America Loves A Good Conspiracy Theory!

America Loves A Good Conspiracy Theory. A large segment of the American population subscribes to some form of conspiracy theory.

• More than one-third of Americans believes that the Obama Administration is secretly trying to take everyone’s guns away.. 
• Twenty-five percent of Americans believe President Obama is attempting to stay in office beyond 2017, including 44 percent of Republicans.
• More than a quarter of Americans believe that Muslims are trying to implement Sharia Law in American courts while 55 percent disagree.[See Source]

The conspiracy theory of “false flag” operations where the government plans and executes terrorist or mass shooting events to blame on others isn’t popular with a vast majority of Americans, despite the best effort of websites like infowars.com. Seventy percent say the government doesn’t perform that kind of operations.[See Article]

George Carlin Raised A Question With Comedy

What is at stake is more than one small country [Kuwait], it is a big idea - a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future. --President George Bush in his state of the union address, January 16, 1991

Let's Stop And Think For A Moment

President Obama must be " Superman." He[Obama] has contrived a fake birth certificate so well as to pass every test under the sun, moon, and stars, while managing to create " death panels" in the Affordable Care Act. In addition, this was being timed with Obama's  plan to destroy religious liberty by mandating contraceptives for religious institutions. Oh, I almost forgot the " Deep Water Horizon" incident that was an inside job to garner support for his tree-hugging base. Needless to say, it was Obama who masterminded the Syrian gas attacks as a pretext to war. Let's not leave out he[Obama] planned the shooting of a TSA agent to strengthen agency powers. And lastly, the one that stuns this writer's heart that our President Obama ordered the Sandy Hook school massacre to push through gun control legislation, and build concentration camps to house Americans who resist.

People Believe This Stuff!

People do believe in these conspiracy theories,  and they do so in shocking numbers. For example, about one- third of Americans believe the " birther" conspiracy theory that Obama is a foreigner, and that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush Administration. " America Loves A Good Conspiracy Theory! 
It's clear that the popularity of conspiracy theories are the fad of modern day rebellion. There is a strong case to be made that many truths have come forth from tirelessly dedicated truth-seekers. However, this " creates a new conspiracy theory tab here button," has gotten a bit over the top. In fact,  it has lessened the overall credibility of many of the legitimate conspiratorial  questions being raised by advocates.

Why Do So Many People Fall For Conspiracy Theories?

One needs to grasp what is meant by conspiracy theory. Our study has found,  once a person believes in a conspiracy theory, it's  like " pulling teeth" for the individual  to see another view. Any fair evaluation on the topic of conspiracy theories brings you to the 'Grand-Daddy," of all conspiracy theories:  the Illuminati & New World Order- Conspiracy. 

What Do We Know That Is Real, Right Now?

Is Citizens United A Conspiracy Theory Come True?

The Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United vs. FEC, has probably affected the course of American politics  more than any other event in the last several decades.  How could this have happened?  And, in addition, was it foretold in the famous New World Order conspiracy theory? Citizen United will be the case that lives " in infamy " for all Americans who fought to get special interests out of our politics.  It was our " Pearl Harbour," " 911", and "Hurricane Katrina" moments. The Supreme Court has opened the " floodgates" for the Special Interests backed by the Global Elitists to steal the American Dream.  As it stands right now, foreign corporations  can spend undisclosed amounts of cash  and Citizens United tells the American people it's none of your business. 

In the paranoid mind, the Illuminati succeeded in their goals and have now infiltrated every government and every aspect of society. They are responsible for every evil and every unjust act that ever occurs anywhere; the fact that no evidence of their existence can be found only serves to make them stronger and more frightening. They are the demon in the closet and will probably never disappear from the paranoid fantasy world of right-wing conspiracy theorists. --New England Skeptical Society

 What's  So Seductive About Conspiracy Theories?

