Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Monday, July 30, 2012

‘Low-Effort Thought’ Promotes Political Conservatism, Study Says

"A new study suggests that people’s first response tends to be one that reflects a more politically conservative view. Published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, it notes that conservatism is tied to “low-effort thought.”


The study suggests “that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.” In a statement released by the University of Arkansas, psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman said, “People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a first or fast response.”


In an email to The Huffington Post, Eidelman clarified that this conclusion does not imply that conservatives are intellectually lazy. “Our research shows that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort thinking,” he said.

From The Huffington Post:
For the study, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Eidelman asked people about their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory setting.

Bar patrons were asked about social issues before blowing into a Breathalyzer. As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.
Alcohol isn’t solely to blame: “Keeping people from thinking too much…or just asking them to deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact people’s political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes political conservatism,” Eidelman said in the email."

SOURCE

More:

The study suggested that political conservatism "may be a process consequence of low-effort thought. When effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.”

And this:

"The University of Arkansas released a study which is sure to rile the Conservatives up into a furor. The study examined Conservative ideology, thinking processes, and intelligence scores.

The connection between the three showed lazy thinking and low IQ scores translated into believing Conservative ideology. The study was very clear in stating that Conservatives do not necessarily have a lower IQ or conduct lazy thinking, only that lower IQ and lazy thinking processes lead people towards Conservative beliefs.

There is a difference between people choosing something based on IQ or thinking compared to people presenting the ideas as being lazy thinkers or having low IQ scores.

Let me state the studies main theme again, in a clearer manner for the readers. Conservative politics are not the product of lazy thinking or low IQ scores. Conservative politicians are not lower IQ’d individuals or lazier thinkers. Conservative voters are not less intelligent or less complex thinkers. The ideology put forth by Conservatives is easier to process, bringing lower intelligence voters and lazy thinkers into the fold."

And this:

"Remember that the rough conclusion of the experiments was that slow/simple people are more likely to be conservatively minded because it's easier to say "I like things this way because my Father/God/Teacher likes things this way" than to actually consider all the implications of any given political subject like left wing thinkers might think of."

50 comments:

Infidel753 said...

it's easier to say "I like things this way because my Father/God/Teacher likes things this way" than to actually consider all the implications of any given political subject

This makes a lot of sense. The dawn of science and modernity themselves depended, in the deepest sense, on realizing that the latter approach and not the former one is the one that actually allows you to figure out reality.

political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought

In the case of a lot of what I see around the net from these people, I don't know if "thought" is really the correct term for it, but I'm not sure there even is a correct term for it.

Paul said...

They don't believe in Science, they have Voodoo economics, haven't learned lessons of history, love their guns, and expect God to do their thinking for them.
Slow and easy.

diablo 3 power leveling said...

Very nice indeed! Thanks for this!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Remember when rightwingers scoffed at "nuance?"

The "You didn't make that" controversy is a perfect example of lazy thinking.

Instead of looking at the context of what Mr. Obama was saying, the Romney campaign did the lazy thing and isolated that one phrase and Ta Da! they got their lazy thinkers on board! It fed into their habit of accepting the path of least resistance.

And how many times have I read here and on other blogs how stupid the American people were in November 2008, because they voted for Mr. Obama.

But they never examine why so many GOPers fell ass over elbow for the likes of Sarah Palin, and they still laughingly say she's more experienced than Mr. Obama.

Paths of least resistance and lazy thinking.

This study, IMO, is spot on.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dear skudrunner,

Please take note of what you wrote and published here. Then please go read this post. Again:

skudrunner: "They do not support Obama, they are overwhelmingly Democrat. Has nothing to do with Obama. Jews, like unions, vote democrat because they always have, called the non-thinking vote."

Thersites said...

Wanna know something even more cowardly than calling Barack Obama a "half savage" on you blog behind his back?

Calling another blogger the same, and then closing comments to the thread so that NO response could be made....

Hypcrite, thy name is Democrat.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Comments are not shut off. You apparently don't know how Blogger works. That header is NOT a blog post. It was a header that I use to display current news reports or something other than the blog post featured.

I just changed it again today to reflect Free Thinke's opinion of the President of the United States of America.

He outdoes himself every day in his spittle-flecked derangement.

