The Trouble With The Entire World Is A Guy Named Ron

Last two comments sound advice. My optimism has been restored a bit. Thanks a lot - now I have to actually go out and DO something.

iwarrior, I agree with you. We need to bring in people who have opted out. Right now, the Democratic Party doesn't represent any of us. It represents Yuppies with portfolios. And yes, too many "liberals" are elitists, smug intellectuals looking down on the unwashed. Making people feel inferior just alienates them and drives them into a camp that pretends to be on their side (we know what that is). I don't think supporting people who aren't working is the answer, but instead providing everyone with the opportunity for an education, creating a social support system for people trying to better their lives, and most of all, paying people a wage that they can support their familes with no matter what they do for a living. And everyone should be able to afford to retire when they are too old or disabled to work. Our society can afford to do that, but we need the legislators who support those goals.

The Senate is a tougher nut than the House because Senators are elected statewide, but we can support local House candidates that will work for us not against us. DOWN WITH NAFTA!

I read that the solution is not to concentrate on the presidency, that's a lost cause. Focus on electing progressive/populists into Congress if we want change. And I agree with that. That's where the laws and how money is spent comes from. We need to throw out the DLC, they're almost as destructive as the Republicans for working Americans. And I think a big start is working for publicly financed campaigns. It's the only way to level the playing field.

"iwarrior

I don't have a degree and am supposed to be racist, sexist, and homophobic among other things.

Actually, you're not supposed to be any of those things, even if you don't have a degree.

Your other insinuations can be dismissed just as easily.

If I get the rug pulled out from under me, it's my fault.

Not necessarily. Again, a false insinuation.

I deserve it.

You don't whine well. Besides, Conservatives don't need pity. Conservatives need a 12-step program, or maybe a psychiatrist specializing in cult deprogramming for the tougher cases."

I was being sarcastic. It's just that many of these conservatives are disenfranchised also, whether they know it or not. I don't think we should be kicking them around. They need to be on our side. It's than the slander that conservatives commit against inner city blacks.

I mean, don't the conservatives largely already think that liberals are all a bunch of elitist snobs. The left is populist, the right really isn't although they try to come off that way.

And are the wealthy folks who support The Right stupid? I don't think so. I think they're just selfish.

Damn, the "hillbillies" and "rednecks" need representation too don't they? They have nothing to gain from the people they might support. They are trash to them. We can't afford to view them the same way. We can't afford to sit on a platform and look our noses down on them.

Yes they need pity as well as deprogramming. But you're not going to win their hearts and minds by kicking them in the stomach.

I consider myself a liberal. I pretty much always have.

I work in a blue-collar job.

I did not finish college.

I have never been well-off. My father was laid off from his job on the P&LE railroad when I 6 or 7 (1982). He and all his co-workers were replaced by younger, cheaper employees. He struggled as a security guard and as a limo driver for many years afterwards. My mother has worked mainly in low-paying clerical jobs. Neither can afford to retire.

I apologize for flying off the handle here. I just always detect the slight scent of classism whenever these types of discussion come up. Some liberals act as if they are missionaries shaking their heads at "savages".

I mean, I get mad at those types of people also. I'm not saying that we should take their crap. But unless "Ron" is loaded, he's likely getting the shaft also. He's an ordinary person and needs to be on our team.

The book points out that we all have aspects of all the preferences in us and can swing in any direction, it's just what is more comfortable for us in our interpreting and decision making behaviors.

Actually there is a good test online, from the book "Please Understand Me" by Kiersey & Bates. The link below takes you straight to it. And includes good explanations of the results and the meanings of the personality preferences. About 75% of the population prefers sensory rather than intuitive ways of interpreting information.

http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/difference.html

"Ns" What Jung called "iNtuitives". Keirsey liken them to "Martians." Abstract. Introspective. Those who look *primarily* through their *own* "minds eye."
"Ss" What Jung calling the aspect "Sensing" Keirsey liken them to "Earthlings" Concrete. Observant. Those who look *primarily* at the world by their "percepts", using what's out there.

"NTs" Myers called them "iNtuitive Thinkers" Keirsey calls them "Rationals".
"NFs" Myers called them "iNtuitive Feeler" Keirsey calls them "Idealists".

I enjoyed taking the test, and reading the book. It gave me insight into those around me, and understanding of where they are coming from. What is interesting is that the only people I have met who dislike this test are the ISTJs.

