GOP Base vs Traditional Conservatives

There is some interesting data from Pew. I had looked at this data many times before, but in looking at it again I noticed a distinction within the conservative demographics which I hadn’t noticed previously. This distinction seems to at least partly explain why many moderate conservatives have left the GOP in recent years and why some of the most strongest conservatives are also the most critical of other conservatives.

What is interesting is which specific demographics most strongly support torture and the Patriot Act. It’s most particularly clear with the latter. Conservative demographic groups (Enterprisers, Social Conservatives, & Pro-Govt Conservatives) have the strongest support for the Patriot Act. That isn’t surprising, but what is surprising is which specific conservative demographic groups have majority support (Enterprisers & Social Conservatives) and which don’t (Pro-Govt Conservatives).

Let me explain.

Enterprisers are essentially neo-cons, neo-liberals, and (neo-) libertarians which demographically translates as mostly rich white males who have partisan loyalty to the GOP and who are the most loyal viewers of Fox News. Social Conservatives are essentially the fundamentalists and rightwingers in general which demographically translates as older whites who represent the other big chunk of Republican voters. Both groups are known to criticize the government for different reasons and yet both love the idea of a strong military (the military, rather than democracy, being the symbol of their ideal government). They may use pro-constitutional rhetoric in their criticizing the government, but ultimately they don’t take the constitution all that seriously when it comes to protecting human rights and freedom for all.

It’s telling that Pro-Govt Conservatives are the one conservative demographic group that doesn’t have majority support for the Patriot Act. That is a very telling detail. To be a conservative who actually believes in the government serving a positive function means to be a conservative who also genuinely believes in strictly adhering to the constitution and to the moral vision upon which this country was founded. This is the group that I consider as being ‘real’ conservatives in that they are more moderate and traditional (i.e., they believe in conserving social institutions such as government) compared to the radicalized element within the GOP. But these down-to-earth conservatives don’t get as much attention as they’re too reasonable. Also, despite being the most traditional of conservatives, they aren’t the base of the Republican Party. In fact, they are almost evenly split between Republicans and Independents (which is the same role the Liberal demographic group plays in the Democratic Party).

The fact that traditional conservatives (traditional in the larger historical sense) are the least supportive of the Republican Party says a lot about what has become of the party that supposedly represents ‘conservatives’. It also explains a lot about why traditional conservatism is ignored in America. The GOP doesn’t care about traditional conservatives as much because it isn’t their base. These conservatives are the poor and working class people. Unlike the wealthy Enterprisers, they don’t have lots of money to donate to political campaigns. And, unlike the upper middle class Tea Party supporters, they don’t make for entertaining media coverage. These people are too busy just trying to get by and going by the media you would hardly know they existed.

Related to this, I was comparing conservatives between the parties. It might surprise some people to see how many conservatives there are in the Democratic Party. In particular, poor minorities living in the South are extremely conservative and yet loyal Democrats. Rightwingers like to argue that only liberal Democrats want big government for social issues, but government being involved with social issues has always been a traditional conservative position. Why are liberal Democrats defending the traditionally conservative role of the government as an institution upholding social order and the public good? Maybe because it’s in the nature of liberals in general to defend the powerless when attacked by the powerful.

So, what exactly is traditional conservatism?

Here is a very good explanation/description:

Conservative? Americans Don’t Know the Meaning of the Word
Guy Molyneux

True conservatism is a philosophy committed to conserving– conserving families, communities and nation in the face of change. Committed to preserving fundamental values, such as accountability, civic duty and the rule of law. And committed to a strong government to realize these ends. What passes for conservatism in America today bears only a passing resemblance to this true conservatism. It worships at the twin altars of free enterprise and weak government–two decidedly unconservative notions.

Real conservatism values security and stability over the unfettered free market. In Germany, for example, it was the conservative Otto von Bismark–not socialists–who developed social insurance and built the world’s first welfare state. Today conservatives throughout the world–but not here–endorse government-provided national health care, because they recognize public needs are not always met by the private sector. And they see a role for government in encouraging national economic development.

A true conservative movement would not ignore the decay of our great cities, or see the disorder of the Los Angeles riots only as a political opportunity. Nor would they pay homage to “free trade” while the nation’s manufacturing base withered. Nor would a conservative President veto pro-family legislation requiring companies to provide leave to new mothers, in deference to business prerogatives.

Traditional conservatives champion community and nation over the individual. They esteem public service, and promote civic obligation. They reject the “invisible hand” argument, that everyone’s pursuit of individual self-interest will magically yield the best public outcome, believing instead in deliberately cultivating virtue. Authentic conservatives do not assail 55 m.p.h. speed limits and seat-belt laws as encroaching totalitarianism.

