Culture and Conservatism

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
1

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.23.1040)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.22.0715 MDT)--

I guess the main message here is that memes are not passed on involuntarily
as genes are, but require a lot of cooperation , effort, and imagination on
the part of the recipient. A person can avoid inheriting memes simply by
refusing to use imagination at all. And usually, there is a smorgasbord of
cultures to choose among; there isn't just one culture that gets passed
along, even in one country or one village.

Great observations. Cultural memes (like "Jewish", "Catholic" or
"secular humanist", all three of which I am now intimately familiar
with) don't seem to be passed on involuntarily like genes. I feel like
I chose the memes I wanted to imitate but there is that invisible
background something that is the basis for selection. How did that get
in there? Where does that higher order reference come from that
decides that I will try to imitate one thing and not another?

Assuming that the levels of control come "on-line" in a developmental
sequence, it must be that the "background", which is the highest level
of control at the time, is constantly shifting upwards. My guess is
that, when a higher level system first comes on-line, making it
possible to set a new kind of perceptual goal, people tend to select
goals for those systems by imitating what they see those around them
-- usually parents or guardians -- in order to keep conflict to a
minimum. So we adopt the rules, principles and system concepts of our
care takers because that is the path of least resistance.

This, I believe, is how our memes are passed from generation to
generation. Not very original,I agree, but it is consistent with what
we observe. Still, I think there is a lot of selection of lower level
references that goes on once the higher level references have
developed. I think that this is where selection from the smorgasbord
comes in. We (well, some of us) try out different lower level
references against the background of the highest level references that
currently exists. I think that's what tennage rebellion is all about.
That may also be how some of us end up adopting references (memes)
that differ from those we were brought up on. But I think this
choosing can only be done for references that are below the highest
level of control that exists in a person's brain. That's why I think
it's so rare fro people to change systems concepts, like their
religion. I think the data show that there is an overwhelming tendency
for people to adhere to the religion of their parents or care givers.
It's not 100% but incredibly high. This suggests to me that, for most
people, system concepts are at the top of the hierarchy and are the
ultimate background against which each person evaluates the lower
level perceptions that they control.

By the way, Rick
Marken started, a few weeks ago, to introduce some serious PCT analysis of
the differences between conservatives and liberals. I really would like to
see that followed up seriously.

I don't remember this but I'll be happy to participate in such a
discussion. The first thing we might do is decide what we mean by
"liberal" and "conservative". If we go by the current cultural
definitions in the US then a "conservative" is a person who (in PCT
terms) controls for certain principles: free markets, small
government, sanctity of life, less separation between church and
state, more separation between state and business, low taxes, free
choice in healthcare, no affirmative action, etc. A "liberal" is a
person who controls for other principles: regulated markets, big
government, allowing women to kill their innocent embryos while
banning the state from killing convicted murderers, secularism,
regulation of business, high taxes on the rich, socialized medicine,
affirmative action, etc.

While it is probably rare to find anyone who is a pure conservative or
liberal, I think we should first agree on what we mean by these terms.
Does that sound reasonable? If so, what do you think of my
definitions? (As one who sees himself as a liberal I can vouch for my
definition of "liberal" since I believe in all these things).

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

2

Cultural memes (like
“Jewish”, “Catholic” or

“secular humanist”, all three of which I am now intimately
familiar

with) don’t seem to be passed on involuntarily like genes. I feel
like

I chose the memes I wanted to imitate but there is that invisible

background something that is the basis for selection.Good thoughts on
memes.
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.24.0500 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2007.06.23.1040) –

…

How did that
get

in there? Where does that higher order reference come from
that

decides that I will try to imitate one thing and not
another?

That’s the question I think is important. The particular cultural feature
in question doesn’t matter; what matters is what the person is trying to
achieve by adopting some set of cultural expectations, beliefs, and so
on. And just skipping right to “survival” doesn’t answer the
question, either.

I’m looking for something deeper than culture (which may be what a real
anthropologist would think of as culture). Jewish, Catholic, and secular
humanist are labels that seem to be about different things, but what do
they all have in common? Just how does a person turn into one of these,
starting from scratch? I’m trying to get past that “invisible
background something” to look at exactly how such ideas get
implanted. Some Catholic prelate said “Give me a child until he’s
seven, and you can have him after that.” I would like to know
exactly what that mentor would do to the child that makes him so sure
that the child would then be irreversibly Catholic. Parents, too, do
things to children that help implant the culture – they don’t just have
children and then let them soak in the general cultural marinade. And
even the things that are done to children are not the critical point –
what matters is what the children then do to cope with the situation.
That’s what they carry with them into adulthood.

By the way,
Rick

Marken started, a few weeks ago, to introduce some serious PCT analysis
of

the differences between conservatives and liberals. I really would like
to

see that followed up seriously.

I don’t remember this but I’ll be happy to participate in such a

discussion.

The post in question was

[From Rick Marken
(2007.06.10.1210]

I’m reading “Reason” by Robert Reich (very good book, I think)
and I

just finished the section on welfare. Reich argues that the
“RadCons”

(his shorthand for the radical conservatives who are currently
running

the US) object to welfare (which Reich prefers to call "social

insurance") because it leads to irresponsible behavior. For
example,

the RadCons object to Social Security and Medicare because those

programs promote irresponsible behaviors like failing to save for

retirement.

This begins to touch on cultural themes. I’d like to know exactly how the
“Radcons” justify these ideas. What is it permissible to do to
individual people to achieve social ends? For example, if a person does
fail to save for retirement, would a Radcon let that person starve or die
of exposure in order to avoid encouraging irresponsible behavior in the
general society? Is the social impact of a policy always more important
than the effect on any individual? It seems to me that one doesn’t have
to look for radical ideas among conservatives to find such problems; the
Republican position in general appears to be very similar. But this isn’t
to say that liberals don’t have similar problems in dealing with social
versus individual issues.

Perhaps what I’m looking for are dimensions of perception in which we
could say that liberals and conservatives are perceiving similar
variables but have completely incompatible reference levels for
them.