It's been fun reading through the threads so far. I wrote the piece because I thought it was time we all had a bit of a chuckle. We can be such a serious lot . . us liberals. And I have to admit, the writing was cathartic . Is that selfish?

I submit that there's a little bit of Ron in all of us. How else could we rationalize the insane compromises we make every day? Every time we pump gas, every time we have a child, every time we throw away our vote to "the lesser of two evils" - the list is endless and all too familiar. 1000 years from now when the last few humans huddle around the pathetic fire of the last burning drop of oil and wonder "What next?" - When they begin the process of reconstructing an alphabet, a language, a concept of history they will unearth from the trash a soot-covered statue of Ron and it will again explode in their faces. We are in a race to the bottom and the lowest common denominator is the anchor dragging us down. And no, I don't have an answer either. Pray for Peace.

John S. Mill said not all stupid people are conservatives, but all conservatives are stupid. He was, of course, correct.

The trouble with the entire World is the growing human population and its expanding economy on this planet of used up resources and ecocidal pollution.

not sure there is a "solution" to be offered in this case. not every piece of writing has to offer solutions. especially when the "problem" is that inherently human trait: to choose to be willfully ignorant and possess no concept of what it means to simultaneously function as an individual AND as a cooperative member of society. Weitzel was using his tools and gifts - writing - to voice humor about and frustration with a mentality that i know i encounter far too often in my daily life. absolutely nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing "elitist" about it.

to compare this piece to the anger-fueled, holier-than-thou crap spewed by hardcore right-wing pundits is woefully lazy.

Let's confuse Ron even further.
Link to the following article.
http://amnation.com/vfr/archives/001679.html

Dacaruso: Good point about a collective loss of the big picture (spiritual evolution) to the gross materialism of our times. Walter-Map, excellent point on the willful forfeiture of responsibility to an authority figure; and valid point from Huckleberry on the tendency to form groups that shut out those who seem different. Dr. No-on, thank you for relating points presented in John Dean' s important book, "Conservatives without Conscience." LOTS of thoughtful messages posted today.

Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" is a very good examination of the psychology of right-wing followers like Ron. The book is available for free online, and it is a layman-friendly look at decades of psychological surveys and other empirical research. Many of the things that Ron comes up with are explained in this book.

www.theauthoritarians.com

Altemeyer's research was used by John Dean for his recent book "Conservatives without Conscience".

Included in Chapter 3 of "The Authoritarians" is a description of how right-wing authoritarians "drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly-compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, profound ethnocentrism, and -- to top it all off -- a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic." But Altemeyer is not simply casting aspersions based on anecdotal impressions. He has measured this in carefully-balanced surveys over many years, and he explains how (and to some degree why) these qualities relate to each other.

Altemeyer looks at both authoritarian followers AND authoritarian leaders, including the tiny yet destructive minority of people who both right-wing authoritarians and highly social-dominant personalities. It is the relationship between these psychopathic leaders and the willing followers that causes significant political trouble.

Some of what Altemeyer reports squares with Lakoff's model, but Lakoff makes some claims for which there appears to be little or no evidence, and Lakoff can be a bit simplistic.

Altemeyer explains a lot, and I recommend his book to everyone, including conservatives concerned about where Movement Conservatism has been taking them.

To gimmeshelter, kivals and others who will say more or less the same about the article, I can only say that I agree with you. While it was nice to read something a bit funny because it is so true, it does get us nowhere.
It makes me begin to question myself again for the umpteenth time: how can such people actually think the way Ron does? I'm happy to read that a scientific study funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation has looked into this and shown what I had already supposed, but it does nothing to offer a solution. I would guess the study wasn't carried out to find a solution anyway, but merely to look into the underlying traits of such temperaments. And I also suppose Mr. Weitzel wasn't writing the article with that in mind either. I think he simply wanted to write something lighthearted and amusing.
But those questions just don't go away for me. How can such ignorance be so widespread in our so called "advanced" nation? Is it television, education, maybe religion? My guess is that those would be good places to start to find out why and how people like Ron are walking around.
I know there always has been and always will be such people like Ron in this world, but from what I've seen in my travels in life, the USA seems to have an unusually high number of such ignorant people.