Finally, a genuine conservatism values the future over the present. It is a movement of elites to be sure, but of elites who feel that their privilege entails special obligations. The old word for this was “stewardship”–the obligation to care for the nation’s human and natural resources, and to look out for future generations’ interests.

Such conservatives would not open up public lands for private commercial exploitation, or undermine environmental regulations for short-term economic growth. They would not cut funding for childrens’ vaccinations, knowing that the cost of treating illness is far greater. And a conservative political party would never preside over a quadrupling of the national debt.

In America, then, what we call conservatism is really classical liberalism: a love of the market, and hatred of government. Adam Smith, after all, was a liberal, not a conservative. As the economist Gunnar Myrdal once noted: “America is conservative . . . but the principles conserved are liberal.”

American conservatives have often celebrated the country’s historically “exceptional” character: the acceptance of capitalism and the absence of any significant socialist movement. Curiously, though, they often miss their half of the story: the absence of a real Tory conservatism. What Louis Hartz called America’s “liberal consensus” excluded both of the great communitarian traditions–ain’t nobody here but us liberals.

True conservatism’s weakness as a political tradition in America is thus an old story. When values confront the market here, the market usually wins. In recent years, though, conservative social values seem to have been eclipsed. Many of today’s conservatives are really libertarians–proponents of a radical individualism that has little in common with conservatism.

14 thoughts on “GOP Base vs Traditional Conservatives

  1. By the time they grow to become EJs, they have been influenced by their Ne which is restricted in the circumstances of their maturity. That’s the correlate.

    Kafka said and I agree, you too, I’m sure that today’s revolution only becomes tomorrow’s bureaucracy

    Are you sure you’re not a commie? I’ll snitch you out 😉

    Do you know what I like about America? You experiment with ideas I’d like to test. Ah, America, you’re my guinea pig

    “Traditional conservatives champion community and nation over the individual”

    You can’t force the individual to be communitarian, such a state of affairs will be ersatz. Only when the individual himself is both individualized and community-oriented simultaneously can that situation of cheap imitation improve. That’s what people don’t get about Marxism, Marx never said the state would be ‘in control’, it was always with the people and it rested within a psychological revolution, which as I remember it he said, though, in different words than mine

    The way I see it, a conservative can have a socialist mind but a socialist is not a conservative. Maybe, it’s just me talking about myself but don’t call me a socialist. I want to be free. Labels are only chains

    “conserving families, communities and nation in the face of change”

    What that is is tradition and since tradition is liable to change, conservatism too is.

    You liberals will definitely go to hell now. Devil’s advocates? That’s the last straw. Haha

    • “today’s revolution only becomes tomorrow’s bureaucracy”

      The other day, I came across a quote which stated (to paraphrase),

      “Conservatives worship dead revolutions.”

      I remember thinking about this understanding of conservatism right after high school. I’m not sure why I thought about it back then, but it appears to be an idea that has occurred to many others.

      In the article above, Gunnar Myrdal is quoted in his noting,

      “America is conservative . . . but the principles conserved are liberal.”

      Mark Twain stated this in a much more snarky way:

      “Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals”

      “Are you sure you’re not a commie?”

      I’m sure many Americans might make good commies if the situation were different, not that I know what makes for a good commie. If Americans became commies, they would create a very American communism. So far, only societies with traditional cultures (i.e., established cultures with relatively stable racial/ethnic demographics) have attempted communism.

      That reminds me of two things: 1) the difference between a liberal and a leftwinger; and 2) the difference between community and solidarity.

      First, I always wondered why leftwing ideologies such as communism are considered ‘left’. They don’t necessarily or inherently seem liberal. Communism in the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba is very socially conservative. Communism seems to be popular with cultures that have a more patriarchal mindset. Communist countries aren’t very welcoming of those who are different such as gays and artists.

      A communist isn’t a socialist. Communism is just an inverted form of fascism, where government has power over the means of production rather than those who own the means of production having power over the government. The Nazis were technically fascists. Even though Nazis called themselves national socialists, they killed and imprisoned people who actually were involved in the socialist movement.

      There is research that studies right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). The most significant detail is that RWA doesn’t necessarily correlate to right-wing ideology. In the US, RWAs tend to be fundamentalists. However, in communist countries, RWAs tend to be communists. This partly is just because RWAs are the ultimate conformists and so won’t stray far from the norms of any society, but it goes beyond that. What American fundamentalists and non-American communists have in common is that they’re both socially conservative.

      This relates to something you said.

      “a conservative can have a socialist mind but a socialist is not a conservative.”

