I honestly can't believe we are having an argument about this. Whatever the problems with the basic concepts of democratic rule, even if you think we have failed miserably in our little experiment (and we clearly are proving that we have), there is no way the answer to the problem is "we should go back to having a king".
I think the main argument is about how much Democratic candidates have to worry about the whims of popularity whereas monarchs don't necessarily have to worry about that as much. In a perfect world with selfless monarchs there is a valid argument that it would be a better system, in the real world with real people as monarchs, not so much...
Hypothetically speaking, whether in Brazil or the United States, who gets the grand distinction of being the first in the line of new monarchs?? Because it would almost by default have to be someone who was willing to destroy the concept of representative democracy in the first place to attain that mantle of power. Which would mean they weren't suited for it in any way, shape or form to begin with. > > > If they were democratically voted in and democratically voted to be monarchs then technically, it would be a democracy. FDR was voted in 4 times and there's no reason for me to believe he couldn't have been voted in for longer if he hadn't died. It's not inconceivable that even in the US we couldn't have had a 'monarch' in the past.
Edit: Without the Republicans pushing through the 2-term limit after FDR it's very likely that Reagan would have gotten a 3rd term and an even younger, very popular Bill Clinton would have gotten at least a couple of more terms (if not longer).
I honestly can't believe we are having an argument about this. Whatever the problems with the basic concepts of democratic rule, even if you think we have failed miserably in our little experiment (and we clearly are proving that we have), there is no way the answer to the problem is "we should go back to having a king".
I think the main argument is about how much Democratic candidates have to worry about the whims of popularity whereas monarchs don't necessarily have to worry about that as much. In a perfect world with selfless monarchs there is a valid argument that it would be a better system, in the real world with real people as monarchs, not so much...
Hypothetically speaking, whether in Brazil or the United States, who gets the grand distinction of being the first in the line of new monarchs?? Because it would almost by default have to be someone who was willing to destroy the concept of representative democracy in the first place to attain that mantle of power. Which would mean they weren't suited for it in any way, shape or form to begin with.
>
>
>
If they were democratically voted in and democratically voted to be monarchs then technically, it would be a democracy. FDR was voted in 4 times and there's no reason for me to believe he couldn't have been voted in for longer if he hadn't died. It's not inconceivable that even in the US we couldn't have had a 'monarch' in the past.
That's not really the same thing. For one thing, he was VOTED in every time, and when he died, the public didn't immediately look to his sons or Eleanor to take up his mantle. For another, it wasn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution til after him, and it was the only time in the history of the country it happened at all. And that was only because he steered the country out of total economic collapse and won World War II, which DESPITE his major mistakes (those being the internment camps and the fact that African-Americans participation in New Deal programs was sacrificed to get them passed at all, and those are very hard to overlook), he still, on balance is probably the 1st or 2nd best President in the history of the country, and the only other option is obviously Lincoln.
I honestly can't believe we are having an argument about this. Whatever the problems with the basic concepts of democratic rule, even if you think we have failed miserably in our little experiment (and we clearly are proving that we have), there is no way the answer to the problem is "we should go back to having a king".
I think the main argument is about how much Democratic candidates have to worry about the whims of popularity whereas monarchs don't necessarily have to worry about that as much. In a perfect world with selfless monarchs there is a valid argument that it would be a better system, in the real world with real people as monarchs, not so much...
Hypothetically speaking, whether in Brazil or the United States, who gets the grand distinction of being the first in the line of new monarchs?? Because it would almost by default have to be someone who was willing to destroy the concept of representative democracy in the first place to attain that mantle of power. Which would mean they weren't suited for it in any way, shape or form to begin with.
> > > If they were democratically voted in and democratically voted to be monarchs then technically, it would be a democracy. FDR was voted in 4 times and there's no reason for me to believe he couldn't have been voted in for longer if he hadn't died. It's not inconceivable that even in the US we couldn't have had a 'monarch' in the past.
That's not really the same thing. For one thing, he was VOTED in every time, and when he died, the public didn't immediately look to his sons or Eleanor to take up his mantle. For another, it wasn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution til after him, and it was the only time in the history of the country it happened at all. And that was only because he steered the country out of total economic collapse and won World War II, which DESPITE his major mistakes (those being the internment camps and the fact that African-Americans participation in New Deal programs was sacrificed to get them passed at all, and those are very hard to overlook), he still, on balance is probably the 1st or 2nd best President in the history of the country, and the only other option is obviously Lincoln.