"Man is foreign to himself. This is the cause of blind self-destruction."
Karl Marx called in alienation, which he considered the original sin of capitalistic mode of production; the sin of transforming labor as emanation of man's natural creativity into labor as commodity, labor as wage slavery. Now, I challenge all open-minded to come to terms with the crimes perpetrated in the name of Karl Marx and start where Socialist and Communist movements left.

This "Ron" is a carbon-copy of many other such people in the US. They have taken a stand in their mind about good vs evil, and have become through this firmly convinced that their belief systems are valid. They constantly project their own evils to people of other viewpoints, and have great fear of releasing control. Unfortunately, their belief systems prevent them from being open to truth, or more subtle thinking. The biggest problem today is this attitude that, "I alone am right." There is however only one truth in the universe, and the evolutionary goal of all human life is to gradually becoming aware of it, and "know oneself". This requires the constant questioning of one's assumptions, which is extremely difficult for "conservatives" as well as most "liberals" to do. The world is unfortunately very stuck in materialistic thinking and has lost the bigger picture. Human beings have lost touch with Nature, and by that, their own true nature. Man is foreign to himself. This is the cause of blind self-destruction.

The Rons of the world do exist, but it does no good whatsoever to point out how ill-informed, self-satisfied or dumb they are. The Right is expert at attacking liberals for being "elitist" and this kind of approach gives that silly line of argument legs. In my experience, when you directly question someone's intelligence in a debate, especially if the opponent is not a public figure, you risk alienating half your audience. Taking the generic route, attacking "Ron" or "Joe" or "Archie", isn't likely to yield much else.

Some liberals take pleasure in mocking GWB for being an *apparent* dimwit, even though a great many Americans who are otherwise not pro-Bush actually find this type of ridicule distasteful.

We should remember that GWB isn't unpopular because of his sub-par intellect, he's unpopular because his wars are catastrophic failures.

On the morning of 9/11, while reading a story to kids, W proved beyond any reasonable doubts that he is even more idiotic than he looks.
Nonetheless, on 9/12 he was supported by 90% of Americans, who display all qualities of RON. So, RON belongs not only to both parties but to independents as well. So, mr. weitzel not only misleed but he leeds to the wrong direction.

He said indirectly, "Support Democrats and your life will be good ever after!" What a lie!

I don't like it. Weitzel used Limbaugh's favorite technique of providing an example of someone on the other side who clearly is clueless. That gets us nowhere.

OMG... sad but so true.

The 28% er's! I have one on my block and I will bang my head on the cement before I ever again try to talk with him again, I have attempted for about 15 years and last fall I went door to door for Tammy Duckworth and the republicans were the nasty'ist people, mean and rude they even stool signs form people yards, they will do anything to protect their so called way of life! (they tell you).They even ran down a dog because he was a "blue dog" according to the neighbors. They think its funny. Their GOD tells them to do it, they are sick puppy's.

mr. weitzel,
ron is the perfect example of the strict father model as described by the cognitive scientist/linguist george lakoff. take a look at his work 'moral politics', 'don't think like an elephant', or 'thinking points'. 'ron' can be talked to....but...it is tough. i have tried and failed many times. i will keep trying.

A troubling a part of "the world" for me was demonstrated by the number of the US population who supported the invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003.

"...May 1 Gallup poll for CNN and USA Today, 79 percent of Americans said the war with Iraq was justified even without conclusive evidence of the illegal weapons., ...An April Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 72 percent supported the war even without a finding of chemical or biological weapons...."

~72% of the population supported the war. Numbers today, ~65% oppose the war (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

The 72% could not all be "RONs". There are not that many "RONs" in the population. So, what could possibly create such a swing in opinion? Perhaps personality types? I'm just thinking out loud. 75% of the population are SJs. What makes the issue of people doing as they are told so compelling? What is in a personality type? ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFJ, ISFJ. Not terribly interested in "intellectual gymnastics", not interested in abstractions. Linear thinking abounds. They sense their surrounding and make judgments from their sensations. Intuition and introspection are tertiary. But that doesn't make these folks dumb or mean or even conservative.

Anyway, I would like to think the author's work is a bit tongue in cheek. Certainly not all conservatives are RONs and not all RONs see themselves as conservatives.

For those interested, an online link to a PDF version of the article (for personal use) can be found through a simple title search for the following: "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition"

I listed the article below for those who might be near the stacks.

