Shutdown crisis exposes conservative worldview

“We acknowledge our transgressions, our shortcomings, our smugness, our selfishness and our pride. Deliver us from the hypocrisy of attempting to sound reasonable while being unreasonable.” Chaplain Barry C. Black in one of his daily opening prayers in United States Senate, New York Times

Religion Trends

Why Are So Many Christians So Un-Christian? 

Worldview — Conservative

Racism and Cruelty Drive GOP Health Care Agenda

Class wars

Are We Being Ruled by Self-Centered Jerks?

Economic Justice — Race

Modern GOP is still the party of Dixie 

Media

Failure of the main stream media

The Radicalization of the GOP is the Most Important Political Story Today

Your False-Equivalence Guide to the Days Ahead 

History

The Short American Century 

Democracy

Before You Give up on Democracy, Read This!

Philosophy of democracy

Democracy After the Shutdown By MICHAEL P. LYNCH, New York Times, October 15, 2013

Threats to democracy

House Republicans Changed The Rules So A Majority Vote Couldn’t Stop The Government Shutdown 

It Can’t Happen Here? 

On the Sabotage of Democracy by Bill Moyers 

Our Democracy Is at Stake  

The End Game for Democracy

The March to Anarchy

Citizenship

The American Public’s Shocking Lack of Policy Knowledge is a Threat to Progress and Democracy  

Government — economic policy

A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning

Many in G.O.P. Offer Theory: Default Wouldn’t Be That Bad

Who is government for?

Marlin Stutzman and post-policy nihilism 

Politics

Democrats up the ante on GOP’s poor hand  

Ignore the Spin: This Debt Ceiling Crisis is Not Politics as Usual 

Permanent Republican minority  

The Moderates Who Lighted the Fuse 

Money in politics

The Koch Brothers’ “Samson Option” 

Kentucky Wins Sweet Deal In $2.9 Billion Budget Bill Earmark By Ashley Alman, The Huffington Post, 10/16/2013

Republican extremism

Here Are The 144 Republicans Who Voted To Send The U.S. Into Default by Henry Blodget, Australia Business Insider, October 17, 2013

G.O.P. Extremists Defy Description  

Grayson blames shutdown on GOP literally drinking on the job  

Republicans Facing a Test of Unity  

The Conservative Crackup: How the Republican Party Lost Its Mind 

Where the G.O.P.’s Suicide Caucus Lives

Republicans are “not fit to govern”

Staunch Group of Republicans Outflanks House Leaders 

Right wing message machine

The Right’s Obamacare Rhetoric Is Completely Detached from Reality

Suffocating Echo Chamber 

Right wing operatives

The Ten Hardline Conservatives Pulling the Strings of the GOP Shutdown 

Michael Needham: The Strategist Behind the Shutdown

Right wing religious extremism

How Christian Delusions Are Driving the GOP Insane

Of Course Michele Bachmann Believes the End Times Are Here

The Radical Christian Right and the War on Government 

Tea Party

Tea Party Radicalism Is Misunderstood: Meet the “Newest Right”  

The tea party’s revolt against reality  

America’s Story

Situational analysis — commonly misnamed conspiracy theory  

Progressive movement

Anger Can Be Power 

The Rise of the New New Left

Moral politics

Why the Government Shutdown Is Unbiblical  

Religion wars

Are There Still Enough Value Voters to Turn American Red?

Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists

Why Are So Many Christians So Un-Christian?

By Amanda Marcotte, AlterNet, September 26, 2013  

In an age where your average Republican politician is thumping the Bible with one hand and trying to strip food from the mouths of the poor with the other, it’s become a sad cliché to point out how little the most outspoken Christians have in common with their charity-preaching, forgiveness-loving messiah. It’s only gotten worse in recent years, with the followers of the man who cured lepers threatening to shut down the government if Obama insists on giving more people access to healthcare.

But while a nudge and a laugh at the silly Christian hypocrites is a good time, it’s worth looking deeper at what’s really going on with the parsimonious haters of the poor who claim to speak for Jesus. The fact of the matter is that right-wing Christians refuse to see their differences with Jesus as hypocrisy. To really understand how religion works in the world of politics, it helps to understand that it’s usually more about  rationalizing what you already want to believe than it is about actually studying your religious texts and drawing intelligent conclusions from it.

So what’s going on when Ken Blackwell [3], the former Ohio Secretary of State and current conservative activist says things like there is “nothing more Christian” than cutting needy people off food stamps? It may seem like the rational thing for Blackwell to have done was simply admit that there’s nothing in the Bible that even comes close to suggesting that it’s good for people to be forced into starvation simply because they had the misfortune of living in a time of high unemployment. After all, Jesus just simply gave people the loaves and the fishes. He didn’t withhold the food, and like Blackwell did, say that being able to eat food would “breed dependency” and that starving the poor was a good way of “empowering others and creating self-sufficiency.”

Blackwell is stretching; it’s obvious he’s stretching. So why go there at all? Well, as stupid as he sounds, it’s the rational choice. Being considered a Christian means you get a lot of unearned esteem from the public, and you’re given a lot more benefit of the doubt than if you claimed to be, say, an atheist. Indeed, for many audiences, it’s better to sound like an idiot while claiming to be Christian than to sound intelligent without mentioning religion at all. It makes sense that a politician or activist would want to be perceived as a Christian even if they have to bend themselves into pretzels to explain away the obnoxious clash between what they believe and what even the most strained but intellectually honest interpretation of their Bible would have you believe.

But it’s more than that. There’s no reason to think Blackwell believes himself to be lying when it comes to his religious beliefs. As much as liberals would often wish it otherwise—and no matter how much conservative Christians may claim their beliefs all come from the Bible—the truth of the matter is there’s no real relationship between what a person believes and what their religion ostensibly teaches them to believe. In practical terms, the word “Christian” is an empty term that can basically mean whatever the believer wants it to mean. Christians decide what they want to believe first and then, after they’ve chosen their beliefs, search for any excuse, no matter how thin, to claim that their belief is consistent with their chosen religion.

