We know the right wing talk radio would have reacted differently

[Le Gaucher]

Had Obama have to have deal with one or more of the following

1) Boasting of molesting young girls
2) Alleged Getting Russian help to win election
3) Any of the random shit that Trump does


The question that intrigues me while thinking about this 'counterfactual' scenario is what proportion of that difference in their reactions is driven by inherent subconscious bias (due to brain's wiring or their worldview) see the two differently... And what proportion of it is driven by conscious self interest .. ( Where they know Trump is a crook but are just being hypocritical).

Secondly - Are we as biased and if we had had our own Trump? - would our own 'delta' in our reactions between our Trump and their Trump be as pronounced?


And how do we even go about these questions honestly and objectively?

[grumpyduck]

1. I've been noticing for a long time that some people

seem to have a worldview that says "I can do it but you can't." IOW, it's okay for me to do something but heaven help you if you do it. And from what I've seen they are totally unaware of it. I've seen this behavior in school, at work, at home, and lots of other places.

I think it would be fascinating for some sociologist, psychologist, or some other "ologist" to publish a study on this. Hm. For all I know, it's already been done. Maybe I should look around.

[calimary]

7. I'm taking another deeper dive through George Lakoff's book

“Don’t Think of an Elephant.” Tremendously illuminating! Describes the mentality of the other side of the aisle. Their worldview is that the whole “stern father” approach - basically a “Do As I Say Until You’re Old Enough To Move Out and Then You’re ON YOUR OWN” philosophy - IS a moral approach for conservatives. As opposed to the opposite, the “nurturing parent” approach that encourages, helps, and offers backup whenever needed - which is what liberals tend to view as moral. The “stern father” approach includes punishing. Not so much for the “nurturing parent” approach.

Lakoff goes on to describe how the “stern father” approach also sees morality in self-interest - whatever’s good for me is good, and if everybody operates that way, it’ll create a trickle down effect in which everybody benefits. On the other hand, the “nurturing parent” approach goes toward a broader interest that prioritizes the common good, not the self-interested “what’s in it for me” preference.

Sure seems to make sense to me. Followers of both approaches see profound morality in their own favorite option because of the underlying philosophy of how they see the world.

Quite fascinating reading! I’ve read pieces of it but not from cover to cover before. Most illuminating, and validates the instincts I’ve had about this stuff for a long time.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Of course people are inclined to forgive, excuse or ignore the sins of "their" guy.

That's politics. But the sins of Trump are far beyond those of any other president. Others have had affairs or have lied or have been involved in shady activities, but I find it hard to imagine how even the most ardent GOPer can turn a blind eye to Trump's overwhelmingly corrupt, debased behavior. The GOPers in Congress are giving him a pass in order to further the GOP agenda as well as their own careers, so they're just being cynical. The MAGA-hat people, on the other hand, don't seem to believe that some of it ever happened (Fake news! No collusion!). Other behavior - the insults, bullying and racist remarks - is excused because they agree with it.

What if we had our own Trump? I don't think we'd ever get a Trump like this one because this Trump is fundamentally anti-liberal. He was nominally a Democrat for awhile but only because it benefited him as a New Yorker; he seems to have no core ideology beyond what benefits him. He's anti-liberal in the moral rather than the political sense because he's a racist, sexist hater who is interested only in being famous, powerful and rich - it's all personal to him. Could a Democratic candidate emerge who is an amoral, self-interested narcissist but who claims to hold liberal beliefs? I don't see how such a person could maintain a convincingly liberal façade.

[Le Gaucher]

4. we ABSOLUTELY could have our own Trump IF

he convinced enough of us that he'd get us what we craved ( whatever that might be).

However - my question is predicated on the presence of such a person. Whether or not it is feasible is a totally different topic.


I would love if there were some test we could give a person or deduce from prior observervations ( or combination or both) - that would reveal their subconscious and biases and conscious biases as some kind of a score. This would be a great way with which to look at prospective Judges and public figures likes opinion column writers / journalists etc.