Psychological Bulletin
2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339-375

Jost, J.T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.W., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.
--------

For more on personality type Google, Myers-Briggs. And for those interested in finding out their own Myers-Briggs personality type, I would suggest going to the career center at your local community college and ask for test times and locations. Alternatively, you can seek out a counselor licensed to administer the test. The free online tests are problematic. Best of luck.

Take care,
Rob

When you meet someone that you then decide is 'from a group', then you end talking to that 'group' instead of to that indivdual. The person who can say, 'that is the way people like you always think', isn't talking to you but to a 'them', as if you are representative of that whole group somehow. Be it Rons or a few supposed hippie types (in one person's eyes), when you speak to one person but in your mind, you are speaking to that group, that type, that race, that religion etc. don't be shocked that that one person doesn't hear you what you say because you weren't speaking to that individual anyway. The reverse is true as well, call yourself a 'liberal' and Ron stops listening to you because to him, liberals are wrong, so anything you say seems like it should be wrong, even if it isn't. That is us... but whose listening.

Somewhere near the top of this thread someone said that on September 12 90% of Americans supported Bush. I know that was an off-the-cuff remark not based on any research, but it needs to be examined. This illusion was manufactured or the appearence sustained that we were all behind W by the sold out corporate media, the most effective propoganda machine ever to exist. I'm not buying it.

Since before the invasion I've been writing letters to my local paper exposing the illogic, the lies, and the impossibility of the promises of the Bushies and Repugs. When I find myself in public places - in ques, waiting rooms, etc., it is not I, but other ordinary citzens that start a discussion about the failings of our current leadership. Having had my say in print I usually just listen and I have been encouraged to hear that many people don't buy the crap, have never bought the crap, and never will. And I don't live in a metropolis or traditionally liberal area of the country. You could probably not create a more conservative area than my portion of the rust belt.

We spend too much time worrying about the Ron's of this world. They do not represent the majority or the mainstream any more than we progressives do. I'll qualify that though by saying that the ranks of the Ron's are growing because real reporting on all the realities of this world - at least here in America - is tightly controlled to maintain the feel-good, we're the best, don't rock the boat, wave-the-flag Americanism.

I come to Common Dreams not so much for the opinion but for the news that I know I won't see on my TV set or read in my newspaper. I do not accept this news unconditionally, but correlate it with other real knowledge. The Ron's aren't the problem. The problem is the Rupert Murdoch's, the NBC's, ABC's, CBS's, and the Clear Channel's.

Ron will repeat anything that someone in (an apparent position of) authority tells him to.

I don't believe that the article was intended to be mean spirited. It didn't seem so to me at least.

I know many liberals and progressives that have no contact whatsoever with people of this sort. Not necessarily intentionally, they simply travel in different circles.
It is very important for us to understand the complexities of this problem before we jerk our knees.

Pardon me if I lapse into a true story.

I was born into an ultra-conservative Evangelical family, my father being a preacher and all. He learned to read in Bible college, because the one-room schoolhouse he was "educated" in (in the 1950's) apparently couldn't spare much time on its 18th student.

He is like most of the "Rons" you will meet; an honorable and level headed man with some amazing skills, but easily intimidated by "thinkers"

I was raised in this hillbilly sub-culture, thinking it was the true culture. However my public education exposed me to holes in this theory. I was highly intelligent and a voracious reader, with an incredible memory. So naturally the public school system placed me in repetitive remedial classes with comparative retards.

Our history curriculum over 12 years included the basics; Washington & the American Revolution, Columbus, & Plymouth Rock. Oh, we studied ancient Greece for a few weeks in 6th grade, and an intensive course on the finding & founding of our state by explorers, missionaries and furtrappers. But God help us if we ever raised a question about viet-nam or even worse: Watergate. That could get a guy in serious trouble.

Our holy roller, revival meetin' counter-culture was only a stone's throw from another developing counter-culture. After the war was over in the early seventies the hippies put down their signs, parked the minibus & settled down in droves here in the outland.

We were warned to stay away from these people because they practiced witchcraft and often one could see bonfires burning in the woods at night where they were reportedly practicing their dark orgiastic rituals.

As I grew up and met some of these people, I found them to be curiously happy, almost serene. And boy, did that appeal to me. I found them to be intelligent, sagacious and very intriguing.