The first thing we
might do is decide what we mean by

“liberal” and “conservative”. If we go by the current
cultural

definitions in the US then a “conservative” is a person who (in
PCT

terms) controls for certain principles: free markets, small

government, sanctity of life, less separation between church and

state, more separation between state and business, low taxes, free

choice in healthcare, no affirmative action, etc. A “liberal”
is a

person who controls for other principles: regulated markets, big

government, allowing women to kill their innocent embryos while

banning the state from killing convicted murderers, secularism,

regulation of business, high taxes on the rich, socialized medicine,

affirmative action, etc.

This is one level too low, I think. These are all means to some sort of
end that remains undefined. Consider “free markets.” Why would
any buyer want free markets, in which the primary motive of the seller is
to provide the buyer with as little value as possible for the highest
price one can get away with charging? The answer of those who support
free markets, of course, would be drawn from the other side of the
buyer-seller conflict: because free markets allow the buyers to force the
seller to provide the highest possible value for the lowest possible
price. This conflict is said by its promoters to have the magical ability
to arrive at the best possible solution, while its detractors say it is
simply a license for greed, selfishness, and abdication of
reponsibility.

Once we see that there is a conflict, the initial level of discourse is
seen as too involved in the details, and we must look at the conflict
from some new point of view. Yes, MOL. In fact, any time there is
disagreement over interpersonal issues, whatever they are, I think we
need to explore the opposing sides and try to find what the core conflict
is, and then look for a higher-level viewpoint from which to re-examine
everything. This requires a non-involved approach in which the analyst
takes neither side but simply tries to reveal what the conflicts are
really about. Isn’t that what social scientists are supposed to
do?

Isn’t the issue of culture all tied up with the issue of social
conflicts? Every conflict defines a dimension of perception. People are
very different in all sorts of ways that do not result in conflicts, so
we don’t reify all those different ways by classifying and naming them –
they’re just points in a continuum of possibilities. Where cultures
become visible is at their interfaces where they conflict with each
other, and people rally around them to defend against them or promulgate
them. Then we get producer-consumer, Catholic-Protestant,
Republican-Democrat, conservative-liberal, teenager-adult, and so on down
the list.

Ted Cloak, what’s your take on this as the only official anthro in our
midst? And of course I presume Chuck Tucker and Clark McPhail are lurking
somewhere, as our house sociologists. Let’s get some competence in
here.

Best,

Bill P. (known through automated translation to German as Rechnung
Energien)

3

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by vacuum.cso.uiuc.edu id l5MEDdsQ000572

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.25.1115 CDT)]

Rick,

I read this several days ago, but I needed some background to reply. Last year I
read John W. Dean's Conservative Without Conscience. I might have posted a bit
about it, how Dean really digs into the definitions of the main words in his
book's title. In defining Conservative, he also talks about authoritarianism,
expressed by many who see nothing wrong with the Rule of Man in place of the
Rule of Law. In his argument, I saw a very nice depiction along the lines of
PCT, where he describes a set of values (principles) that become the components
or attributes of a person's system image. Right? Your system image will have
less error with disturbances from the social environment, depending on the
perceptions you have. I send you scans of pp. 34-37 of Dean's book.

In this excerpt I send, Dean presents a grid of different political views
according to two dilemmas each with a conflict between two ideals:

1. Freedom to Order, the Original Dilemma
2. Freedom to Equality, the Modern Dilemma

The four quadrants thus describe the four major movements:

I. Communitarians: Equality and Order
II. Liberals: Freedom and Equality
III. Libertarians: Freedom and Freedom
IV. Conservatives: Order and Freedom
(The file "Dean - Freedom-Order-Equality.jpg" illustrates each movement.)
Files are in a zip folder. If you can't open it, I will personally send you the
individual files.

If you read the book, you will be reminded that Dean is not a Liberal, nor is he
a Libertarian or a Communitarian. He claims to be a Goldwater Conservative.

Back to PCT. If one could review the Janda-Goldman self-test or the libertarian
self-test, or some other descriptors of what control systems comprise the
principles of freedom, order and equality, one could develop a test of the
Self-System (alá Dick Robertson's experiment) to examine the nature of the
Self-System that Dean describes as the Conservative without Conscience, as well
as other multi-factor modes such as Communitarians, etc.

I will leave it at this, stating that in each movement there certainly ARE good
and great ideals, but that in isolation or in excess, create error in the other
movements. Further, when adherents of these movements find themselves in the
same word-space (like a forum, dinner table, street corner), the disturbances
from the cycle of control of perception by several disparate speakers creates an
arms race of disturbance and control.

Now, given the perceptions suggested by Dean, is there a way to resolve conflict
(internal and interpersonal)?

--Bry

[Rick Marken (2007.06.23.1040)]

Dean-Conservatism.zip (496 KB)

···

Bill Powers (2007.06.22.0715 MDT)--
.....
By the way, Rick
Marken started, a few weeks ago, to introduce some serious PCT analysis of
the differences between conservatives and liberals. I really would like to
see that followed up seriously.

I don't remember this but I'll be happy to participate in such a
discussion. The first thing we might do is decide what we mean by
"liberal" and "conservative". If we go by the current cultural
definitions in the US then a "conservative" is a person who (in PCT
terms) controls for certain principles: free markets, small
government, sanctity of life, less separation between church and
state, more separation between state and business, low taxes, free
choice in healthcare, no affirmative action, etc. A "liberal" is a
person who controls for other principles: regulated markets, big
government, allowing women to kill their innocent embryos while
banning the state from killing convicted murderers, secularism,
regulation of business, high taxes on the rich, socialized medicine,
affirmative action, etc.

Wile it is probably rare to find anyone who is a pure conservative or
liberal, I think we should first agree on what we mean by these terms.
Does that sound reasonable? If so, what do you think of my
definitions? (As one who sees himself as a liberal I can vouch for my
definition of "liberal" since I believe in all these things).