[Caliman73]

3. In group bias is a well established phenomena in social psychology.

There are several related biases that tend to facilitate in group bias such as the confirmation bias (which is a decision-making bias) and the Actor-Observer bias, and the attribution errors which work together to give a sense that people in your group (who fit within your preconceived notions of what is acceptable) are fundamentally better and more deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

That said, we can simply look back at history and how people from the Liberal/Progressive (Democratic) position see historical figures, versus how people from Conservative (Republican) positions see historical figures.

Historical (Liberals/Democrats):

FDR - Seen as one of the best US presidents from the Democratic perspective, with his New Deal policies that transformed the US in the mid 20th century. However, we also see his complexities in the internment of Japanese Americans, his failure to extend the benefits of the New Deal specifically to Black Americans (this was obviously not just FDR's fault), and his moral failings with his frequent affairs. We can praise him where he deserves it and criticize him where he deserves it.

JFK - Dynamic, younger American President who set the agenda for the 60's and 70's with his call for civic action. Also, flawed. Dragged his feet on civil rights, famous womanizer. Started us on the path to the quagmire of Vietnam.

LBJ - Pushed through the Civil Rights Acts (under pressure) and the Great Society. He was a bully and had definite racist tendencies. Got us way involved in Vietnam drawing massive protests to the point where he did not seek re-election.


Historical (Conservatives/Republicans):

Eisenhower - The right rarely brings up Eisenhower because his governance, though conservative for its time, had much in common with Democratic policies (pro-Union, use of the National government to fund infrastructure).

Nixon - Similarly, he doesn't get brought up much understandably because of his ultimate resignation and the many scandals.

Reagan - Here is where conservatism seemingly started. Reagan is "sainted" though when you discuss his actual policies and statements, they seem to contradict much of what is commonly held by conservatives today. Conservatives tout his very mixed record while ignoring his scandals and very real violations of law and ethics (Iran/Contra).


We liked Bill Clinton and loved Obama but we have debates over their overall legacy and some of the policies they brought forth. Some people don't like the differences in opinion and get very testy with criticism of Democratic figures saying that it weakens the party and other things, but the idea of being open to information and challenging commonly held ideas in the face of new evidence is how Liberals tend to roll. It helps us move forward but it also makes us less inherently able to form solid blocks. It is what keeps us from have a truly Trumpian figure ascend to power in our Party. Jon Edwards had an enthusiastic (if small) following, until we found out about his unethical and untenable behavior toward his wife. He is gone now, relegated to obscurity whereas politicians on the Republican side who have done similar or worse things, continue to have semblances of careers.

We are humans, and as humans we will continue to have bias, and we will support those who we think align best with our ideas of what is correct. However, part of liberal understanding is that things change and as we learn new information, we have to adapt to it, even if it challenges ideas we have held for long periods of time. Given that dynamism we will very likely not have a person like Trump ever be part of a Democratic power structure because Trump stands for authoritarianism, bigotry, racism, and corruption; and those are ideas that we try to challenge just as part of who we are as liberals.

[Le Gaucher]

5. Thank you for your wonderfully insightful response ..Loved reading it !

[MiniMe]

6. IOKIYAR

It's OK if you're a Republican

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. So is your question really whether we'd make our own deal with the Devil?

If we had a Democratic candidate known to be corrupt to the core and lacking all morality and decency, but who promised to deliver things we really, really want, like universal health care, a $20 minimum wage, full civil rights protection for LGBT people, liberal Supreme Court justices - would we support that candidate despite the fact that he's a moral slagheap?

[Le Gaucher]

9. At the very least we will hate him less than Republicans will assuming he is effective

I dont think it will at all be symmetrical .. We dont have talk radio on our side to counter the mainstream narrative .

I dare say we hold ourselves to needlessly high standards .. Look at Al Franken for example.


But what I am really interested if each of us are making our choices consciously or not.