Posted on 12/15/2014 9:31:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal “personhood.”
This loathing is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in the 1970s, I worked for a Republican, Fred Lippitt, the senate minority leader in Rhode Island, and I loved him. He was a brand of Republican now extinct—a “moderate” who was fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation. Had he been closer to my age, I could have contemplated marrying someone like Fred. Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me. And I’m not alone. Back in 1960, only 5 percent of Republicans and 4 percent of Democrats said they’d be “displeased” if their child married someone from the opposite party. Today? Forty-nine percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats would be pissed.
According to a recent study by Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar and Princeton researcher Sean Westwood, such polarization has increased dramatically in recent years.
What’s noteworthy is how entrenched this mutual animus is. It’s fine for me to use the word “hate” when referring to Republicans and for them to use the same word about me, but you would never use the word “hate” when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians.
And now party identification and hatred shape a whole host of non-political decisions. Iyengar and Westwood asked participants in their study to review the resumés of graduating high school seniors to decide which ones should receive scholarships. Some resumés had cues about party affiliation (say, member of the Young Republicans Club) and some about racial identity (also through extracurricular activities, or via a stereotypical name). Race mattered, but not nearly as much as partisanship. An overwhelming 80 percent of partisans chose the student of their own party. And this held true even if the candidate from the opposite party had better credentials.
How did we come to this pass? Obviously, my tendency is to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats, which may seem biased. But history and psychological research bear me out.
Let’s start with the history. This isn’t like a fight between siblings, where the parent says, “It doesn’t matter who started it.” Yes, it does.
A brief review of Republican rhetoric and strategies since the 1980s shows an escalation of determined vilification (which has been amplified relentlessly on Fox News since 1996). From Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an “effete corps of impudent snobs”; to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech; to the GOP’s endless campaign to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”), the Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.
Why does this work? A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics. What are they? Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure. How do these qualities influence political thinking?
According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality. These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance. The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes. Which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you—whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats. And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats.
So now we hate them back. And for good reason. Which is too bad. I miss the Fred Lippitts of yore and the civilized discourse and political accomplishments they made possible. And so do millions of totally fed-up Americans.
Have they no toothbrushes in campustown?
What an ugly, hate-filled bigot.
Yeah, except that Eastern Establishment Leftists like Lippitt were not "fiscal Conservatives." That's another leftist media lie. Most of them were shameful spendthrifts that often made their Democrat counterparts blush. Just take a look at that paragon of fiscal rectitude, Nelson Rockefeller. No, honey, what you liked were worthless, gutless, left-wing RINOs who were a part of the powerless minority (and wished to keep it powerless) who went along to get along with their Democrat-leftist massas, all the while keeping their blue-blooded loafers on the necks of those that wished to overthrow their moonbat bipartisan cabal that championed the decay of the nation. The rest of your vomitus drivel isn't worth the time of day responding to.
Junior colleges are a pretty good idea and a much better value. After that your kid will have a better idea of future plans anyway.
Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/10/together-i-shall-ride-you-to-victory.html
Hey Suzy,
Shut up and make me a sammich, beyotch.
L
Sodomy was kept out of the mainstream in the 1980’s.
It was well-hidden from the general public; at most it was alluded to with some innuendo, as it had been for decades.
Prior to that, of course, it was viewed as an abomination.
In the 80’s, a sodomite coworker of mine told me there was going to be wide public acceptance of the practice. I told him no way, he said very confidently yes. He belonged to a sodomite activist group.
Obviously, the plans were being made, etc. What I didn’t know until a few short years ago - I wonder if he knew or not - was that the plans were the plans of - our old buddies - the financial elites of this country and the UK/Europe.
Regardless of whether he had that info or not, this person was obviously clued in that there were larger forces at work, it was not just a “movement” of sodomites themselves, and these forces made the future acceptance a fait accompli.
So this silly minion writer of this article is making up her own history. Her sodomites were viewed as vile by the mainstream up until only several short decades ago.
Liberals know this, of course, but they sit there with a straight face and lie about it.
I’m fine with the whole thing because God will surely repay them as they deserve for hating Jesus Christ and rejecting him as Lord and Savior.
I miss Iowahawk’s commentary these days.
And he’s moved to Texas!
I’m sure I saw that the first time, but it certainly does send up leftist RINO snobs like “Freddie” Lippitt (whom is a member of, one of the “premier” families of Rhode Island and Plymouth Plantations. Ah, the decayed and debauched aristocracy, what would we do without them ?).
You gonna put her on your Christmas Card list ?
The Republican Party of today is the Democrat Party of yesterday.
The Democrat Party of today is the Socialist Party of yesterday. They strive to be Communists, but they don’t have the balls to try and lock up an Armed Populace.
Hater be hatin
Now I am confused, which eye do I address in polite talk with this walleye?
Probably the one that moves.
Look at the hands. That is a most definitely a guy.
What she really hate is freedom. If you really believe in something, invest your time, energy and money into it. She’s just pissed that others aren’t willing to put their money into things she believe in
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.