So naturally I made every attempt to connect with them. I wanted to be like them. I wanted to be a part of them. But apparently they had been warned about us too. I found that their culture was a rock solid fortress with no entrance for outsiders. I was met with staunch politeness and bemused scorn.

Over time I have seen that these people who preach tolerance and diversity are without exception, just as hypocritical as the bible thumpers. They are just as homogenous, perhaps more. They dress alike, eat alike, think alike and insist we all do the same in order to be "progressive". They are just elitist snobs. They befriend only people like themselves. At least evangelicals try to reach out to others and bring people into their group. And they do so out of genuine love and concern for humanity. Perhaps they are misguided and ignorant, but at least they show a little compassion to outsiders.

Maybe if they had put down the bong, maybe if they had run for school board, maybe if they had weeded out the neo-nazi propaganda our public libraries are full of, maybe if they had taken their fancy ivy-league ivory tower degrees and taught a few courses in the schools instead of holing up in their communes, then perhaps the Rons of this world would be better thinkers. It is true that stupidity is willful ignorance. But honest ignorance cannot be condemned, because most people have never had access to the truth.

If religion truly is the opiate of the masses then we progressives should have at least as much pity and compassion for them as we do for junkies.

I have a few "Rons" in my life, and have given up trying to talk to them. The door to their mind is locked, and the conservative media (which is most of it) has the key. One of them has made a few really bad economic decisions based on the idea that Bush will make the economy stronger, and lost more money than I have seen in my whole life. He does not even remember now that I warned him not to do them. If his own painful experience can't teach him, what can I do? I'm stumped.

Ron is obviously brainwashed, although a light rinse would probably have been sufficient. Even worse, it's been Scotchgarded, and is impervious to contamination by any idea which conflicts with his prejudices.

Democracy, which has grown up in the last three hundred years, represents, with its emphasis upon individual responsibility and individual actions, the most difficult societal system, requiring a definite human maturity.

Totalitarianism and especially fascism can in many ways be regarded as an escape from this difficulty into the irresponsibility of following a leader who deprives the people of their liberty and their maturity but promises them 'security' and 'economic progress'. To that end, personal immaturity and self-gratification are therefore celebrated and promoted by corporate America in particular, and in U.S. culture in general, because it prepares the electorate to give up its responsibility to maintain democracy in favor of totalitarian leadership.

Ron will make a rather mediocre fascist. In the meantime, he makes an excellent slave.

dacaruso, good for you! And I'm with you, kivals and poet. Besides, anyone who thinks conservatives are all dumb might try debating Karl Rove. I'm not so sure George W. Bush is so much dumb as simply one of the most mentally lazy individuals on this planet (there is a difference). As for the glazed eyes after the towers went down, clearly he was in shock and didn't know what to do next. I suspected he knew more about that than has been said, but who knows. Read Bush on the Couch and get a clue into his psychology.

If we don't stop being divisive, fighting over dimishing assets (first oil, then water), this planet will become unihabitable for human existence, and we will drag many animal species down with us. The planet will go on without us (or most of us) and be better off for it. In time it will recover, it always does. I'm just sad to leave such an unnecessary legacy to our young. Go watch Soylent Green.

When we try the politicians who have committed crimes against humanity, and there are hundreds of them, shall we also try the Rons who with immense mean-mindedness put them into office and (through vote fraud) re-elected them? There may be too many of them to try them all, but all those who have sung the praises of the Bush administration need to face justice. So far, they have committed their crimes and gotten away with it, denouncing the anti-war crowd as traitors. It's time to fight back with war crime trials. Who will help me establish a people's court? We already know the authorities will not bring charges against themselves.

I'm with Kivals on this one--weitzel may find "Ron" disgusting, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Also W';s intelligence or lack therof is irrelevent as were Clinton, Poppy Bush, or Reagan's--the real culprit are teh handlers who manmipulate them like so much silly putty and the elextorate who blithely swllow whatever they are told without questioning it.

Look, all I know is that on the odd occasion that I have tried to relate true facts to someone on the Right - and I do know a few Rons - they immediately start yelling. As in, immediately. Also, name calling: unpatriotic, unAmerican, stupid, you get the idea. And they spew Bush/Cheney lies verbatim. The more you reason, the more facts you show them, the louder they yell. Because I guess the loudest person wins.

