Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - constraint thread 2: the political recursion game

Ustwo · 01-05-2008, 01:56 PM

For me, conservative is so natural I'd think there has to be a genetic component. The very concept of leftist politics have always struck me as fundamentally wrong from a very early age, even before I had any real understanding of politics. While in school I only ran into a handful of what I'd call conservative educators, my parents, both conservative, never were overly active in politics, nor did they teach their politics to me. Perhaps it was a monkey see monkey do thing, but I don't think so, I had absolutely no problem rejecting their superficial religion so I can't imagine I'd have then blindly accepted their politics.

So I am a conservative by nature I think more than nurture. I'm sure if I were born to Berkley history professors I'd still be conservative much to their dismay.

Really my political development was on hold until 2000. I enjoyed following politics to an extent but it was the 2000 election which showed me the extent bias in the press and the danger the judiciary could be to a fair republic. Lately though I've realized that unless I start to vote from rooftops, there is no point in being agitated by that which I am not directly affecting. I have kids that need my time, an office that needs my input, and a social life that doesn't improve by talking politics. All of these things are more important than getting mad about some bone head politician. Were I to go into politics it would be different of course.

I am also a lone wolf type. I am very competent on my own, and working with other people tends to hold me back. Thats not to say that I don't see the value of group effort, but I don't see the need for group effort in things a normal person should be able to do without help. Perhaps that is part of my conservatism, in that social programs offer me very little but expect me to give quite a bit. It needs me more than I need it, they are the grasshoppers and I am the ant if you follow the reference.

Dovetailing into this is my study of biology. Psychologists have tried for a number of years to tell us humans have no instincts and that we were somehow special in the animal kingdom beyond our intelligence. This has been shown to be very wrong, and our societies are built upon what works with our genes. I see leftist policies trying to work against such genes while my policies would work with them. Perhaps the best known author on this currently by the population is Richard Dawkins, who is a brilliant biological writer and a complete caricature of a knee jerk ivory tower liberal. Its painful to read some of his books, he has the bad habit of inserting his politics where not needed, but the real pain is watching him state the biological facts of how our genes work and at the same time go out of his way telling us it shouldn't have to be that way. He's given the keys to understanding human behavior and then rejects them because they don't fit his world view. I on the other hand see them as a justification of my world view, and that public policy should be those which work best with our natures, not what we wish our natures were. To do so always ends in failure as we are what we are, not what we would like to be.

01-05-2008, 01:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	For me, conservative is so natural I'd think there has to be a genetic component. The very concept of leftist politics have always struck me as fundamentally wrong from a very early age, even before I had any real understanding of politics. While in school I only ran into a handful of what I'd call conservative educators, my parents, both conservative, never were overly active in politics, nor did they teach their politics to me. Perhaps it was a monkey see monkey do thing, but I don't think so, I had absolutely no problem rejecting their superficial religion so I can't imagine I'd have then blindly accepted their politics. So I am a conservative by nature I think more than nurture. I'm sure if I were born to Berkley history professors I'd still be conservative much to their dismay. Really my political development was on hold until 2000. I enjoyed following politics to an extent but it was the 2000 election which showed me the extent bias in the press and the danger the judiciary could be to a fair republic. Lately though I've realized that unless I start to vote from rooftops, there is no point in being agitated by that which I am not directly affecting. I have kids that need my time, an office that needs my input, and a social life that doesn't improve by talking politics. All of these things are more important than getting mad about some bone head politician. Were I to go into politics it would be different of course. I am also a lone wolf type. I am very competent on my own, and working with other people tends to hold me back. Thats not to say that I don't see the value of group effort, but I don't see the need for group effort in things a normal person should be able to do without help. Perhaps that is part of my conservatism, in that social programs offer me very little but expect me to give quite a bit. It needs me more than I need it, they are the grasshoppers and I am the ant if you follow the reference. Dovetailing into this is my study of biology. Psychologists have tried for a number of years to tell us humans have no instincts and that we were somehow special in the animal kingdom beyond our intelligence. This has been shown to be very wrong, and our societies are built upon what works with our genes. I see leftist policies trying to work against such genes while my policies would work with them. Perhaps the best known author on this currently by the population is Richard Dawkins, who is a brilliant biological writer and a complete caricature of a knee jerk ivory tower liberal. Its painful to read some of his books, he has the bad habit of inserting his politics where not needed, but the real pain is watching him state the biological facts of how our genes work and at the same time go out of his way telling us it shouldn't have to be that way. He's given the keys to understanding human behavior and then rejects them because they don't fit his world view. I on the other hand see them as a justification of my world view, and that public policy should be those which work best with our natures, not what we wish our natures were. To do so always ends in failure as we are what we are, not what we would like to be. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.