Washington and FDR's cousin could also have had long terms of power if they wanted to. Washington deferred because he didn't want to set a precedent (which makes him great in my mind) and Teddy didn't because of bad luck in his 3rd Party attempt (which was damned close to destroying our two party system, unfortunate in my view). In a true Democracy we should we should be able to choose the same leader for long periods of time if 'we' want to. Correct, or not?
I honestly can't believe we are having an argument about this. Whatever the problems with the basic concepts of democratic rule, even if you think we have failed miserably in our little experiment (and we clearly are proving that we have), there is no way the answer to the problem is "we should go back to having a king".
I think the main argument is about how much Democratic candidates have to worry about the whims of popularity whereas monarchs don't necessarily have to worry about that as much. In a perfect world with selfless monarchs there is a valid argument that it would be a better system, in the real world with real people as monarchs, not so much...
Hypothetically speaking, whether in Brazil or the United States, who gets the grand distinction of being the first in the line of new monarchs?? Because it would almost by default have to be someone who was willing to destroy the concept of representative democracy in the first place to attain that mantle of power. Which would mean they weren't suited for it in any way, shape or form to begin with.
> > > If they were democratically voted in and democratically voted to be monarchs then technically, it would be a democracy. FDR was voted in 4 times and there's no reason for me to believe he couldn't have been voted in for longer if he hadn't died. It's not inconceivable that even in the US we couldn't have had a 'monarch' in the past.
That's not really the same thing. For one thing, he was VOTED in every time, and when he died, the public didn't immediately look to his sons or Eleanor to take up his mantle. For another, it wasn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution til after him, and it was the only time in the history of the country it happened at all. And that was only because he steered the country out of total economic collapse and won World War II, which DESPITE his major mistakes (those being the internment camps and the fact that African-Americans participation in New Deal programs was sacrificed to get them passed at all, and those are very hard to overlook), he still, on balance is probably the 1st or 2nd best President in the history of the country, and the only other option is obviously Lincoln. > > >
Washington and FDR's cousin could also have had long terms of power if they wanted to. Washington deferred because he didn't want to set a precedent (which makes him great in my mind) and Teddy didn't because of bad luck in his 3rd Party attempt (which was damned close to destroying our two party system, unfortunate in my view). In a true Democracy we should be able to choose the same leader for long periods of time if 'we' want to. Correct, or not?
>
>
>
Washington and FDR's cousin could also have had long terms of power if they wanted to. Washington deferred because he didn't want to set a precedent (which makes him great in my mind) and Teddy didn't because of bad luck in his 3rd Party attempt (which was damned close to destroying our two party system, unfortunate in my view). In a true Democracy we should be able to choose the same leader for long periods of time if 'we' want to. Correct, or not?
On one hand, I have sympathy for the idea that the most qualified person alive (right now) to be president is Obama, and the 22nd amendment is problematic in that it restricts the most important position from arguably getting the best possible candidate.
That said, I think it does more good than ill for the country. A president that can be continually re-elected, is also given the opportunity to continually centralizing power under *his* grasp, and creates the opportunity for more significant violations of democratic norms. Look at all the countries that have recently passed initiatives to let their president stay past any term limit (Russia, Turkey, China). In each case, this has clearly been accomplished by someone who is interested in creating a faux dictatorship by controlling the democratic system (Except China. Which has other issues for doing this, but shouldn't be mistaken for a democracy).
Also - you referenced how if terms limits were done away, Reagan would have likely won a 3rd term. Isnt that a rather convincing argument against getting rid of term limits? I dont say that because I dont like Reagan (To be clear, I think it's INCREDIBLY overrated) - but with hindsight, we're aware that he was BARELY functioning as the POTUS during parts of his second term as president. Since that wasnt really widely known/accepted, he would have been a figurehead in his third term. If it could happen once, why not again?
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" From Winston Churchill's 'Churchill by Himself', 574:
Tldr: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." - Winston Churchill
An evolutionary psychologist traces the roots of political divisions back to our primate ancestors and male-dominated social hierarchies.
Through the lens of evolutionary science, this book offers a novel perspective on why we hold our political ideas, and why they are so often in conflict. Drawing on examples from across the animal kingdom, clinical psychologist Hector A. Garcia reveals how even the most complex political processes can be influenced by our basic drives to survive and reproduce--including the policies we back, whether we are liberal or conservative, and whether we are inspired or repelled by the words of a president.