If you want to comment on it. You can do so here on this comment thread.

You don't have to leap to the conclusion that Democrats are hypocrites just because you don't understand how Blogger works.

That's called LAZY THINKING, and it is the subject of today's post.

You may want to read it and understand it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

BTW, I never called Free Thinke, or anyone, a "half savage."

You're mistaken or confused.

Silverfiddle said...

Could it be that conservative thought just instinctively makes more sense?

Pay people to sit on their asses and mooch off of the government, and you will produce more moochers. Building ponzi schemes that pay out more money than they bring in will produce deficits.

You can't rack up debt forever...

Are these the crazy, knee-jerk conservative ideas the researchers have in mind?

Silverfiddle said...

And it's not a new study.

I had a good laugh about it back in April:

Western Hero: Liberalism is Abnormal

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Could it be that conservative thought just instinctively makes more sense?"

No.

Here's an example of "conservative thought:"

"The truth is those of us who are against the president are not against him because he's part-black, half-white, had an African savage for a father, and a lunatic, anti-American bitch for a mother, that he once-used drugs and quit, hasn't revealed his school transcripts, hasn't explained why he has had several social security numbers, was buddy buddy with domestic terrorists and a virulent anti-American, anti-Semitic faux-Christian preacher of hatred and sedition, that he has bowed down to foreign potentates, that he's a self-absorbed grandstander pandering shamelessly -- and hypocritically -- to the peanut gallery -- or any of that stuff. "

"The result is that we now have this insolent half-man, half-savage and his greedy, emotionally immature wife with the tastes and inclinations of a spoiled teenager manipulated by demonic do-gooders into the White House
--Free Thinke


And this guy who admires your blog and often comments there as well as Free Thinke.

Some real deep thinking going on among commenters you pal around with.

Silverfiddle said...

Please, Shaw...

He styles himself FreeThinke, not ConservativeThinke.

I could throw little foul-mouthed Stevie back at you, but what's the point? You are your own person and so am I.

Studies like these are little amusements, some red meat to make intellectually-adrift liberals feel better, but that's a far as it goes.

What are the intellectual foundations of modern-day liberalism?

Paul said...

I should pull out the comments on SF's blog, that called me smart.
That was when I first went on SF's blog.
Then the personal attacks against me started. So I responded in kind, and still do to this day.
It is you SF and your delusional minions who love to insult and name call, then blame it on the one you insulted.
Just like your post today.
Romney gets blasted worldwide for insulting nations and his classless behavior, so by all means invent the same for Obama. But the world doesn't think Obama insulted any nation. Only you do.
I'll take world opinion over your lies any day.
Go back to your troglodytes for today's bashing of me, which happens whether I make a comment, or not.
SF, to lazy, slow - uses real Republiscum idiocy, and invents the same for Obama.
What nothing original?
Like a child on the playground, SF responds your lie is bigger than my lie, except that kid didn't speak a lie, only the blog (playground) bully SF lied.

Kevin Robbins said...

So,the more time people spend watching American Idol and Swamp People the better Willard's chances.

It's difficult for either side to win based on the underlying issues. Tar your opponent with sound bites and he hope he doesn't tar you worse is what it's come to.

The study may be bad news for liberal politics as people in this country continue to slide into increasing intellectual laziness. The knee jerk bromides put forth by Conservatives gain traction more easily.

Very nice post, Shaw.

Anonymous said...

'Romney Has Already Disqualified Himself'

"Travel educates. As a result one should assume that Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger of Barack Obama, wants to learn something during his visit to Israel. Wrong! Almost everything that the candidate organized in Jerusalem fuels the impression that he doesn't want to try understanding how complicated the Middle East situation is. Instead, Romney paints the crisis region in black and white: Israel is good and the rest -- the Palestinians and the mullahs in Iran -- are lumped together."

"This one-sided world view is less dumb than it is coldly calculated. Romney is soliciting campaign donations in Jerusalem (the minimum price for two plates at breakfast is $50,000.) And he is ensnaring Jewish voters at home."

"The trip to Israel may help Romney in the short-term. But in the long-term the Republican has done damage. The Middle East needs the US as a mediator. As such, the presidential hopeful has already disqualified himself."

skudrunner said...

So because a liberal professor at the University of Arkansas wrote a paper, I now should change my views. This study deserves respect because any study taken in a bar shows very valid results.

