The left relies on facts. The right relies on emotions.

[Az]

Those on the left deal with problems by assessing the situation and trying to determine the most appropriate means of addressing them. This requires facts, consideration, nuance, and complex thinking. Its difficult. It often makes use of methodologies that some do not understand.

The right appeals to peoples emotional buttons. Fear, belief, hatred, and any other easily manipulated emotional target.

So if the left relies on reason and demonstrable objective thought why do they fair so poorly in the public? Its because the world is complex. Facts can be challenged. All that is necissary to undermine a reasoned discussion before the public is to introduce conflicting information.

The public in general does not have the capabilities to judge what facts are true or not. They rely on the experts that are brought forward to speak on the issues before them. When the left places a matter before the public they rely on the facts. The right need only place speakers and experts that differ with these facts before the people to create a nullification of the facts the left is basing their plans on.

This in effect stuns the effectiveness of the left. No longer able to make their complex cases before the public the emotionalism used by the right takes over.

The right has spent the past four decades building the propoganda machine to counter the lefts methodology. They have created think tanks that can provide spokespeople to the media on any number of subjects. Clean cut and professional appearing they are prepared to counter any evidence the left bases its position on. This leaves the public with nothing reasonable to base their descisions on. Only emotional appeals are left. And that is the rights territory.

[cyclezealot]

1. Ever read a right wing rag mag.

Just emotion..Facts are scarce...My "Nation"..Attribution is obvious...The question is..In this tv age are facts too boring. Marshall McLuhan warned us of this in the 60's...Hot media, hot message, cold viewer..

[hippiechick]

2. I would only digress in that

The Right doesn't rely on general'emotion'.
They hone in even more specifically on panic and fear among the uninformed.

[wyldwolf]

3. I believe the extremes on both sides rely on emotions

Since the extremes on the right currently run their side, we notice it with them a whole lot more.

[Melynn]

28. Both sides have plenty of emotion.

I wouldn't want to be involved with a cause without emotion. Lack of emotion equals apathy to me.

Now I will say that the left has ideas to fuel their emotion whereas the right only has emotions and tries to fit ideas to explain those emotions.

[libertypirate]

42. Lack of emotion equals apathy I don't think so....

Lack of emotion equals apathy

Being able to set your emotions aside is a sign of strength, which is not something conservatives try to do at all. If you can't take out the emotion how pure can your logic actually be? Emotions are great for motivation horrible for decision making.

As much as I agree with your second line, it has nothing to do with democracy. Emotions are self serving and never can represent the needs of we the people.

[cyclezealot]

33. I think people say they have to be centrists because

they they are afraid to take a position...Anti war feelings are based on the reality of the arsenal of our imagined enemies who don't exits.As an example...
As John Hightower said...Only thing in the middle of the road are dead armadillos...afraid to commit..no me...
I am a liberal and emotion is not my trademark...Reliable sources are...
another example..Watch a debate between a dedicaded liberal such as Katherine VanHuevel or GOre Vidal..Freepers would be scared $hitless to debate such informed types.

[wyldwolf]

35. I think that's a bit off

It is a fallacy on the left that centrists take no positions.

They do - just not always the left's or the right's.

Concerning debate - I would put Bill Clinton (considered by many to be a centrist) up against damn near anyone in a debate.

[cyclezealot]

36. By definition centrists are as exciting as toast.

They certainly have no better track record at winning elections than supposed liberals...The whole left/right definitions are invalid..Liberals should not fall into that trap...the conservatives who want to supposedly preserve what we have , really want to protect the entrenched powers from which they take their bribe money..
So called centrists take more than their fair share of the bribe money from special interests..
Repugs convince the American public that Democrats have nothing to offer in the way of reform..They do, what their corporate string pullers demand...
Reformers are more likely to be so called progressives, not attached to the special interest string pullers who offer more of the same.
Example..We all know the American health system is approaching critical mass , where it will self destruct..Right wingers and centrists are afraid to admit to such, because the insurance / medical owners pull their strings..with money.
Not with liberals or the true reformers, because we think independently.

[wyldwolf]

37. unfortunately...

... your assertion and my rebuttal are both subjective because what is "liberal" and what is "centrist" cannot be accurately defined.

By definition centrists are as exciting as toast. They certainly have no better track record at winning elections than supposed liberals...The whole left/right definitions are invalid..

My point. Here you claim "the whole left/right definitions are invalid" yet certainly have a strong feeling of what a "centrist" is.