It’s a process called rationalization or motivated reasoning, and to be perfectly fair, it’s how most people think about most things most of the time: They choose what to believe and then look for reasons to explain why they believe it. Huge reams of psychological research show this is just how the human brain works. Almost never do we look over a bunch of arguments and choose what to believe based on reasoning our position out. As Chris Mooney at Mother Jones explains [4], “We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close.” Our faculties are usually put to the task of trying to defend what we already believe, not towards developing a better understanding of the world.

While most people engage in motivated reasoning most of the time, injecting religion into a situation only makes this process worse. That’s because, unlike most other belief systems, religion is impervious to empiricism. Most claims people make are subject to real-world tests. Are you in denial that your spouse is cheating on you? If you’re given photographic evidence that it’s true, that’s probably enough to shake you from your convictions. Want to believe the Earth is flat and not round? Shoot you into space and see how long that belief lasts. Sure, there are always fools who won’t believe the evidence, no matter how overwhelming, but for most of us, most of the time, we have a limit.

With religion, however, there’s no limits about what you can claim to believe. Jesus is a mythological character: he believes whatever the person speaking for him says he believes. For one person, Jesus believes we should feed the hungry and clothe the naked. For another, Jesus didn’t really mean it when he said that stuff; he was just handing out goodies in order to recruit new believers [5]. We weren’t there (and it probably didn’t even happen), so the sky’s the limit when making up reasons why what you believe counts as “Christian.” If you want to believe Jesus was actually a space alien brought here by Martians to teach us how to fly, you have as much right as anyone else to believe what you want. It all has equal amounts of evidence to back it up.

That’s one reason politicians love to talk about religion, because they don’t have to prove anything. But that’s the major reason religion really has no place in politics. It’s hard enough for voters and policy makers to hash through the real-world claims that fly around in politics. Trying to figure out what some silent, mythical god wants us to do is a fool’s errand. That god is always and forever going to want what the person speaking for him wants him to want, and nothing else. If Ken Blackwell was only allowed to speak for Ken Blackwell and not claim authority from on high, the true cruelty of his words would be all the easier to see.

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-are-so-many-christians-so-un-christian

Links:
[1] http://alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/amanda-marcotte
[3] http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/frc-nothing-more-christian-massive-food-stamp-cut
[4] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
[5] http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/11/foxs-starnes-fearmongers-about-christian-groups/195830
[6] http://www.alternet.org/tags/christian-0
[7] http://www.alternet.org/tags/food-stamps
[8] http://www.alternet.org/tags/poverty-0
[9] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

A Simple Exercise That Works Wonders: Affirm Your Values


By Annie Murphy Paul, creativitypost.com, Apr 30, 2013

Synopsis

Social psychologists have developed a simple activity, called a values affirmation, that can restore our sense of equilibrium.

Life is full of vulnerable moments—occasions when we feel off-balance, unsure of ourselves and our abilities—and in these moments we are likely to perform less well than we might. Social psychologists have developed a simple activity, called a values affirmation, that can intervene in such situations to restore our sense of equilibrium.

Here’s how it works: Make a list of the values that matter most to you, or for ten minutes, write in depth about a value that is central to your life. Perhaps it’s your close relationship with your family, or your skill with a camera or in the kitchen, or your strong religious faith. What matters is that it’s your value, your identity.
It’s a quick and simple exercise, but numerous studies have shown that it can have tremendous effects. Some of the things a values affirmation can do:

1. Tamp down stress. A study led by psychologist Traci Mann of UCLA found that participants who affirmed their values had significantly lower cortisol responses to stress compared with control participants. “These findings suggest that reflecting on personal values can keep neuroendocrine and psychological responses to stress at low levels,” Mann and her coauthors write.

2. Strengthen willpower. In a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2009, researchers found that affirming one’s values can replenish willpower when it’s been depleted by repeated acts of self-control. The researchers conclude: “Self-affirmation holds promise as a mental strategy that reduces the likelihood of self-control failure.”

3. Increase openness. Joshua Correll of the University of Chicago found that a values-affirmation exercise allowed subjects in his study to objectively evaluate information that would otherwise evoke a defensive reaction. The participants became less biased in favor of their own position, and more discriminating in evaluating the strength or weakness of arguments made by others.

4. Improve accuracy. In a study published in the journal Psychological Science in 2012, researcher Michael Inzlicht of the University of Toronto and his coauthors found that people who had affirmed their values were more receptive to negative feedback and better able to recognize and correct their own errors. “Self-affirmation produces large effects,” the researchers note. “Even a simple reminder of one’s core values reduces defensiveness against threatening information.”

5. Close achievement gaps. Multiple studies by professor Geoffrey Cohen of Stanford University and others have found that affirming one’s values raises the test scores of minority students, and of female students in science and math classes. A reminder of one’s core values seems to protect these students from “stereotype threat”—that is, concerns about their ability to succeed because of their gender or race.

Pretty impressive results from a simple intervention. And it makes me wonder: What would happen if were reminded of and affirmed in our values as part of everyday life at school and at work?
Abstracts of the studies referenced here can be found on my blog.

http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/a_simple_exercise_that_works_wonders_affirm_your_values

37 Percent of People Don’t Have a Clue About What’s Going on

By Mark Morford, San Francisco Chronicle, March 20, 2013  |

Excerpt

about 37 percent of Americans are just are not very bright. Or rather, quite shockingly dumb…reading anything even remotely complex or analytical is something only 42 percent of the population enjoy doing on a regular basis, which is why most TV shows, all reality shows, many major media blogs and all of Fox News is scripted for a 5th-grade education/attention spanThe smarter you are, the less rigid/more liberal you become…How to reach the not-very-bright hordes, when they simply refuse to be reached by logic, fact, or modern mode? …In the wealthiest and most egomaniacal superpower in the world, why is the chasm so wide?…There is no easy answer… the discussion itself is, by nature, elitist, exclusionary, requiring fluid, abstract thinking the very people we’re discussing simply do not possess, and therefore cannot participate in…It is not enough to say people believe what they want to believe. They will also believe it in the face of irrefutable counter-evidence and millennia of fundamental proof.