The author demonstrates how our political orientations derive from an ancestral history of violent male competition, surprisingly influencing how we respond to issues as wide-ranging as affirmative action, women's rights, social welfare, abortion, foreign policy, and even global warming. Critically, the author shows us how our instinctive political tribalism can keep us from achieving stable, functioning societies, and offers solutions for rising above our ancestral past. Review
“Hector A. Garcia draws upon the latest in evolutionary science to examine political partisanship and how our past shapes the way we fight for our future. This book will have a profound effect on how you view political discourse, immigration issues, women’s rights, and, yes, even Donald Trump.”
—Juliet Blake, film and TV producer and head of TED TV
“Why has our political system become so divided and divisive along many lines? Why, for example, do pro-life conservatives support life-ending things like war, guns, and capital punishment, and why do free-speech-supporting liberals want to silence speakers they disagree with? Proximate explanations are provided by political scientists, but deeper ultimate answers must come from psychology and evolutionary theory, which the estimable Hector A. Garcia provides in this illuminating work of science and politics, the timing of which could not be more vital as our country is coming apart over seemingly intractable controversies. A must-read if you care about our future.”
—Michael Shermer, Presidential Fellow, Chapman University, and author of The Believing Brain and The Moral Arc
“Places sexual competition right where it should be—at the center of political orientation and behavior. This engagingly written book lives in current events. It draws highly controversial conclusions based on solid research that challenge readers who are either on the left or right. For instance, Donald Trump’s exploitation of women makes him more attractive to his female voters. This page-turner is destined to receive a lot of attention.”
—Nigel Barber, evolutionary psychologist, author, and blogger at Psychology Today
“This book explains everything! It is easy to say that human behavior boils down to biology, but Hector A. Garcia actually proves it. With an impressive breadth of scholarship and clear thinking, he takes us on a delightful ride through the prehistoric savannah, and beyond, to shine an extraordinary light on the ancient evolutionary forces behind our current political clashes.”
—Dan Barker, author of Mere Morality
“Relying on exhaustive research in evolutionary biology, Garcia takes us back to the Stone Age when human struggles for sexual access and dominance originated. Much of what we find perplexing and dismaying about today’s ‘tribal’ conflicts—between men and women and across the political divide—is convincingly explained by his revealing ‘reverse engineering’ of our species.”
—John V. H. Dippel, author of War and Sex
" Sex, Power, and Partisanship will surprise and delight you. Garcia shows how much of our political alignment is consistent with evolutionary predictions based especially on male-female considerations. Whether you’re an evolutionary scientist, an involved citizen, or just someone hungry for terrific new ideas, you’ll love this accessible yet consequential book.”
—David P. Barash, Professor of Psychology Emeritus, University of Washington, coauthor of Strength through Peace, and author of Through a Glass Brightly: Using Science to See Our Species as We Really Are
“The best book to date using the science of evolutionary psychology to understand how our brains are still tuned to a Stone Age world of frequent conflict and unshakable tribal loyalties. Achieving peace and political stability demands recognizing where we come from, while rejoicing that understanding our origins permits us to do a lot better than our Stone Age ancestors. Hector A. Garcia provides the depth of scientific knowledge, combined with comprehensive referencing and objectivity, to follow our better angels. In the age of alpha male Trump, this is essential for our sanity—and perhaps for the survival of democracy.”
—Malcolm Potts, MD, PhD, author of Sex and War About the Author
Hector A. Garcia, Psy.D., is the author of Alpha God: The Psychology of Religious Violence and Oppression. He is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and a clinical psychologist specializing in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in combat veterans. He has published extensively on evolutionary psychology, stress and politics in organizations, and the interplay between war and masculine identity.
Like I said, psychology. A necessary understanding for anybody who wants to either control people or not be controlled. Individuals should understand themselves if they don't want to be sheep...
Balrog99 said: Hypothetically speaking, whether in Brazil or the United States, who gets the grand distinction of being the first in the line of new monarchs?? Because it would almost by default have to be someone who was willing to destroy the concept of representative democracy in the first place to attain that mantle of power. Which would mean they weren't suited for it in any way, shape or form to begin with.
The Orleans family still alive. In Brazil's case, will be Prince Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza.
