Repubs and the Ind. Mandate: Politics (of all) as Usual

whygohome

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... z1yBhgerS0

It's a long read--7.5 pages in Word--so I did not copy and paste.
Feel free to copy and paste highlights though. Here is my favorite part,one that essentially debunks any argument that humanity can ever form an intelligent society...

"Jonathan Haidt, a professor of psychology at New York University’s business school, argues in a new book, “The Righteous Mind,” that to understand human beings, and their politics, you need to understand that we are descended from ancestors who would not have survived if they hadn’t been very good at belonging to groups. He writes that “our minds contain a variety of mental mechanisms that make us adept at promoting our group’s interests, in competition with other groups. We are not saints, but we are sometimes good team players.”
One of those mechanisms is figuring out how to believe what the group believes. Haidt sees the role that reason plays as akin to the job of the White House press secretary. He writes, “No matter how bad the policy, the secretary will find some way to praise or defend it. Sometimes you’ll hear an awkward pause as the secretary searches for the right words, but what you’ll never hear is: ‘Hey, that’s a great point! Maybe we should rethink this policy.’ Press secretaries can’t say that because they have no power to make or revise policy. They’re told what the policy is, and their job is to find evidence and arguments that will justify the policy to the public.” For that reason, Haidt told me, “once group loyalties are engaged, you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments. Thinking is mostly just rationalization, mostly just a search for supporting evidence.”
Psychologists have a term for this: “motivated reasoning,” which Dan Kahan, a professor of law and psychology at Yale, defines as “when a person is conforming their assessments of information to some interest or goal that is independent of accuracy”—an interest or goal such as remaining a well-regarded member of his political party, or winning the next election, or even just winning an argument. "

gimmesometruth27

it is funny to me how republicans supported the individual mandate before the law passed. it was their idea, now it is allegedly unconstitutional....

:roll:

can't let the black guy get any credit for anything...

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is funny to me how republicans supported the individual mandate before the law passed. it was their idea, now it is allegedly unconstitutional....

:roll:

can't let the black guy get any credit for anything...

Why are libs so obsessed with color? Was that a necessary part of your opinion? It couldn't just be - let the liberal/democrat guy...?

Kind of funny which side is obsessed with race.

usamamasan1

when people make comments like that about color you can immediately dismiss anything they say. obscure the real issue by calling racist.

inmytree

it is funny to me how republicans supported the individual mandate before the law passed. it was their idea, now it is allegedly unconstitutional....

:corn:

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

it is funny to me how republicans supported the individual mandate before the law passed. it was their idea, now it is allegedly unconstitutional....

:corn:

I see what you did there.

How is it funny/a surprise to anyone that political parties/members switch positions?

The famous quote, "I was for it before I was against it" comes to mind.

Pretty cool article though. I was expecting some sort of hit piece and I didn't get that from it at all. Thanks

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is funny to me how republicans supported the individual mandate before the law passed. it was their idea, now it is allegedly unconstitutional....

:roll:

can't let the black guy get any credit for anything...

Why are libs so obsessed with color? Was that a necessary part of your opinion? It couldn't just be - let the liberal/democrat guy...?

Kind of funny which side is obsessed with race.

what is the legitimate reason to blanketly oppose everything obama has tried to do? republicans supported this, it was their idea. what is the difference aside from party? race maybe?

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what is the legitimate reason to blanketly oppose everything obama has tried to do? republicans supported this, it was their idea. what is the difference aside from party? race maybe?

Political race, yes.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what is the legitimate reason to blanketly oppose everything obama has tried to do? republicans supported this, it was their idea. what is the difference aside from party? race maybe?

Political race, yes.

not political race. since day 1 they have reneged on things they supported because obama supported them.

it as if they are sitting back and smiling saying, "yes you get to hold the white house for a term, but we, the old angry white men promise you right now that you will get nothing done, boy."

their actions and their words have made that quite clear.

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what is the legitimate reason to blanketly oppose everything obama has tried to do? republicans supported this, it was their idea. what is the difference aside from party? race maybe?

Political race, yes.

not political race. since day 1 they have reneged on things they supported because obama supported them.

it as if they are sitting back and smiling saying, "yes you get to hold the white house for a term, but we, the old angry white men promise you right now that you will get nothing done, boy."

their actions and their words have made that quite clear.

This is border-line birther and swift boat accusation territory. Think about it. You are suggesting that his race is why the republicans banded together?

The republicans were in full-scale freakout mode after 2008. They got clobbered and lost states that they never ever lose. The dems had all the momentum.

Now which of the above two scenarios would cause the GOP to form a well-devised strategy to limit Obama's success? Because he is a black dude? Or because they realized that their power was eroding and without fighting back they were in serious danger of becoming a national party minority?

josevolution

I would def say hi's color has alot to do with the way the GOP has behaved since day 1 ......and the Teaparty

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is funny to me how republicans supported the individual mandate before the law passed. it was their idea, now it is allegedly unconstitutional....