I'll tell you this - by MY definition of a centrist (a Democratic centrist,) centrists (or moderates as I prefer to call them) have a MUCH better track record at winning elections than "supposed liberals." But what YOU may consider more liberal, I may consider more moderate or centrist.

I would put, for example, Dennis Kucinich up as more liberal and Bill Clinton up as an example of someone more moderate. You may disagree as some do because of Kucinich's feelings on abortion and flag burning.

So called centrists take more than their fair share of the bribe money from special interests..

So do so-called liberals unless taking money from special interests groups is the litmus you use to separate "liberals" from "centrists" and conservatives.

But I can assure you that those I consider more liberal in the House and Senate, for example, are dripping in corporate donations.

[cyclezealot]

38. Durbin and Corizine & Boxer won big time.

won...The Senate was lost by the DLC candidates who went down everywhere else.

[wyldwolf]

40. this often repeated meme isn't based on fact.

[cyclezealot]

43. Daschle for starters

He was as dull as Kerry and did not rally his base, wishy washy on crucial issues such as war, trade, healthcare. The argument that DLC types sell out labor on issues such as jobs...
So if labor has not faith in their jobs being protected , might as well vote for the party that hates.

[wyldwolf]

44. you just completely ignored your previous point

you said, "The Senate was lost by the DLC candidates who went down everywhere else."

I said that wasn't based on fact. You showed one DLC candidate that was targeted by the GOP in an area trending republican.

And Durbin and Corizine & Boxer were elected in VERY Democratic areas.

So, I'll just wait for your to provide evidence that "DLC candidates went down everywhere else."

[cyclezealot]

45. Daschle was a centrist as far as I am concerned.

He pandered to Dubya to the point it was sickening. Ernest Bowles in elections past...He lost..Most of the SOuthern Democrats..Acted , campaigned centrist..Did not do them any good..
The DLC called the shots in 04...Democrats went centrist..To attract GOPers..Did not work...
Not that difficult to comprehend the wisdom of Truman..Recall he advocated a National Health Plan...
Act like a Republican, the voters will go for the real thing..
No less than Karl Rove said..Kerry's greatest gift to Dubya was voting for Dubya's war resolution...Fed right into Rove's strategy..
Needed to knock the underpinings of the war out from under Dubya's nose; or else why not vote for the warmonger.\
Besides.. I disagree Illinois, New Jersey is to be painted so reliably blue...Look at their congressional delegations..All their repug governors...Downstate Illinois is pretty darn red. Downstate is more than capable of carrying Illinois..

[wyldwolf]

46. Again

Show us that DLC candidates went down everywhere else.

[karynnj]

41. Not a surprise, they represent Illinois, NJ, and CA

All three of which are very blue.

[The Doctor.]

4. Very true... but the left's weakness is certainly deliberation

and consideration.

You are correct in every way - the right need only play to the limited attention span of the average American by rolling out an 'expert' to simply dispute one or two points of the 'left's' arguments. (Case in point - the so called 'neurologist' on Hannity last night.)

As the majority of Americans have never learned critical thought, the gravitation to one side in the argument/counter-argument model is a matter of predisposition. A 'Self-propagating perspective', if you will.

This frame-of-mindset is far more efficient to maintain than the deliberate and involved methods of comprehension used by many 'left-wing' thinkers.

This is most certainly a disadvantage in terms of executing agendas.

Less thought = more action

[H2O Man]

5. Fear.

Fear is the #1 reason. When people are under the influence of fear, rational thought is nearly impossible. Yet, at the same time, rational thought is more powerful than fear.

I think that the example with the Haudenosaunee, and the political/social structure based upon rational thought (the Power of the Good Mind) has potential. It calls upon people to accept as true that their opposition has the potential to use reason and rational thought to resolve conflicts. It also demands that those who attempt to use it stop responding to insults and emotional arguments. That can be very difficult.

The best threads on DU feature people using the ability to use rational thought in discussing differences in point of view, and a group effort to come to a concensus. But these threads are relatively rare. An objective look at the Schiavo threads shows that a significant percentage of DUers are reacting to the emotional energy of the Schiavo conflict.

[Generator]

6. On the other thread

Asking what's your core reason for being a Dem-and this is it.

I don't want to live in fear, superstition, and self denial.

I like education, facts, and the truth.

I will not bow down to ignorance and propaganda. I'm not any better than the other side morally-but I'm not going to lie to myself.

