An anthropological dilemma repeated here at DU:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

Often, one is told that Conservatives see man as inherently flawed, "fallen," as it were. As Madison famously said in Federalist 51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Conservatives frequently argue that private property, rights of the individual as a whole is not given by the government but is protected by it because man is essentially selfish, violent, predatory.

One is then often told that Progressives see man as inherently good and that they system is bad and breeds the striving, competitiveness, and selfishness that Conservatives see. If we could just construct a system which minimizes or even negates said selfishness, then man could be what he naturally is--Good!

So here is the dilemma I see on this board repeatedly. I often see here at DU a very Conservative approach to anthropology--i.e., the human is competitive and brutish. I see a despair at man writ-large. It presents the Progressive here, then, with an elitist dilemma--the truly enlightened (either intellectually or spiritually) ought to step in and manage the unenlightened--i.e., the brutish--masses. But this seems entirely counter to Progressivism, which desires to bring everyone up. Dilemma X2: everyone believes himself/herself to be the Enlightened one, but this is the very definition of selfishness--an egoism that sees the world only on one's terms. Is this desire an affirmation of the Conservative principle.

So, I guess 2 questions: 1) do we accept this common distinction between conservatives and progressives with regard to anthropology? What is an alternative? 2) man--naturally selfish and in need of a government to protect us from ourselves; man--naturally good, who needs government to set up a system so we can flourish?

Do we abandon such things and go with consequentialist arguments (see wiki if you don't know what this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist), or do we appeal to a deontological argument (again, wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological)? If it's deontological, then on what do we base this?

Anyway . . .

[CJCRANE]

1. "It presents the Progressive

here, then, with an elitist dilemma--the truly enlightened (either intellectually or spiritually) ought to step in and manage the unenlightened--i.e., the brutish--masses".

I don't think that's the case at all. It's not about managing the masses. The main problem is propaganda - inaccurate information. IMO for most DUers, the "enlightened" approach, as you call it, is merely to provide accurate information.

So, it's not managing. At worst you could say it's about educating.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

4. This only moves it back one step.

After education, then what? And how to educate? Media? Fine. But what if you have a media which participates in miseducation (cough, cough, Fox). Then what? Stop them? Fine. But . . .

Good, lord, there's not been a time in history when information has been more ready at hand. As most everyone admits, we are self-selective about the information we choose. If we choose some sort of self-affirmation, then it appears this is some sort of egoic, solipsistic gesture. If that's the case, then what? Do we have to force people to do what's best for them?

I mean all of the above not as a rebuke, but as dialogue. I agree education is important, but we've not really moved the ball forward with regards to my dilemma above. It's hard to educate those not interested in things outside of a priori "intuition." And, again, we're then back to the anthropoligical question--why do they refuse to be educated when it's so very obvious.

[CJCRANE]

5. But that's the point. The mass media is owned by corporations.

The corporation that owns Fox News is under investigation for bribery, illegal phonetapping, computer hacking, pirating. Their agenda is to lie on a massive scale and influence people to vote against against their own interests.

I'm not interested in being self-selctive about information. The reason I prefer DU to FreeRepublic is because there is a ton more information from every angle and many viewpoints from facts to speculation, to gossip, to govt leaks, to inside information etc. from different parts of the world. I make up my own mind, I don't need a TV pundit to spoonfeed my opinions to me.

So, that's why on DU we always come back perennial problem which is the media. When people get more accurate information, or at least a variety of different viewpoints, they can make more informed decisions.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

8. Look, I agree about the media.

But your underlying principle is that people are good and that misinformation makes them bad--if I understand you correctly. So you accept the underlying principle regarding the difference between Conservatives and Progressives. Your argument is that if people we're properly educated/informed, they'd follow what was right/in their best interest (this is the consequentialist/deontological issue). If we could get corporations out, then the true truth would get out, and people would "naturally" follow. So you follow the paradigm I laid out above? So what is the solution? To eradicate the misinformation? To ban Fox because it is destructive? Or is there a principle which you hold to here, that you wish to conserve? You wouldn't ban Fox or other Corporate media for what reason? A higher principle? A deontological one?

