When I see the word Hero I am reminded of the hero John McCain, I suppose he even had cards printed and should wear a sign around his neck, wonder if he wears a T shirt like Superman? During the campaign McCain seemed to enjoy all the hero worship I could stand,.... I remember seeing his name perpetrated like an Icon in the news, McCain portrayed as the hero of humility.

Accordingly there are very few live heroes or is it said there are no live heroes? Cowards on the other hand is a different story.

Also, the statement “lacking courage” I would suggest does not mean the same as coward, except in the mind of imbeciles. That is to say a coward as one who cowers may lack courage, but does not mean someone who lacks courage is a coward.  The all or none mentality may be another constitutive mental handicap, conservatives similar to the Ostrich are reported to have a brain the same size as its eye,  which may have something to do with stinking their heads in the sand?

I certainly don’t think Conservatives are cowards.

OTOH, I think chicken-hawks, like GW Bush & pals are, by definition, cowards.

I also think most neo-cons are cowards, too, who expect the children of others to go to war for them, kind of like Lord Farquaad in Shrek.

Plus, I actually believe that Conservatives are a rare and vanishing breed.  As bad money will drive out good money, so radical reactionaries and ignoramuses masquerading as “Conservatives” are driving out real Conservatives.

Rico:

How ironic.  Just yesterday, I picked up a (center-right) magazine (January 2011 issue), and the following is from an article therein:

“The U.S. economy appears to be coming apart at the seams.  Unemployment remains at nearly ten percent, the highest level in almost 30 years; foreclosures have forced millions of Americans out of their homes; and real incomes have fallen faster and further than at any time since the Great Depression…And yet a curious thing has happened in the midst of all this misery.  The wealthiest Americans - among them presumably the very titans of global finance whose misadventures brought about the financial meltdown - got richer.  And not just a little bit richer; a lot richer.  In 2009, the average income of the top five percent of earners went up, while on average everyone else’s income went down.  This was not an anomaly but rather a continuation of a 40-year trend of ballooning incomes at the very top and stagnant incomes in the middle and at the bottom.  The share of total income going to the top one percent has increased from roughly eight percent in the 1960s to more than 20 percent today…It is not a picture of a healthy economy.  Such a level of economic inequality, not seen in the United States since the eve of the Great Depression, bespeaks a political economy in which the financial rewards are increasingly concentrated among a tiny elite and whose risks are borne by an increasingly exposed and unprotected middle class.  Income inequality in the United States is higher than in any other advanced industrial democracy and by conventional measures comparable to that in countries such as Ghana, Nicaragua, and Turkmenistan.”  Robert C. Lieberman, Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs at Columbia University.

Peace.

kerryrose:

“I know it’s sacrosact to question the ‘hero-ness’ of soldiers, but I think other qualities play a bigger part. Deference to authority. Following orders (to the death if need be). Heroic acts are few and far between.”

While I don’t necessarily disagree, I’m not sure how you got this from my post.  I was simply responding to Timothy re his claim that the active U.S. military is “90%” conservative.  It is not; never has been.

That said, you are absolutely correct that two of the most important “qualities” for soldiers is following orders and deference to authority.  In fact, one could argue that the military could not function if those two things were not true.

That said, and while I have my issues with war, and the military in general, I would never suggest that there are not true acts of heroism performed by our men and women in uniform - possibly every day.

Peace.

There’s gotta be some reason why conservatives almost tend to want to go back in time—return to old valuaes, believe old ideas, cling to historic legends, honor the past, want to return to 1776.

There’s gotta be sosme reason why liberals and progressives (so-called) tend to want to move forward, want to improve on the present, want to push for new ideas and processes, welcome change.

Might be smarter to call it pessimism instead of fear, and optimism instead of courage.  That doesn’t work too well, either, however, because currently, liberals and progressives are so pessimistic they can’t stand up for their own values while conservatives are so optimistic they want to continue fossil fuels and global warming, continue throwing away their money and their kids’ lives on wars, maintaining the death penalty and unemplyment,  letting the rich hold nto 90% of the world’s wealth, allowing the continuation of starvation and curable diseases in 4/5 of the world.

Maani

I know it’s sacrosact to question the ‘hero-ness’ of soldiers, but I think other qualities play a bigger part.

Deference to authority
Following orders (to the death if need be).

Heroic acts are few and far between.

“Conservative brains have more fear, less courage”

That’s why they flock together like sheep. That’s why they will rarely negotiate or even consider the other side of an issue.

Look at congress. The Republicans can be and have been as one when it comes to voting on an issue. The Democrats can be all over the page on an issue. They are not afraid to stand alone against a bad bill or something they think unfair.