And frankly, religion is the problem. It appeals to control issues-it's basic premise is: do this or go to hell. Do this or God won't love you. I have a problem with it. It's superstition-I think all religion should be PRIVATE. Period. Period. Period.

I've been so turned off any religion or spirtuality since 2001 that I had forgotten how much it does mean to me. But I have no need to tell you what to do, to control your body, your mind, how you live your life. God is between me and God.

I understand emotion. I'm very emotional. But maybe because of my hyper emotable state I understand the need for facts. I understand that appealing to my emotion as manipulation is just that.

Here's the bottom line: I don't want to be used. Used by religion, used by politics. The left to me means liberal, liberated from control by dogma, emotion or anything. It means I can choose my life.

Now it seems we are cruising down the road of theocracy-rule by the few for the many. Nobody wants to live like that. Not Iran. Not America. I keep seeing everyone posting "But the majority don't approve of what x y or z the Republicans are trying to do."

I'll say it again: The majority didn't want to live under the Taliban either. So how do we stop this from happening?

I don't know the answer.

But this all Shiavo things speaks to me of mass hysteria. And mass hysteria means emotions are overcoming facts.

[lonestarnot]

7. Wonder when the egg is going to crack into a violent outburst n/t

[msmcghee]

8. An interesting topic, but . .

. . everyone makes decisions based on emotions. Or more accurately, based on our estimate of what will make us feel better as a result of our decisions. That's emotion.

However, I agree that some (repeat some) on the left are emotionally committed to what you call facts, consideration, nuance, and complex thinking. That's hard to do though because those things are cool motivators. So it takes a conscious effort to disregard the hot emotional memes we are constantly bombarded with - and apply facts, consideration, nuance, and complex thinking to the problem. Not many master this completely for all situations. I sure haven't.

Only a small minority can do that I believe - although some of us manage to do it better on average than most of the knuckledraggers on the right. I think that's because the left believes intrinsically in a just universe that is logically understandable - even if we only understand part of it now.

But that's not saying much. You can read many of the posts here at DU and it seems obvious to me that they are based on blind emotional attachment to left (sometimes not) values. I end up agreeing with them in most cases because I share those values. But that's not the same as a commitment to facts, consideration, nuance, and complex thinking.

But I understand what you're saying and mostly agree. I enjoy thinking about these things. Thanks for posting your thoughts.

:headbang:

[Az]

9. Yes we are emotional creatures

But we have developed tools such as reason and critical thought. Our reliance on these are dependent on our emotional acceptance of them to be sure. But the methodologies we have created have value. They are effective. They are a means by which various people can communicate ideas and determine what paths are best followed. It gives us a means to peer into the darkness and bring light to it.

Our emotional natures are why the right can play to it effectively. But our ability to reason and apply critical thought is what allows us to rise together as a people and build greatness.

[Mr_Spock]

10. They hate us for our facts!

What else is new :eyes:

[dave123williams]

11. No; they're demagogues, which means they don't just appeal to emotion...

They appeal to base fears and prejudices. They need fear and prejudice, like a leach needs blood.

[Mr_Spock]

12. Man, you said it

These fuckers are serious leeches on society!

[bpilgrim]

13. bunch of hand-wringing, miserly, cowardly, WIMPS.

at least their leaders and spokespeople :puke:



peace

[applegrove]

14. The right relies on baser emotions. The liberals rely on empathy.

It is human to think and to feel. Don't let anyone take one or the other away from you.

[Az]

15. Empathy is the motivation

But reason and understanding make up the means of addressing the problem.

[applegrove]

16. I always say that just because the Repukes make all their followers

turn into adolescents and see things in black and white is not what democrats should do. Oh sure, with it all around us it is hard not to copy the meme. We need to not hand over our strength (adult emotions like responsibility, empathy, pride, civic duty, leadership qualities, the desire to belong to something greater than yourself). All of these are important emotions we use every day.

Yes Rove has them acting solely on emotion like adolescents do. And they are easier to herd, to get to hurt others (no connect between their behavior and its effect on others - just like the brown-shirts in Germany).