[CJCRANE]

9. I must admit that I'm not au fait with those terms.

As for Fox News, we are where we are. We can't eradicate the misinformation but we can try to counter it. That's the struggle we go through everyday here on DU.

However, if NewsCorp has broken the law then hopefully they will suffer the consequences. That's beyond our control except to publicize their wrongdoings and support any actions against them.

But back your two paradigms - yes, I think people are basically good but are sometimes mislead.

[Scuba]

6. I don't think people refuse to be educated. I think Dorothy Sayers had it right...

“The heaviest restriction upon the freedom of public opinion is not the official censorship of a press, but the unofficial censorship by a press which exists not so much to express opinion as to manufacture it.”

Dorothy L. Sayers
1893-1957

British writer, essayist, playwright and translator.

[HereSince1628]

2. I thought we had this all worked out according to Reagan's Rule...

never say anything bad about your own party.

Herein it is clear, R's r bad. Dems b good.

Just remember when you get into the archives for research...

Histories of politics and all other human endeavor are written by winners, who by the very act of winning have self-evidence of their native bestness.

[Scuba]

3. We see the world through very different glasses.

[Rex]

7. Republicans see the downside of life, progressive see the upside.

Republicans believe that vices must be punished. Progressives believe that vices can be cured through reabilitation. The brain of a Republican works different then that of a Progressive. So is there a common distinction between Cs and Ps? Yes, we are two seperate creatures that operate in very distinctivly different ways to reach or overall goals.

At its core nature; Progressive = constuction, Republicans = destruction.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

10. This line is revealing:

"The brain of a Republican works different then that of a Progressive."

So you seem to argue either for a biological Conservative brain. But if it's the biological argument--i.e., that a certain section of humans are deficient with regards to reason--then you've admitted to the Conservative position. We're back at square one--and you're a Conservative.

"Yes, we are two seperate creatures that operate in very distinctivly different ways to reach or overall goals."

Again, you make your position clear: there is something biological with regards to the two "species" as it were. I'll let you meditate on where this anthropological foundation leads.

If, however, you mean that it's all learned, and that being Progressive is the Natural state of human kind, then we still have to ask how one can go about correcting the obvious chasm between what is natural (Progressive) and what is Conservative.

Maybe your answer is simple: just kill 'em all. But I would think that even this cuts against Progressive principles--as a natural good cannot seek to eradicate another natural good. If, however, the can't conceive of a Conservative as a natural good, then you really aren't a Progressive but a Conservative. And then we're back to square one. Or we you reject these categories and imagine a world of consequentialist or deontological.

[Rex]

11. How you got 'kill them all' out of that I have no idea.

Science shows that the brains operate differently between the two groups. The way to change any of that is education and a well rounded person. Very simple. One group gets it the other does not get it. They are actually anti-intellectual by choice.

There are very simple answers to your questions.

[stevenleser]

15. Just curious, are you talking about Lakoff's work in this area? nt

[Rex]

17. No, not really.

I was informally throwing around some easy ways to tell that there is an obvious distinction between the two and the species stuff was some snarky bits pointed toward the GOP.

Andrew or George?

[stevenleser]

18. George. He has done some interesting studies about the differences in the way Liberals and

Conservatives perceive political information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff#Political_significance_and_involvement

[Rex]

19. Very fascinating

and definitely an influence. The distinctions and studies done are very remarkable.

I am curious about a sub-group of society that rejects intellectualism kinda the same way The Church rejected empirical science for ages. And how they will develop over the next 50, 100, 1000 years. Can people literally de-evolve over the centuries without any kind of stimulation to the brain that promotes complex concrete and/or abstract ideas?