M. Scott Peck wrote book called People of the Lie. In it he defined evil as "willful ignorance." It's a sobering and frightening thought that so many Americans, and especially the two people sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office and at the Vice President's desk, so clearly illustrate Peck's point. Peck says this is what happens when people live out of fear.

Referring to the aforementioned Study would be good about now.

observer,

Crimes perpetrated in the name of Karl Marx remind me of crimes perpetrated in the name of Jesus Christ. Good ideas for social organization, particularly those with a utopian flavor, sometimes overexcite their proponents to the point that they ignore all other considerations in trying to implement their versions of such good ideas (or what they sincerely believe to be good ideas).

Maybe, though I am not too optimistic at the moment, we humans will learn to mix our Epicuris (everything in moderation) with our Marxism or religious beliefs (or market fundamentalist beliefs like those of the Bush gang) before we have gone beyond the point of no return.

dacaruso,

hear! hear!

"Ron" is the typical American tourist whom we dread. Keep him and his ilk home please. He does not represent your country in the light that you would have it shown.

But then again, in his tight circular, he is very representive of the America the rest of the world knows very well.

Social democracies are a very good thing. You should think about it before your country goes further right than it is now.

iwarrior

I don't have a degree and am supposed to be racist, sexist, and homophobic among other things.

Actually, you're not supposed to be any of those things, even if you don't have a degree.

Your other insinuations can be dismissed just as easily.

If I get the rug pulled out from under me, it's my fault.

Not necessarily. Again, a false insinuation.

I deserve it.

You don't whine well. Besides, Conservatives don't need pity. Conservatives need a 12-step program, or maybe a psychiatrist specializing in cult deprogramming for the tougher cases.

I'm sorry. I was wrong.

Yep they're all stupid. Dumb trailer trash. Stupid Hoosiers. Let's all sit up in our roosts and throw things at them. People on the right already do that behind their backs.

Then again I'm just a moronic, metalhead blue-collar Polack. I probably shouldn't be posting here. I don't have a degree and am supposed to be racist, sexist, and homophobic among other things. If I get the rug pulled out from under me, it's my fault. I deserve it.

"... how can such people actually think the way Ron does?"

There are explanations, none of them pretty. "Cognizant dissonance" doesn't quite say it.

Keep in mind that people can be trained to disregard the facts and to treat facts selectively, filtered through ingrained prejudices.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

- John Stuart Mill

"Bush's appeal is, after all, to the stupid. They, too, are inflexible - they also know that maintaining one's stupidity can become a kind of strength, provided you never change your mind."

- Norman Mailer, New York Review of Books

"To win the sympathy of the masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid lies."

- Adolf Hitler

"The study found that conservatism can be explained as a set of beliefs and behaviors that result from a psyche controlled by fear, aggression, closed-minded dogmatism, and intolerance of ambiguity, compounded by mental rigidity and decreased cognitive complexity [dumbness]."

I've been accused of the same thing due to my mostly progressive views. I'm scared of The Right. Angry at them. I don't like the lines between good and evil being blurred, at least not too much.

Oh, and I can't tell you how many ways I've been called "stupid" by conservatives.

I really don't buy that study much. I think that most people who align themselves are selfish, fearful, or are just misguided. A lot of them, poor and working conservatives, think that they may be rich someday, and will be allowed to sit with the Limbaughs and Hannitys. They don't like the left because they see socialism as a bubble burster.

Of course the study could be right about some of them. I just don't think that most conservatives are paranoid sociopathic alligators with religious fixations. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I'd like to think that most of them are just being duped.

I would agree that many people in the conservative movement are very smart, in a devious sort of way. They KNOW that the policies they champion have a negative effect on most people but don't care because those same policies benefit them. Or better yet, they WANT to hurt working and poor people, because they more they keep us down, the more money they have. And they come from money to begin with.

In fact, I sort of resent this notion that progressive are or should be morally ambiguous. Was MLK that way? Ghandi? We just have a a different and truer sense of right and wrong than regressives do.

The Right has a definite sense of right and wrong? They think it's ok to give tax cuts to the rich yet allow people to starve. They're all for protecting the lives of unborn kids yet think it's perfectly ok to carpet bomb entire nations for no good reason. That's ambiguity to me.

Btw, I have an Uncle Ron, and he's pretty right-wing. :)

Uh-oh.