But that is no reason for us to forget our emotions. We have a right to be angry. And Irate. And take umbrage at our values being erased by a tiny group of elites. We have a right to be furious at the propaganda used on its own people as the right wing decided to attacking Liberal America as soon as the Soviets were defeated. But we also need to learn humility and how to accept our neighbors who may be born the religious types. We need to learn how to be discerning with our emotions and stop and think and decide how to react.. instead of knee jerk attacks on our own alliances and big tent...we may be wounded but passing in on to our organization and our plurality is not way to act - if we want our country back. We have to grieve. Grieving will get us there in terms of being deeper and wiser. That is what the hard lessons in life (your country is no sacred and you may have to fight hard every generation for the democracy itself). I could go on and on. Democrats are a party of emotion. We have to make sure that we get real adult and discerning about how we react to things and where we put emotional energy. We have to accept truths about ourselves we may not like (we have been intolerant of religious in the past - we have no choice but to be part of world trade... a third way where social institutions are not gutted everywhere..but admired everywhere in the world). If we do not take ownership for each and every bit of crap we are capable of tossing out there.. we will never really see the forest for the trees and see the true danger of Bush.

We have to not be easily led away from the harsh plans and takeover of all economics that this creep and his sociopathic handlers want .. in order to benefit elites. For sure in their worlds.. USA will build only munitions and the middle class will not exist. They don't need the middle class anymore..afterall the American corporations are no longer making the civilian goods.

So we have to be really sophisticated emotionally. Indeed emotions and emotional intelligence is what will save us. And we have not drunk the kool-aid so we can think for ourselves. That goes without saying that there is not much thinking going on over there. But emotions.. we are human beings.. if we drop emotion from our lives and from every day of our fight..we are no more than the cold soldiers we see every time we see a picture of Rice. She does not hide it so easily 'with a wing and a nod' as Bush does.

[aaronnyc]

17. Good Post

What frustrates me most in reading the posts on DU, is that people seem so angered by Bush (and conservatives in general), that they cannot thoughtfully engage in political discussion.

It is impossible to have a thoughtful discussion with Right-winger about the morality of U.S. foreign policy, because they are knee-jerk patriots who are convinced (despite evidence to the contrary)that the U.S. undeniably : "is on the side of good", "is the greatest country in the world", "is the great defender of democracy." They are oblivious to subtleties, and to the fact that all countries are generally acting in their own self-interest; they instead prefer to view international affairs with great moral clarity (good vs. evil).

IMO many on DU have come to see Bush with the same moral-clarity that the Right sees Al Qaeda with. The Right believes Al Qaeda is unquestionably "evil" and that there is absolutely no logic to their motivations (except to be evil); many on DU have an equally black and white view about Bush.

While I personally reject both Bush and Al Qaeda, I am willing to acknowledge neither is the cartoonish two dimensional character that their opponents believe them to be. Life is not like a James Bond where the bad guy wants to destroy the world because... I don't know, he's a bad guy and that's what bad guys want to do.

The absolute hatred of Bush is an emotional reaction, and is entirely understandable (I do it myself). However, I think we should make an effort to always maintain perspective, and provide an objective analysis of both "our" side and "their" side; sometimes it turns out that both sides are a lot more alike than we would like to believe.

[applegrove]

30. I disagree entirely. Bush is a hateful person and he truly would like

most Americans to live in a form of poverty. He truly is a warped puppet of sociopaths. Hate of Bush is normal and healthy and real.

What you are talking about is how angry people are that they just see red and end up not thinking about what it means to be liberal and they forget themselves and end up copying the meme's Bush has taught to his patsy followers. Bush teaches them how to be adolescent and tribal and brownshirts who no longer have to feel guilty when they purposely 'bait' a wounded democrat. It is called "growing down" and all sociopaths do that to their followers. Adults do not respond with happy thoughts at murders in Guantanamo or a journalist loosing their job, or pain.

It is part in parcel of neocon philosophy (and neocon elders admired Hitler) that the holocaust in Germany was because of the guilt Germans were forced to feel not because of Hitler. The reason why they had to deny Hitler's responsibility is because they wanted to use his tools 'the tools of the sociopath' to meet their neocon ends. Disraeli the conservative PM and thinker in 19th Century England came up with a way for conservatives to get elected by the masses while represented the elites behind the scenes. The tool was patriotism. Not something that costs anything.. but something that gives you an army and people willing to forgot adult emotions and return to adolescence and bonding with only like people. Neocons resurrected Hitler and patriotism because they needed that in their tool bad to get power. Disraeli called conservative power "organized hypocrisy" and it truly is the only way conservatives win. By getting the masses to vote against their best interests so the elites can then ignore them and make laws that make the elites richer.

