"Paranoid Truculent Male"
A close genetic relative of the Ruddy-Cheeked Young Patriot, it seems.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Thursday, February 07, 2008
AN OASIS IN A WORLD OF HACKS, HUSTLERS, AND HIRED SPIN
posted by The Cunning Realist at Thursday, February 07, 2008
9 Comments:
CR, once again this is a terrific link, but it frustrates the heck out of me. As a self-identified lifelong conservative, you have essentially been on the side of the PTMs for a long time.
If you're in your early 40s, you didn't have a chance to vote for Reagan until 1984, but I would think that you did. You probably voted for the Republican presidential candidate every year since then, with the possible exception of 2004, because you're smart enough to recognize what a disaster Bush is.
But why do we spend so much on the military? Why do we continue to hear the myth that we "won the Cold War" through our military spending buildup during the '80s? The Soviet Union was due to collapse of its own ineptitude, did we really need to line the pockets of a bunch of defense contractors in order to claim victory?
The CIA was wrong, wrong, wrong about the Soviet threat. Why didn't that seem to matter to anyone?
During the Clinton admin, the PTMs were in charge of generating some China scares -- be thankful that you are not Wen Ho Lee.
I like that you link to this material, honestly. But do you really think there is a "conservative" path forward that does not contain the PTMs as a crucial part of the coalition??
I can't see it. Doesn't mean I'm right.
Whammer
Maybe this is what you're getting at?
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/02/the-republican.html
Certainly OK to be opposed to the Democrats, especially given some of their recent behavior, constantly rolling over in Congress at the slightest provocation.
But I think you could argue that the Republican party may be beyond repair (yes, I understand the same argument was made re the Dems in the '80s....), and that a radically new approach is in order.
Whammer
I think Fred pretty much nails it.
I agree; great link. The entire time I was reading it I couldn't get the image of Dick Cheney out of my head! The frustrating part about it for me is that the PTM argument is so simple and primal. It is much harder to advance the notion that the terrorist threat, and our reaction to it, are way overblown. When people hear that their and their families' lives are in danger, they want to take no chances. So they trade their liberty for perceived safety. It's a sucker's bargain, but it is appealing.
The real problem is that in earlier times, the Republicans used these people without being true believers. Now the PTM is the mainstream of the party.
think Fred pretty much nails it.
Gus I think you're right. The disturbing thing to me is that the way you "use" the PTM is in support of the Military/Industrial complex.
You know, if Eisenhower were alive today and coined that phrase, he'd be branded as an Islamofascist Commie sympathizer in no time by the "mainstream" Republicans......
Whammer
Once you activate that part of the brain...there is no thinking that takes place. It is how we are wired so to speak. Our neocortex is the weakest part of the brain. Obviously
http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/triune%20brain.htm
Brain One
This is the brain we share with birds, and reptiles. Think of it as the "housekeeping brain". Just the basics: hunger, temperature control, fight-or-flight fear responses, defending territory, keeping safe -- that kind of thing. The structures that perform these functions within our brain are extremely similar to those in the brains of reptiles. Thus, this brain is called the "R complex" (R for reptilian). You can take a Tour of the R complex when you wish; and you will see parts of it in the section on obsessions.
A viable explanation why some political professionals have an 'R' appended to their names.
[/snark]
Post a Comment
<< Home