I will agree that conservatives think about politics less than liberals. Conservatives want to depend less on government, want to make their own decisions provide for themselves and don't want as much free stuff.

Like his magnificentness says "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Must have been those high effort liberals that built your business.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner: "So because a liberal professor at the University of Arkansas wrote a paper, I now should change my views."


Example No. 1 of Lazy Thingking


skudrunner: "This study deserves respect because any study taken in a bar shows very valid results."

Example No. 2 of Low Effort Thought

skudrunner: "I will agree that conservatives think about politics less than liberals."

Example No. 3 of effortful, deliberate thought that is disengaged,.

No such claim was made.


skudrunner: "Conservatives want to depend less on government, want to make their own decisions provide for themselves and don't want as much free stuff."

Example No. 4 of Lazy Thinking.

skudrunner: "Like his magnificentness says "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Must have been those high effort liberals that built your business."

Example No. 5 of excruciatingly Lazy Thinking. Take actual words out of context and run with conservative Talking Points.


"The study examined Conservative ideology, thinking processes, and intelligence scores. The connection between the three showed lazy thinking and low IQ scores translated into believing Conservative ideology."

skudrunner, we acknowledge your awesomeness in providing us with such impeccable Lazy Thinking examples.

Silverfiddle said...

No Shaw, an example of low level thought is when people like Steve spout inanities like this:

But the world doesn't think Obama insulted any nation. Only you do.
I'll take world opinion over your lies any day.


So if "the world" said the moon was made of green cheese, "enlightened" liberals would go along with it.

Instead of "world Opinion" maybe you should try using logic to judge the facts.

Nothing I mentioned in my blog post is invented. It is all documented in the press.

Silverfiddle said...

I will give the liberals who did this study one thing: It does take an active and creative thought process to believe that government-provided stuff is free, that you can get something for nothing, and that you can tax the crap out of business owners and they'll just stand there and take it and continue to hire more people.

It takes quite an imagination to believe a community agitator with no experience would make a good president.

So yeah, I can see where this study is coming from...

skudrunner said...

Shaw,

I gave credit to the validity of the study. I heard about a study that college males stand a better chance of hooking up if they ask drunk women in a bar out. Since it was conducted in a bar it must be true.

But what do I know because I own a business and we all know that

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Maybe you are correct that I have taken his statement out of context.
I guess what his wonderfullness meant was if you take a government loan and move the company offshore before going out of business, I made that happen after a generous contribution to my Reelect The Disaster campaign fund

I did not misquote what hismightyness said because that quote was from your blog and you would never post falsehoods.

Silverfiddle said...

Studies like these are infamously un-scientific because ultimately, they are based upon subjective criteria dreamed up by liberals looking to reinforce their own sense of superiority in the face of liberal projects and ideals crashing all around them.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5533

And they are also rife with statistical errors

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

But finally, conservatives do not jump off the cliff like liberal lemmings.

We respect tradition, understand our damnable human nature, and want to see some facts before, say, handing trillions to the kleptocrats and rapists at the UN just because Reverend Al Gore, International Church of Gaia, tells us to.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/demonizing_conservative_thought.html

To be able to hold such conservative philosophies requires one to have read, studied and thought things out beforehand.

Liberalism requires no thought at all. All you have to do to be a good liberal is emote, say the right things about whatever the latest causes are, and respond hysterically to the alarums sounded by the intelligentsia.

Shaw Kenawe said...

That study must have hit a nerve, SF.

You've posted 6 comments hoping to discredit it.

There's nothing wrong with how it was conducted, and the findings do not say that conservatives are intellectually lazy, but that intellectually lazy people tend to be conservatives.

Similar to what John Stuart Mill said a long time ago:

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." --John Stuart Mill

And the fact that the GOP admires people like Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann as political leaders worthy of the presidency enforces what Mill said.

You and other conservative/libertarians get all huffy at these types of discussions, but are comfortable when you or others consistently call liberals Marxists and America haters.

You say we try to make ouselves look superior with these studies? What does it make you look like when you call us Commie/Marxists/Fascists/America-hating Libtards?

You need to put on your big boy jockey shorts and not be so defensive when studies point to some uncomfortable truths.

Dave Dubya said...

