The ideological identifier or just another progressivism tool?

Mother Jones has published yet another hit piece on conservatives. The story is merely a reference to work being performed by John Hibbing, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Hibbing has created a machine that theoretically has the ability to determine whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Mother Jones seems to go out of their way throughout the story to highlight this conclusion put forth by Hibbing.

It all adds up, according to Hibbing, to what he calls a “negativity bias” on the right. Conservatives, Hibbing’s research suggests, go through the world more attentive to negative, threatening, and disgusting stimuli—and then they adopt tough, defensive and aversive ideologies to match that perceived reality.

Yes, we conservatives are little more than a negative lot. We go through life seeking the downside to whatever is put in front of us. The question is, do the results of Hibbing’s research surprise anyone? Clearly, conservatives and liberals have vastly different ideologies. Combining our makeup derived from our psychology, biology, and politics may or may not be the best way to approach determining our ideology, but what really is the goal here? Is it to unlock the key to the Holy Grail, that being a clear methodology to convert an ideological opposite to your way of thinking?

Thomas Jefferson correctly pointed out that our ideological differences have always been there. However, is it conservatives and liberals that differ as Hibbing proposes? Our current versions of the Whigs and Tories are hardly separated by ideology. Both republicans and democrats continue to advance big government and government dependency as a way of life. Today’s liberals have completely reversed ideology since the 1960’s when they despised big government.

Political ideology is hardly the best format for identifying differences amongst us as politics are guided by a diversity of influences, many of which are driven by current events. Current events which may demand a response based upon practicality rather than ideology. Simply look at politicians who pick and choose their battles realizing they can’t win every one. Winning the war is the goal however, so taking a step back here and there may be required to keep advancing the cause.

Fact is that each and every one us started out in life as entirely dependent upon others to survive. The human race is the most susceptible of all species on the planet when we are born. We wouldn’t survive a day without human intervention. Those that carry that need for collectivism throughout their life could say they were born that way but the argument is hollow as we all were. Professor Hibbing attempts to tie our biology into our politics, but we are clearly a reflection of our surroundings and our influences. To say that everyone fits into a model of conservative or liberal ideology is folly. Some never even develop what can be construed as an ideology throughout their entire life.

So the good Professor may well be able to track a set of metrics that indeed do reflect what is considered conservative or liberal ideology as it exists today. The problem is that definition is a changing dynamic and may not apply a few years from now.

As far as conservatives being portrayed as negative leaners, that is just a viewpoint. Conserving one’s values and protecting those values from threats may well be considered a positive. Looking for aversive images and extending one’s gaze may appear to some as seeking a negative, but to others it may be considered as simply being proactive.

The bottom line is this entire thought process leads into the progressive agenda. If you’re not accepting and modifying your views and values to incorporate all opposing views and values, then you become the intolerant one. The tie-in is always made to show a conservative ideology as being one of negativity and intolerance. So it’s really no wonder at all that Mother Jones would highlight this ideological determining machine as being progressive.

Advertisements

Did Michigan just cast the pivotal vote to force a constitutional convention?

Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment – California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter. Read more – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/rare-option-forcing-congress-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum/#

Many states have applied and later rescinded their applications for a convention. Some scholars say it’s irrelevant.

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.”

So the water is a little muddy here. 29 states have been reported to have voted for an Article V convention – http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/20/growing-chorus-of-state-lawmakers-call-for-constitutional-convention-to-force-fiscal-discipline-in-washington/#

We are seeing people such as the Congressman from California – California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter – attempt to utilize the call for a balanced budget amendment convention as tied into the Article V convention. They are entirely separate. An Article V convention would allow for proposing amendments to the Constitution on any topic, not just a balanced budget amendment.

The Article V movement is taking on the same persona of the Tea Party. No central organization exists, just a collection of groups of all shapes and sizes fighting for the same general ideal. Some credit conservative talk radio show host Mark Levin with starting the push for an Article V convention. It was Indiana State Senator Dan Carden who actually organized what was coined the Mount Vernon Assembly in December of last year as an meeting to lay the foundation for organizing the states.

Here is a website that contains information relating to the movement – http://conventionofstates.com/

The point is there are a multitude of ways in which to become involved in the Article V movement. The Tea Party lacks a central party which can sometimes work against it and is also a plus at the same time. The Article V movement cannot follow this same path. The only way it can come to fruition is through the legislative process instituted by the Founders in the Constitution itself.

The people can still do the legwork here however by pressuring the members of their state legislatures to obtain the necessary votes to force the U.S. Congress to act.

Ex-CIA Chief admits he was incompetent on Benghazi talking points

The former acting director of the CIA, in his first public testimony on Benghazi, confirmed that he ignored guidance from the top CIA officer on the ground in favor of reporting from analysts far removed from the scene, in shaping the flawed “talking points” which said the attack sprung from a protest. Read more – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/former-cia-chief-accused-helping-white-house-give-false-narrative-on-benghazi/

Translation? The same as a tv news editor rejecting their on scene reporter for a teleprompter reader in a studio.

Truth? Ex-CIA Chief Mike Morell is a liar. Of course he will toe the line and stick to the cover-up. He has to. The truth involves the CIA conducting a covert weapons running op in Benghazi.

The fact that looking like an amateurish fool is preferable to the truth tells one that it had to be a far bitter pill to swallow. It won’t hurt Morell in his post-CIA career. In fact, it looks good to know you’re a team player and loyal even after the fact. I would expect Morell will profit handsomely down the line for staying on point and protecting his ex-employer.