and they were unsustainable. Union Membership was a must regardless of what workers wanted and their union dues were mandatory. Unions had, for decades, bullied the workforce and run roughshod over Wisconsin politics.

Then came Walker.

Due to the Walker reforms, union membership is no longer mandatory and union Membership there is falling. Now, those who remain IN the unions are forced to pay part of their OWN pensions and insurance costs taking the burden OFF of taxpayers and the state.

Those unions are now seen as paper tigers and can no longer control the political landscape in Wisconsin. For all their hype, busing of protesters and thug tactics, Wisconsin’s public sector unions discovered they can’t compete against Tea Party capitalists.

This, I believe, will also have a nationwide effect.

Now, other states, facing the same issues as Wisconsin faced and bullying by the unions, know they can fight and win against them. Public sector union reform is now very much in play across the country and I believe we will soon start to see the domino effect take place.

Here is another union effect and this is squarely aimed at Obama.

Unions, behind closed doors, are going to be pissed. Obama didn’t raise a finger to assist them in Wisconsin. Oh, he did use his thumbs, to text a less than 140 character message to support Barrett but, that’s IT. HE DID NOTHING and UNIONS, being BIG TIME socialist entities, heavily backed Obama in 2008. They can NOT be thinking of pouring money into his campaign now.

Don’t forget, unions WANTED Obama to okay the Keystone XL Pipeline and he didn’t do that either…Now…THIS snub.

The ramifications of this will go well passed November 2012.

As more states follow Wisconsin’s lead, and they are now emboldened to do so, union Membership rolls will drop nationwide and with that drop comes a drop in union money. As their accounts dwindle, so too does their power. If Unions raise their dues to cover their losses, more will leave, accounts will further fall and more and more power will be lost.

Unions are the strong arm element of socialists and prime financial and backers of liberal/socialist political campaigns. Liberal/socialists in office protect them and allow them to maintain their hold on the public sector. It’s been a match made in hell for a very long time.

Wisconsin is the beginning of the end of that corrupt partnership.

Today, in the bowels of the white house, various pieces of fecal matter will gather to discuss everything outlined in this article, trying to find a way out. As bad as last night’s cheese blockage might be, a couple servings of crow will make it worse. In a couple of weeks, the Obamacare and Arizona SB1070 cramps will hit. The problem is…Their heads are blocking the exit.

Exactly 5 months from today, conservatives will provide a massive dose of laxative.

Mr. Obama…Flush twice, use the air freshener and don’t forget to wash behind your ears.

Liberals – Conservatives – How We Perceive Each Other

Posted by Bill S (Diary)

Another day, another book I need to buy and hopefully read some day. In the March 21st NYT, Nicholas Kristof reviews a new book: ”The Righteous Mind”. In it, author Jonathan Haidt discusses some original research that investigates some key values held by conservatives and liberals – and how these two groups perceive each other on these values. I have long been interested in why Republicans and Democrats believe as they do, and this type of research on values zeroes in on this question.

A couple of key observations emerge. First, the author points out how both conservatives and liberals adhere to values that are formed around a moral code, but conservatives follow some additional core values that liberals do not. Kristof phrases it as:

Americans speak about values in six languages, from care to sanctity. Conservatives speak all six, but liberals are fluent in only three. And some (me included) mostly use just one, care for victims.

Kristof summarizes the values:

…for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.

In his research, Haidt and his colleagues refer to the latter three values as “binding values”, as they bind together people into larger groups.

These foundations are Ingroup/loyalty (supporting moral obligations of patriotism and “us vs. them” thinking); Authority/respect (including concerns about social order and the importance of traditions and role-based duties in maintaining that order) and Purity/sanctity (including concerns about treating the body as a temple and living in a higher, more “divine” way, versus a baser, more carnal way).

These sound pretty familiar to a conservative. In fact, Haidt’s definition for the second category (authority/respect) sounds like a sound bite description of what conservatism is.

The second, more interesting observation from Haidt’s book and research is touched upon briefly by Kristof:

Moderates and conservatives were adept at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal,” were least able to put themselves in the minds of their adversaries and guess how conservatives would answer.

Much of Haidt’s research centered around the accuracy of stereotypes of “out groups” – i.e. how liberals see conservatives and vice versa. The research showed that, by a significant margin, liberals were less accurate in their depiction of conservatives than the converse. The ironic part of this comes when reading the comments on Kristof’s article – this liberal lack of other-awareness is illustrated over and over by the left-leaning commentariat…but what else would we expect from the NYT’s readers?

A summary from the original research:

Results indicate that people at all points on the political spectrum are at least intuitively aware of the actual differences in moral concerns between liberals and conservatives: they correctly predicted that liberals would care more than conservatives about the two individualizing foundations and that conservatives would care more than liberals about the three binding foundations. The results also confirm previous studies of partisan misperception (e.g. Chambers, et al., 2006) by showing that, in general, people overestimate how dramatically liberals and conservatives differ. Remarkably, people even morally stereotype their own ingroup, with liberals overestimating liberals’ strong individualizing concerns and underestimating liberals’ weak binding concerns, and conservatives exaggerating conservatives’ moral concerns in the opposite directions.

Our results go beyond previous studies, however, in finding and explaining an otherwise puzzling result: liberals were the least accurate. We presented three competing hypotheses about accuracy: 1) We found no support for the hypothesis that liberals would be most accurate; liberals were the least accurate about conservatives and about liberals. The largest inaccuracies were in liberals’ underestimations of conservatives’ Harm and Fairness concerns, and liberals further exaggerated the political differences by overestimating their own such concerns. 2) We found some support for the hypothesis that moderates would be most accurate, which they were in the case of the binding foundations. However, and most crucially, partisan inaccuracies were not mirror images of each other. On the contrary, liberals and conservatives both tended to exaggerate their binding foundation differences by underestimating the typical liberal and overestimating the typical conservative. 3) Finally, we found some support for the hypothesis that conservatives would be the most accurate, which they were in the case of the individualizing foundations. In line with Moral Foundations Theory, liberals dramatically underestimated the Harm and Fairness concerns of conservatives.

So why do we care?

Of course there’s the reassurance that we as conservatives can take from the fact that liberals are provably inaccurate in their stereotyping of conservatives’ moral positions. But more important is the confirmation of the fact that conservatives do care about those issues that liberals claim we do not (not that we didn’t know that already…).

As I have mentioned previously on these pages, most, if not all of our policy positions originate largely from our beliefs about these core value issues. In many respects, social conservatism maps into the other “legs” of the conservative stool. Fiscal conservatism, defense conservatism, immigration policy, foreign policy, etc. – all stem from the values we hold in these categories. The fact that liberals seem to be sorely lacking in the “binding values” may (probably, IMO) explain how their positions on many/most policy areas differ from ours. One of the most contentious points made by Haidt is brought out by Kristof:

“Moral psychology can help to explain why the Democratic Party has had so much difficulty connecting with voters,” writes Haidt, a former liberal who says he became a centrist while writing the book.

Ouch. The liberals commenting on Kristof’s article didn’t like that one a bit. But it does explain a lot. If one accepts the theory that America is a center-right nation, I would say there’s a pretty significant likelihood that the difference lies in this disconnect in these core values that are shared – and not shared – between liberals and conservatives.

Yes, we are all values voters.