Authoritarian leaders have their authoritarian followers. This explains it better than anything I’ve seen yet.

Study: Conservatives Have Larger 'Fear Centers' in Their Brains

http://www.alternet.org/story/149362/

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions.

At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

Silverfiddle said...

What do you expect Shaw? That I would agree with you?

Seems like you're the one who can't cope with a little challenge.

But anyway, it these little studies make you and your progressives feel better, who am I to criticize?

Silverfiddle said...

At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

Yeah....


That explains why the military is overwhelmingly conservative.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"That explains why the military is overwhelmingly conservative." --SF

Actually I think is a better explanation:


"Conventional wisdom holds that the American military is overwhelmingly conservative and Republican, and extremely political. Our Army paints a more complex picture, demonstrating that while army officers are likely to be more conservative, rank-and-file soldiers hold political views that mirror those of the American public as a whole, and army personnel are less partisan and politically engaged than most civilians.

Assumptions about political attitudes in the U.S. Army are based largely on studies focusing on the senior ranks, yet these senior officers comprise only about 6 percent of America's fighting force. Jason Dempsey provides the first random-sample survey that also covers the social and political attitudes held by enlisted men and women in the army. Uniting these findings with those from another unique survey he conducted among cadets at the United States Military Academy on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, Dempsey offers the most detailed look yet at how service members of all ranks approach politics. He shows that many West Point cadets view political conservatism as part of being an officer, raising important questions about how the army indoctrinates officers politically. But Dempsey reveals that the rank-and-file army is not nearly as homogeneous as we think--or as politically active--and that political attitudes across the ranks are undergoing a substantial shift.

Our Army adds needed nuance to our understanding of a profession that seems increasingly distant from the average American.

Jason K. Dempsey is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who served in Afghanistan. He has a PhD in political science from Columbia University and is a graduate of the United States Military Academy.

Through its careful assessment of results from a unique, original survey instrument, Our Army offers an important corrective to the conventional view of an increasingly conservative, politically active army that threatens to upend established norms of civil-military relations. It offers a wealth of new data for scholars to explore, and it suggests avenues for future research that will further bolster our understanding of the army and its intricate relations with the political branches of government."--Douglas L. Kriner, Public Opinion Quarterly

Endorsements:

"Interesting and important. Dempsey presents a wealth of original survey data on the views of army personnel. He shows that soldiers hold views that are not dramatically different from those of the American people as a whole, but that differences between officers and the general public exist on many issues. Dempsey points to the dangers of having the military aligned to one political party."--Ole R. Holsti, professor emeritus, Duke University"

Anonymous said...

Romney hit the trifecta of shambles:

"Between annoying the British and alienating the Palestinians, Mitt Romney seems to have found trouble everywhere he went on his overseas campaign trip.

"Now, the Polish trade union Solidarity, once led by Romney’s host in Poland Lech WaÅ‚Ä™sa, disavowed the GOP presidential hopeful because of his anti-union politics.

Romney went to GdaÅ„sk, Poland to meet with WaÅ‚Ä™sa, who in 1980, led a workers’ strike in the GdaÅ„sk Shipyard and helped create the Solidarity trade union. Solidarity became a thorn in the side of the Soviet-backed government, and WaÅ‚Ä™sa eventually became a Nobel laureate and the first president of a free Poland. WaÅ‚Ä™sa was reportedly miffed when Obama wouldn’t grant him a private greeting, and invited Romney for a visit.

But Solidarity isn’t extending the same welcome. The group distanced itself in a statement:


Regretfully, we were informed by our friends from the American headquarters of (trade union federation) AFL-CIO, which represents more than 12 million employees … that Mitt Romney supported attacks on trade unions and employees’ rights.

Solidarity was not involved in organizing Romney’s meeting with WaÅ‚Ä™sa and did not invite him to visit Poland.

Romney has staked out anti-union positions. He supported right-to-work legislation and railed against unions in Michigan earlier this year: “I’ve taken on union bosses before. I’m happy to take them on again.”

Les Carpenter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul said...

SF,
"So if "the world" said the moon was made of green cheese, "enlightened" liberals would go along with it."

That was the dumbest analogy I've read in years on the net, and that includes some pretty dense thinking. You top all the idiots I've ever read.

