Letters to the Editor
Paul Rosenberg
Published Letters: 995 Editor's Choice: 16
-
RWA and the Clinton Years
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Small Town Hick askes a very good question:
I just finished reading the MYDD article linked to in the Greenwald post.
One little point - if the typical RWA typically submits to authority, then what explains the Clinton years?
Let's start by going back to the definition:
RWA is defined as the convergence of three attitudinal clusters:
* Authoritarian submission: A high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
* Authoritarian aggression: A general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities.
* Conventionalism: A high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.
The very essence of politics in the Clinton years was the constant rightwing effort to delegitimate and dis-establish the Clinton presidency. The right wing was largely joined in this effort by the Washington establishment, which viewed the Clintons as hick interlopers.
The GOP's RWA base ate this stuff up. But the majority of Americans did not, as shown by Clinton's continued high job approval numbers, and the consistent majorities opposed to his impeachment.
In short, RWA helps make the Clinton years considerably easier to understand, and the Clinton years help illuminate the broader explanatory role that RWA should have in understanding our politics.
-
El Cid Is On FIRE!
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I must say that El Cid has really been on fire lately. But now he (?--el) takes it to a whole new level:
If someone here raises a truly interesting point worthy of debate, then by all means, debate it.
But if someone declares in a snide aside that "What are you liberals going to do when the mole-men hatch from their lava eggs and start forcing the human women to bear their larval children?", do the readers of this blog really have to fill up 50 pages to respond to such mentally ill paranoia?
We need to get on those lava eggs right away!
After all, it's Easter!
-
RWA Self-Test
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bamage,
Thanks for your appreciation. There is indeed an online RWA self-test. It's in chapter one of "The Authoritarians," Altemeyer's online book in PDF form available here:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
While you're at it, you might want to read the book, as well!
-
Political Compass Meets Spinal Tap
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Valentinian:
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64
Phat.
-11, -11, dude!
-
Jim Can't Read
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]JimC:
Paul RE: Slavery & The Flat Earth In The Bible--Much More Support
Paul, many people try to destroy the Bible by raising up points that point to what seems to be offensive or inaccurate verses. So let’s look at some other verses.
You've really misread me, Jim. I wasn't trying to destroy the Bible. (Your anihilation fantasies are signs of psychological ill-health. You really ought to see someone about them.) I was pointing out the dangers of taking the Bible literally. I said so quite clearly.
Trying to use examples of slavery from scripture is another example of not understanding the whole. The Bible is written not only for us but also those that lived during those times. (One note, my translation, the KJV, does not say slaves, it says servants, which can include slaves but also paid servants or workers of the land)
The bolded part above is my all-purpose reply to Creationists. However, your attempt to make slavery disappear from the Bible is not so easily pulled off. There are repeated references to buying people. You do not buy servants.
Furthermore, it was not my idea to find defenses of slavery and the flat earth in the Bible. It was folks who believed in slavery and the flat earth who found them there. Whatever rationale you can come up with for disregarding them (some I think are valid, others not so much) it will take quite some doing to dispense with slavery, geocentrism, the flat earth, and bans on shrimp, cotton/polyester blends, etc. and hold onto condemning homosexuality. And once you've managed to come up with such a rationale, you must then explain how it is that you believe in the Bible, as opposed to believing in your specially-constructed rationale for paying attention to some parts but not others.