Full text

Six percent of Americans believe in unicorns. Thirty-six percent believe in UFOs. A whopping 24 percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together. Eighteen percent still believe the sun revolves around the Earth. Nearly 30 percent believe cloud computing involves… actual clouds. A shockingly sad 18 percent, to this very day, believe the president is a Muslim. Aren’t they cute? And Floridian?

Do you believe in angels? Forty-five percent of Americans do. In fact, roughly 48 percent – Republicans and Democrats alike – believe in some form of creationism. A hilariously large percent of terrified right-wingers are convinced Obama is soon going to take away all their guns, so when the Newtown shooting happened and 20 young children were massacred due to America’s fetish for, obsession with and addiction to firearms, violence and fear, they bought more bullets. Because obviously.

In sum and all averaged out, it’s safe to say about 37 percent of Americans are just are not very bright. Or rather, quite shockingly dumb. Perhaps beyond reach. Perhaps beyond hope or redemption. Perhaps beyond caring about anything they have to say in the public sphere ever again. Sorry, Kansas.

Did you frown at that last paragraph? Was it a terribly elitist and unkind thing to say? Sort of. Probably. But I’m not sure it matters, because none of those people are reading this column right now, or any column for that matter, because reading anything even remotely complex or analytical is something only 42 percent of the population enjoy doing on a regular basis, which is why most TV shows, all reality shows, many major media blogs and all of Fox News is scripted for a 5th-grade education/attention span. OMG LOL kittens! 19 babies having a worse day than you. WTF is up with Justin Timberlake’s hair [3]?!?

It is this bizarre, circular, catch-22 kind of question, asked almost exclusively by intellectual liberals because intellectual conservatives don’t actually exist, given how higher education leads to more developed critical thinking (you already know the vast majority of university professors and scientists identify as Democrat/progressive, right?) which leads straight to a more nimble, open-minded perspective. In short: The smarter you are, the less rigid/more liberal you become.

Until you get old. Or rich. And scared. And you forget. And you clamp down, seize up, fossilize. And the GOP grabs you like a mold.

Oh right! The question: How to reach the not-very-bright hordes, when they simply refuse to be reached by logic, fact, or modern mode? How to communicate obvious and vital truths (conservation, global warming, public health [4], sexuality, basic nutrition, religion as parable/myth, the general awfulness of Mumford & Sons) the lack of understanding of which keep the country straggling and embarrassing, the laughingstock of the civilized world?

And who are these people, exactly? And are they all really in Kentucky and Florida and Mississippi? Are they all in the Tea Party? Is failing education to blame? A dumbed-down media? Reality TV? In the wealthiest and most egomaniacal superpower in the world, why is the chasm so wide?

There is no easy answer, but there is a great deal of irony. It is a wicked conundrum that you and I can debate the definition of elitism, whether or not it’s fair to criticize those who believe that, say, gay marriage means kids will be indoctrinated into homosexuality, or that evolution is still a theory, or that Jesus literally flew up out of a cave and into the sky, when the discussion itself is, by nature, elitist, exclusionary, requiring fluid, abstract thinking the very people we’re discussing simply do not possess, and therefore cannot participate in.

Discussion of elitism is elitist. Intelligence can talk itself blue about what to do about all the dumb; the dumb will never hear it.

It’s a fact even recognized by Louisiana’s own Gov. Bobby Jindal, who had the nerve to defy his own state’s (and his own party’s) famously low IQ by saying, after the last election, “The GOP must stop being the stupid party [5]. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.”

Of course he’s right. But where would that leave their base? And who will tell the megachurches? And does Jindal not know Louisiana is where they teach that the existence of the Loch Ness monster is evidence that evolution is a lie [6]?

Brings to mind a stunning study about facts and truths. Have you ever heard it? It goes something like: Here is hard evidence, scientific evidence, irrefutable proof that something is or is not true. Here is dinosaur bone, for example, which we know beyond a doubt is between 60 and 70 million years old. Amazing! Obviously!

But then comes the impossible snag: If you are hard-coded to believe otherwise, if your TV network or your ideology, your pastor or your lack of education tell you differently, you will still not believe it. No matter what. No matter how many facts, figures, common senses slap you upside the obvious. You will think there is conspiracy, collusion, trickery afoot. The Bible says that bone is only eight thousand years old. Science is elitist. Liberals hate God.The end.

It is not enough to say people believe what they want to believe. They will also believe it in the face of irrefutable counter-evidence and millennia of fundamental proof.

This! This is what stuns and stupefies liberals and progressives of every intellectual stripe. We cannot understand. We cannot compute. We think, “Well, if more people just had the facts, just heard a reasonable and cogent argument or read up on the real science, surely they would change their minds? Surely they would see the error in their thinking?”

Oh, liberals. All those smarts, and still so naïve.

Here is the body of Jesus! We found it! In a cave in a hole deep in an iron-gated alcove beneath the Vatican! Turns out he is not the Messiah after all! Turns out – look at those tribal tattoos! Those mala beads! That blond hair! – he’s a wild non-dualist guru from parts unknown. Christianity is a total fabrication! Always has been, always will be.

Here is hard evidence coupled with an ocean of common sense that more guns equal only more violence and death! Stat after stat, mass shooting after mass shooting proving we have it all wrong about protection and fear. Also! At least 2,605 people have died by gun violence [7] in America since the Newtown shooting. Can we ban them now? No [8]?

Here is overwhelming evidence that global warming is ravaging us like a furious god, and not only are we complicit, not only have we blindly raced forth into the abyss, we are, if all goes according to current trends and speeds and attitudes, totally f–king doomed [9].

Ah, unicorns. You look better every day.

