The Psychology Underlying "Liberalism"

FrontPageMagazine ^ | September 12, 2002 | John J. Ray

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I concur that the UN will define "family" in any way that suits it purpose.

This article explains the 8 basic family types as determined by Le Play, which Todd pared down to 5, as I recall.

I highly recommend Todd's book, but you might have to find it at a library, as it seems to be out of print.

Again, the main point is that these differing family types give rise, in general, to differing ideologies and ecomonic/political systems. Very early on Todd dismisses Marxist theory by observing that there is zero correlation between the labor structure and the resulting political trends.

[Smile-n-Win]

I wish someone would just summarize some of these really long articles; especially when it's about liberals.

It says they are incoherent and in denial of reality. They hate authority, except when they themselves or their buddies are the authority. They want to control the world. Their obsession with "change" is a result of just that: they want to tear down the existing structures so they can take over.

[Smile-n-Win]

Conservatives, by contrast, not only have the view that there are important and essentially ineradicable inherited human characteristics but they share with Christians the view that those characteristics are of a "fallen" kind: characteristics of selfishness, aggressiveness, untrustworthiness etc.

Well, Calvinist conservatives, maybe. I certainly don't. Nor did the Gipper when he said, "Trust the people."

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Bump for a later careful read.

[mewzilla]

ROTFLMAO! I love Breathed.

[x]

Ray's weblog, Dissecting Leftism is very much worth a look. I'm skeptical about his article: most people have the political views they have not because of deeper psychological compulsions, but because of their surroundings. Either they adapt to them or rebel against them. There's a difference between adaptive and rebellious types, but chance has a lot to do with what one adapts to or rebels against. But Ray's weblog has much material criticizing the recent Berkeley study of the psychology of conservatism. He's well-informed on the subject and his objections are a must read.

[Im Your Huckleberry]

The "Psychology"?

Yeah, it's called "Dementia".

[Im Your Huckleberry]

You know, short of a really bad head injury or a full frontal lobotomy, I've always wondered how any rational, thinking adult could "go raging liberal".

You sure your friend wasn't in a car wreck, or something?

[squidly]

ping for later

[two23]

"You know, short of a really bad head injury or a full frontal lobotomy, I've always wondered how any rational, thinking adult could "go raging liberal". You sure your friend wasn't in a car wreck, or something?

It is baffeling--but I think "going back to college" and majoring in sociology had something to do with it. The canned rhetoric, inability to back an argument with fact, the over-use of the word "feel" and having to surrender a (losing) argument by resorting to blunt accusation and political labelling are symptomatic. Its almost frightening to see how easily a middle-aged person can unashamedly defend marxist ideals, claim to be a humanatarian while quoting Chomsky, and call themself a patriot and lover of America, while hating everything America stands for. My guess is, its easier for a some people to "go left" than it is to struggle with rationale, facts, and having to keep a fix on the moral compass. What else can a boomer-gen resort to when they wake up one day and realize that one of their kids is gay and the other one is on drugs? Its easier in that situation for them to embrace liberalism than it is to say, "I screwed up and my kids are off course". Liberalism has the ability to safely insulate them from self-evaluation and the truth.