      A non-American communist is a social conservative who adheres to a socialist ideology or who uses socialist rhetoric to rationalize their actions.

      The other thing fundamentalists and communists have in common is that neither is traditional and yet both represent a longing for tradition. They are reactions to modernism where traditional conservatism has been undermined. Conservatism is radicalized when it becomes disconnected or loosened from tradition. Whether this radicalization takes on a right-wing or left-wing ideology depends on the culture and historical circumstances.

      “What that is is tradition and since tradition is liable to change, conservatism too is.”

      That is true, but you must keep in mind how different is modern society. For most of human evolution and history, change happened very slowly.

      Tradition can remain conservatively rooted in place as long as change doesn’t happen too quickly. It’s like a tree that moves slowly to adapt to it’s environment (leaning that way toward the light, leaning the other way as the soil below it erodes), but move a tree too quickly (as with a massive flood or strong winds) and it will fall over or break.

      The weakness of conservatism is that because it resists change it can’t deal well when change is abruptly forced. When this happens, it stops being traditional conservatism and becomes a traumatized reactionary conservatism. This radicalized conservatism is very dysfunctional in that it constantly is in defensive mode looking for enemies to attack and battles to fight. It’s like a person suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in that such a person keeps reliving and re-enacting the original trauma.

      Here is the second point. I was just reading somewhere about a distinction between America and Europe. In European countries, they have a cultural sense of solidarity, but this solidarity is impersonal and has the potential for an oppressive cultural stagnation. In America, despite or because of our individualism, we have more of a sense community rather than solidarity, a community of individuals which requires individuals to work together. Americans have an uneasy relationship with solidarity such as class solidarity because we don’t want to be categorized.

      I’m not sure if that explanation makes sense to you. Let me give a concrete example.

      I’ve heard Europeans observe about Americans that we love forming groups. Along with individualism, Americans are always moving, it’s our one constant. Here is Tocqueville explaining this from the perspective of the early 19th century:

      “In the United States a man builds a house to spend his latter years in it and he sells it before the roof is on. He plants a garden and lets it just as the trees are coming into bearing. He brings a field into tillage and leaves other men to gather the crops. He embraces a profession and gives it up. He settles in a place which he soon afterward leaves to carry his changeable longings elsewhere. If his private affairs leave him any leisure he instantly plunges into the vortex of politics and if at the end of a year of unremitting labour he finds he has a few days’ vacation, his eager curiosity whirls him over the vast extent of the United States, and he will travel fifteen hundred miles in a few days to shake off his happiness.”

      Americans are fairly good at moving to a new place and creating a temporary ‘community’ before moving onto the next place. Americans love joining with others in some common interest or endeavor. I live in a transitory town which isn’t that large and yet probably has thousands of clubs, groups and organizations. Any activity you can imagine, there is probably some people who get together on a regular basis to do that thing and they might even have a newsletter.

      My point being is that communitarianism seems to be, at least in other cultures, more related to solidarity than to community. So I don’t know about American communism.

      It seems to me, however, that there is no reason why communitarianism can’t be community-oriented in the American sense. Americans have always loved communes and other intentional communities as they’re just another group to be freely joined (i.e., individually chosen) if one so desires, but as you say, “You can’t force the individual to be communitarian”. Communes in America are essentially grassroots communism which is very different than state communism, the latter attempting to force individuals to be communitarian.

      As for Marxism, I’m woefully ignorant on that subject.

      Liberals will go to hell? Yeah, probably.

      By the way, are you familiar with the idea of Tory conservatism. It’s a British form of conservatism. The Tories were the American colonists who fought against the revolutionaries. Henry Fairlie (a British man who lived much of his adult life in America) described it this way:

      “The characteristics of the Tory, which separate him from the conservative, may briefly be summarized: 1.) his almost passionate belief in strong central government, which has of course always been the symbolic importance to him of the monarchy; 2.) his detestation of “capitalism,” of what Cardinal Newman and T.S. Eliot called “usury,” of which he himself calls “trade”; and 3.) his trust in the ultimate good sense of the People, whom he capitalizes in this way, because the People are a real entity to him, beyond social and economic divisions, and whom he believes can be appealed to, and relied on, as the final repository of decency in a free nation. The King and the People, against the barons and the capitalists, is the motto of the Tory.”

      To Fairlie’s Tory mind, politics is “essentially good” and politicians “the most hopeful messengers of a society’s will to improve.” A Tory is different than a radicalized American conservative (with a hyper-individualized classical liberal ideology). A Tory has faith in society and in humanity. In place of that faith, the radical conservative has a sense of paranoid doom.