And at the end of the day the sheep/Republicans come home as a bloc, united, never straying.

While the Dems are all over the pasture, wandering freely, exploring the landscape.

Maybe it is wiser to stick together like sheep, or like a herd of animals for there is safety in numbers, but this herd mentality is only for those willing to give up freedom for safety.

Timothy:

“So conservatives are cowards? Gee, please explain why conservatives make up over 90% of active military and police forces.”

Sorry, buddy, you’re wrong on both counts.  “In a December 2006 poll, 46% of active [military] personnel identified as Republican, down from 60% in 2004.”  As for local law enforcement, it varies from state to state, city to city, municipality to municipality.

Rico:

“Conservatives understand that no example in human history demonstrates the universal selflessness necessary for the concept of the commons to succeed on its own. Hence they champion the concept of private property, historically shown to be a far better provider for the common weal than the ‘communism’ of the commons.

Really?!

“Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s, whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century. As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey, being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980…Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% increased by 176%, compared to an increase of 69% for the top quintile overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile. For the same time span the aggregate share of after-tax income held by the top percentile increased from 7.5% to 14%...Americans have the highest income inequality in the rich world and over the past 20–30 years Americans have also experienced the greatest increase in income inequality among rich nations…”

How’s that private-y propert-y thing working for you?

Peace.

I read another well unknown article about conservatives by a Norwegian researcher named Otto.  After very little research he asked conservative people to watch copious amounts of Fox News and then played them additional repetitious Republican sound bites, Otto concluded even though to many people this would seem similar to water boarding, but in the conservative mind this was not torture.

The results were not unexpected as Otto substantiated the well known theory, conservatives have eminently smaller brains but what was fascinating, he found conservatives were immune to torture especially when instituted on others.

This is the truth, I have read all about this.

Only difference is; all this time I thought it had to do with more gray matter in the brain or was it white matter? One thing about conservatives, is like gays they cannot help themselves, because they are born that way.

I remember reading Chronic liars had more gray or white matter in their brains.  At the time the article I was reading happened to be referring to George Bush! Over all it does not matter, except to show us conservatives cannot help themselves. 

One thing I found interesting, is this constant ongoing fear thingy seems just as prevalent here on TD (one only need read Hedges and comments from Hedges flocky entourage) which seems both the same and on the opposite side as someone like Glen Beck.  When the whining starts going,  I sees very little difference between Beck and Hedges, except I find myself more in agreement with Hedges?  What does this mean?.... I like whining?

For me the conservative side seem to promote their opinions like religious absolutisms, opposed to free thinkers which really shoots my whole premise in the ass.  Especially when one reads someone like Hedges who I feel promotes his ideals with a solid religious foundation. 

Shooting my premise in the ass seems very close to shooting my opinions from my ass, as I suspect many here on TD have an inclination to do.

Some things clearly are common property, that no one person or company can own. The two most obvious are the atmosphere and waterways.  You can’t own a river as a person or a corporation.  Therefore, how can you have the right to make it unusable for everyone else?

You can’t own the air. Therefore, how can you have the right to poison it for everyone else?

These things are obvious and their protection is clearly and obviously a necessary function of a government, because there’s no other way to do it, despite constant failures by government to manage it.

So when Pete Seeger got sick of the Hudson flowing past his house in Beacon, NY being so disgusting, he started to do something.  Friends told him it was nuts, including Arlo Guthrie.  Pete got a group together to build the sloop Clearwater and began sailing it up and down the Hudson generating more and more interest in forcing the NY govt in Albany and DC to get it cleaned up! 40 years later GE is FINALLY taking on cleaning up PCBs in the Albany area. Beaches on Croton Point that weren’t safe for swimming when Pete started are open again to swimmers.

Pete had to lobby like crazy and generate immense support from people who live on the river from New York City and New Jersey to Albany and beyond, but he did it!  Yet, without government regulation and control of this common property it would have been as impossible as his friends said it was.

How would Con Ed have been forced to clean up Indian Point in a “free market” system?  Boycott Con Ed? Buy electricity from someone else? In 1968? Like, from whom?

The “free market” will exploit child labor, eschew safety protections, price-fix and create black-lists of labor organizers. It will sack pregnant women and older employees and allow its managers to harass and abuse employees (even sexually) without recourse or remorse.

How do you build a railroad without Government? How do you get the land? You have to buy it.  What if someone won’t sell, figuring that the rail line between the iron fields and the factory will generate a billion in revenue per year and HE is gonna hang on to his land and demand $500 million for it?  Well, in the past, the railroads would simply have him killed and THEN force his descendants to sell for a song.