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

4

[From Bill Powers (2007.06.25.1045 MDT)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.25.1115 CDT) –

That chart showing the four ideologies is extremely interesting. One of
the most interesting things about it is that it doesn’t address WHY these
positions are taken. Does Dean talk about that? Clearly the chart shows
the views from a level somewhere in the upper middle regions, certainly
not the top of the hierarchy.

As an example, liberal views are said to “promote equality.”
Why do liberals want to do that? Conservatives, it is said, “Oppose
government activities that interfere with the market.” Why do they
oppose interfering with the market?

Obviously the conflicts are not going to be resolved at the level of
promoting or not promoting equality, or interfering or not interfering
with the market. Only when we ask what higher-order purposes are achieved
by taking these position can we get closer to a level where
reorganization might help. So what can we find out about the reasons for
favoring or opposing these things?

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.25.1020)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.24.0500 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2007.06.23.1040) --

I feel like
I chose the memes I wanted to imitate but there is that invisible
background something that is the basis for selection.

Good thoughts on memes.

Thanks.

Just how does a person turn into one of these [Jew, etc...], starting from
scratch? ...

I like the idea of sequential development of different levels of
control, the selection of references being done through reorganization
where the results of the reorganization -- in terms of the highest
level references settled on -- is a set of higher level references
that minimize conflict with the people around you. But who knows? At
least the sequential development idea has some data -- from the
Plooijs -- to support it.

Rick Marken (2007.06.10.1210)--

I'm reading "Reason" by Robert Reich (very good book, I think) and I
just finished the section on welfare. Reich argues that the "RadCons"

This begins to touch on cultural themes. I'd like to know exactly how the
"Radcons" justify these ideas.

Perhaps what I'm looking for are dimensions of perception in which we could
say that liberals and conservatives are perceiving similar variables but
have completely incompatible reference levels for them.

Yes. So we should get a liberal and a conservative into an MOL session
and see where the conflicts arise -- between them.Maybe you could
conduct such an MOL session at the meeting in July.

This is one level too low, I think. These are all means to some sort of end
that remains undefined. Consider "free markets."...

Once we see that there is a conflict, the initial level of discourse is
seen as too involved in the details, and we must look at the conflict from
some new point of view. Yes, MOL. In fact, any time there is disagreement
over interpersonal issues, whatever they are, I think we need to explore the
opposing sides and try to find what the core conflict is, and then look for
a higher-level viewpoint from which to re-examine everything.

I say we try this at the meeting. I volunteer to be the "liberal". I
think you'll have no trouble finding a conservative in CSG;-)
Actually, I'd love to take a poll to see the relative proportion of
conservatives and liberals who are involved with PCT. When I first
read B:CP I thought that only liberals (secular humanist lefties, like
me) would be attracted to it. But, to my considerable surprise, it has
attracted quite a few righties too. I suppose if we could figure out
the higher level reason why both political types were attracted to PCT
we could solve the conflict between left and right. That would be
nice.

This requires
a non-involved approach in which the analyst takes neither side but simply
tries to reveal what the conflicts are really about.

How would you like to be that non-involved party?

Maybe we could do such a session a the net. What do you think?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

6

[From Dick Robertson,2007.06.25.1235CDT]

Bry,

Thanks for Dean's analysis of conservatism, etc. I
looks interesting. I'm not sure whether it could be
shaped to help discover and self-image (and hence
determine a way to test it for the controlled
variable in it), but that would be fun and useful I
think.

It does remind me of an inadvertent test for the
controlled variable that I stumbled into last winter
on a cruise to Tahiti. It had its amusing side.
Dinner tables were set up for four people. The male
component of our table mates announced almost
immediately upon our introductions--and in reference
to nothing that I could discern --that he was a
republican. I think I replied, "Oh." I don't recall
anything else. Through several following dinners he
belabored me with many more proferred evidences of
how conservative he was. After learning I had once
been a professor, he labeled me a liberal, although
I hadn't found it necessary to assume any
economic-political. After one of his friendly
tirades, I said, "OK, now as I understand it
conservatives are incredibily selfish, hard hearted,
stingy and mean spirited," by this time he was
standing, face turning red, fists clenched,
struggling for words, but I continued, "But you
don't strike me as any of these." He sat down,
expression calming, and laughed. I don't know which,
or all, attributes disturbed his self image, or was
it only that it disturbed his control of his
definition of the word?

Anyway, thanks for your efforts.

Dick R

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan Thalhammer <bryanth@SOLTEC.NET>
Date: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:16 am
Subject: Re: Culture and Conservatism

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.25.1115 CDT)]

Rick,

I read this several days ago, but I needed some

background to

reply. Last year I
read John W. Dean's Conservative Without

Conscience. I might have

posted a bit
about it, how Dean really digs into the

definitions of the main

words in his
book's title. In defining Conservative, he also

talks about

authoritarianism,expressed by many who see nothing

wrong with the

Rule of Man in place of the
Rule of Law. In his argument, I saw a very nice

depiction along the

lines of
PCT, where he describes a set of values

(principles) that become

the components
or attributes of a person's system image. Right?

Your system image

will have
less error with disturbances from the social

environment, depending

on the
perceptions you have. I send you scans of pp.

34-37 of Dean's book.

In this excerpt I send, Dean presents a grid of

different political

viewsaccording to two dilemmas each with a

conflict between two

ideals:
1. Freedom to Order, the Original Dilemma
2. Freedom to Equality, the Modern Dilemma

The four quadrants thus describe the four major

movements:

I. Communitarians: Equality and Order
II. Liberals: Freedom and Equality
III. Libertarians: Freedom and Freedom
IV. Conservatives: Order and Freedom
(The file "Dean - Freedom-Order-Equality.jpg"

illustrates each

movement.)Files are in a zip folder. If you can't

open it, I will

personally send you the
individual files.

