Sunday, August 14, 2005

i love this piece - Elevating intellect to new heights, liberals have lost touch with instinct



(i'm not sure why, but reading this and listening to Studio 360 and trying to write an article about those xtian docs is all swirling around together. btw... i'm trying to write a piece on the docs to the tune of spirtuality and medicine. i think "spirituality is a non-issue in my experience. but it opens up avenues to talk about "rationality" and science, The Enlightenment and being post-modern healthcare consumers. maybe THEY act like animals ...it explains their disagreement with evolution generally...b/c the ARE animals. we evolved and shhhh... someone else didn't. which begs another question. if we "conquered" nature the first time (Bacon et al) being "evolved rational Enlightenment humans" then what do we need to do to conquer these animals in our post-evolution? more coffee dammit.)



Elevating intellect to new heights, liberals have lost touch with instinct

Missing Link: GOP / Bush vs. Democrats, The Alpha Male Deficit
Editorial by Balletshooz


In the midst of the current battle between the 'leftist' grassroots and the 'moderate' DLC, this article interjects a missing link. Political leadership is not about mimicry of 'tough' positions, nor is it about reactionary complaints and bomb-throwing.

It is about the attitude of power.

The attitude of power has an evolutionary basis, one that is rooted in the signals of alpha masculinity, and it is sorely missing from both the Democratic establishment and the liberal rebels. This isn't about policy positions or ideology. It's about something more fundamental. It's about biology.

Call it toughness or brashness, chutzpah or machismo, iron guts, brass balls or just plain alpha maleness. Whatever you want to call it, to paraphrase Potter Stewart, you know it when you see it, and you know when it's not there. The time has never been more critical for liberals to defy expectations and show they've got it and attack conservatives for having none.



Since Election 2004, liberals have been agonizing over the shape of the Democratic Party and the fate of liberalism itself. Should they look for new policies or new personalities? Is the right demographic the 'security moms' or the 'values voters'? Is their salvation in the framing, in the heartland, or in the Bible?

For a moment, liberals may want to put aside all the abstract political analysis and poll-data parsing and consider something far simpler. A basic fact of nature gone underappreciated for a very long time. Something fundamentalist conservatives won't believe and enlightened liberals don't like to acknowledge.

People are animals.
(more at link)

3 Comments:

Blogger elizabeth said...

This bit here that she said:

“The failure of the Lambda Lib in America has proven that people are relatively ambivalent about a leader's intelligence, his eloquence, and even his competence. But there is one quality they can never find lacking. Americans, especially in this post-9/11 era, must see signs that their leader, if necessary, can kick some ass and protect them in an increasingly hostile world, one that doesn't always respond to reason or civility.”

really reminded me of the thing I posted the day after the election:

“When we re-elected Reagan, we were saying, "We're too scared to face the world without Big Strong Daddy. Daddy wants to keep all the bombs because he wants us to be safe. You can't expect us to let go of Daddy's hand." Totally childish, but you CAN see a) it IS hard to put down your gun before the other guy does, and b) Reagan did deliver a level of emotional comfort that many people could trust above their own puny intellects. Feeling is to many simply more real experientially. And Bush mark 1 simply turned out to be unpaletable as a Daddy surrogate.”

Monday, August 15, 2005 3:12:00 AM  
Blogger Brook said...

yeah, and it seems to me there's a contradiction, given that "feeling" is so often devaluied in terms of a grown-up mode of operation.

i'm starting to think that all the lip-serivce given to "reason" was just that -- puffs of air. or, is it that the inflamed emotions were something that used to belong to the unwashed masses.

it seems to me that something is going on that *should* satisfy those of us who called for a more feeling public life -- but that what we got was not what we asked for. we wanted an Enlightenment Emotionality -- not a return to a dark ages -- good vs evil.

Monday, August 15, 2005 8:26:00 AM  
Blogger elizabeth said...

Well, we wanted mature emotionality- the feelings of adults who had moved beyond the sandbox, not two year old tots with no self control, with no concept that if you smashed the toy one minute it wouldn't be there the next to play with. I'm not really sure you can even call these primordial posturings emotions yet- it's just the chaotic land of Id, from which emotions eventually emerge. It's just a descent into savagery.

Monday, August 15, 2005 10:35:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home