A few things to remember about those who support the Cons

[ConsAreLiars]

1. They are total and complete cowards, with not a clue about how to identify the source of their fears.

2. They thus put their trust in "authority."

3. Because they rely on what they get told by those authorities (the talking points presented to them by preachers, politicians, pundits and hate radio ) to form their view of the world.

4. Thus, rather than rational thought and evidence, they rely on "quantity" instead of "accuracy" as a basis for justifying their beliefs.

5. You see this everywhere, that when one bit of their belief "system" is proven to be utterly without any basis in reality, they shift to some other fiction, and then to another. The "smart" ones can cycle through 5-10 of these sorts of "argument" before they begin restating the same nonsense; the "average" ones (to be complimentary) manage maybe half that before they start screaming.

6. The fact that those who deceive them are of the same basic character structure (see "Chickenhawk") makes the Con all the easier.

7. As cowards, "fight or flight" is decided purely on the basis of the risk or personal cost involved in the two options.

8. Thus they will easily advocate wars where others get killed, but wail like a 300-pound two-year-old at the prospect of doing anything at all for the sake of "the greater good."

9. As a result (in my view, of course), rational discourse is impossible.

10. The only upside is that they are totally blind and intellectually dysfunctional. A smart progressive might be able to deprogram some of them by focusing them on their even more basic survival instincts. Staying alive is more important than staying safe, given the alternatives.

[Erika]

1. They are sheeple

with the IQ as such. Understood. It's not exactly a new revelation.

[ConsAreLiars]

2. Not IQ, but fearfulness.

Abused as kids, genetics, who knows. But fear, not smarts.

(edit to note: Fear bypasses smarts, so functionally they are idiots, as you suggest.)

[lvx35]

3. Really good points!

My analysis of your points:

1. Right. We develop models of control through empathic modelling of others...the person who advocates torture does so because torture would have power over him.

2-4. Trust in authority seems an extension of 1. It creates a structure of social control that is the Right, where fear causes them to side with the "tough guys" "quantity over accuracy" seems a continuation of this fear.

5. You see this everywhere, that when one bit of their belief "system" is proven to be utterly without any basis in reality, they shift to some other fiction, and then to another. The "smart" ones can cycle through 5-10 of these sorts of "argument" before they begin restating the same nonsense; the "average" ones (to be complimentary) manage maybe half that before they start screaming.

Here again they reveal how they wish to be controlled, through displays of primate dominance. This can clearly be exploited.

6-8. You are totally right, but the purely self interested ones can be divided, they are uniquely weak compared to the caring...Only heirachal fear based control structures, can make them function as a group. Outside of these structures, they are self involved and infantile.

9-10. I agree with your final point. When it comes to Cons, we need to stop trying to level with them and recognize that our perspective is clearer, and what we really need to be doing is stimulus-response reprogramming. Those who do not cultivate their own sense of reason must alternatively be controlled the reason of others.

[ConsAreLiars]

6. Thanks - you hit the essence of what I was trying to get at

better than I did. The key points I wanted to emphasize are more clearly stated in your last two (6-8 and 9-10) observations. The underlying pathology (human nature/primate psychology) that I wanted to identify are nicely summarized in the first few lines. Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" is a bit simplistic, but it gets to these same basics.

[lvx35]

7. No, thank you!

That stuff really got my mind going...a scientific approach may be just what we need!

[EST]

4. I like Clinton's summary of the difference between

democrats and publiklowns.

The publiklowns operate from an ideology, while dems operate from a philosophy.
In operating from an ideology, they are convinced they already have all the answers: they own the "revealed" truth. If they are confronted by an obvious refutation of their beliefs, instead of reconsidering the answer or belief, they attack you - the messenger.

They do this every time.

A democrat, on the other hand, when confronted with evidence that calls a preciously held notion or belief into question, tends to re-evaluate that belief and allow that a differing view may well have some merit and is- at least worth listening to.

[ConsAreLiars]

5. It's not really an ideology, except for he corporatists at the top.

This is mostly about their the base, who are just fear-based sheep.

[fooj]

8. This is a great thread...

Cons take EXTREMISM to an entirely different level.

[Oeditpus Rex]

9. This is one of the most well-reasoned posts I've seen

I believe it's based in the first two points. The single most common characteristic I've noted in neocons, fundies et al is the inability and/or unwillingness to analyze or question their own thoughts and feelings. Thus do they require an absolute right to tell them what's absolutely wrong — and neither of those are questioned, either.

Such people drift toward right-wing thought because it's simpler; it has absolute rights/goods (God, America) and absolute wrongs/evils (Satan, foreigners).

Liberalism and progressiveness demand the ability to question. Ergo, they're anathema to the simple-minded.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Thanks. I wrote this thinking of some fundie fools I regard as friends

and decent people. But they are "simple-minded" insofar as they have been swept up by by this scam. They might "get a clue" if given a chance, but the front-running Dems won't touch them. Clark, because he is (seems to me) totally candid (if not totally wise) and genuine, might have a shot.