The other thing the neocons needed was (and they wrote this in 1965) a prissy (sadistic, controlling, anal), patrician (good body language and charisma) black & white thinking (adolescent) protestant (repressed) man to be their puppet so they could have a presidency. Bush is their man and it is hateful that he is so self-deluded that he thinks he is in control. And he is a hateful person who wants to see people forced to buckle under his rules (sociopathic & anal).. which he enjoys.

People's anger is real and we need to respond less knee-jerk and more adult. Which means thinking a little before DU go off and start attacking each other with gusto: our big tent is all we have. Grieving helps deal with the anger and the loss all are feeling. Grieving and crying and acceptance will help people be deeper and wiser..so that they will take a few steps back and not shoot off their mouths. So that they respond to this horror and to this rightful hate as adults. And learn to be discerning at which fights to be involved in and when to let something pass.

Because these are sociopaths in the WH, the campaign is perpetual. They have no need to relax or rest after a battle: they have no emotions. I believe Bush is not totally sociopathic but they have him on drugs so he can walk through a fire and then wake up the next day ready to go and trick and destroy and read his speech one more time. DUers and anyone in the way of Karl Rove's grand Republican empire (where only people who win at great cost to others have any value.. and tribalism is the height of fun playthings..as all people are) will be exhausted by the constant campaign (which he invented). Same as a campaign of harassment by a sociopath who does not want a victim who has seen through the charade to figure out even more..since his games, stalking and strategies against her and everyone went on for 6 or 7 years before she made him. A sociopath will force his victim to cut her losses again and again and again and will focus on winning..at all cost and by following the victim to other cities. Many people find themselves not just emotionally traumatized and economically castrated but ostracized and unable to function in any of their old communities. Many people pick up and move to another city, cut ties, change their names, to get away.

The people of Iraq were so exhausted by 20 years of Saddam Hussein that they could no longer oppose or volunteer to bear witness against him. So the sociopath is doing this to all DUers. And they all need to take a step back, take a break, grieve the loss that was their country, and find a new meaning in it all. So they will not be exhausted by every Terry Schiavo weekend thrown at them. For sure the Bush strategy to make American a tribal place (divide & conquer) is an old strategy of Empire and sociopaths. If you can keep people busy angry at each other or fighting state or personal battles all the time.. they have less time to notice how much they are alike and how to love thy neighbor.

For sure DUers are so angry that they have to learn to think. And reacting to Bush just because he says democracy is good..and loosing yourself in your hate and cutting off a part of yourself (the liberal self you loves democracy) because of you anger is so strong is dangerous. But that does not mean that you believe anything George Bush says. That just means that DU need to grieve and get back to basic: I am a liberal, I have empathy, I want to see wealth spread around a little, I love democracy, I hate human rights abuses, etc. The most important thing the DUers have to do is not to cut off parts of themselves because Bush & his handlers dance them outside the dance hall. If that happens and you have not agreed to engage with said dancer.. time for a big huge bitch slap.

Don't let Bush or the issues they put on TV dance you outside of who you really are.

Because that is what Bush and his ilk want. They want Americans to have their spirit broken. Germans did that for generations to their kids.. the easier to make them into workers and good citizens... and brown-shirts and anal issued sadists and holocaust makers. Fact is if your mom is not patient enough when you learn to potty train you will always reject that part of yourself and become a sadistic rule-maker. Of course Bush want to separate the Democrats from themselves. They are liberals. They stand right there in the middle of all that is valued in the world today: internationalism, human rights, equality, transfer of wealth, regulations on corporations so they deliver public goods like safety on occasion, health care for all (because it is in fact more efficient than the market), and representation of the plurality in the elected government of the nation. These are everything the neocons are against (democracy only outside the USA so as to put borders between larger tribal movements like Islamist fundamentalism). But democracy within the USA give the elites not a change to undo each and every one of these tenets of liberalism. So the smoke and mirrors and the tribal creation and slicing and dicing to get people to vote against their own self interest.

It is not wrong to hate George Bush. He is a sick monster. But it is wrong to react to his presence by knee-jerk attacks on each other (copying the tribalism he is trying to force on us all) and by ignoring it and not dealing with it like the serious, serious issue it is. Democratic and moderate Republicans should sit their loved ones down and tell them how bad things are and that it is time to take it seriously. The country has been lost. Two tricky elections and the Bush WH & its sociopaths have 4 years to try and destroy the foundations of Liberalism and democracy. Time to cry. Time to suffer the loss of your nation. Time for young and old to come together and fight the culture of adolescence 'not a care in the world' and the sociopaths who want to take it all away from America. Because it is the big prize, the wealthy got too warped and powerful, because the corporations are tools without souls built in, etc. But mostly because a small group of elites decided to use the tools of sociopaths and sociopaths themselves to get into the power their numbers make it so they do not deserve it.

