Oh, right. Conservatives are stupid.
Posted on 01/17/2005 10:59:10 AM PST by pissant
In January 2004, I wrote a somewhat tongue-in-cheek essay called "The S Factor," in which I identified an issue that I believed had been overlooked as a strong determinant of the way people vote.
The S factor -- short for the Stupid factor -- describes people who don't understand cause and effect, can't handle more than two sides of an issue and don't seek out multiple sources of information. It was my contention that, although the S factor applies to people across the political spectrum, it went a long way to explaining the apparent popularity of President Bush in the face of facts that indicated he was neither competent nor virtuous.
One year later, is the S factor relevant? A survey found that a significant majority of Bush supporters believed that Iraq had either actual weapons of mass destruction or a major program for producing them, that Iraq was providing "substantial" support to al-Qaida and that "most experts" agreed with those conclusions. The corresponding numbers for Sen. John Kerry supporters were far less.
Let's reduce this to the personal: Shortly before the election, NASCAR celebrity Darrell Waltrip explained his support for Bush by saying that he -- Waltrip -- wasn't "an issues guy" but that he'd been impressed by Bush's handshake.
Listen up, folks: Facts, observations and reason are not the currencies in which many people deal.
We've been conditioned to think that if only we could lay down the facts as we know them and make cogent, logical arguments, others would at least understand us, paving the way to some sort of consensus. But it doesn't always work that way. Millions of people respond exclusively to simple solutions for complex problems, think non-linearly and would rather someone else do the hard work of being "the issues guy." For these Americans, it's more important to feel than to think.
That might work well in church or therapy, but it's dysfunctional in the practical world. And it's a partial answer to why Bush garnered so many votes: Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11? Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Bush has made us safer? And can you argue facts or logic with people who believe that handshakes -- or smiles, or haircuts or wives' offhand comments -- trump policies?
Is it any wonder that those who adhere to ask-no-questions, do-as-you're-told-from-on-high faiths consistently favor conservative candidates? Voltaire said, "Faith begins where reason ends." But many people don't even give reason a chance to start.
Let no one doubt the prominence of the S factor. Whether or not it's patronizing to say that doesn't matter; it exists. "Dumbing down" our arguments is not the answer. We have to slide horizontally into another universe and try to figure out a different way to communicate. At the same time, we need to persevere in teaching young people how to think critically. Maybe it's not too late for the next generation.
George Lakoff ("Moral Politics; Don't Think of an Elephant") promotes reframing issues so that people of reactionary bent will listen to what others are saying. He's right. We have to do a lot of reframing, we have to apply stricter standards of truth and accuracy to mass media, we have to transform the apparatus of communication -- the sender, the receiver and the medium itself.
The real battle ahead of us isn't Democrat versus Republican, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal or even church versus state. It's much more basic than that: The real battle is people who reason versus people who don't.
Neal Starkman lives in Seattle.
I love how liberals make themselves look elitist all the time.
Funny how almost all successful companies are started and owned by us simple-minded, "S Factor-ized" conservatives, isn't it?
tSG
I always had thought the original piece was parody... Turns out it was like much conventional lib writing and merely indistinguishable from parody
Oh, right. Conservatives are stupid.
I have read that liberals (the godless, self-worshipping, Christian haters) had determined that BUSH is the anti-Christ and that the Christians who voted for him just can't see it. Think about the irony of that for a minute.
Well I think anyone who quotes Voltaire authoritatively is stupid. There's a big difference between being intelligent and being 'smart,' and Voltaire is the patron saint of all those who, for whatever reason, can't see it.
Saddam didn't have WMD, eh? Hm. Wonder what killed all those Kurds. Second hand smoke, I guess.
I would have to say that the writer of this piece has spent too much time arguing with his mirror and not enough time with mammals. It is kinda a juvenile approach to life(something must be wrong with all those people who don't think as I do).
Holy non sequitor Batman! The reason the media doesn't have standards of truth and accuracy is that they're always trying to 'reframe' things to convince us they're right!
This must be Algore writing under a pseudonym.
I thought it was this guy.
Wow. He spent time writing that entire article when he could have just written "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!"
Liberals = thinking man's party.
Conservatives = vote their feelings, whether they make policy sense or not.
Uh huh. He has a real firm grasp on reality. < /sarcasm >
"Dumbing down" our arguments is not the answer. We have to slide horizontally into another universe and try to figure out a different way to communicate."
In other words, we need to learn how to lie to these dumb hicks better.
Bridge, meet your new owner.
"Can you argue facts or logic with people who still believe that Bush has made us safer?"
Not unless you like to lose.
Let me think. Who was it who said "we have better hair?" Dick Cheney?
Can you argue facts or logic with people who have refused to look with a clear eye at the connections between all of the various terror movements, and Baghdad, and Tehran, and Damascus?
Bush determined to drain the swamp. If someone disagrees with the precise tactics required to drain that swamp, we have something to talk about. If someone wants to deny that the swamp exists, or if someone wants to ignore the powers and people who have an interest in protecting the swamp, there really isn't much to talk about.
As liberals have been saying since 2000, they just didn't have the chance to "get their true message out." This, more than anything is what this author means by "reframing" the argument. How many times must a basic argument have to be reframed before the results justify the true meaning? Oh, about as many times as votes have to be recounted until the liberals finally "discover" enough to pull ahead by one vote. The problem for this doofus is that they DID get their message out. Unfortunately for them, the message was heard loud and clear. And shoved back down their stupid, liberal, dense, endlessly reframed throats. But I hope they keep trying to reframe. See Webster's "reframe:" Same baloney, different wrapping.
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.