This book might be interesting to some of you regarding the rise of strongman leaders
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1633885143/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1633885143
An evolutionary psychologist traces the roots of political divisions back to our primate ancestors and male-dominated social hierarchies.
Through the lens of evolutionary science, this book offers a novel perspective on why we hold our political ideas, and why they are so often in conflict. Drawing on examples from across the animal kingdom, clinical psychologist Hector A. Garcia reveals how even the most complex political processes can be influenced by our basic drives to survive and reproduce--including the policies we back, whether we are liberal or conservative, and whether we are inspired or repelled by the words of a president.
The author demonstrates how our political orientations derive from an ancestral history of violent male competition, surprisingly influencing how we respond to issues as wide-ranging as affirmative action, women's rights, social welfare, abortion, foreign policy, and even global warming. Critically, the author shows us how our instinctive political tribalism can keep us from achieving stable, functioning societies, and offers solutions for rising above our ancestral past.
(snip)
About the Author
Hector A. Garcia, Psy.D., is the author of Alpha God: The Psychology of Religious Violence and Oppression. He is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and a clinical psychologist specializing in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in combat veterans. He has published extensively on evolutionary psychology, stress and politics in organizations, and the interplay between war and masculine identity.
I just saw this guy on Talk Heathen and The Atheist Experience. I'll probably get these books once I've whittled down my to-be-read pile.
And now the quote function destroys paragraphing in the quoted text. Way to go, Vanilla.
""An evolutionary psychologist traces the roots of political divisions
back to our primate ancestors and male-dominated social hierarchies.
Through
the lens of evolutionary science, this book offers a novel perspective
on why we hold our political ideas, and why they are so often in
conflict. Drawing on examples from across the animal kingdom, clinical
psychologist Hector A. Garcia reveals how even the most complex
political processes can be influenced by our basic drives to survive and
reproduce--including the policies we back, whether we are liberal or
conservative, and whether we are inspired or repelled by the words of a
president.""
I find this stuff fascinating. A lot of personality traits or lifestyle habits will influence your political leanings one way or the other. Conservatives have a tendency to have a negativity bias whereas liberals have a positive one- that is, conservatives tend to focus on the negative things in their environment whereas liberals tend to focus on the positive. This kind of stuff almost certainly has a genetic basis and it's easy to see how both of these outlooks would have aided survival in different environments.
Here's a little background info if you're interested.
Monarchy is a primitive form of government and would not work in a modern society, I mean that should be obvious. For large areas meant to represent many groups of people, a Representative Republic is the best form of government in my opinion.
I don't know. My experience with Conservatives seems to them to weigh more on the "We've always done it this way, so why change?" sort of end of the spectrum. A "My father did it this way, and his father before him and HIS father before him. If it was good enough for them it's good enough for me!" whereas Liberals look and say, "It might work for you, but not for everyone. We should change it so it works better for more people."
I'm not going to assign a value judgement to any of that, but there are many people who feel hesitant towards change. I believe it's what the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" is about- facing up to change and adapting to it.
Yes, seems to be the same to me. Conservatives tend to like things to stay the same and follow their gut/common sense feeling. You can see that with social issues and climetage change, where their common sense misleads them to mistake weather and climate. They tend to respect people that seem to be successful (mostly financial) and listen to them. And lots of Conservative argumentation comes down to God, who is just as intangible as you can get that.
Liberals have more trust in academic experts. With some unfortunate blind spots, like nuclear power. And are more pragmatic and open in regards to social issues. E.g. on gay rights the liberal point is that it makes gays happy and does not harm anyone else while conservatives saw it as a moral crisis, due to religion and tradition.
Interesting. Very interesting. So optimists are more Liberal? That seems to be the point these studies are making.
Seems wildly oversimplified (EDIT - not your post, I mean the evolutionary psychologist's position). How does that jive with, for example, attitudes toward climate change? I tend to see conservatism-vs.-liberalism (as those words are currently used) corresponding more to how someone tends to conduct cost-vs.-benefit analyses. Conservatives tend to only consider concrete, tangible factors, whereas liberals are more likely to give weight to intangible and hard-to-measure-but-my-gut-tells-me-it's-there factors.
You're a quick reader if you already have a deep knowledge of his position. Or perhaps you had read the book before I posted it?
@FinneousPJ: If you disagree with someone's position, just address it directly--questioning their credentials adds nothing to the discussion. If you have an opinion, just tell us what it is.