If you read the book, you will be reminded that

Dean is not a

Liberal, nor is he
a Libertarian or a Communitarian. He claims to be

a Goldwater

Conservative.
Back to PCT. If one could review the Janda-Goldman

self-test or the

libertarianself-test, or some other descriptors of

what control

systems comprise the
principles of freedom, order and equality, one

could develop a test

of the
Self-System (al� Dick Robertson's experiment) to

examine the nature

of the
Self-System that Dean describes as the

Conservative without

Conscience, as well
as other multi-factor modes such as

Communitarians, etc.

I will leave it at this, stating that in each

movement there

certainly ARE good
and great ideals, but that in isolation or in

excess, create error

in the other
movements. Further, when adherents of these

movements find

themselves in the
same word-space (like a forum, dinner table,

street corner), the

disturbancesfrom the cycle of control of

perception by several

disparate speakers creates an
arms race of disturbance and control.

Now, given the perceptions suggested by Dean, is

there a way to

resolve conflict
(internal and interpersonal)?

--Bry

[Rick Marken (2007.06.23.1040)]

>>Bill Powers (2007.06.22.0715 MDT)--
>> .....
>> By the way, Rick
>> Marken started, a few weeks ago, to introduce

some serious PCT

analysis of
>> the differences between conservatives and

liberals. I really

would like to
>> see that followed up seriously.
>
> I don't remember this but I'll be happy to

participate in such a

> discussion. The first thing we might do is

decide what we mean by

> "liberal" and "conservative". If we go by the

current cultural

> definitions in the US then a "conservative" is a

person who (in PCT

> terms) controls for certain principles: free

markets, small

> government, sanctity of life, less separation

between church and

> state, more separation between state and

business, low taxes, free

> choice in healthcare, no affirmative action,

etc. A "liberal" is a

> person who controls for other principles:

regulated markets, big

> government, allowing women to kill their

innocent embryos while

> banning the state from killing convicted

murderers, secularism,

> regulation of business, high taxes on the rich,

socialized medicine,

> affirmative action, etc.
>
> Wile it is probably rare to find anyone who is a

pure

conservative or
> liberal, I think we should first agree on what

we mean by these

terms.> Does that sound reasonable? If so, what do

you think of my

> definitions? (As one who sees himself as a

liberal I can vouch

for my
> definition of "liberal" since I believe in all

these things).

>
> Best regards
>
> Rick
> --
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> rsmarken@gmail.com

7

[From Mike Acree (2007.06.25.1233 PDT)]

From Bill Powers (2007.06.25.1045 MDT)–

Obviously the
conflicts are not going to be resolved at the level of promoting or not
promoting equality, or interfering or not interfering with the market. >Only when we ask what
higher-order purposes are achieved by taking these position can we get closer
to a level where reorganization might help. So >what can we find out about the reasons for
favoring or opposing these things?

I suggested 2 years ago (2005.03.22.1510)
that both liberals and conservatives were controlling for a perception of
themselves as good people, but with different references of what constitutes
the good. Conservatives define morality more in terms of private acts,
liberals in terms of social acts (chastity vs. charity, roughly). Challenges
to political views are resisted so fiercely because they are perceived as
disturbances to self-esteem, which is pretty near the top of the
hierarchy. The moral becomes political because the standards in both
cases are both stringent and ambiguous; it is not quite clear just how much
charitable giving is “enough,” for example. The burden of
responsibility for that judgment is relieved if we can appeal to an external
authority, to set some clear guidelines. But, if we are to bind ourselves
to an ascetic code, a perception of justice—for which we also control
very strongly—requires that other people be subjected to the same
rules. Hence conservatives want to legislate private sexual behavior,
liberals want to legislate charity. Lakoff commends conservatives for
recognizing that politics is inherently about morality, but fails to credit
liberals for what they recognize: that legislating morality doesn’t work.

The individual and social aspects of
morality derive from the same Christian tradition (and others); my sense is
that a cultural history would reveal some denominational alignments. But
the little bit of that history I know is messy (medieval Spanish Scholastics,
for example, were much more consistent defenders of the free market than the
Protestant Adam Smith).

Mike

8

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.25.1440 CDT)]

Bill,

Well, he does write about these things as he build up an argument of how
conservatives think in his chapter 1.

And in discussion with Rick, I could admit that the chart uses is only
interesting as a way to start building up a control model of conservatism. It
could be that Freedom, Order, and Equality are not local minimums of principles
where the four ideologies disagree.

WHY. Chapter 1 is "How Conservatives Think" which asks us to go down the
hierarchy, to programs, I would guess. I think part of the WHY has to do with
how a conservative negotiates his/her relations with other people, based on
his/her function in society, and agreement with where they stand. Upper mobility
is good for those who are upwardly mobile, but when the prols attempt to usurp
power, that could be a threat. So WHY is preserving one's space at the table,
and keeping strangers or lower-class from taking away your chair. Something as
simple as that. Liberals and communitarians may not have as much gain on
position and privilege, and may offer to share the chair to the table, not its
requiring exclusive use. Maybe liberals and communitarians are not as "hungry"
and/or "desirous" of that chair. WHY = system image: Must I be preeminent and
top dog or not?

You say that the answer to the resolution of conflict requires asking that WHY,
or going up a level and reorganizing. Maybe that reorganization involves
lowering the gain on the hold one has of position, power, and control of others.

Dean is hypothesizing that these three principles make for four ideologies. I
don't know, and I am not the expert that Dean or other socio-politicos might be.
But offering up these principles as possible conflicts made me think of HPCT,
and I offered Dean's idea as some grist to the mill for Rick.

Could you take the book out from your local library?

Dean, John W. (2006). Conservatives without conscience. Viking. ISBN:
0-670-03774-5.

···

[Bill Powers (2007.06.25.1045 MDT)]

Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.25.1115 CDT) --

That chart showing the four ideologies is extremely interesting. One
of the most interesting things about it is that it doesn't address
WHY these positions are taken. Does Dean talk about that? Clearly the
chart shows the views from a level somewhere in the upper middle
regions, certainly not the top of the hierarchy.