      I’m not familiar with politics in Africa to any great extent. I only ever hear about African politics when it involves civil unrest which most often seems to involve Northern African countries. I was wondering what kind of conservatism dominates there. I suppose it’s a mix with the colonial history and all. Ignoring the colonial inheritance, what is traditional African conservatism? Or, if that is too broad, what is traditional conservatism in Ghana?

  2. “his trust in the ultimate good sense of the People, whom he capitalizes in this way, because the People are a real entity to him, beyond social and economic divisions, and whom he believes can be appealed to, and relied on, as the final repository of decency in a free nation”

    The Tory doesn’t believe in any People, capitalized, crowned or illuminated. He already has a definition of People, he already has a set of damned, he already has a prison or even a Gehenna. The Tory has these because he already has a ‘good sense’ and already has a ‘decency’. He believes in no People, he only believes in himself, egotistically, that is.

    “I only ever hear about African politics when it involves civil unrest which most often seems to involve Northern African countries”

    Ah, Africa’s flagship, civil unrest. We christened it just last week, I was chosen to compose the anthem of that great vessel. It’s actually an ark, everything in pairs; the pirate and his horn of gold, the politician and his Swiss wife

    “I was wondering what kind of conservatism dominates there”

    All conservatism looks alike to me. All are concerned with rigid espousal of some law or other concept in opposition to any change whatsoever. Intransigence, they call it. But, to be fair, as you said, they do move but ever so slowly and some are ever so misoneistic

    Because I usually look at the level of the common man, I can most accurately speak about him. Plus, politics, economics are too much of memory work for me and too current, too much of ‘what is’ rather than ‘what can be’ so I’m slow in them. One would ask when you don’t know ‘what is’, how do you know what can be? You just need to look at the people, the concept, originally, doesn’t precede the people, the people precede it, it is abstracted

    The African is pretty much an artist. He doesn’t really have a defined way of living. Now, however, there really is a manifestation of principled people. Perhaps, the result of religion, which in this country is the biggest cause of conservatism. Conservatism too would have flourished more in the empires and kingdoms of yore. The type of conservatism that predisposes to Nazism, then expansionism. Religion informs much of the conservatism here, since the African is so so a believer in the Supernatural, the conservatists really have a great tool with which to rule. But, this religion is only a tool, to me, they aren’t really deep into it (perhaps, to their minds, they are). What it is to do is serve as accessory to that fundamental or to avoid confusion, raw conservatism, which simply thinks that “the way things are is all there is”. Perhaps, the only time that this type of conservatist doesn’t conserve is in relation to his own life (there are sure to be the die-hard ones, it’s possible, I don’t know).

    But, since this is the way the men are, this kind of thinking is bound to appear in especially politics. What I will say is especially conservative now is ‘the drive for development’. And, you rightly guessed that the colonial influence will be there (I think we’ve hinted that in one of our past discussions). That development is development as defined by the white man. And, development concerns infrastructure, health, religion, civics, economics, the rest. The rest of sub-Saharan Africa is also this way.

    To tell you the truth, it isn’t difficult to see at all, just turn on the tv, you can read them easily. In fact, the whole world looks conservative to me. Maybe, it’s because of how things are organized (conservative) so that I can’t really get at the minds of people when they speak but their actions speak for them. However, in that one, there is also the element of fear of the public, fear of opposition. Unless you do it like you guys do, ‘keep the masses stupid’ or ‘keep them afraid’. That also brings out the conservative in them

    There are other things in my head but they seem outta reach, just ask more questions, they’ll come around.

    Ain’t my fault man, Chaos 🙂

    • “The Tory doesn’t believe in any People, capitalized, crowned or illuminated. He already has a definition of People, he already has a set of damned, he already has a prison or even a Gehenna. The Tory has these because he already has a ‘good sense’ and already has a ‘decency’. He believes in no People, he only believes in himself, egotistically, that is.”

      I can see both sides. As a liberal, my natural inclination is to sympathize with what you say. But I share the mistrust of capitalism that is found in traditional conservatism. Henry Fairlie communicated a very interesting vision of Toryism, although he was writing many years ago and so Toryism today probably doesn’t correlate to the Toryism of his youth.

      However, even when Fairlie was alive, his conception of Toryism was a bit idiosyncratic. He respected religion as a social institution even though he wasn’t religious. He seemed to be a genuinely compassionate person who wanted to believe that collectively (i.e., through government) we can create a better world… which is an attitude in complete contradiction to the ruling conservative ethos in the US. As a liberal, I respect Fairlies idealism. His faith in humanity wasn’t ideological.