@FinneousPJ: If you disagree with someone's position, just address it directly--questioning their credentials adds nothing to the discussion. If you have an opinion, just tell us what it is.
Finding out whether he'd read the book was a critical piece of information before forming my opinion. Before that I couldn't know if his position was justified. Now I can confidently say it is not
I think when evolutionary psychologists talk about x, y, or z evolutionary pressures and experiences from some thousands or millions of years ago... it's pure supposition, untested and untestable. It may make a ton of sense, don't get me wrong; but the history of science is a history of discovering that things we thought made sense are actually wrong. So I have a pretty strong skepticism of theories like this one.
I generally place a lot of trust in evolutionary explanations for human behavior (though I'm skeptical of explanations that relate to 21st-century politics), but that's an extremely important point. A lot of evolutionary theories that seek to explain our current behavior do make sense in the context of both our history and our modern world, but at root, we're talking about after-the-fact theories--we can't really test them. These are theories about a now-extinct world that we only very poorly understand, simply because there's such a huge time gap between historical records--which show us what life was really like in Year X, in the eyes of the source in question--and the fossil record, which dates back long enough to show our evolutionary roots, but is extremely spotty and vague (bones, arrowheads, cave paintings, and DNA don't tell us much about culture). Most of our evolution occurred over the course of a few million years (our species only dates back maybe 200,000 years), but our written records only date back a few thousand.
Evolutionary psychology might make sense, but we're trying to draw lines between two very, very different worlds. And, as evolution teaches us, a lot of our traits are not actually evolutionarily beneficial--for a highly successful species in a state of rapid expansion like ours, evolutionary pressures don't really crack down on negative traits. Today, a person can be riddled with genetic defects and have huge personality flaws and nevertheless reproduce.
Likewise, a cultural practice can be immensely counterproductive and still persist simply because humans are successful enough to survive in spite of them. The classic example of an obviously counterproductive cultural practice is footbinding, which crippled the vast majority of Han Chinese women for centuries, and yet did not die out until the twentieth century.
Some of our behaviors are due to evolutionary forces. Some of them, however, are just flukes. Normally, natural selection pushes evolution in a specific direction, but without strong selection pressures, DNA mutations are random. The same applies to our culture.
@FinneousPJ: If you disagree with someone's position, just address it directly--questioning their credentials adds nothing to the discussion. If you have an opinion, just tell us what it is.
Finding out whether he'd read the book was a critical piece of information before forming my opinion. Before that I couldn't know if his position was justified. Now I can confidently say it is not
That's only valid if @subtledoctor was criticizing the book. But as he explained earlier--in a post you apparently either did not read or did not fully understand--he was not:
You're a quick reader if you already have a deep knowledge of his position. Or perhaps you had read the book before I posted it?
What I responded to was "optimists are more Liberal." That wasn't @LadyRhian's opinion, it was her summary of the evolutionary psychology-based thesis under discussion. So I was not characterizing her opionion as simplistic - because it was not her opinion! I was referring to the thesis being so summarized. If the summary itself was not accurate, well, that's a different matter.
@subtledoctor being the supreme authority on his own words, we can't really tell him "no, you were actually talking about X" when he says he was talking about Y.
This is why I emphasize the importance of focusing on the subject in question instead of criticizing someone's attentiveness or knowledge. Once we start concentrating on the latter, we stop addressing substantive issues and instead resort to semantics.
That's against Rule 5 ("Keep Things Substantive") of the thread rules on page 1, so as a moderator, I'm going to have to insist that we drop it and get back to discussing politics.
I've been reading Woodward and Bernstein's "The Final Days" on my downtime at work the last few days, and what I am most struck by is just how much ridiculous benefit of the doubt even a so-called hero like Elliott Richardson was willing to give Nixon. When Archibald Cox subpoenaed the tapes, the lengths people were willing to go to to get Nixon off the hook was absurd FROM THE START. Not only was the deal Nixon offered Richardson and Cox that there would be NO more demands for further tapes, but that the original 9 tapes be compared to the written record released by the Administration only by being heard by a single Senator who would do a comparison of the two accounts, and that Senator was (I shit you not) HALF DEAF!!! And Richardson, up to the very end, was basically fine with this. Only Cox holding his ground forced the eventual confrontation and Richardson's resignation. But the power structure was basically right on the cusp of letting Nixon get away with what was blatantly obvious was a cover-up, including his own lawyers, who damn well knew what he was up to. Moral of the story?? Do NOT rely on the upstanding moral virtue of Rosenstein or Bill Barr to do the right thing when the Mueller report drops. Because even the much-lauded Richardson was basically a 50/50 proposition right up to the end.