Duers need to get serious and grieve and accept that our sunshiny days of little Utopian dreams are over. That there are realities out there (trade has to be open or Americans will be as poor as cavemen). Market efficiencies and the efficiency of Corporations have to be respect. Socialist policies sometimes.. not very often.. but sometimes are really good at delivery of things and so there is no reason to wipe the world of them. There are sociopaths in the WH and they mean to turn the USA into a place that reflects their own sociopathic personalities.. a personality that puts winning on top of causing pain as the height of experience. That said sociopaths will try and teach others to like winning & causing pain because they more so than any other beast..need an audience to reflect back.
That we need to be smart and listen to our elders in the political and moral fights. That means democratic leaders and church elders who still teach empathy of all god's creatures. That tribalism will be forced on us, attempts at creating it within us may happen every day but we need to take stock of our humanity and the decent adults humans that we are at all times - and and the end of the day in meditation or prayer. That we need to be smart and educate ourselves. That we need to not follow one narrow group but expand the types of groups we belong too - to keep our empathy and humanity alive and exercised. That we need to come together in great numbers & as families and communities and plant gardens, mentor teens, rub the back & support someone weaker every week, or join churches that mirror our political beliefs and get strength from that.

We need to look at political arguments from reason and not emotion. As we do we have to remember the basic tenant of who we are as Liberals. We have to take back the world Liberal. We have to approach the issues our leaders tell us are important with open minds. And accept that there are soldiers in Iraq who need support if not the Iraqi people will be gravely hurt. That Bush may have had an effect on the Middle East but he can never take responsibility for being right in Iraq because he wanted to set a precedent and lied or dreamed reasons for going in that have proven false. So American soldiers may win the war years from now. But George Bush will never have been right about it. to get that prize you have to go to war for the right reasons. And Saddam Hussein was a dangerous creep - those of us watching the news in the 1980s were aghast the Republican administrations were so kind and close to him. Saddam's trial(s) may be very short so that he cannot go into details about Rumsfield's visit and how American needed him to help with chemical weapon studies.. which he then used to kill villages of Kurd. Or perhaps.. if we are lucky...his trials will go on in detail and the same sociopathy talked about by Iraqi witnesses and the control and propaganda - will up and slap the BUSH WH in the face every single day

The clue is to grieve. Step back. Respond emotionally only after some consideration. Acknowledge the tole it takes on us to be up against such a constant campaign of propaganda and bullying from the WH. Teach each other using moral suasion how to respond using our empathy so we do not loose each other and to always think in the shades of grey.

Like I've said before.. Terry Schiavo would be capable of coming up with a certain amount of success if she were the President. It is going to happen. The overall patterns of this Bush WH and the elitism, and destruction of democracy is not going to change so there is no threat in acknowledging a small truth. But acknowledge the detail not the administration. Nothing they spew is worth processing or reacting too. Once we accept they are all a bunch of lying, nation destroying, adolescent & selfish men.. bent on destroying the liberal way of life accepted the world over..it is easier to relax.

Suffer the loss of the way things used to be instead of suffering every day. Grieve so you can step back. Plan your attack. Look for leaders. Connect with community outside of politics. Do some soul work. And learn to laugh, hard, at the absurdity of so many good people in a world so vulnerable to so few. And laugh even harder when you think of how we are all just waking up and what a beast we adults with empathy will be when we are built.

[UdoKier]

18. Wrong. Both use emotional appeals.

The difference is, the left backs its appeals up with facts, or at least ideas based on sound scientific theory. The right backs it's appeals up with distortions or outright lies, the goal ALWAYS being to concentrate more wealth and power into the hands of the already-wealthy.

No matter WHAT the issue, it's ALWAYS about that - abortion, gays, drugs, war, whatever - it's NEVER about those things - those are merely tools toward the ultimate goal - getting MORE for THEM.

[Undercover Owl]

19. this whole post is EMOTION

I'm just being as cynical as OP is.