I expect nothing but idiocy from you. And you prove me correct everyday. Thanks.

Right, like jarheads are known for their high IQ's. Most of them are like you, they join the service because they were to stupid to complete school and they love to kill.

Les Carpenter said...

@ All, and I do mean all..

As I see it, and I certainly realize that many will disagree. I also realize that it is just the way it is and likely it is the way it will continue to be.

Further, it has become apparent (at least to the thinking mind anyway) that both major political parties are incapable of a completely reason and rational thought process today. What has become apparent is the strong tendency to align with a particular party and ideology and from that point on pledge continued and blindfold allegiance to that particular party and its hidebound ideology.

In today's world of political dialogue it has essentially come to this:

Conservative = Robubliscum
Liberal = Libtard
Independent = No Core
Free Thinker = Bigot, Racist, Sub Human

I could very well go on and expand the above list. I won't because each and every person that places themselves in any category will likely discount even the slightest notion that they in fact may be part of the problem. To my mind therein lies the root of MOST of OUR national problem(s).

Each thinking individual forms their opinions based on a plethora of stimuli and valid data input. Every persons judgement will also be affected by a host of considerations that may, or may not be totally supported by the existence of factual evidence. Call it the tendency to emotional impact on ones judgment.

Quite often arguments are supported based on nothing more than a premise (theory) that something appears to be likely based on empirical data that predicts the premise (theory) will likely be true. However, futher data and evidence of the likelihood is required to "prove" the premise or theory true beyond doubt.

It is indeed a wise person that understands that knowledge, no matter how large or great can and does change based on our the human mind's ability to discover and apply new truths to older bits of knowledge.

I have occasionally been accused of being guilty of not reaching beyond the obvious, or to put another way of not questioning my own determinations in the face of new information. Of being to locked into my prior held beliefs and judgements, ignoring new evidence to the contrary. To which I can only acknowledge the existence of at least a partial truth within the accusation(s).

It is as amusing as it is discouraging (at least to me) that so few people seem to be able to recognize the above in their own lives and affairs. I suppose it is because we are human and therefore creates of habit.

Perhaps the two most difficult things for humans to accept is 1) change, and 2) to admit we may have been wrong and there indeed might just be a better way.

At one time the world was considered to be flat. The Earth at one time was thought to be the center of the universe. Once mankind thought that only winged creatures could fly.

The only thing that stands in the way of advancing knowledge is the men and or women who have decided that they know all there is to know.

Somehow, I get the feeling that in politics we have reached that apex. If indeed we have then we are doomed to that which we have sentenced ourselves.

Thanks Shaw for allowing the opportunity to expound on what I am quite sure will be ignored.

Perhaps with a few exceptions exception...

skudrunner said...

Anon,

Heaven forbid we have right to work. The alternative is paying union crooks to contribute to the Disaster Reelection Fund.

After BHO's comment about Polish death camps, you are probably right that Obama will get the majority of Polish votes in Poland but, like England, few of them vote in American elections. The exception are the states with no voter identification then who knows where the voters come from.

skudrunner said...

Steve,

You seem to have a dislike for service personnel. I know a lot of them and they are bright and hard working. Is the fact that they work hard something you don't understand or do you consider them stupid because they work hard?

Republican Racist said...

You forgot

Ayn Rand cultist = Jew hating Hitler supporter.

If people ignore you, it's because they choose not to follow your hate.

To forgive that you printed such hate is one thing; to forget that those are your beliefs, is not going to happen.

You proved yourself into irrelevancy.

Then you preach, like you are the only rational person around.

Your hypocrisy, is stunning.

Paul said...

Hey Skud,

You never did answer my question about you lie that Williams ambushed Romney. Why not?

Your business must be thriving, since you spend all your time on blogs spewing lies

Les Carpenter said...

Republican Racist - Duh...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Get it AH?

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: The twaddle you cited on ideology in the military is just the kind of junk I would expect from someone who never served.

Granted there are many democrats in the military, and bonafide political liberals, but the cohort is overwhelmingly conservative and patriotic (*Gasp*) in personal views.

It is a myth that enlisted come from overwhelmingly inner city poor. No, they come mostly from rural middle class.

skudrunner said...

Steve,

Business is doing fine, thanks for your concern and for asking. Some of the people we deal with are military and I will pass on your heart felt thanks for all they do, I won't tell them you think they are stupid.