I think when evolutionary psychologists talk about x, y, or z evolutionary pressures and experiences from some thousands or millions of years ago... it's pure supposition, untested and untestable. It may make a ton of sense, don't get me wrong; but the history of science is a history of discovering that things we thought made sense are actually wrong. So I have a pretty strong skepticism of theories like this one.
I generally place a lot of trust in evolutionary explanations for human behavior (though I'm skeptical of explanations that relate to 21st-century politics), but that's an extremely important point. A lot of evolutionary theories that seek to explain our current behavior do make sense in the context of both our history and our modern world, but at root, we're talking about after-the-fact theories--we can't really test them. These are theories about a now-extinct world that we only very poorly understand, simply because there's such a huge time gap between historical records--which show us what life was really like in Year X, in the eyes of the source in question--and the fossil record, which dates back long enough to show our evolutionary roots, but is extremely spotty and vague (bones, arrowheads, cave paintings, and DNA don't tell us much about culture). Most of our evolution occurred over the course of a few million years (our species only dates back maybe 200,000 years), but our written records only date back a few thousand.
Evolutionary psychology might make sense, but we're trying to draw lines between two very, very different worlds. And, as evolution teaches us, a lot of our traits are not actually evolutionarily beneficial--for a highly successful species in a state of rapid expansion like ours, evolutionary pressures don't really crack down on negative traits. Today, a person can be riddled with genetic defects and have huge personality flaws and nevertheless reproduce.
Likewise, a cultural practice can be immensely counterproductive and still persist simply because humans are successful enough to survive in spite of them. The classic example of an obviously counterproductive cultural practice is footbinding, which crippled the vast majority of Han Chinese women for centuries, and yet did not die out until the twentieth century.
Some of our behaviors are due to evolutionary forces. Some of them, however, are just flukes. Normally, natural selection pushes evolution in a specific direction, but without strong selection pressures, DNA mutations are random. The same applies to our culture.
The other thing I find a little convenient is how these 'evolutionary' psychology theories pretty much just try to explain stereotypes that were already suspected (ie: conservatives are negative, liberals are naive, etc...). I think they're largely just trying to reinforce what they already 'know' by using 'evolution' as an exclamation point. People are far more complex than psychologists give them credit for.
Edit: Man the quote feature is worse than useless right now!
I actually heard the "conservatives view human nature as negative and liberals view human nature as positive" thing from my old high school teacher more than 10 years ago. It's not really an evolutionary thing. It makes sense if you actually apply it to issues that liberals and conservatives disagree about.
Immigration? Liberals assume we're getting motivated, smart people to contribute to the nation. Conservatives assume we're getting dangerous criminals who won't assimilate.
Government spending and taxation? Liberals assume the government will spend it on important public works. Conservatives assume the money will be wasted on boondoggles.
Welfare and public assistance programs? Liberals assume people will use them to get back on their feet and deal with money problems. Conservatives assume that it'll discourage people from providing for themselves and make them dependent on government assistance.
Not all political issues follow this pattern, but it sounds fairly accurate. You don't need to reduce these things to silly stereotypes to see that there's truth in it, and it doesn't really portray one perspective as better than another.
Comments
>
>
>
If they were democratically voted in and democratically voted to be monarchs then technically, it would be a democracy. FDR was voted in 4 times and there's no reason for me to believe he couldn't have been voted in for longer if he hadn't died. It's not inconceivable that even in the US we couldn't have had a 'monarch' in the past.
Edit: Without the Republicans pushing through the 2-term limit after FDR it's very likely that Reagan would have gotten a 3rd term and an even younger, very popular Bill Clinton would have gotten at least a couple of more terms (if not longer).
>
>
If they were democratically voted in and democratically voted to be monarchs then technically, it would be a democracy. FDR was voted in 4 times and there's no reason for me to believe he couldn't have been voted in for longer if he hadn't died. It's not inconceivable that even in the US we couldn't have had a 'monarch' in the past.