      “All conservatism looks alike to me. All are concerned with rigid espousal of some law or other concept in opposition to any change whatsoever. Intransigence, they call it. But, to be fair, as you said, they do move but ever so slowly and some are ever so misoneistic”

      Don’t you see the difference between traditional conservatism and modern rightwing authoritarianism? It’s the difference between pre-modern religion and modern fundamentalism.

      The main difference is that before the modern age (before the Enlightenment and industrialization) change happened more slowly and so conservatism could adapt to change instead of just reacting to it. This is particularly true in the conservatism seen in tribal cultures. They maintained traditions over centuries, but they were a much smaller and more loosely organized which allowed them to adapt even while maintaining connection to their cultural past.

      Modernism has made conservatism dysfunctional, but conservatism isn’t inherently dysfunctional. I’d love to see an example of a conservative society that didn’t fall into this reactionary radicalization. I wonder if conservatism as a healthy and moral system is even possible in the modern world where it’s inevitable that everything is constantly and quickly changing.

      “You just need to look at the people, the concept, originally, doesn’t precede the people, the people precede it, it is abstracted”

      I think in a similar manner. I’ve come to realize that this is a liberal way of thinking. It’s the unwillingness to conform humans to abstract concepts (i.e., principles) that makes the liberal seem wishy-washy and morally relativistic to the conservative mindset.

      “In fact, the whole world looks conservative to me.”

      I’ve thought that before. My theory is that conservatism is more of the standard mode for most humans because that is what has been evolutionarily advantageous for most of the time the human species has existed. Prior to recent centuries (or even millennia), there is hundreds of thousands of years of hominid evolution at a time when the world didn’t change much and usually changed slowly.

      Liberalism as a trait was only necessary for early humans during those rare times when the species faced major change such as migrating to a new territory or as certain animals died out during the Ice Age. But the liberal trait wasn’t required by most. You only needed a small minority to carry the trait to any great degree and those few people would be the explorers, experimenters, and shamans. And, when order was reestablished, the liberal genetics became mostly useless again until the next crisis.

      It was civilization, especially modernism, that made liberalism absolutely necessary and conservatism increasingly dysfunctional. Conservatism only works well in relatively small, isolated hunter-gatherer tribes, but we no longer live in such a world. It’s because conservatism is the natural state (i.e., the evolutionary norm, the resting point) of human behavior that it’s transformed into something unnatural under the unnatural conditions of civilization.

      “There are other things in my head but they seem outta reach, just ask more questions, they’ll come around.”

      I bet there are other things in your freaky little head… and let’s keep it that way. If they come around, I’ll smack them back down. You liberal freaks… you always have your little ideas, thinking you’re smarter than everyone else. I’ll ask you a question! Do you know the time when the Lord shall return? Well, do ya!?! I tell ya, when the Lord comes, he’ll put all you freaks in your place! The Demon Chaos shall be cast down into Hell!!! m’kay

  3. “Don’t you see the difference between traditional conservatism and modern rightwing authoritarianism? It’s the difference between pre-modern religion and modern fundamentalism”

    You know, I can see, heck, I even know the differences (almost all, let’s stay down-to-earth, ‘kay) between them. Even though I do not know the names and definitions well, I know the possible differences that can spring up in conservatism. If nothing at all, that will be from having built systems and finding alternatives, in the past, that is. What I meant to say by that statement was that, fundamentally, conservatism is just conservatism, just that same ‘change is a bastard’ grumpy old man. In so far as it is that grumpy old man, it is potentially, always potentially, what it is in other variations, just the circumstances need to change. And, any system that is potentially dysfunctional and hurtful to not only the men but the universe and tries to tell lies, distort the truth (like how conservatives make people believe the State is all there is) cannot be looked at with an approving eye by me. It might not be now, but it potentially is and I don’t trust it because of that. I’m a bit hard on things, I guess.

    “It’s because conservatism is the natural state (i.e., the evolutionary norm, the resting point) of human behavior that it’s transformed into something unnatural under the unnatural conditions of civilization”

    I like how you put that.

    “Liberalism as a trait was only necessary for early humans during those rare times when the species faced major change such as migrating to a new territory or as certain animals died out during the Ice Age. But the liberal trait wasn’t required by most. You only needed a small minority to carry the trait to any great degree and those few people would be the explorers, experimenters, and shamans. And, when order was reestablished, the liberal genetics became mostly useless again until the next crisis.”