As an example, liberal views are said to "promote equality." Why do
liberals want to do that? Conservatives, it is said, "Oppose
government activities that interfere with the market." Why do they
oppose interfering with the market?

Obviously the conflicts are not going to be resolved at the level of
promoting or not promoting equality, or interfering or not
interfering with the market. Only when we ask what higher-order
purposes are achieved by taking these position can we get closer to a
level where reorganization might help. So what can we find out about
the reasons for favoring or opposing these things?

Best,

Bill P.

9

[From Bill Powers (2007.06.26.0400 MDT)]

Mike Acree
(2007.06.25.1233 PDT) –

I
suggested 2 years ago (2005.03.22.1510) that both liberals and
conservatives were controlling for a perception of themselves as good
people, but with different references of what constitutes the good.
Conservatives define morality more in terms of private acts, liberals in
terms of social acts (chastity vs. charity, roughly).

This level of verbal generalization isn’t quite what I’m thinking
of. Of course whatever references one chooses at the principle level are
“good”. That’s how we define “good” (“Bad”
is a principle we try not to maintain). What I’m asking about is a
“higher good”.

The burden of
responsibility for that judgment is relieved if we can appeal to an
external authority, to set some clear
guidelines.

The “external authority” is what everybody tries to invoke to
give force to whatever the reference conditions are. After all, it’s not
very impressive to say “I like it” or “I don’t like
it” – much better if you point to a law, or a god, or a king, or
logic – something bigger than all of us. But that only postpones the
question of why we want to give force to the reference condition, for
others or just for ourselves.

But, if we are
to bind ourselves to an ascetic code, a perception of justice­for which
we also control very strongly­requires that other people be subjected to
the same rules. Hence conservatives want to legislate private
sexual behavior, liberals want to legislate charity. Lakoff
commends conservatives for recognizing that politics is inherently about
morality, but fails to credit liberals for what they recognize: that
legislating morality doesn’t work.
The individual and social
aspects of morality derive from the same Christian tradition (and
others);

OK, but suppose (separately) that the conservatives or the liberals get
their way. What does the conservative get out of legislating private
sexual behavior, and what does the liberal get out of making everyone be
charitable? What good is justice? What good is freedom?

I suppose that’s true in each local corner of the world, but once again
the question is, what do people get out of accepting the tradition (that
is, adopting the principles)? Or rejecting it?

I hope these questions are hard to answer. If they are, that may mean
that there is something going on that’s not obvious. People argue about
what is good, but they hardly ever ask what is so good about the good
thing – that is, what higher or more inclusive good is served by it, or
what evil it helps us to avoid. This sort of question can’t be answered
by logic or by authority: we’re really asking why an individual thinks
the good things are good, not why everybody should, or which is the best
good thing. The question is factual: what, in fact, do people get out of
morality or immorality?

What I’m trying to do here is find a point of view that is outside the
conflicts, that doesn’t confine us to a way of seeing things that we act
out but are unaware of.

Could it be that this whole liberal-conservative-blah-blah discussion is
stuck at one level of perception, while understanding can come only from
another level?

Best.

Bill P.

10

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.26.0840)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.26.0400 MDT)--

People argue about what is
good, but they hardly ever ask what is so good about the good thing -- that
is, what higher or more inclusive good is served by it...

What I'm trying to do here is find a point of view that is outside the
conflicts, that doesn't confine us to a way of seeing things that we act out
but are unaware of.

Let me give this a try in terms of single payer healthcare. That seems
to be an issue that clearly separates liberals and conservatives;
liberals like me seem to think it's good -- real good -- and
conservatives seem to think it's bad -- real bad.

I favor single payer for several reasons: First, I think healthcare
(like education, roads, water and unlike yachts) should be available
to all people who need it, regardless of financial means. So I would
like a community (ie. tax) supported healthcare system where anyone
who needs care at any time can walk (or be carried) in and get it,
free of charge. Second, I want a healthcare system that is efficient,
in terms of having the lowest cost of for the highest quality of
output. I think there is overwhelming evidence that the most efficient
healthcare systems are single payer. Third, along similar lines, I
believe in implementing public policy based on evidence (data) rather
than intuition. Sine my goal for healthcare policy is to produce the
highest quality healthcare (where quality is measured in terms of
standard aggregate outcome measures such as infant mortality,
lifespan, etc) for the lowest cost, then the evidence is that a single
payer system is the best way to acheive those goals.

So that's why I think single payer (or, if you prefer, socialized
medicine) is "good". Now I would like to hear from a conservative --
or, for that matter, anyone -- who opposes single payer healthcare. I
would like to know why he or she thinks single payer is "bad". What
are the higher level reasons for not wanting a single payer type
system?

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

11

What I’m trying to do here
is find a point of view that is outside the

conflicts, that doesn’t confine us to a way of seeing things that we act
out

but are unaware of.

Let me give this a try in terms of single payer healthcare.
…
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.26.1000 MDT)] –

Rick Marken (2007.06.26.0840) –

I favor single
payer for several reasons: First, I think healthcare

(like education, roads, water and unlike yachts) should be available

to all people who need it, regardless of financial means. So I would

like a community (ie. tax) supported healthcare system where anyone

who needs care at any time can walk (or be carried) in and get it,

free of charge. Second, I want a healthcare system that is
efficient,

in terms of having the lowest cost of for the highest quality of

output. I think there is overwhelming evidence that the most
efficient

healthcare systems are single payer. Third, along similar lines, I

believe in implementing public policy based on evidence (data)
rather

than intuition. Sine my goal for healthcare policy is to produce the

highest quality healthcare (where quality is measured in terms of

standard aggregate outcome measures such as infant mortality,

lifespan, etc) for the lowest cost, then the evidence is that a
single

payer system is the best way to acheive those goals.

So that’s why I think single payer (or, if you prefer, socialized

medicine) is “good”. Now I would like to hear from a
conservative –

or, for that matter, anyone – who opposes single payer healthcare.
I

would like to know why he or she thinks single payer is “bad”.
What

are the higher level reasons for not wanting a single payer type

system?