That's not really the same thing. For one thing, he was VOTED in every time, and when he died, the public didn't immediately look to his sons or Eleanor to take up his mantle. For another, it wasn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution til after him, and it was the only time in the history of the country it happened at all. And that was only because he steered the country out of total economic collapse and won World War II, which DESPITE his major mistakes (those being the internment camps and the fact that African-Americans participation in New Deal programs was sacrificed to get them passed at all, and those are very hard to overlook), he still, on balance is probably the 1st or 2nd best President in the history of the country, and the only other option is obviously Lincoln.
Washington and FDR's cousin could also have had long terms of power if they wanted to. Washington deferred because he didn't want to set a precedent (which makes him great in my mind) and Teddy didn't because of bad luck in his 3rd Party attempt (which was damned close to destroying our two party system, unfortunate in my view). In a true Democracy we should we should be able to choose the same leader for long periods of time if 'we' want to. Correct, or not?
>
>
>
Washington and FDR's cousin could also have had long terms of power if they wanted to. Washington deferred because he didn't want to set a precedent (which makes him great in my mind) and Teddy didn't because of bad luck in his 3rd Party attempt (which was damned close to destroying our two party system, unfortunate in my view). In a true Democracy we should be able to choose the same leader for long periods of time if 'we' want to. Correct, or not?
On one hand, I have sympathy for the idea that the most qualified person alive (right now) to be president is Obama, and the 22nd amendment is problematic in that it restricts the most important position from arguably getting the best possible candidate.
That said, I think it does more good than ill for the country. A president that can be continually re-elected, is also given the opportunity to continually centralizing power under *his* grasp, and creates the opportunity for more significant violations of democratic norms. Look at all the countries that have recently passed initiatives to let their president stay past any term limit (Russia, Turkey, China). In each case, this has clearly been accomplished by someone who is interested in creating a faux dictatorship by controlling the democratic system (Except China. Which has other issues for doing this, but shouldn't be mistaken for a democracy).
Also - you referenced how if terms limits were done away, Reagan would have likely won a 3rd term. Isnt that a rather convincing argument against getting rid of term limits? I dont say that because I dont like Reagan (To be clear, I think it's INCREDIBLY overrated) - but with hindsight, we're aware that he was BARELY functioning as the POTUS during parts of his second term as president. Since that wasnt really widely known/accepted, he would have been a figurehead in his third term. If it could happen once, why not again?
Tldr: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." - Winston Churchill
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1633885143/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1633885143
An evolutionary psychologist traces the roots of political divisions back to our primate ancestors and male-dominated social hierarchies.
Through the lens of evolutionary science, this book offers a novel perspective on why we hold our political ideas, and why they are so often in conflict. Drawing on examples from across the animal kingdom, clinical psychologist Hector A. Garcia reveals how even the most complex political processes can be influenced by our basic drives to survive and reproduce--including the policies we back, whether we are liberal or conservative, and whether we are inspired or repelled by the words of a president.
The author demonstrates how our political orientations derive from an ancestral history of violent male competition, surprisingly influencing how we respond to issues as wide-ranging as affirmative action, women's rights, social welfare, abortion, foreign policy, and even global warming. Critically, the author shows us how our instinctive political tribalism can keep us from achieving stable, functioning societies, and offers solutions for rising above our ancestral past.
Review
“Hector A. Garcia draws upon the latest in evolutionary science to examine political partisanship and how our past shapes the way we fight for our future. This book will have a profound effect on how you view political discourse, immigration issues, women’s rights, and, yes, even Donald Trump.”
—Juliet Blake, film and TV producer and head of TED TV
“Why has our political system become so divided and divisive along many lines? Why, for example, do pro-life conservatives support life-ending things like war, guns, and capital punishment, and why do free-speech-supporting liberals want to silence speakers they disagree with? Proximate explanations are provided by political scientists, but deeper ultimate answers must come from psychology and evolutionary theory, which the estimable Hector A. Garcia provides in this illuminating work of science and politics, the timing of which could not be more vital as our country is coming apart over seemingly intractable controversies. A must-read if you care about our future.”
—Michael Shermer, Presidential Fellow, Chapman University, and author of The Believing Brain and The Moral Arc
“Places sexual competition right where it should be—at the center of political orientation and behavior. This engagingly written book lives in current events. It draws highly controversial conclusions based on solid research that challenge readers who are either on the left or right. For instance, Donald Trump’s exploitation of women makes him more attractive to his female voters. This page-turner is destined to receive a lot of attention.”