    I’ve thought that too before. On the whole I think we do tend to think similarly but I think going by the descriptions I’ve seen so far, I’ll be more an INFJ than an INFP. One thing is your way of discussing using thinking looks more like Te (you like to put facts together) while mine looks more like Ti (I prefer to theorize and use example to give more groundedness). Second is that both the ISTP and the INTP have Fe as inferior, mine is a bit too developed especially taking my age into account but I definitely as a kid always had a problem with feeling until that time when domestic trouble made me force myself out and a want to experiment with myself and find out “why I didn’t feel things the way my siblings and others did”. But, I still am indifferent to authority and traditions, I have a more utilitarian outlook. Third, I’ve always been thoughtful, it will likely influence my Thinking function. And, that thoughtfulness has always been in the mould of that Ti. I could be an ENTP with Fe closer though. I’m aware I’m not using any acknowledged theory here except Jung’s description of the types, but that’s me, I will invariably introduce at least a bit of my own theory

    “But I share the mistrust of capitalism that is found in traditional conservatism.”

    I agree with that

    • “What I meant to say by that statement was that, fundamentally, conservatism is just conservatism, just that same ‘change is a bastard’ grumpy old man.”

      Okey dokey. I wasn’t sure what you meant. I try to not assume others know what I mean, especially when there are factors (personal, cultural, etc) that might cause a discrepancy in understanding. America’s ‘conservatism’ is fairly unique in its ultra-radicalization and I don’t know if any other country has a political tradition that is comparable. It’s hard for me to understand American conservatives even as an American.

      “It might not be now, but it potentially is and I don’t trust it because of that. I’m a bit hard on things, I guess.”

      I’m basically the same way. I just try to be cautious in my judgments since its such a confusingly complex subject, especially in America. The two main competing conservative groups in the US are the rightwing authoritarians and the classical liberals. But neither is conservative in the traditional sense. And I often have doubts that they are fundamentally conservative in any sense of the word (in that neither prioritizes conserving anything related to the public good, especially not the State as a general principle, although rightwingers do love the military).

      “I like how you put that.”

      The natural conditions of the human species are small cooperative communities. Essentially, early humans were something resembling what we would call socialists. There is a reason traditional Western countries in Europe are more open to socialist ideas and the non-traditional US is more opposed to socialist ideas.

      “One thing is your way of discussing using thinking looks more like Te (you like to put facts together) while mine looks more like Ti (I prefer to theorize and use example to give more groundedness).”

      That is probably a fair assessment. I do like to theorize, but I have some issues with an inferiority complex. My dad was a man of facts and so to prove myself I had to back up my arguments with facts. As my dad is a Te type, it magnified my own inferior/aspirational Te. But it’s never entirely natural for me. My Te is largely a defensive reaction against the world. I’d rather just use my Ne to speculate and consider possibilities.

      What do you think is the difference between of Ti theorizing and Ne speculating?

      One obvious difference is the former is introverted and the latter extraverted. For that reason, Ti doesn’t have the insatiable expansiveness of Ne.

      Taken on its own (especially as a dominant function), Ne is like an ADHD child who needs to be medicated, restless and unfocused… a whole lot of speculating that rarely leads to any conclusive theory because Ne wants Possibility. In my own case, Fi puts Ne on a shorter leash which makes Ne like one of those dogs who runs around a tree until it’s tangled up in its own leash.

  4. “I try to not assume others know what I mean, especially when there are factors (personal, cultural, etc) that might cause a discrepancy in understanding”

    Sorry about that, I sometimes lose track of myself cos mind is running too fast. Mostly, to stabilize some thought, I put it in image form so that it’s concrete enough and not vaporous like some idea. That probably could reduce the clarity cos my picture is not your picture (metaphors lose meaning transculturally). Or, I use certain words as markers and then they lead me where that other idea might have ran off to.

    “I just try to be cautious in my judgments since its such a confusingly complex subject”

    I’m sure that is everywhere cos after all it’s a concept and when systemized, all sorts of ‘buts’ and ‘ifs’ come in. A concept after all working only for machines which humans are not. It can be as close to a comfortable system for them as possible but it just won’t cut it for humans. As soon as it’s systemized, a lot of caveats come in. Not only humans but the universe itself. To me the concepts are just models, possible worlds, putting them down as singular and ruling systems in actuality is a presumptuous attempt by man to introduce constancy in a world (incl. the man himself) of change. Laudable but presumptuous. It’s like one of those snowglobes, having their own climate shielded from the larger one. If the external doesn’t get you, the internal will cos the internal is part of that same external that changes

    “My dad was a man of facts and so to prove myself I had to back up my arguments with facts”

    Then, you were lucky cos all I can do is use perhaps a metaphor or some minor, singular, obscure example in a house of factual people and people that look at qualification, age, recognition as wise, tangible achievements like what have you done. Every example matters to me, it is evidence for the possibilities. What I do also is to wait for my theory to come to fruition somewhere, anywhere then I say ‘Aha, you see’. When I used to argue in university with others, I realized that difference even more, the statistical thinking against the theorizing thinking. That, to me, matches Te vs Ti. Plus, though I’m very good at statistics, I hate it.