What is it like to live in a society that promotes lies over the truth, constantly? A constructive society verses a destructive society. What happens to them over an extended period of time with little to no formal education.

It should be kind of a worry to all of us that a huge group of people reject science and are 'proud to be stupid' and show it off whenever they can.

Case in point - a teabagger bringing his semi-automatic weapon to a public speech by President Obama...'in protest' of something that will never happen (govt takes away all our guns). Dangerous and stupid and armed...very worrisome and everytime I heard that on TV I would cringe a little bit.

Do you remember when all those liberals showed up armed at a George Bush rally? Me either...cause it never happened and never would.

We are very different creatures imo.

[Hestia]

12. One thing that needs to be factored in is the inherent laziness of average person. It takes a lot

of hard work, time and dedication to try and keep up with even a 10th of the information that bombards us on a daily basis. They see people like me reading, reading, reading everything and it makes their heads hurt. Another factor may be fear - you can never unlearn anything. Once you 'know' it, it's with you forever. [Very good fairy tale about this very thing, it's in Women Who Run With the Wolves.] Not everyone can handle the information, winnow it and reduce it down to manageable chunks. It's daunting and DWTS is on, you know?

[Nikia]

13. I think that there are idealistic Conservatives

My Republican grandparents were some and I have heard others say stuff that was similiar. The government should not regulate very much because when businesses see that the government trusts them, they will do what is right. For the same reason, taxes should be minimal because people will use that money to give to charity instead. These grandparents also believed that if you left your door unlocked that your house, as they did, was less likely to get broken into by this reasoning.
I think that corporate culture and business in general has evolved into very predatory institutions. They tend not to do anything out of ethics and the public needs to be protected. It is a bit worrisome though that they have become heavily involved in the political process, which calls public protection by the government into question. Despite this, I think that we still have to work towards electing politicians that will protect public interests rather than throw our hands up and say that the media and government are owned by predatory corporations anyway so it isn't any use.
I think that the general public is either idealists to some extent like my grandparents were, believes that the government is so corrupt that it cannot serve the general public anymore, or are rather self absorbed. A lot of these attitudes are encouraged by the corporately owned media.

[Waiting For Everyman]

14. I see it as followers vx. independent thinkers.

Repubs are followers. They pick out someone they deem worthy of making judgements, and then swallow those opinions whole. Evaluating information, for them, isn't about the truth or validity of the information, but about the worthiness and credibility of the messenger. To me, that's the conservative mindset. They don't do their own thinking. Even progessives, who are followers, are conservatives in my book. There are some authoritarian progressives on DU.

The independent thinkers are the opposite. They don't care who the source of information is, it only matters whether it is true or false. The information stands or falls on its own, and the messenger is irrelevant. If "the devil himself" speaks the truth, then it's the truth.

I think we have our own brain because it's up to each of us to do our own thinking with it.

I think "good vs. evil" divisions about people are fallacies. We're all both. I will say that the more screwed up a person's thinking is, the more destructive things that person will do.

[bemildred]

16. This is Philosophy, not Anthropology.

You can find the "elites should rule" argument in Plato's Republic, and from then on it is ubiquitous among ruling elites and their sycophants. Rather self-serving, I think, since it assumes it's own conclusion, i.e. that elites are in fact constitutionally better than their subjects, hence I consider it merely a self-serving rationalization. It amounts to saying the poor should be grateful to their oppressors.

I tend to the Consequential side, a knife should be sharp. The Greek idea of virtue is essentially that, applied to being a man. (Still, tough luck for the helots and women.) But this only works in a relative way, things are only "good" in a context that makes then "good", there is no universal "good" that is independent of human choice. Most of the time, it amounts to what the society you live in says is good, which can get quite strange.

Deontology is simply an appeal to authority of one sort or another, yet another way to kick the can down the road.

The solution, in my view, is to stop thinking of collective abstractions like "man" as though they had characteristics that properly belong only to individuals.