—Nigel Barber, evolutionary psychologist, author, and blogger at Psychology Today
“This book explains everything! It is easy to say that human behavior boils down to biology, but Hector A. Garcia actually proves it. With an impressive breadth of scholarship and clear thinking, he takes us on a delightful ride through the prehistoric savannah, and beyond, to shine an extraordinary light on the ancient evolutionary forces behind our current political clashes.”
—Dan Barker, author of Mere Morality
“Relying on exhaustive research in evolutionary biology, Garcia takes us back to the Stone Age when human struggles for sexual access and dominance originated. Much of what we find perplexing and dismaying about today’s ‘tribal’ conflicts—between men and women and across the political divide—is convincingly explained by his revealing ‘reverse engineering’ of our species.”
—John V. H. Dippel, author of War and Sex
" Sex, Power, and Partisanship will surprise and delight you. Garcia shows how much of our political alignment is consistent with evolutionary predictions based especially on male-female considerations. Whether you’re an evolutionary scientist, an involved citizen, or just someone hungry for terrific new ideas, you’ll love this accessible yet consequential book.”
—David P. Barash, Professor of Psychology Emeritus, University of Washington, coauthor of Strength through Peace, and author of Through a Glass Brightly: Using Science to See Our Species as We Really Are
“The best book to date using the science of evolutionary psychology to understand how our brains are still tuned to a Stone Age world of frequent conflict and unshakable tribal loyalties. Achieving peace and political stability demands recognizing where we come from, while rejoicing that understanding our origins permits us to do a lot better than our Stone Age ancestors. Hector A. Garcia provides the depth of scientific knowledge, combined with comprehensive referencing and objectivity, to follow our better angels. In the age of alpha male Trump, this is essential for our sanity—and perhaps for the survival of democracy.”
—Malcolm Potts, MD, PhD, author of Sex and War
About the Author
Hector A. Garcia, Psy.D., is the author of Alpha God: The Psychology of Religious Violence and Oppression. He is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and a clinical psychologist specializing in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in combat veterans. He has published extensively on evolutionary psychology, stress and politics in organizations, and the interplay between war and masculine identity.
On USA i don't know, but USA was "made" to be an republic by his founding fathers. The situation is far more complicated on Russia because soviets killed all members of Romanov family, even children ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_the_Romanov_family ) And monarchists on Russia fought against communists on the Russia civil war despite not even having an royal family to protect ( https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/The-Civil-War-and-War-Communism-1918-21#ref422164 )
And now the quote function destroys paragraphing in the quoted text. Way to go, Vanilla.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna964411?__twitter_impression=true
Through the lens of evolutionary science, this book offers a novel perspective on why we hold our political ideas, and why they are so often in conflict. Drawing on examples from across the animal kingdom, clinical psychologist Hector A. Garcia reveals how even the most complex political processes can be influenced by our basic drives to survive and reproduce--including the policies we back, whether we are liberal or conservative, and whether we are inspired or repelled by the words of a president.""
I'm not going to assign a value judgement to any of that, but there are many people who feel hesitant towards change. I believe it's what the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" is about- facing up to change and adapting to it.
Liberals have more trust in academic experts. With some unfortunate blind spots, like nuclear power. And are more pragmatic and open in regards to social issues. E.g. on gay rights the liberal point is that it makes gays happy and does not harm anyone else while conservatives saw it as a moral crisis, due to religion and tradition.
Seems wildly oversimplified (EDIT - not your post, I mean the evolutionary psychologist's position). How does that jive with, for example, attitudes toward climate change? I tend to see conservatism-vs.-liberalism (as those words are currently used) corresponding more to how someone tends to conduct cost-vs.-benefit analyses. Conservatives tend to only consider concrete, tangible factors, whereas liberals are more likely to give weight to intangible and hard-to-measure-but-my-gut-tells-me-it's-there factors.
You're a quick reader if you already have a deep knowledge of his position. Or perhaps you had read the book before I posted it?
<
<
<
@semiticgod
The other thing I find a little convenient is how these 'evolutionary' psychology theories pretty much just try to explain stereotypes that were already suspected (ie: conservatives are negative, liberals are naive, etc...). I think they're largely just trying to reinforce what they already 'know' by using 'evolution' as an exclamation point. People are far more complex than psychologists give them credit for.
Edit: Man the quote feature is worse than useless right now!