:roll:

can't let the black guy get any credit for anything...

Why are libs so obsessed with color? Was that a necessary part of your opinion? It couldn't just be - let the liberal/democrat guy...?

Kind of funny which side is obsessed with race.

what is the legitimate reason to blanketly oppose everything obama has tried to do? republicans supported this, it was their idea. what is the difference aside from party? race maybe?

You honestly believe that the republicans in the senate and house oppose Obama's policies based on his skin color? it has nothing to do with finding a piece in a giant bill they feel can undo it? But I suppose they wouldn't be looking for that if he was white...it isn't like they were petty with the last democratic president at all

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

This is border-line birther and swift boat accusation territory. Think about it. You are suggesting that his race is why the republicans banded together?

The republicans were in full-scale freakout mode after 2008. They got clobbered and lost states that they never ever lose. The dems had all the momentum.

Now which of the above two scenarios would cause the GOP to form a well-devised strategy to limit Obama's success? Because he is a black dude? Or because they realized that their power was eroding and without fighting back they were in serious danger of becoming a national party minority?

his race is the reason he was called kenyan. his race is the reason he is called a socialist. his race is why they said he is going to repeal the second amendment, his race is why he is called a muslim. his race is why they say he is "redistributing wealth". his race is the basis for all of the rhetoric on fox news and right wing radio. his race is why jan brewer wagged her finger in the man's face at the airport. his race is why the office of the presidency has no respect anymore. his race is why joe wilson stood up and yelled "you lie" during the state of the union. his race is the basis for a lot of the opposition, because some of these ideas, republican ideas, are good ideas. and why would they not support their own good ideas? because they want to stall, get the black guy out, then pass them later.

EdsonNascimento

josevolution wrote:

I would def say hi's color has alot to do with the way the GOP has behaved since day 1 ......and the Teaparty

In my experience folks foist on others the way THEY would act themselves. Cynicism is one thing. Making insane accusations usually comes from within.

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

You honestly believe that the republicans in the senate and house oppose Obama's policies based on his skin color? it has nothing to do with finding a piece in a giant bill they feel can undo it? But I suppose they wouldn't be looking for that if he was white...it isn't like they were petty with the last democratic president at all

yes. race is a huge reason for all of that opposition, and white people will never acknowledge it. and they are way more petty with obama than they ever were with clinton. at least clinton got some of his agenda passed and some of his appointees and judges in place...

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

his race is the reason he was called kenyan. his race is the reason he is called a socialist. his race is why they said he is going to repeal the second amendment, his race is why he is called a muslim. his race is why they say he is "redistributing wealth". his race is the basis for all of the rhetoric on fox news and right wing radio. his race is why jan brewer wagged her finger in the man's face at the airport. his race is why the office of the presidency has no respect anymore. his race is why joe wilson stood up and yelled "you lie" during the state of the union. his race is the basis for a lot of the opposition, because some of these ideas, republican ideas, are good ideas. and why would they not support their own good ideas? because they want to stall, get the black guy out, then pass them later.

Well, it seems you are pretty well committed to this theory.

I chalk it up as a Trump-card (pun intended) to deflect and explain failed policy.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

You honestly believe that the republicans in the senate and house oppose Obama's policies based on his skin color? it has nothing to do with finding a piece in a giant bill they feel can undo it? But I suppose they wouldn't be looking for that if he was white...it isn't like they were petty with the last democratic president at all

yes. race is a huge reason for all of that opposition, and white people will never acknowledge it. and they are way more petty with obama than they ever were with clinton. at least clinton got some of his agenda passed and some of his appointees and judges in place...

So what is 95% of one race voting for one particular person in an election?

mikepegg44

josevolution wrote:

I would def say hi's color has alot to do with the way the GOP has behaved since day 1 ......and the Teaparty

republicans hate minorities...just ask all the democrats they will tell you.

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

it is funny to me how republicans supported the individual mandate before the law passed. it was their idea, now it is allegedly unconstitutional....

:corn:

I see what you did there.

How is it funny/a surprise to anyone that political parties/members switch positions?

The famous quote, "I was for it before I was against it" comes to mind.

Pretty cool article though. I was expecting some sort of hit piece and I didn't get that from it at all. Thanks

good eye, Mike...

I do find it interesting that folks that are now against the mandate won't address the fact that repubs were the ones who created the idea...

josevolution

EdsonNascimento wrote:

josevolution wrote:

I would def say hi's color has alot to do with the way the GOP has behaved since day 1 ......and the Teaparty

In my experience folks foist on others the way THEY would act themselves. Cynicism is one thing. Making insane accusations usually comes from within.

You can feel anyway you wan't to , to me it has allways felt like that from day 1 he has been treated like a 2nd hand citizen ......You tell me has be been treated like anyother previous president ....

inmytree

anytime race is mentioned as a possible factor, those who don't support O-bama act like the have sand in
their v-jj...

for those who think that race as absolutely no factor in the blanket resistance to O-bama's agenda...how can you be 100% sure...?