© 2013 The San Francisco Chronicle

See more stories tagged with:

elitism [10]


Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/education/37-percent-people-dont-have-clue-about-whats-going

Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/mark-morford
[2] http://www.11points.com/News-Politics/11_Things_Americans_Wrongly_and_Frighteningly_Believe
[3] http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/wtf-is-going-on-with-justin-timberlakes-hair
[4] http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/03/daily-news-op-ed-bloombergs-soda-ban-should-be-only-the-beginning/
[5] http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/25/bobby-jindal-weve-got-to-stop-being-the-stupid-party/#ixzz2NGpxGlV4
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/louisiana-students-loch-ness-monster-disprove-evolution_n_1624643.html
[7] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
[8] http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/us/georgia-gun-requirement/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
[9] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/
[10] http://www.alternet.org/tags/elitism
[11] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

Still United: Ninety per cent of Americans still believe in hard work and the American Dream

By Associated Press, 11 May 2013

Excerpt

  • Polls in the U.S. suggest Americans still think a lot alike
  • Seven in 10 say the poor have become too dependent on government assistance
  • More want government action to make health care affordable and accessible
  • Many believe the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer 
  • Nine out of 10 call themselves very patriotic, believe in God and value higher education

Can we agree on this? Americans still think alike much of the time even if our politicians don’t…here’s the oft-overlooked truth: Even some issues that are highly contentious in the partisan capital have solid public support across the country…If those slivers of consensus were the starting point in debates, political compromise might just be possible.

Instead, drama and conflict are what feed this country’s party-driven politics, the news media, the bloggers and tweeters, even the pollsters who measure opinion. The 24-hour, left vs. right cacophony coming out of Washington tends to drown out any notes of national harmony.

Maybe the great division in politics these days lies between Washington and the rest of the nation.

 

…Democrat Barack Obama is on track to become the most polarizing president in nearly seven decades of Gallup records. His predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, held the distinction previously, signaling a trend…

Full text

  • Polls in the U.S. suggest Americans still think a lot alike
  • Seven in 10 say the poor have become too dependent on government assistance
  • More want government action to make health care affordable and accessible
  • Many believe the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer 
  • Nine out of 10 call themselves very patriotic, believe in God and value higher education

Can we agree on this? Americans still think alike much of the time even if our politicians don’t.

To get heads nodding, just say something worrisome about the economy or dismissive of Washington.

Almost all Americans consider themselves very patriotic, believe in God, value higher education and admire those who get rich through hard work.

Not much argument there.

But here’s the oft-overlooked truth: Even some issues that are highly contentious in the partisan capital have solid public support across the country.

National polls show that 7 of 10 people want to raise the minimum wage. Similar numbers want term limits for Congress, support building the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada and back using government money to make preschool available to every child.

There are toeholds of agreement on big, divisive issues such as immigration, abortion and guns. If those slivers of consensus were the starting point in debates, political compromise might just be possible.

Instead, drama and conflict are what feed this country’s party-driven politics, the news media, the bloggers and tweeters, even the pollsters who measure opinion. The 24-hour, left vs. right cacophony coming out of Washington tends to drown out any notes of national harmony.

Maybe the great division in politics these days lies between Washington and the rest of the nation.

Bonny Paulson thinks so.

A retired flight attendant in Huntly, Va., she rents a Shenandoah Valley log cabin to travelers. Paulson gets an earful of people grumbling about politicians, but she doesn’t hear much disagreement about the issues.

‘Washington is more polarized than the rest of the nation,’ she says.

Judy Hokse, visiting Washington with a group of volunteers serving meals to the homeless, says ordinary people are more entrenched in their political views than they were when she was a teenager in the 1970s. But the political standoff in Washington, she said, ‘is just way out there.

‘In our neck of the woods there are different opinions,’ says Hokse, of Saugatuck, Michigan., ‘but we can talk about them.’

The notion of a divided country even divides the academics.

Some political scientists bemoan a disappearing ideological center, reflected in the polarization consuming politics. Others dismiss the idea of a balkanized nation of Republican- or Democratic-leaning states. They see instead a laid-back land of mostly moderate, pragmatic voters remote from their highly partisan leaders.

Certainly there’s plenty for people to argue about.

Last year’s presidential race fanned long-standing debates over the size of government, the social safety net and taxes. Some states have begun recognizing gay marriage; many have imposed constitutional bans. Some are tightening gun laws, while others are looking to loosen them.

 

Democrat Barack Obama is on track to become the most polarizing president in nearly seven decades of Gallup records. His predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, held the distinction previously, signaling a trend.

Gallup says that 7 out of 10 people say Americans are greatly divided when it comes to the most important values. Yet with a few exceptions such as issues of race and gender and views of government, opinions haven’t changed much in a quarter-century of Pew polls tracking political values.

‘That’s a really critical point that often gets overlooked,’ said Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. ‘It’s easy to assume when we see more partisan polarization that somehow American values are shifting. In most dimensions the way Americans overall look at things is very consistent over time.’

While U.S. opinion overall stuck to the middle of the road, the politically engaged became better at sorting themselves into like-minded camps. Voters changed views or changed parties, and increasing numbers left the parties to become independents. Rockefeller Republicans and Reagan Democrats disappeared.

The remaining party faithful are more ideologically distilled.

Two decades ago, Republican support for stricter environmental rules was at 86 percent, almost as high as for Democrats. Last year only 47 percent of Republicans wanted tougher environmental rules, Pew found. Democratic support remained high.

On family values, it was Democrats who changed.

Over 25 years, the numbers of Democrats saying they had “old-fashioned values” about family and marriage declined from 86 percent to 60 percent, while Republicans held steady.

Despite the party shifts, stricter environmental rules and old-fashioned values are still endorsed by 7 out of 10 people.

Likewise, the abortion debate divides the political parties and fervent activists. Yet most people stand somewhere in the middle.

They overwhelmingly say abortion should be legal under some circumstances, especially in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life. At the same time, large majorities support some restrictions, such as a 24-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors.

