Debunking "liberals don't think"
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 10-17-2008 - 1:37pm |
I have often read the phrase "those liberals don't think, they only feel." Accompanying this phrase is often the analogy of Obama supporters as sheep who are so blinded by the light of Obama's celebrity that they fail to consider the issues carefully or logically.
First, I wanted to say that most liberals I know DO feel. They are very empathetic, compassionate people who do want to ease suffering in the world. I think that most conservatives are the same way. But liberals are not stupid. In fact, if you look at the data, higher levels of education are correlated with more liberal attitudes, although once you get into people with graduate degrees, the correlation flattens. The faculty at more prestigious universities also tend to be more liberal than the faculty at less prestigious universities. This is not to say that there are not highly intelligent people who are also conservative. My point is simply that saying liberals "don't think, they only feel" is simply a false explanation for disagreement.
Can't we all agree that two intelligent people considering the exact same information might come to different conclusions? Can't we all agree that two intelligent people carefully and logically considering the issues might still choose to vote for different presidential candidates? If we want to get over the polarization in our society, we need to stop thinking of people who disagree as being idiots.



Pages
Oops, I'm sorry for misquoting you and for getting the context wrong. When people quote other people I can get confused between the use of << >> and different colored text. You did say you agreed totally with the original statement and that he was racist, the logic of which I still don't follow. Implying that people are racist is not necessarily racist. So I appreciate your clarification on which part you agreed with and that you don't actually think he is racist. It is funny in your original comment you wrote: "Only Obama can get away with using phrases like. . ." because the thing is, I think you are right that he CAN get away with it. I could get away with those statements because I'm white and if I make observations about my own race, people accept it as ok. Obama grew up in white culture in a white family and I think he has just as much a right to make those observations as I do. So yeah, he is in a unique position as a black man to get away with phrases like that. If you just see him as black and forget about the part of him that's white, then it is more offensive. Isn't it sort of funny though that we do find these remarks offensive unless they are about your own race? Not really trying to debate it, just comment on the general phenomenon.
As for the original remark: I do interpret it a little differently. I think this remark is intended to show some empathy for the people in these towns, to say that even though their behavior would be perceived as extreme to some Americans (like me), they behave this way because they've been mistreated. I'm a psychologist, so its the kind of conclusion I might draw if I'm trying to explain people's motivations. Not saying the conclusion would be correct, and I agree that he made a mistake when he "showed his true feelings." I can certainly see how people in these towns would resent the remark: they would think, "no I believe and behave this way because this is the way to believe and behave, NOT because I've been done wrong." Also, just to clarify, and I know I may be accused of splitting hairs, the claim isn't really about them being racist, but about having antipathy toward people not like them, which is pretty general. Anti-immigrant sentiment is xenophobia, not racism, right?
>You did say you agreed totally with the original statement and that he was racist, the logic of which I still don't follow.<
No I did not say he was
<>
In this case, I don't think that matters. I don't understand the logic of how these remarks would be racist remarks just because most of the people in these towns are white. Its again like someone saying that if you say disparaging things about Barack Obama, then you must be making racist remarks because he's black. It just doesn't follow. . .
<>
Being hostile toward people who are different than you and from different nationalities I perceive as extreme.
<>
Well, as I've said, I don't think they are racist. I don't construe them that way because it makes no sense logically. So if you agree that such comments would not be racist, then why would you think Obama's comments were racist (the comments, not him)?
<>
I haven't read the remarks about his grandmother or white greed in the original context to know what he is talking about and make a call on that. But I do believe, from listening to Obama speak about race relations, that he understands negative emotions toward other races that happen whether you are white or black, and I think he is in a relatively unique position to understand those emotions from both sides. I certainly don't think his intent is to stir up divisions between people, and to me, intent counts for a lot. Intent is why I also don't buy into some of the mischaracterizations of what McCain says.
What you have said sounds fairly reasonable. You seem to be
If you were convinced that Obama attended Wright's church because it was politically adventageous, and he ignored a lot of what he said thinking the pastor to be "out of touch", would it make you respect Obama less because he wasn't attending that church for a spiritual connection, but rather for it's social position within the community?
I have discussed this with friends, and everyone is torn.
That's a good question and I'm glad you brought it up. My understanding is that he went in order to get to know the members of the congregation and be part of the community (it is a very popular church), and not necessarily because of the minister, who despite having some extremist views was not extremist ALL the time. Reverend Wright strikes me as a mixed bag--some of his speeches contain some extreme stuff, some are pretty insightful and even inspirational. If you liked the community and the more insightful sermons, you might be willing to ignore the ones that go over the top. You might even consider listening to the more extreme sermons to be "research" into the full spectrum of black american attitudes, something that might be quite important to a man who grew up outside the black community. I'm not a church-goer myself, but I know people can have lots of reasons for going to a particular church aside from the minister. I just think the idea of Obama holding racist views against whites is so unlikely given his background and heritage.
But I think the point you are implying is that no matter what the reason, people who've decided to dislike Obama will find a way to color is actions as wrong. Its part of that confirmation bias: once you've decided something, you look for or twist the evidence to confirm your belief. I see a lot of that on both sides of the political spectrum.
Its again like someone saying that if you say disparaging things about Barack Obama, then you must be making racist remarks because he's black.
Well, that is exactly what your fellow Obama supporter, tootsshors , does repeatedly. It's been pointed out many times.
And I remain equally skeptical when McCain backs George Wallace Jr, who has ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled a "hate group."
>If you were convinced that Obama attended Wright's church because it was politically adventageous, and he ignored a lot of what he said thinking the pastor to be "out of touch", would it make you respect Obama less because he wasn't attending that church for a spiritual connection, but rather for it's social position within the community?<
What a sentence.
Pages