Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Conservative political ideology in Western democracies may be identified by several components, including an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo. These ideological components map closely onto non-ideological psychological processes, which support attitudes consistent with political conservatism. We describe how attitudes and behaviors consistent with these components increase as a consequence of thinking that requires little time, effort, or awareness. From this starting point, we develop the argument that political conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology.

Scott Eidelman, Christian  Crandall, Jeffrey A. Goodman, and John C. Blanchar,  Pers Soc Psychol Bull published online 16 March 2012

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/16/0146167212439213.full.pdf+html

Destiny

Sad, really.
Our destiny
Something, beyond us - the end of who we are.
Never meant for greatness
humankind then -  a next step.

Listen to the MUSTN'TS

Listen to the MUSTN'TS, child
Listen to the DONT'S
Listen to the SHOULDN'TS
The IMPOSSIBLES, the WON'TS
Listen to the NEVER HAVES
Then listen close to me-
Anything can happen, child
ANYTHING can be

by Shel Silverstein

Conservative 'Thinking'

Conservative thinking is low effort thinking
Complexities reduced to black and white - unknowns and shades of gray replaced by rigid structure and over-simplification
At its basis - fear of an uncertain, complex, and confusing world
Such thinking results in rigidness of thought, purposeful ignorance
It lies at the heart of racism, bigotry, hate, repressiveness
It is a fearful, rigid resistance to progress and revelation and can in the end therefore only, finally, fail
For fear is the price nature extracts for imagination, wisdom - enlightment
It is the reason there is courage and must always be overcome

Ill Take The Moon

When it comes to big egos there are two basic types at opposite ends of a spectrum. The first actually believes they can accomplish the impossible and change things for the better.This sort inspires vision and greatness in those surrounding them, spearheading collaborative efforts that exceed what was thought possible - the first landing on the moon in less than 10 years.What egos those first NASA engineers and scientists must have had.

The second type assumes the world owes them - greatness, grandeur, and control.
Owed their greatness they crush anyone in the way using tools of fear, repressiveness, subjugation and over-reaching control - Stalin comes to mind.

One is a talented optimist and positive force, the second a narcissist, usually aided by a solid dose of sociopathy - by their nature, destructive, demoralizing, repressive.

The origins of the ego - matter - the size of the ego - not so much.

Muslims are not terrorists

40% of the people voting in the republican primary in Georgia last week believe Obama is a Muslim. No doubt this is due in large part to right wing media propaganda.
Even if it were true - and it's not - so what?
There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world - about 20% of the worlds population.
Are people really going to hate and fear 20% of the worlds population simply because they follow Islamic teaching?
Put another way:

I am shocked and dismayed to find out that President Obama is a Christian.
Christians are terrorists.
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

I am shocked and dismayed to find out that President Obama is a Muslim.
Muslims are terrorists.
The 911 terrorists were Muslims.

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves By Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, Special to CNN updated 1:45 PM EST, Sat March 10, 2012

Editor's note: Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem are the Co-Founders of the Women's Media Center.

(CNN) -- Ironically, the misogyny Rush Limbaugh spewed for three days over Sandra Fluke was not much worse than his regular broadcast of sexist, racist and homophobic hate speech:

--Women cabinet members are "Sex-retaries."

--"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

--The National Organization for Women is "a bunch of whores to liberalism."

--[Said to an African American female caller]: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

These are just a few samples from the arsenal of degrading language Limbaugh deploys on women, people of color, lesbians and gays, immigrants, the disabled, the elderly, Muslims, Jews, veterans, environmentalists and so forth.

Jane Fonda

Limbaugh doesn't just call people names. He promotes language that deliberately dehumanizes his targets. Like the sophisticated propagandist Josef Goebbels, he creates rhetorical frames -- and the bigger the lie the more effective -- inciting listeners to view people they disagree with as sub-humans. His longtime favorite term for women, "femi-nazi," doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore, an example of how rhetoric spreads when unchallenged by coarsened cultural norms.

Robin Morgan

At least this most recent incident has turned a spotlight back on the vile, damaging statements Limbaugh has been promulgating for years. His sponsors are dropping him; his stations have begun to follow suit. VoteVets, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, released a statement by female vets, including Katherine Scheirman, former chief of medical operations in the U.S. Air Forces, demanding that the American Forces Network drop Limbaugh from its programming.

Gloria Steinem

They state, "Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other -- women and men. There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect."

That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh's program, has defended his recent comments.

If Clear Channel won't clean up its airways, then surely it's time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh's show in fact using their licenses "in the public interest?"

Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh's radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.

The FCC takes such complaints into consideration when stations file for license renewal. For local listeners near a station that carries Limbaugh's show, there is plenty of evidence to bring to the FCC that their station isn't carrying out its public interest obligation. Complaints can be registered under the broadcast category of the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

This isn't political. While we disagree with Limbaugh's politics, what's at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he's really "doing humor" or "entertainment." He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people's airways.

It's time for the public to take back our broadcast resources. Limbaugh has had decades to fix his show. Now it's up to us.