Gun control and illegal immigration? U.S. opinion is torn, with angry voices on all sides.

Yet some ideas are getting support from 4 out of 5 people polled: extending federal background checks to all gun buyers, tightening security at the nation’s borders, and providing a path to citizenship for some workers who are in the country illegally, if they meet requirements such as paying back taxes.

So there’s common ground.

But even where people agree on big ideas, some of those ideas may conflict with each other.

Republicans aren’t the only ones who say business is the nation’s backbone. Nearly three-fourths of Americans agree. But just as many worry that there’s too much power in the hands of a few big companies — a Democratic-sounding sentiment. Seven in 10 say the poor have become too dependent on government assistance, but even more want government action to make health care affordable and accessible.

Details matter.

A resounding majority believes that in the United States ‘the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer.” But there’s no consensus on what, if anything, to do about that.

The nation is enduringly optimistic about Americans’ ability to solve problems, but it’s pessimistic about the people who make the rules in government and politics. Majorities believe elected officials are out of touch and harming the nation, and most say they prefer leaders who are willing to compromise, a rarity in Washington now.

There’s bipartisan disdain for lawmakers. The divided Congress gets 15 percent approval from Republicans and 13 percent among Democrats, according to Gallup.

‘If you listen to the people here in town they’re all fed up,’ said Debbie Grauel, owner of an independent office supply store in Deale, Md. “Everybody’s for term limits for everybody.’

What else can bring a sprawling, diverse, free-spirited nation of 316 million close to agreement? It’s hard to say. Polls rarely measure the mom-and-apple-pie stuff.

‘If there’s something that’s really a consensus, you are not going to find surveys asking about it,” said Tom Smith, director of the giant General Social Survey since 1980. Pollsters tend to drop those questions for something new.

Of course, consensus of opinion doesn’t guarantee action. Nine out of 10 people tell Pew it’s their duty to always vote, but fewer than 6 in 10 of those who were eligible voted in the 2012 presidential election.

Nor does harmony equal tranquility.

Times of crisis create a rallying effect, epitomized by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Bush’s presidential approval rating jumped to 90 percent, the highest in Gallup’s history. Approval of Congress reached 84 percent.

In ordinary times, unity of opinion might be the wrong goal.

‘If everybody agreed, there would be no debate,’ said Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport. ‘There’s an argument to be made that from debate and disagreement come truth.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323162/Despite-political-difference-Americans-actually-agree-know.html#ixzz2T5YdKwWJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A Values- and Vision-Based Political Dream

by Benjamin Mordecai Ben-Baruch, Tikkun, Winter 2011, December 21 2010

Excerpt

We need leaders and organizers to inspire people and communities to act on their values and hopes. We need help articulating our values and vision of the ideal future. Right-wing successes have been achieved by appealing to peoples’ fears, hatreds and prejudices. But the politics of hope is stronger than politics of fear. Imagining our future based on our highest ideals can mobilize us to overcome the paralysis of fear and hatred.

The politics of hope is not issue oriented, and people who share the same values and vision often disagree on the issues….[people] have been misled into believing that their freedom and empowerment resides in “free markets” and that the government is Big Brother and something to fear. They have become paralyzed by their fears. The irrationality of these fears makes us vulnerable to demagoguery. We need to go beyond issue-oriented politics and the politics of fear to a public discourse focused on articulating our vision for the ideal future and what that future would look like. We need a vision of a society without the injustices of poverty and social inequality. We need a dream…

Most Americans will understand that the kind of America they want to build is quite different from that of the new Conservatives and the neo-liberals.

But we need clarity. We need help articulating our values and vision. We need help exposing the contrary values and vision of the neo-liberals, clericalists, religious Right, and ultra-capitalists. We need to overcome the politics of fear. We need to go beyond issue-oriented politics. (And we need to go way beyond cyclic party and electoral politics.) We need to engage in the revolutionary politics of hope. We need to build a social movement of people inspired and mobilized to act upon hopes and dreams.

Full Text

We need leaders and organizers to inspire people and communities to act on their values and hopes. We need help articulating our values and vision of the ideal future. Right-wing successes have been achieved by appealing to peoples’ fears, hatreds and prejudices. But the politics of hope is stronger than politics of fear. Imagining our future based on our highest ideals can mobilize us to overcome the paralysis of fear and hatred.

The politics of hope is not issue oriented, and people who share the same values and vision often disagree on the issues. For example, people are not inspired by a proposal for a universal single-payer health care system. People are inspired by believing that a future they couldn’t imagine is now possible. Many opponents of “Obamacare,” (the recent health insurance policy reform legislation) value providing health care to all who need it and want a future in which such care is unproblematic. But they have been misled into believing that their freedom and empowerment resides in “free markets” and that the government is Big Brother and something to fear. They have become paralyzed by their fears. The irrationality of these fears makes us vulnerable to demagoguery. We need to go beyond issue-oriented politics and the politics of fear to a public discourse focused on articulating our vision for the ideal future and what that future would look like. We need a vision of a society without the injustices of poverty and social inequality. We need a dream.

Similarly, when we explore Jewish attitudes toward Israel we find a high level of agreement on basic values that is hidden by the nature of discourse. The real difference among most American Jews is the extent to which they believe that Israel, the regional military power, is threatened. We see a polarization between those who fear for Israel’s existence and hence are paralyzed from even dreaming of a better future and those motivated to act on their dreams.

When we establish a politics of hope, a political discourse of values and vision, then most Christians will see that they do not share the values and vision of the “Christian Right.” Most Jews will see that they do not share the values and vision of Israel’s political leadership. Most Americans will understand that the kind of America they want to build is quite different from that of the new Conservatives and the neo-liberals.

But we need clarity. We need help articulating our values and vision. We need help exposing the contrary values and vision of the neo-liberals, clericalists, religious Right, and ultra-capitalists. We need to overcome the politics of fear. We need to go beyond issue-oriented politics. (And we need to go way beyond cyclic party and electoral politics.) We need to engage in the revolutionary politics of hope. We need to build a social movement of people inspired and mobilized to act upon hopes and dreams.