[Az]

20. Care to clarify?

Your claim seems unjustified to me. Though I would welcome productive criticism of my notions.

[Undercover Owl]

21. show me some facts!

statistics, anything.?

[Az]

22. Sure

Take a look at www.fair.org. They keep a regular record of the shift of the media to the right. In particular they show an increase in the number of right leaning spokespeople being called on by the media for comments on issues. Here is a list of reports each showing the decline of balance in the media http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=12

[Undercover Owl]

23. HELLO. I'm sorry that didn't do it.

You aren't showing me any facts, sir.

[BurtWorm]

25. Which points in particular are you disputing?

Are you disputing that the right relies on emotion? That the left relies on facts? You might want to take a closer look at the Schiavo controversy for evidence of both.

[Undercover Owl]

29. NO!!

I am not disputing the argument that the right relies on emotion or that the left relies on facts.

Oh thanks for the Schaivo reference. Yeah I might want to check out that story.
:puke:

[Az]

32. Then what are you disputing?

Color me confused. That was the entire point of my post. If you aren't disputing that then what is it?

[Lone Pawn]

48. I think he's finding it ironic that in your charge that

liberals rely on facts and conservatives on emotional appeals, you fail to cite one actual fact, but instead rely on charged opinions, leading questions, and unsupported accusations. He doesn't disagree with your point, but finds the way in which you make your point entirely self defeating.

I believe that extremists rely on emotions and intelligentsia rely on facts--the 'WAR IS EVIL' crowd here are just as emotional as the 'JESUS WANTS TERRI TO LIVE' crowd there, and the bright neocon thinkers can argue circles around and throw hard data at any remotely unprepared liberal—they didn't take over by being stupid.

We just happen to have a higher population of intelligentsia than they do, and they have a higher population of extremists than we do. Pandering to religious nuts does that to a party.

But at the same time, I find it interesting that on FR, you can find a dozen posts just like yours, switching Liberal and Conservative. Hardcore supporters of an ideology often work on selective groups of facts and opinions--and anyone with a different group is assumed to not work on facts at all. Now, our facts are correct, and their facts are wrong—most of them seem to still believe that Iraq produced WMD up to the invasion. That's objectively false.

But at the same time, arguing like them, making charges that are unsupported in your statement except by more unsupported charges--that really doesn't help your case.

[BurtWorm]

24. Which whole post?

Az's or yours?

[Undercover Owl]

27. duh, I'm so stupid I don't know which one!

why do you ask?

[Kagemusha]

26. Bleeding heart conservatives. I thought I'd never see the day.

It's one of the reason I stopped counting myself as a conservative, too. I woke up to the religious putsch after the 2000 election, when I found out that the principled arguments behind the Bush election team were full of complete and utter manure. They haven't been doing much that's "principled" since. Especially in a law & order sense.

[Malva Zebrina]

31. Both rely on emotions

and there is no absolute to define either the left or the right that would break it down to one being emotional and the other being reasonable, rational and right.

Between lies an area that is grey, greyer and greyest with any one person moving over the spectrum, left to right, right to left, at different times. So to try to assign a specific causation to something not locked in at either end is not productive, imo.

What we are seeing is a man, perhaps unstable in his psychological make up, flush with power and utterly ruthless and what we are feeling is impotency.

Some respond to that feeling with rage and by lashing out, others by retreating into a comforting cave of overanalysis and contemplation that will, without emotion, bring the right answer and others respond with petition to their gods and so on. None will fix it. It is my cynical belief that none can fix it and that some horrific cataclysmic event must occur in order to start the ball going in the other direction. Such as the great depression, WWII

Having given my two cents, I want to address DU. Over this Schiavo period here, I have seen many different responses from many different names I never saw before on DU. Without going into the rights or wrongs of each contribution, it is my opinion that this mix,even the trolls, whether or not it is ever completely rational, is delightful. It is human enough so that those with a talent for innovation, for creativity, has a huge depository of characters and stimulating ideas from which to choose.

We are missing art and beauty in this dark age, and I think it has a place.

[Jimbo S]

34. Plenty of emotion from the left in FL after the 2000 elections. eom

[Bonhomme Richard]

39. B. Franklin once said......................

"If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." B. Franklin

This is why we (Democratic party) must address the issues that directly affect the average citizen. It simply isn't enough to have the facts as we here know all too well.

[mondo joe]

47. I wish it were true - but it's not. Not as often as I wish.

I need only look at some of the TS threads to confirm it.