    “Ti doesn ’t have the insatiable expansiveness of Ne”

    Expansiveness uh? I know that very well. Keeps multiplying possibilities then when reality hits it, it gets sick like I am now. Also, it makes for a lot of procrastination cos ‘gotta keep those options open’. But, it can lead itself in so many different directions that it confuses itself and entraps itself, sometimes because it has ignored obvious fact

    “What do you think is the difference between of Ti theorizing and Ne speculating?”

    For the sake of Ni and what you said about it as ‘circling what it wants to say’, here’s Jung’s characterisation:

    His language is not that which is commonly spoken – it becomes too subjective

    Ne speculation is just as it is, seeing things that aren’t there but this speculation is not linked in any coherent manner. If they were put together, they’d form more of a collage because for instance inconsistencies are not cleaved away. The Ti however, oh the Ti :), I.t. is always trying to put out inconsistencies first due to logic. Then also the Ti is concerned with a concept that relates things together, a trait it shares with Fi, generally that is, so the Ti will be attempting to construct a coherent picture from the pieces it gets from Se or Ne, a coherence established by logic. As a picture therefore against a collage, the Ti differs from the Ne. But, the problem arises with Ti because it isn’t concerned with objective facts hence a remoteness occurs removing it from worldly experience. But, should that theory be got into and experienced, it is found that it is a very accurate way of painting that external picture which it might refer to. Usually however, there is no current example to fit it exactly. For Ti, the external fact fits it; for Te, it fits the external facts (the way things are) or fits them together unscrupulously. To the Ti, the facts just represent views, no finality in them unlike the Te. That also gives Te its system-building capacity while Ti will form the idea behind a system. Te will show you the operations of the world, Ti will show the idea behind it. How will I say it again? Te is more tangible than Ti as a result of this ideating of Ti

    • On the level of pure intellect, INTPs probably rule more than any type. They have the TI as their core sense of self, as their way of being and thinking. But they have Ne as their way of relating to and making sense of the world. It’s a pretty badass combination.

      However, it comes at a high cost. INTPs might be the type with most problems with social dysfunction and general social ineptitude.

      INTJs are also interesting in their way of thinking, but I’ve never quite figured them out.

  5. This is how I see it:

    What the INTJ can’t express, he operationalizes. What the INTP can express is so often far from operation even for himself.

    As for the badass combination, I agree, it is badass, it struck me the first time I saw it. Mostly, an INTP will interact with his external world by humor, aside that, he’ll probably be arguing or experimenting something. And, mostly, he’s in his head thinking something. So that Ti-Ne combo can be pretty gauche, with a lack of tact too, immense one at that

  6. Pingback: Marmalade ~
  7. There are no real conservative Democrats. if they were, they would have left the party by now. End of story. The entire Democratic Party is a monolithic block of Socialists and Communists. The party of JFK is dead and the party of Barack Obama is what the coup of the Democratic Party left in its wake.

    The majority of Americans have conservative values and viewpoints, but the Establishment Republicans loathe their Conservative base. They act more and more like Democrat-lite than like anything even remotely connected to conservatism.

    “upper middle class Tea Party supporters” is a Lamestreet Media pejorative. The Tea Party has broad support that rejects the entire notion of classes in America. “Class” is a Marxist mantra and there is no such thing as “THE MIDDLE CLASS.”

    The Radical Left is making everyone poor. They don’t speak for the Average Joe who wants a job and a pathway to a better life. Liberals in both parties want to grow the government – not to empower the lower rungs on the ladder of success.

    “Moderate” has become a euphemism for compromising one’s values. Big mistake. The key is keeping your traditional values but packaging them in a different way that does not turn off independents. Speaking of which, “independents” is not a synonym for “moderates,” or “middle of the road people,” either. These are the people who recognize that corruption and self-interest is an equal opportunity employer in Washington. All career politicians are either corrupt now, or will be in the future. The bureaucracy of Washington corrupts all who become a part of it.

    American voters have been electing people who are as uninformed and ill-equipped as they are to know how to run America. They are deaf, dumb,and blind to its history and to all of the reasons why capitalism and the free market is what gives everyone a shot at having a better life. No other system does that. Certainly not socialism.

