In writing my last blog about Bush I was reminded of the 2004 elections and specifically why Kerry may have lost. It may have been that voters lacked confidence in his Iraq strategy; I sincerely hope those pathetic Swift boat ads didn't contribute. Kerry was painted as a "flip-flopper" largely for his change in position over the Iraq war. That's a potent tool if you can divert attention as to WHY a politician changes positions. As (hopefully) conscious people I hope we can see that discouraging changes in policy only rewards stubborn attitudes that include devotion to a failing and futile war. If the dynamic changes so much and the consequences of failing to reevalaute one's stance leads to more bloodshed and squandered resources then we should welcome so-called "flip-flopping." Sure, it can also be employed to the point where changing positions is out-right hypocrisy but all this means is that we must judge on a case-by-case basis. Changing positions on this war isn't hypocritical; it's an adaptive response to change.
I read an article last Monday in the Los Angeles Times that covered a study conducted at NYU and UCLA which attempts to explain a neurological basis for why liberals and conservatives differ. It involved subjects responding to stimuli and who identified as between very liberal or very conservative. A researcher stated that based on the results a liberal "could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas." Another said that in certain situations a conservative mind's tendency to block out distracting information was beneficial. The article also cited these differences as potential reasons by Bush and Kerry disagreed. So no position has a clear advantage over the other.
And it's true. A moderate mind is ideal but difficult to have without consciously filtering your thoughts to see if they're in accordance with moderate parameters. You may have to register to read the article which is why I avoided posting it except for a small quote. It's just something I thought was interesting because I've never considered that there could be a such a deep component to political/ideological differences.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I'm not sure what is meant by "neurological" when talking about the difference between liberal and conservative thinking. I could understand if people were conditioned to think differently, especially by their parents as young children, but I wouldn't consider that neurological, but psychological.
I would also be interested to know what the people doing those studies considered liberal and conservative, because very few people have thinking that is so clear cut.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
i dont remember the name of that christian group but i'm sure that we are thinking of the same group. the one i mentioned also had a thing for gay soldiers and would come to the funerals by the hundreds. i think they were from westboro.
hillary clinton is a flip floppper. i'm wondering what her final views would be before elections, if she makes it.