Benjamin Mordecai Ben-Baruch is a former principal in the United Hebrew Schools of Metropolitan Detroit and currently serves on the board of directors of the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation and also of the Progressive Jewish Voice.

Ben-Baruch, Benjamin. 2011. A Values- and Vision-Based Political Dream. Tikkun 26(1): online exclusive.

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php?story=winter2011ben-baruch

The Young are the Restless

By CHARLES M. BLOW, New York Times, April 5, 2013

Excerpt

The surge of generational change continues in this country, altering the cultural landscape with a speed and intensity that has rarely — if ever — been seen before…millennials (defined by Pew as people born in 1981 or later), Generation Xers (those born between 1965 and 1980) and baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964)…The millennial generation is the generation of change. Millennials’ views on a broad range of policy issues are so different from older Americans’ perspectives that they are likely to reshape the political dialogue faster than the political class can catch up…a generation bent on rapid change — even if that means standing alone…Young people also are the least religious (more than a quarter specify no religion when asked), and they are an increasingly diverse group of voters. Fifty-eight percent of voters under 30 were white non-Hispanic in 2012, down from 74 percent in 2000. Like it or not, younger Americans are thirsty for change that lines up with their more liberal cultural worldview. Advantage Democrats.

Full text

The surge of generational change continues in this country, altering the cultural landscape with a speed and intensity that has rarely — if ever — been seen before.

The latest remarkable change concerns the decriminalization of the use of marijuana. A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center found that for the first time more Americans support legalizing marijuana use than oppose it.

It was rather unsurprising that more young people would support the move, but it was striking how quickly they adopted a more liberal position. About seven years ago, millennials (defined by Pew as people born in 1981 or later), Generation Xers (those born between 1965 and 1980) and baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) shared the same view on marijuana: Only about a third thought it should be legalized. Since then, the share of millennials supporting its legalization has risen more than 90 percent. Meanwhile, the number of legalization supporters in Generation X and among the baby boomers has risen by no more than 60 percent.

The millennial generation is the generation of change. Millennials’ views on a broad range of policy issues are so different from older Americans’ perspectives that they are likely to reshape the political dialogue faster than the political class can catch up.

I surveyed the past six months of Pew and Gallup polls, to better understand the portrait of a generation bent on rapid change — even if that means standing alone.

ON GAY MARRIAGE Much has been made of the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage in this country, but a Pew poll last month found that that the change is driven mainly by millennials. Theirs was the only generation in which a majority (70 percent) supported same-sex marriage; theirs was also the only generation even more likely to be in favor of it in 2013 than in 2012, as support in the other generations ticked down. The longer-term picture is even more telling. Support for same sex-marriage among Generation X is the same in 2013 as it was in 2001 (49 percent). But among millennials, support is up 40 percent since 2003, the first year they were included in the survey.

Some of this no doubt is the result of younger adults’ having more exposure to people who openly identify as LGBT. According to an October Gallup poll, young adults between 18 and 30 were at least twice as likely to identify as LGBT as any other age group.

But this doesn’t necessarily mean that millennials overwhelmingly agree, on a moral level, with same-sex relationships. In fact, a survey released last year by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University in conjunction with the Public Religion Research Institute found that they “are nearly evenly divided over whether sex between two adults of the same gender is morally acceptable.”

ON GUN CONTROL According to a February Gallup report, Americans ages 18 to 29 are the least likely to own guns, with just 20 percent saying that they do. That is well under the national average of 30 percent of Americans who own guns.

And in a Pew poll taken shortly after the Newtown, Conn., shootings, younger Americans were the most likely to say that gun control was a bigger concern in this country than protecting the right to own a gun. (Younger respondents barely edged out seniors with this sentiment.)

In fact, a Gallup poll found that the percentage of those 18 to 34 years old saying they want the nation’s gun laws and policies to be stricter doubled from January 2012 to 2013. No other age group saw such a large increase.

It is remarkable that young people’s opinions shifted so dramatically, especially since a December Pew poll found that young adults under 30 were the least likely to believe that the shootings in Newtown reflect broader problems in American society. This age group was, in fact, the most likely to believe that such shootings are simply the isolated acts of troubled individuals.

Young people also are the least religious (more than a quarter specify no religion when asked), and they are an increasingly diverse group of voters. Fifty-eight percent of voters under 30 were white non-Hispanic in 2012, down from 74 percent in 2000. Like it or not, younger Americans are thirsty for change that lines up with their more liberal cultural worldview.

Advantage Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/opinion/blow-the-young-are-the-restless.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130406&_r=0

America’s Sell Out Intellectuals and the Perks They Get

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig, April 1, 2013

The rewriting of history by the power elite was painfully evident as the nation marked the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Some claimed they had opposed the war when they had not. Others among “Bush’s useful idiots” argued that they had merely acted in good faith on the information available; if they had known then what they know now, they assured us, they would have acted differently. This, of course, is false. The war boosters, especially the “liberal hawks”—who included Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken and John Kerry, along with academics, writers and journalists such as Bill Keller [3], Michael Ignatieff [4], Nicholas Kristof [5], David Remnick [6], Fareed Zakaria [7], Michael Walzer [8], Paul Berman [9],Thomas Friedman [10], George Packer [11], Anne-Marie Slaughter [12], Kanan Makiya [13] and the late Christopher Hitchens [14]—did what they always have done: engage in acts of self-preservation. To oppose the war would have been a career killer. And they knew it.