That’s a great start, and just what I had in mind, because it gives us a
place to begin the next step. Let’s just take one item here:
"healthcare

(like education, roads, water and unlike yachts) should be available to
all people who need it, regardless of financial means."

Talk about these things being available to all people who need
it.Is that good? What’s the good effect? Are there bad effects too? What
else is important about this idea? While you’re thinking about these
things, are there other thoughts ABOUT what you’re thinking? If so, what
are they?

Best,

Bill P.

12

[From Dick Robertson,2007.06.26.1200CDT]

Is this a project you two are working on? Or can I
weigh in too, with a thought or two?

I can imagine people who want to call themselves,
and be called, 'conservatives' arguing that having
single payer, state supported health care will only
encourage irresponsible people to overuse the system
and run up expenses instead of taking charge of
their own life style, choosing healthier options.

I also suspect that there are some people who follow
whatever the favorite trend in a group they want to
identify with, maybe without really knowing what
that implies. For example, within the last few
months I have had two people I just met, tell me, a
propos nothing at all, that they were Republicans
and thus 'conservatives' before we had begun talking
about anything. I hadn't yet thought of testing for
their real controlled variables by dissing or
otherwise challenging individual "components" of
conservatism, like taking responsibility for
oneself--and does that mean that you would let
people starve, if they lose their income and are not
creative enough to replace it before starving?
Stuff like that.

What I'm thinking in the background while saying
this is: "Could I make my pitch again for a
consitutitonal amendment that stipulates that any
new laws must contain a provision for specifying the
objectives they are to accomplish and a means of
testing whether they are being accomplished in a
specified period of time, And that they would be
self-repealed upon failing to meet that criterion? I
could think of several reasons why both liberals and
conservatives could agree on the desireability of
such laws, providing their higher economic-political
values include "evidence-based" decisions.

Well, that idea is no longer in the background, I
see. I just indulged it. So what was in the
background of that?
It was something like: I believe in a PCT-type of
approach to decision making and want to be known in
that way--or something like that.

Enough.

Dick R

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Powers <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:15 am
Subject: Re: Culture and Conservatism

[From Bill Powers (2007.06.26.1000 MDT)] --
Rick Marken (2007.06.26.0840) --

>Let me give this a try in terms of single payer

healthcare. ...

I think there is overwhelming evidence that the most
>healthcare systems are single payer.

Third, along similar

lines,

>or, for that matter, anyone -- who opposes single

payer

healthcare. I
>would like to know why he or she thinks single

payer is "bad". What

>are the higher level reasons for not wanting a

single payer type

>system?

That's a great start, and just what I had in mind,

because it gives

us a place to begin the next step. Let's just take

one item here:

"healthcare(like education, roads, water and

unlike yachts) should

be available
to all people who need it, regardless of financial

means."

Talk about these things being available to all

people who need

it.Is
that good? What's the good effect? Are there bad

effects too? What

else is important about this idea? While you're

thinking about

these
things, are there other thoughts ABOUT what you're

thinking? If so,

what are they?

Best,

Bill P.

13

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.26.1030)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.26.1000 MDT) --

>Rick Marken (2007.06.26.0840) --

Let me give this a try in terms of single payer healthcare. ...

That's a great start, and just what I had in mind, because it gives us a
place to begin the next step. Let's just take one item here: "healthcare
(like education, roads, water and unlike yachts) should be available to
all people who need it, regardless of financial means."

Talk about these things being available to all people who need it.Is that
good?

It seems good to me because I like the general idea of other people
being relatively comfortable, not so much because I like other people
all that much but because I feel more comfortable about the copious
advantages that I enjoy when others are not too badly off.

What's the good effect?

For me or for people in general? The good effect for me would be
knowing that everyone gets help when they need it and that ones
economic means is not an issue. This good effect is related to my
earlier point, which is that I don't like enjoying what I have knowing
that others are suffering needlessly. The bleeding heart reference;-)
The good effect for others would hopefully be that they could get the
health care they need when they need it. And such a system wouldn't
hurt wealthy people because they could still pay for their extra,
super duper care if they wanted to. I just want all people to have
access to the minimum care that is available that can keep them
healthy and happy.

Are there bad effects too?

I suppose there are possible bad effects. Whatever system is
implemented should at least maintain the healthcare levels of people
who are currently satisfied with the care they can afford. A bad
effect (for me) would be a policy that improved healthcare for some
and made it worse for others.

What else is important about this idea?

I think I mentioned all the things that are important to me about it:
improved healthcare for all, improved efficiency of the system (in
terms of cost per outcome), recognition of access to healthcare as a
basic human right, developing policy based on data rather than
ideology, allows me to live in the kind of society I would like, where
everyone was equal access to what I think of as essential community
services: healthcare, education, food, water, housing.

While you're thinking about these things, are
there other thoughts ABOUT what you're thinking? If so, what are they?

Let's see. I guess in the background is that nasty thought that I
really like my thoughts on this;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

14

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.26.1050)]

Dick Robertson (2007.06.26.1200CDT)--

Is this a project you two are working on? Or can I
weigh in too, with a thought or two?

Weigh in!

I can imagine people who want to call themselves,
and be called, 'conservatives' arguing that having
single payer, state supported health care will only
encourage irresponsible people to overuse the system
and run up expenses instead of taking charge of
their own life style, choosing healthier options.

Yes, this is probably what a conservative would say. I guess my
question to the conservative (which I know you are not) would be: If
the data showed that, by some agreed on metric, the current US
healthcare system produces more responsible use of healthcare than any
single payer system, would you still prefer the current system over a
single payer system even though the data also shows that every single
payer system produces better health outcomes for their populations for
far less cost than the US system?

What I'm thinking in the background while saying
this is: "Could I make my pitch again for a
consitutitonal amendment that stipulates that any
new laws must contain a provision for specifying the
objectives they are to accomplish and a means of
testing whether they are being accomplished in a
specified period of time, And that they would be
self-repealed upon failing to meet that criterion?

