K-9

It's a psychological defense. It's hard for a non racist person to admit they voted for a racist who is staffing his office with other racists. I don't believe the vast, vast majority of those who voted for Trump are racists; especially in the rust belt whose people heard a populist message that resonated. There is no denying what Trump said and did throughout his campaign; the record it there. And it's difficult for people to reconcile that. People didn't place character at the top of their lists for traits wanted in a candidate. Simple as that.

It could to the extent that anyone's belief system informs their actions.

In Trump's case, probably not much, since Trump most likely shares the same value system. Trump needs his sycophants and the Bannon hire balances out Priebus in that regard.

Congress won't allow tariffs. Not the 35% tariffs on American automobiles made abroad, as he stated to automakers in Detroit and certainly not on any imported goods from China. There are too many American companies in China making too much money on importing goods back here. Tariffs will never happen. Too bad too, because he sold that bill of goods to the rust belt democrats that voted for him for that reason.

I won't prescribe anything. You've answered the question.

Election laws, including the number of polls available, are controlled by state, county and/or other local legislatures.

How opposed are you? Opposed enough to demand the GOP cease their efforts in that regard? Is there a sliding scale of outrage depending on the number closed? What about the question of there not being enough polls and voting machines in the first place? How is making it more difficult for people to vote squared with the ideal of "respectful inclusion for all?" I appeal to republicans like you because I believe you are a man of principle and that you cherish the important American ideal of the right to vote. I won't waste my time on the countless hypocrites who espouse these values but lack the character to stand up and speak out against these GOP practices. A quote from the linked article, one of many on the subject. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2016/11/11/292322/voter-suppression-laws-cost-americans-their-voices-at-the-polls/

I assume this is the sentiment in your professional community as well. I had a hunch that was the case. Appreciate your perspective. Thanks.

It's too bad that GOP lawmakers around the country don't feel the same way. Is your stand on this principle important enough to demand that they re-open the hundreds of polls closed in attempts to discourage that "respectful inclusion of all"? Is the disrespect shown for that most basic and important of American rights and values enough to have you advocate to expand voting opportunities around the country vs. tacitly approving their blatant attempts to discourage it by not raising you voice in opposition? I get the sense you are a man of principle and I think you genuinely believe that all American citizens should be included in the process. But until we ALL demand change from those in power, it's all lip service. http://prospect.org/article/22-states-wave-new-voting-restrictions-threatens-shift-outcomes-tight-races Hey True, I've been meaning to ask you, as a political science expert, what do you think of Allan Lichtman? I remember reading about him a number of years ago and hadn't given him much thought since until his name popped up in a couple articles. Just interested in your take, given his disdain for polls, etc.

Neither do I. His research is a valuable addition to the body of work and I appreciate that immensely. It's just not the panacea some think it is; it's just another piece to the myriad of reasons we behave the way we do. Morality simply does not inform every action we take.

...35% tariff on automobiles manufactured outside the US, not happening... return of steel mill and manufacturing jobs to the rust belt, not happening...

Carry on, indeed.

The point of having this conversation? Surely it's so we can all have the tools to discover our "inner" conservative. Haidt wants all of us liberals to throw off the yoke and feel the warm, cuddly embrace of the compassionate conservative next door. He came out of the closet and just wants to share the love! Now excuse me, I have to go dust off my Sean Hannity bobble head.

Had I seen Sabres79's post, I only would have bothered with the text I put in bold. If I could sum up my feeling on Haidt and any other behavioral psychologists, it would be that it is only one of many beginning points of research; another "good to know" in the WHY of things. None of it means anything unless our behaviors actually evolve. And I can't seem to find anything from him on the moral constructs of condescension.

Precisely.

http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/footnotes-to-plato/109-the-problem-with-cognitive-and-moral-psychology Next: Jonathan Haidt, who “denies that reason ordinarily plays any part in motivating moral judgments, seeing it rather as a post-hoc means of justifying the intuitions we form quickly and unreflectively.” In his The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, he famously empirically identified six areas of moral concern for the people he surveyed: care vs. harm, fairness vs. cheating, loyalty vs. betrayal, authority vs. subversion, sanctity vs. degradation, and liberty vs. oppression. Interestingly, he also found that self-professed “liberals” (as opposed to “conservatives”) in 21st century America consider only a subset of the xis dimensions to belong to morality, and tend to be focused especially on the care vs harm dimension. Moreover, he writes that “across many scales, surveys, and political controversies, liberals turn out to be more disturbed by signs of violence and suffering, compared to conservatives and especially to libertarians.” Now, so far so (almost) good. These are empirical findings, and although a recent survey of psychological research (mentioned in Shaw’s article) has found that only about 40% of the results of empirical psychological studies can be confirmed upon replication, let us take them at face value. The first, obvious, objection, is that Haidt is taking “liberal” and “conservative” to be fairly universal categories, at the least implicitly. But of course these terms have the meaning they have only in the United States, and only for the last few decades. What it meant to be liberal, progressive, or something else, in the United States in the past was different, and it certainly is different in other places on the planet (and a fortiori in other centuries, both in the US and elsewhere). Setting that aside, however, it should be obvious that there is more than normative interpretation of Haidt’s findings, besides the one he himself suggests (and why would a psychologist get in the business of prescribing moral stances anyway?). Haidt claims that liberals should try to appreciate the “richer” moral landscape contemplated by conservatives. Yes, or one could invite conservatives and especially libertarians to be a bit less callous about the harm done to other people, or even to consider that perhaps they may be mistaken when they think that respect of authority, or “sanctity,” are valid moral categories at all (again, think Ryle). As Shaw puts it: “In offering this moral counsel [Haidt] presupposes that the norm of cooperation should take precedence over the values that divide us.” Right. But on what bases does he make such presupposition? Empirical ones? That would be begging the question. Philosophical one? But then he would be outside of his proper area of expertise.

Got that right. I had a thing for Katerina Witt back in the day, too. Must be my germanic DNA.

Just for Hank:

Don't get your Dick Button all in a knot. I had to look it up. Except for the Hamill camel which left a mark back in the day.

Let me know when he's doing triple Axels and double Salchows. Heck, I'll settle for a Hamill camel.

Meh, what's 6,417,255 votes among friends. And I agree about the myths of "mandates" but we have a lot of people, some in the media, spouting that claim today. It's irresponsible at best.

To what email address?

Kind of looks like that at times. Almost like we're just trying to pad the opposing goalie's stats.

I thought of these posts when I read today's articles about Russia's regular contact with the Trump campaign during the race. Why would they come out today and say that? Perhaps there was a legitimate reason for the intelligence community's concerns regarding Trump's dismissal of their briefings.

Can someone explain how a president-elect has a mandate when he garners nearly 6 million less votes than the other candidates? I get that his upset was historical in terms of how bad the pollsters had it, but lets keep some perspective here. Nobody has a mandate in such divided electorate.