These apologists, however, acted not only as cheerleaders for war; in most cases they ridiculed and attempted to discredit anyone who questioned the call to invade Iraq. Kristof, in The New York Times, attacked the filmmaker [15] Michael Moore as a conspiracy theorist and wrote that anti-war voices were only polarizing what he termed “the political cesspool.” Hitchens said that those who opposed the attack on Iraq “do not think that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy at all.” He called the typical anti-war protester a “blithering ex-flower child or ranting neo-Stalinist.” The halfhearted mea culpas by many of these courtiers a decade later always fail to mention the most pernicious and fundamental role they played in the buildup to the war—shutting down public debate. Those of us who spoke out against the war, faced with the onslaught of right-wing “patriots” and their liberal apologists, became pariahs. In my case it did not matter that I was an Arabic speaker. It did not matter that I had spent seven years in the Middle East, including months in Iraq, as a foreign correspondent. It did not matter that I knew the instrument of war. The critique that I and other opponents of war delivered, no matter how well grounded in fact and experience, turned us into objects of scorn by a liberal elite that cravenly wanted to demonstrate its own “patriotism” and “realism” about national security. The liberal class fueled a rabid, irrational hatred of all war critics. Many of us received death threats and lost our jobs, for me one at The New York Times. These liberal warmongers, 10 years later, remain both clueless about their moral bankruptcy and cloyingly sanctimonious. They have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents on their hands.

The power elite, especially the liberal elite, has always been willing to sacrifice integrity and truth for power, personal advancement, foundation grants, awards, tenured professorships, columns, book contracts, television appearances, generous lecture fees and social status. They know what they need to say. They know which ideology they have to serve. They know what lies must be told—the biggest being that they take moral stances on issues that aren’t safe and anodyne. They have been at this game a long time. And they will, should their careers require it, happily sell us out again.

Leslie Gelb [16], in the magazine Foreign Affairs, spelled it out after the invasion of Iraq.

“My initial support for the war was symptomatic of unfortunate tendencies within the foreign policy community, namely the disposition and incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility,” he wrote. “We ‘experts’ have a lot to fix about ourselves, even as we ‘perfect’ the media. We must redouble our commitment to independent thought, and embrace, rather than cast aside, opinions and facts that blow the common—often wrong—wisdom apart. Our democracy requires nothing less.”

The moral cowardice of the power elite is especially evident when it comes to the plight of the Palestinians. The liberal class, in fact, is used to marginalize and discredit those, such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein [17], who have the honesty, integrity and courage to denounce Israeli war crimes. And the liberal class is compensated for its dirty role in squelching debate.

“Nothing in my view is more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position, which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take,” wrote the lateEdward Said [18]. “You do not want to appear too political; you are afraid of seeming controversial; you want to keep a reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate; your hope is to be asked back, to consult, to be on a board or prestigious committee, and so to remain within the responsible mainstream; someday you hope to get an honorary degree, a big prize, perhaps even an ambassadorship.”

“For an intellectual these habits of mind are corrupting par excellence,” Said went on. “If anything can denature, neutralize, and finally kill a passionate intellectual life it is the internalization of such habits. Personally I have encountered them in one of the toughest of all contemporary issues, Palestine, where fear of speaking out about one of the greatest injustices in modern history has hobbled, blinkered, muzzled many who know the truth and are in a position to serve it. For despite the abuse and vilification that any outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights and self-determination earns for him or herself, the truth deserves to be spoken, represented by an unafraid and compassionate intellectual.”

Julien Benda [19] argued in his 1927 book “The Treason of Intellectuals”—“La Trahison des Clercs”—that it is only when we are not in pursuit of practical aims or material advantages that we can serve as a conscience and a corrective. Those who transfer their allegiance to the practical aims of power and material advantage emasculate themselves intellectually and morally. Benda wrote that intellectuals were once supposed to be indifferent to popular passions. They “set an example of attachment to the purely disinterested activity of the mind and created a belief in the supreme value of this form of existence.” They looked “as moralists upon the conflict of human egotisms.” They “preached, in the name of humanity or justice, the adoption of an abstract principle superior to and directly opposed to these passions.” These intellectuals were not, Benda conceded, very often able to prevent the powerful from “filling all history with the noise of their hatred and their slaughters.” But they did, at least, “prevent the laymen from setting up their actions as a religion, they did prevent them from thinking themselves great men as they carried out these activities.” In short, Benda asserted, “humanity did evil for two thousand years, but honored good. This contradiction was an honor to the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilization slipped into the world.” But once the intellectuals began to “play the game of political passions,” those who had “acted as a check on the realism of the people began to act as its stimulators.” And this is why Michael Moore is correct when he blames The New York Times and the liberal establishment, even more than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, for the Iraq War.

“The desire to tell the truth,” wrote Paul Baran [20], the brilliant Marxist economist and author of “The Political Economy of Growth,” is “only one condition for being an intellectual. The other is courage, readiness to carry on rational inquiry to wherever it may lead … to withstand … comfortable and lucrative conformity.”

Those who doggedly challenge the orthodoxy of belief, who question the reigning political passions, who refuse to sacrifice their integrity to serve the cult of power, are pushed to the margins. They are denounced by the very people who, years later, will often claim these moral battles as their own. It is only the outcasts and the rebels who keep truth and intellectual inquiry alive. They alone name the crimes of the state. They alone give a voice to the victims of oppression. They alone ask the difficult questions. Most important, they expose the powerful, along with their liberal apologists, for what they are.