This is exactly what my question to conservatives is about: do you
care about the the actual consequences of the policies you advocate
(ie. do you care about what the data show) and, if so, what aspects of
the data do you care about? In terms of healthcare policy, I want to
know whether conservatives care about the data comparing single payer
systems to systems in the US and, if they do, are they more interested
in the data about responsible usage (if such data exists) or outcomes
and costs?

I would vote for your proposed amendment in a New York minute!!

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

15

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.06.26.1325 CDT)]

Hey guys,

Dean used a very carefully prepared scale to define conservatism from
authoritarian and social dominance orientation surveys created by a Bob
Altemeyer.

I really suggest y'all get Dean's book to see how he characterizes
conservatives. But there are already means by which certain key perceptions (my
description) are disturbed by Altemeyer.

--Bryan

APPENDIX B
Right-Wing Authoritarian Survey
The Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale*

Note: In including this scale with Bob Altemeyer s permission, I agreed not to
include the full procedure for scoring. In one of our exchanges he told me that
"because people tend to believe their own psychological test scores far, far
more than they should, my profession discourages letting people know what they
have scored on a test." He also noted that "when people know they are answering
an authoritarianism measure, that can affect how they respond�which is another
reason for treating individual scores with a grain of salt." Nonetheless, a
reader can get a good sense of where he or she might fall in the world ofRWAs
from a review of the following questions. This scale is one of several developed
by Altemeyer. His current scale has just twenty questions, and he has found it
as effective as this thirty-two-question scale.

*With permission of Bob Altemeyer, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Canada.

1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things,
while the radicals and protesters are usually just "loud-mouths" showing off
their ignorance.
2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done
to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in
government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our
society, who are trying to create doubt in people s minds.
6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are
no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to
our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the
troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
9. Our country needs free thinkers who will have the courage to defy traditional
ways, even if this upsets many people.
10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions
eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual
preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.
12. The "old-fashioned ways'" and "old-fashioned values" still show the best way
to live.
13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority's view by
protesting for women's abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school
prayer.
14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush
evil and take us back to our true path.
15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our
government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the "normal way things are
supposed to be done."
16. God's laws about abortion, pornography, and marriage must be strictly
followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly
punished.
17. It would be best for everyone if the proper authorities censored magazines
so that people could not get their hands on trashy and disgusting material.
18. There is nothing wrong with premarital sexual intercourse.
19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what
the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the "rotten apples" who are
ruining everything.
20. There is no "ONE right way" to live life; everybody has to create their own
way.
21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy
"traditional family values."
22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers
would just shut up and accept their groups traditional place in society.
23. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today who are trying
to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out
of action.
24. People should pay less attention to the Bible and the other old forms of
religious guidance, and instead develop their own personal standards of what is
moral and immoral.
25. What our country needs most is discipline, with everyone following our
leaders in unity.
26. Its better to have trashy magazines and radical pamphlets in our communities
than to let the government have the power to censor them.
27. The facts on crime, sexual immorality, and the recent public disorders all
show we have to crack down harder on deviant groups and troublemakers if we are
going to save our moral standards and preserve law and order.
28. A lot of our rules regarding modesty and sexual behavior are just cus-
    toms that are not necessarily any better or holier than those that other
people follow.
29. The situation in our country is getting so serious, the strongest methods
would be justified if they eliminated the troublemakers and got us back to our
true path.
30. A "woman's place" should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women
are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the
past.
31. It is wonderful that young people today have greater freedom to protest
against things they don't like and to make their own "rules" to govern their
behavior.
32. Once our government leaders give us the "go ahead," it will be the duty of
every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country
from within.

···

==================================================================

APPENDIX C

Social Dominance Orientation Survey*

Note: This scale testing social dominance orientation does not include its
scoring. Those interested in further information should consult F. Pratto, J.
Sidanius, L. M. Stallworth, and B. F. Malle, "Social Dominance Orientation: A
Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes," Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology (1994), 741-763, at
file:///H|/website/pubs/PrattoSidanius1994.pdf.

1. Some groups of people are simply not the equals of others.
2. Some people are just more worthy than others.
3. This country would be better off if we cared less about how equal all people
were.
4. Some people are just more deserving than others.
5. It is not a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others.
6. Some people are just inferior to others.
7. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on others.
8. Increased economic equality.
9. Increased social equality.
10. Equality.
11. If other people were treated more equally we would have fewer problems in
this country.
12. In an ideal world, all nations would be equal.
13. We should try to treat one another as equals as much as possible. (All
humans should be treated as equals.)
14. It is important that we treat other countries as equals.

*With permission of Jim Sidanius, University of California, Los Angeles.

16

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2007.06.26,20:40 EUST)]
from Bill Powers (2007.06.26.0400 MDT)

OK, but suppose (separately) that the conservatives or the
liberals get their way. What does the conservative get out of
legislating private sexual behavior, and what does the liberal
get out of making everyone be charitable? What good is justice?
What good is freedom?

I think one of the high level perceptions we control from very young age is
security. Controlling for security year after year we attain that by
activating (send reference to) lower levels control systems. Different
people activate different lower level systems. First they activate different
Program systems, some people activate liberal rule programs and other people
activate conservative rule programs. These programs activate (send reference
to) different lower level systems until people action (talk or walk away or
something else) till they control their security.

Security is a main perception to control and some people also activate
systems in the limbic system and they experience a feeling of security.

I suppose that's true in each local corner of the world, but once
again the question is, what do people get out of accepting the
tradition (that is, adopting the principles)? Or rejecting it?

They get out security. And rejecting the tradition may lead to insecurity.
This is necessarily not unfortunate, because many people controls different
kinds of insecurity. There is really the advantage that people who is not
laiable by tradition may reorganize and able to control other parts of our
physical world.

The question is factual: what, in fact, do people get out of morality or

immorality?