Or you have emminent domain.  It can be used wisely—to build roads, rail lines, high-tension lines, aquaducts and dams, or it can be used capriciously to build stadiums, WalMart malls and other non-infrastructure abuses.

But, without it, without even zoning regulation, what do you have?

Regulation is not socialism.  Never has been and never will be.

citing aacme88 ~ “Entrenched wealth and power is the primary source of conservatism, or fear of change.”

Not sure they fear change. More at fear of not controlling change.

There was a similar study done that found that the more wealth a person had amassed, the less secure they actually felt.

rico, suave, December 30 at 3:24 am Link to this comment

citing rico suave ~ “Too bad left wing courage is confined to the courage to demand more support from government and not the courage of self-reliance.”

Well, let’s not even mention corporate welfare and move on.

Assuming your statement pertaining to self-reliance to be grounded in some sort of existential ethic or even a Protestant work ethic, I’d have to say you have grounds for complaint. Right now it’s a world of greedy grab-ass with the grabbers demanding continued unbridled, lassez-faire. Systmatic transfer of wealth, whether it be via Wall Street or the government (the pendulum swings in both directions)without conscience, is tyrrany. The facts remain and they belie the notion that self-reliance and responsibility for one’s actions are bound at the hip. Quite the contrary. When the self-reliant, without governmental compelling them, assume responsibility for unforseen consequences of their actions, government then is obsolete and not before.

kerryrose:

Yes, the commons- Then there’s the “paradox of the commons”. Since it belongs to everyone, everyone takes from it, and very few think to replenish it.

Liberals are left to wishing that people would just behave, take no more than they need, and contribute equally to the commons so it would be self-sustaining. And when that inevitably fails, they demand government step in and enforce these unnatural codes of conduct on everyone in the name of the “common good.”

Conservatives understand that no example in human history demonstrates the universal selflessness necessary for the concept of the commons to succeed on its own. Hence they champion the concept of private property, historically shown to be a far better provider for the common weal than the “communism” of the commons.

rico
“Too bad left wing courage is confined to the courage to demand more support from government and not the courage of self-reliance. “
The skirmish of left and right at this point is just a trick of mirrors. There is only the corporate gulag - what Chris Hedges calls ‘inverted totalitarianism’
Courage has nothing to do with it. It is absence of paranoia and mistrust of the collective or anybody who isn’t in the white bred bourgeoisie.

Locking up the doors with doberman snarling guards to fend off them ‘fureners’ is the typical world view of the self-declared conservative.
The enclave of bigotry hated and fear. Hyper-masculinity confused with courage.Holing up against the world at large (see environment).

This explains the fear-mongering tactics that so-called conservatives always use to get voters to panic - from homeland security to evil illegals. Preemptive wars can only be justified by such panic decisions - with stupid immoral consequences.

rico

The left believes in the ‘commons.’  A society that cares for each other; that cares for the earth; cares for nonhuman life; and cares for the skies and seas.

Liberals aren’t asking for support from the government, but for the government (that they pay into just like the ‘fearful’) be the force that makes life on earth worthwhile—to bind us together.

When a grizzly bear attacks you do you run or make a stand. I am content to eat lunch’ not be lunch.

Is this one of those Andy Borowitz “Faux News” things?

Too bad left wing courage is confined to the courage to demand more support from government and not the courage of self-reliance.

Whichever comes first, conservative or coward, no one should be surprised at this finding. A definition of “conservative” might be “adverse to change”- of “progressive”, “open to change”.
In the original constitutional context of the words, they referred to “conservative” or “liberal” interpretation of the Constitution. Even today you have Conservatives declaring that if it doesn’t say it’s ok in the Constitution, it’s not ok, in reference to everything from income tax to gays in the military.
The energy companies have found a great ally in the Republican Party (though the ideological alignment is greased with lots of cash) in their quest to declare Global Warming a hoax. Entrenched wealth and power is the primary source of conservatism, or fear of change. The corporations know they are on top in the present power structure, but may not be in any future realignment. So, instead of leaping out in front and leading us into the clean-energy powered future, through R&D, as Free Market lore insists they will, they use that money to drag their considerable heels in an attempt to keep the future from happening.
This is the basic fallacy of Capitalism: that as long as the future is a straight line, just more and better of the same, capitalist entities will be innovative. Faced with major structural change demanding the true leadership of society’s innovators, the inherent conservatism of wealth and power kicks in to assure paralysis.

Well, this ought to make most of us here feel pretty good. But after all, we knew it all along, didn’t we—more courage?  more optimism?  born with a liberal gene?  Science or no science, don’t knock it.
We need every bit of encouragement we can get to help us crawl out of that slough of despond.

“This being a small study done for the benefit of a radio show, one ought not to
jump to conclusions.”

So, why was this published here?