    If we all got back to basics. – the first principles of our Constitution – we do not need to reinvent the wheel. It’s all there. The Constitution was created to last an eternity. It was created by the States for the People of the States. It was not created to support a self-serving, federal Leviathan that becomes an all-powerful and all-pervasive influence over our lives.

    It is the antithesis to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It has placed itself above the Constitution so that it could operate outside of it. What we have is a fleet of cars trying to be driven by people in the back seat.

    Anyone who thinks the Constitution is old-fashioned or irrelevant to modern society is sadly mistaken. It is the blueprint for a Republic, and not a mob-rule democracy built on Statism and run by Elitism.

    The “Traditional Conservative” reveres the Constitution and the Declaration. The “Traditional Conservative” understands what is meant by American Exceptionalism and what mades this country the freest on earth. But, now that the fanatical Left and the spineless Right are running the shop, our Freedom Index has fallen a long way from where it was.

    • I wasn’t sure if I wanted to reply to your comment. And so I wasn’t sure I even wanted to approve of your comment.

      I was trying to decide if your comment in any way contributed to worthwhile discussion. It isn’t clear that it does, but you took the time to write what appears to be a serious opinion, not just trolling. Since I now have approved it, I feel the responsibility to respond to it.

      Frustrating as it can be at times, I do enjoy opportunities such as this to counter misinformation and misunderstanding.

      “There are no real conservative Democrats. if they were, they would have left the party by now. End of story.”

      A meaningless statement. It’s not even an argument and completely lacks evidence or relevance. I just as easily could say something similar about other parties:

      There are no real conservative Republicans. There are no real conservative Libertarians. If they were, they would have left the party by now. End of story.

      “The entire Democratic Party is a monolithic block of Socialists and Communists. The party of JFK is dead and the party of Barack Obama is what the coup of the Democratic Party left in its wake.”

      You obviously don’t have the slightest clue what is socialism and communism. So, anything you say using those terms is empty as your lack of knowledge and understanding.

      As for the Democratic Party, I don’t really care. I’m not a Democrat. Around half of liberals are Independents. One could argue that it is easier to be a conservative Democrat than a liberal Democrat.

      Still, JFK was a liberal, as he explained. When accepting the New York Liberal Party nomination, he publicly declared he was a liberal:

      “What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.””

      It’s hard to argue with a direct quotation. And it isn’t taken out of context. JFK goes on to talk further about liberalism in that speech.

      If JFK’s own words aren’t enough for you, I did a four part lengthy analysis of JFK’s views and the debate over them. Here is the first part:

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/jfk-liberal/

      “The majority of Americans have conservative values and viewpoints”

      The problem with your belief is that it doesn’t correspond to reality. You’ve probably been paying attention to too much right-wing media. In reality, the majority of Americans disagree with your incorrect portrayal of the majority of Americans.

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/us-demographics-increasing-progressivism/

      “but the Establishment Republicans loathe their Conservative base.”

      I’m not sure how conservative is the Republican base. Many conservatives have left the GOP or never belonged to it. The problem is right-wingers are trying to take control of the conservative label, but right-wing and conservative are different things.

      In general, politicians of both parties are more conservative than the general public.

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/political-elites-disconnected-from-general-public/

      Many of the political elite even realize how liberal are most Americans, although they’d never openly admit it as true.

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/wirthlin-effect-symbolic-conservatism/

      “Speaking of which, “independents” is not a synonym for “moderates,” or “middle of the road people,” either. These are the people who recognize that corruption and self-interest is an equal opportunity employer in Washington.”

      I might agree with that to a large extent. I don’t know how many Independents recognize that, but more of them do than those in both of the main parties.

      What you don’t acknowledge here is that about half of liberals identify as “independents”. These liberals do tend to be critical of the political elites in both parties. In fact, these liberals are among the loudest critics of corruption in the entire American population. Sometimes these liberals even find common cause with libertarians who, after all, are social liberals themselves.

      “If we all got back to basics. – the first principles of our Constitution – we do not need to reinvent the wheel. It’s all there. The Constitution was created to last an eternity. It was created by the States for the People of the States. It was not created to support a self-serving, federal Leviathan that becomes an all-powerful and all-pervasive influence over our lives.”

      Your understanding of history is simplistic, at best. If you want to make up for your inadequate historical education, might I suggest a few of my own explorations of the origins of US politics, based on years of extensive reading (including reading the words of early Americans):

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/from-articles-of-confederation-to-the-constitution/

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/betrayal-of-democracy-by-counterrevolution/

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/paine-dickinson-and-what-was-lost/

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/7854/

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/revolutions-american-and-french/

      https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/revolutions-american-and-french-part-2/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s