I am not sure this is a good enough answer. But again I think people get out
security if they control morality and they often reorganize and becomes able
to control new perceptions if they control immorality. There is a problem
and that is: Nobody knows the outcome of immorality.

What I'm trying to do here is find a point of view that is outside the

conflicts,

that doesn't confine us to a way of seeing things that we act out but are

unaware of.
I don't think people experience conflict at the Principle level. We can't
wish to be honest and dishonest in the same setting. Maybe I am wrong. But
if we control sets of principles at the System Concepts level, it is
possible to experience conflicts.

Could it be that this whole liberal-conservative-blah-blah discussion is

stuck

at one level of perception, while understanding can come only from another

level?

Yes I think the discussion on the program level may be a blah-blah
discussion. The control for security is controlled one level up.

bjorn

17

It seems good to me because I
like the general idea of other people

being relatively comfortable, not so much because I like other
people

all that much but because I feel more comfortable about the copious

advantages that I enjoy when others are not too badly
off.
[From Bill Powers (2007.06.26.1327 MDT)]

There are several possible questions about Rick’s reply. I’ll pick out
just a few.

Rick Marken (2007.06.26.1030) –

When you say “not so much because I like other people all that
much,” what does “all that much” signify? Is the
implication that you don’t really like other people? Expand on this a
little.

What’s the good
effect?

For me or for people in general? The good effect for me would be

knowing that everyone gets help when they need it and that ones

economic means is not an issue.

What is it about knowing that everyone gets help when they need it that
you like? What is wrong with economic means being an issue?

This good effect is
related to my

earlier point, which is that I don’t like enjoying what I have
knowing

that others are suffering needlessly.

When you say you don’t like enjoying what you have while other suffer,
are you saying that this is what you do, and you don’t like doing it? Is
this a conflict?

The bleeding heart
reference;-)

When you wrote that, what was the attitude you were communicating? It
sounds complicated. Is it OK to be a bleeding heart?

While you’re
thinking about these things, are

there other thoughts ABOUT what you’re thinking? If so, what are
they?

Let’s see. I guess in the background is that nasty thought that I

really like my thoughts on this;-)

Does calling it a nasty thought mean you also don’t like your thoughts on
this?

···

=====================================================================================

Other people are offering their ideas, too. How about taking your own
posts and “going meta” on them (as Hugh Gibbons put
it).

Best,

Bill P.

18

[From Fred Nickols (2007.06.26.1558)]

I'm following this thread but getting bogged down in the wordplay (i.e., the use of labels and definitions and still more words to clarify those). If what we're trying to do is to pin down a couple of concepts (conservative and liberal), I've always found it useful to provide some examples as well as definitional parameters). Here are some of each from my perspective:

Conservatives
  Bush, Cheney, Rove, Reagan, Nixon, Wm F. Buckley, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan

Liberals
  Bill Clinton, Al Gore, JFK, RFK, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Anyone care to disagree, swap, add, delete?

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Principal
Distance Consulting
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"

19

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.26.1350)]

Bill Powers (2007.06.26.1327 MDT)--

When you say "not so much because I like other people all that much," what
does "all that much" signify? Is the implication that you don't really like
other people? Expand on this a little.

I was probably thinking that there are some other people I don't like.
But, truth be told, I like most people, even conservatives (though I
must admit that it's more difficult to like a conservative, not so
much because they are not personally nice;it's because I know that
their beliefs are leading to actions that are hurting and killing so
many people unnecessarily.

What is it about knowing that everyone gets help when they need it that you
like? What is wrong with economic means being an issue?

Again, I think it's just that I don't like to worry that others, less
blessed than I by the accident of good genes and circumstances, are
having a tough time. It's hard for me to enjoy my stuff when others
are suffering nearby.

When you say you don't like enjoying what you have while other suffer, are
you saying that this is what you do, and you don't like doing it? Is this a
conflict?

Yes, it might be, but, if so, it's a minor one, mainly because I live
in a way that I see as modest. It would be a major conflict if I lived
opulently in, say, Tijuana, where there iis terrible poverty.

The bleeding heart reference;-)

When you wrote that, what was the attitude you were communicating? It
sounds complicated. Is it OK to be a bleeding heart?

Bingo. There is a major conflict there. It comes out now when I deal
with my students. I hate to see them do poorly on tests or get a poor
grade. The bleeding heart in me wants to just give them a good grade
and a pat on the head, especially if they really tried hard. But that
conflicts with my goals of being fair and or following the rules. So
the bleeding heart side of me does create conflicts sometime and
that's when I think life might be simpler if I could bring the
bleeding heart reference a little closer to "compassionate
conservative", that is, be neither compassionate nor conservative;-)

Does calling it a nasty thought mean you also don't like your thoughts on
this?

Yes. I'm trying to stop loving myt ideas to much, given my reference
for taking advice from you;-) It is very complicated to be me.

Other people are offering their ideas, too. How about taking your own posts
and "going meta" on them (as Hugh Gibbons put it).

Sure, if I get a chance. I think I did a little already.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

20

[From Rick Marken (2007.06.26.1400)]

Fred Nickols (2007.06.26.1558)]

I've always found it useful to provide some examples as well as definitional
parameters). Here are some of each from my perspective:

Conservatives
  Bush, Cheney, Rove, Reagan, Nixon, Wm F. Buckley, Rush Limbaugh, Pat
Buchanan

Liberals
  Bill Clinton, Al Gore, JFK, RFK, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Anyone care to disagree, swap, add, delete?

I would call the Clintons moderate to conservative. Gore may be
moving toward liberal. RFK was getting liberal as time passed;
possibly JFK too. Judged relative to the current climate I suppose RFK
and JFK were flaming liberals. Edwards is closer to my notion of
liberal than Obama. My model of a liberal is FDR. Carter was half
liberal -- good on foreign policy but pretty conservative
domestically.

The conservatives you list are what I would call reactionaries, but
the word "conservative" is now being used to describe reactionaries so
I guess it's OK.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com