It's OK that Williams set Mitt up, most of the MSM will try to do the same thing, anything to embarrass anyone running against help the disaster reelection campaign. The biggest problem with the leftists media is Romney said exactly what the British news said and the media didn't know how to handle it. To think, an honest politician. The Brits had fun with it so he did supply some entertainment while visiting.

Paul said...

One of the most highly educated, respected generals (Powell) lied to the world at the UN, to facilitate an unnecessary invasion of another country.
Trained to follow orders, no matter what.
Atrocities are common in war, perpetrated by trained soldiers. And the US soldier, is no exception.
The danger of soldiers being so brainwashed (trained) to kill leads to murders, that have been documented in ALL our wars.
We have to entice our young people, somehow, to do our killing for us, so we wrap it in fake patriotism.
Their superiority (power) complex leads them to rape their fellow soldiers, and expect instant worship just because they wear the uniform.
The whole chain of command is based in what Shaw highlighted today. Slow thinking. Don't question, just do what I say.

Paul said...

It's not a set up, because Romney gives stupid answers.
The military is stupid, if they lie, rape, and kill just because they think that's power, a civil way to deal with people, or because they were ordered to.

Les Carpenter said...

A bevy of illiterate babble couched in vague generalities from Steve.

Paul said...

Coming from a Nazi lover like you, that's rich

Dave Dubya said...

Changing our corrupt system requires courage and optimism. It takes no courage at all to abide the corrupting role of Big Money in elections and media and their control over politicians through “free speech” campaign cash.

It is fear cultivated by the Right, fear of the foreign, fear of the “socialist”, fear of the “Marxist America-hating” Obama, fear of “death panels” etc. that is dishonestly manipulated to obstruct the change toward more democracy.

The military has more than its share of authoritarian personalities, but the times are changing.

In 2008 Obama led in contributions from U.S. Troops deployed abroad:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html

And:

http://www.vfwca.org/images/7-14_Critical_Military_Vote.pdf


In the 2008 presidential election the Edison/Mitofsky poll found that the veterans vote split sharply along age lines, with 61 percent of veterans older than age 60 supporting Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war.

Veterans under age 45 favored Obama by 51 percent, and those from 45 to 59 favored Obama by 53 percent, even though he never served in uniform. Because older vets outnumber younger vets, however, McCain received about 12 million veteran votes nationwide, compared with about 8 million for Obama.

Paul said...

I'm with RR.
I'll forgive you for publicly printing your hate, but won't forget that you are a anti-Semite, racist hater, and it clouds everything you say.
No good point you make will erase what you really are.

skudrunner said...

"Big Money in elections and media and their control over politicians through “free speech” campaign cash."

Totally agree, look what happened in 2008 with all the money thrown around by the the current OWH. Of course he lied about the contributions he would take but the MSM let him slide.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Silverfiddle wrote: "Shaw: The twaddle you cited on ideology in the military is just the kind of junk I would expect from someone who never served."

Except what you call "twaddle" was not written by me. It was written by Jason K. Dempsey, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who served in Afghanistan. He has a PhD in political science from Columbia University and is a graduate of the United States Military Academy.

If your credentials top his, maybe I'll take you seriously.

Les Carpenter said...

Steve, You really ought to put down the crack pipe.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: It was a limited survey and focused on political views. A person can be conservative while also being apolitical.

And the twaddle you cut and pasted was written by a non-military person, who cited a military person.

toko baju murah layali said...

This is a great posting I have read. I like your article. Thank you

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF,

What you term "twaddle" is a review of what is written in Jason Dempsey's book. The review quoted Dempsey's finding from his research.

In your universe, what you don't like to read and understand is called "twaddle."

In everyone else's, what Dempsey wrote about is called the results of research.

Dismiss it all you like.

Dempsey's findings are factual. Your remark is opinion.

Silverfiddle said...

Dempsey's findings are factual, as far as you can take his limited sampling.

I take no issue with that. I do take issue with those who extrapolate out from there, and turn the results to try and fit their own world view.

I ask you to again pause and consider my words. One can be conservative, yet still be apolitical, and that is what Dempsey describes.

Two many people have conflated two distinct issues. That's where the twaddle comes in.