© 2013 TruthDig.com

See more stories tagged with:

intellectuals [21]


Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/media/americas-sell-out-intellectuals-and-perks-they-get

Links:
[1] http://www.truthdig.com/
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/chris-hedges
[3] http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/billkeller/index.html
[4] http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/michael-ignatieff
[5] http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/nicholasdkristof/index.html
[6] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/david_remnick/search?contributorName=david%20remnick
[7] http://fareedzakaria.com/
[8] http://www.ias.edu/people/faculty-and-emeriti/walzer
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Berman
[10] http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Packer
[12] http://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/
[13] http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/03/16/kanan-makiya-regret-about-pressing-war-iraq/k6ZsBxp4sXptfXrcRAocdO/story.html
[14] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/arts/christopher-hitchens-is-dead-at-62-obituary.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[15] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/calling-bush-a-liar.html
[16] http://www.cfr.org/experts/afghanistan-iraq-terrorism/leslie-h-gelb/b3325
[17] http://normanfinkelstein.com/biography/
[18] http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=634
[19] http://www.answers.com/topic/julien-benda
[20] http://www.nndb.com/people/134/000026056/
[21] http://www.alternet.org/tags/intellectuals
[22] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

 

Our Inconsistent Ethical Instincts

by Matthew Hutson, New York Times, March 30, 2013

Excerpt

MORAL quandaries often pit concerns about principles against concerns about practical consequences…We like to believe that the principled side of the equation is rooted in deep, reasoned conviction. But a growing wealth of research shows that those values often prove to be finicky, inconsistent intuitions, swayed by ethically irrelevant factors… Even the way a scenario is worded can influence our judgments, as lawyers and politicians well know….knowing that our instincts are so sensitive to outside factors can prevent us from settling on our first response. Objective moral truth doesn’t exist, and these studies show that even if it did, our grasp of it would be tenuous. But we can encourage consistency in moral reasoning by viewing issues from many angles, discussing them with other people and monitoring our emotions closely…

Full text

MORAL quandaries often pit concerns about principles against concerns about practical consequences. Should we ban assault rifles and large sodas, restricting people’s liberties for the sake of physical health and safety? Should we allow drone killings or torture, if violating one person’s rights could save a thousand lives?

We like to believe that the principled side of the equation is rooted in deep, reasoned conviction. But a growing wealth of research shows that those values often prove to be finicky, inconsistent intuitions, swayed by ethically irrelevant factors. What you say now you might disagree with in five minutes. And such wavering has implications for both public policy and our personal lives.

Philosophers and psychologists often distinguish between two ethical frameworks. A utilitarian perspective evaluates an action purely by its consequences. If it does good, it’s good.

A deontological approach, meanwhile, also takes into account aspects of the action itself, like whether it adheres to certain rules. Do not kill, even if killing does good.

No one adheres strictly to either philosophy, and it turns out we can be nudged one way or the other for illogical reasons.

For a recent paper to be published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, subjects were made to think either abstractly or concretely — say, by writing about the distant or near future. Those who were primed to think abstractly were more accepting of a hypothetical surgery that would kill a man so that one of his glands could be used to save thousands of others from a deadly disease. In other words, a very simple manipulation of mind-set that did not change the specifics of the case led to very different responses.

Class can also play a role. Another paper, in the March issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, shows that upper-income people tend to have less empathy than those from lower-income strata, and so are more willing to sacrifice individuals for the greater good.

Upper-income subjects took more money from another subject to multiply it and give to others, and found it more acceptable to push a fat man in front of a trolley to save five others on the track — both outcome-oriented responses.

But asking subjects to focus on the feelings of the person losing the money made wealthier respondents less likely to accept such a trade-off.

Other recent research shows similar results: stressing subjects, rushing them or reminding them of their mortality all reduce utilitarian responses, most likely by preventing them from controlling their emotions.

Even the way a scenario is worded can influence our judgments, as lawyers and politicians well know. In one study, subjects read a number of variations of the classic trolley dilemma: should you turn a runaway trolley away from five people and onto a track with only one? When flipping the switch was described as saving the people on the first track, subjects tended to support it. When it was described as killing someone on the second, they did not. Same situation, different answers.

And other published studies have shown that our moods can make misdeeds seem more or less sinful. Ethical violations become less offensive after people watch a humor program like “Saturday Night Live.” But they become more offensive after reading “Chicken Soup for the Soul,” which triggers emotional elevation, or after smelling a mock-flatulence spray, which triggers disgust.

The scenarios in these papers are somewhat contrived (trolleys and such), but they have real-world analogues: deciding whether to fire a loyal employee for the good of the company, or whether to donate to a single sick child rather than to an aid organization that could save several.

Regardless of whether you endorse following the rules or calculating benefits, knowing that our instincts are so sensitive to outside factors can prevent us from settling on our first response. Objective moral truth doesn’t exist, and these studies show that even if it did, our grasp of it would be tenuous.

But we can encourage consistency in moral reasoning by viewing issues from many angles, discussing them with other people and monitoring our emotions closely. In recognizing our psychological quirks, we just might find answers we can live with.

Matthew Hutson, the author of “The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking: How Irrational Beliefs Keep Us Happy, Healthy, and Sane,” is writing a book on taboos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/how-firm-are-our-principles.htm

Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values, Beliefs, and Positions

American Values Project, representing a cross section of leaders from think tanks, philanthropic organizations, and environmental, labor, youth, civil rights, and other progressive groups, to try to distill progressive beliefs and values into clear language in one digestible resource.

Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values, Beliefs, and Positions.

Progressive Thinking is a comprehensive and practical synthesis of the current and best understanding of progressivism, encompassing its history, traditions, worldview, values and positions on major issues. Progressive Thinking is designed to serve as a foundation for greater coherence in communications and unity in the expression of progressive ideals and aspirations. This document – and our use of the terms “Progressive Thinking” and “synthesis” – are informed by our communications with more than 300 progressives and extensive correspondence and conversations with many of our nation’s leading progressive thinkers.

Progressive Thinking outlines what we believe as progressives and how we view the world. It is designed to help our nation’s diverse progressive community better understand and articulate a common philosophical and values framework to the wider public. We also believe a majority of Americans will find themselves and their views represented in these pages because progressive thought is deeply rooted in the values and philosophies on which our country was founded and upon which we have built nearly two and a half centuries of American achievement.

We sincerely hope Progressive Thinking and its central, common-sense theme – “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does his or her fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules” – will help focus the views and, indeed, the hopes of a growing majority of Americans committed to progressive principles and policies.

To download a PDF of Progressive Thinking, please click here. You will need Adobe Acrobat or Preview to view this document.

http://americanvaluesproject.com/progressive-thinking/

Progressive Building Blocks

Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values, Beliefs, and Positions

What It Means To Be A Progressive: A Manifesto