The idea that conspiratorial persons are these anti-socials living in their mom's cellar is incorrect. Studies have shown that believers in conspiracies are not gender, age, race, income, educational level, or occupational status specific. People with both political affiliations equally  believe in conspiracy theories. Liberals are more likely to suspect that media sources and political parties are pawns of wealthy capitalists and corporations because conservatives tend to believe that academics and liberal elites control these same institutions. GMO conspiracy theories are embraced primarily by those on the left (who accuse, for example, Monsanto of conspiring to destroy small farmers), whereas climate change conspiracy theories are endorsed mainly by those on the right (who inculpate, for example, academic climate scientists for manipulating data to destroy the American economy).[See Source]

The Recycled Conspiracy Theories of Alex Jones, NRA, Glenn Beck (with Arthur Goldwag)

 

To The Christian Right, Nelson Mandela Was A Terrorist

Nelson Mandela's life was an example for all of us to follow. The entire world  mourned  his death, we rejoice in his spirit and may it give us all renewed strength never to give up. These were my feelings back in Dec 6, 2013 during the time of his passing and are the feelings I share to this very day. America, we have a far-reaching problem Religious Extremism in any form is self-destructive, unproductive, and dangerous.


To many in America, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. As we have learned, the Radical Right, Christian Zealots and Dominionist are on a political/theocracy witch hunt to this very day as they were throughout Nelson Mandela life.

American Right Wingers and Christian Zealots labeled Mandela, a terrorist.

The History

The African National Conference [ANC] relationship with the U.S. has been a complicated one. The U.S. has not always supported the efforts of the ANC to gain their freedom from oppression. There were many conservative groups and Christian right groups that had strong lobbies in Washington, D.C. while in the 1980’s who urged Congress, not to give any aid to the anti-apartheid cause.

The George W. Bush administration removed  Mandela from the terrorist watch list imposed by Reagan just prior to Mandela receiving the Nobel Peace Prize on his 90th birthday in 2008. Even so, some Republicans supported the Mandela movement — 21 Republican senators voted to sustain the Reagan veto.[See Article] 

Despite a growing international movement to topple apartheid in the 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan maintained a close alliance with South African government that was showing no signs of serious reform. And the Reagan administration demonized opponents of apartheid, most notably the African National Congress, as dangerous and pro-communist. Reagan’s bill to impose sanctions on South Africa was overruled by Congress.[See Source] One could argue that this issue along with abortion [social problems] was the genesis of the modern-day influence of the “Christian Right ‘ in the political mix. However,  the man we know as Nelson Mandela confounds the passage of time, and his legacy will endure in the hearts of all the people of the world. Where there is such a parallel is the close resemblance of the tactics used by the South African apartheid government and that of the “Jim Crow” southern states. What raises this writer’s eyebrows is the trend in those same southern states to regress back to the “Jim Crow” era.

Rev. Jerry Falwell

Republican VP Dick Cheney labeled the ANC as a “terrorist organization.”  The Christian right front  has been vocal in opposition to Nelson Mandela and his ANC group directing the flock to write their congressman and senators to oppose sanctions against the apartheid South African government. Notably, Christian right patriarch Jerry Falwell commented:

"South Africa is torn by civil unrest, instigated primarily by Communist-sponsored people who are capitalizing on the many legitimate grievances created by apartheid, unemployment and policy confrontations."

Pat Robertson

In 1986, the 700 Club did a series of reports on South Africa and the white government’s struggle against the African National Congress. While many socially liberal religious leaders decried the apartheid regime, Robertson openly supported it because he felt that it was a bastion against communism. For Robertson, everything else was secondary to defeating what he saw as the enemies of God. Robertson sent a copy of The 700 Club program to Freedom Council’s Dick Thompson to have it forwarded to Pat Buchanan, who in turn promised to show it to the president. Reagan’s attitude toward South Africa was one of his most controversial foreign policy stands, and Robertson was one of Reagan’s few allies on the policy.

Those same forces that have been at work since the influx of the “George Wallace Democrats” over civil rights legislation and now the evangelicals spurred on by the Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson 700 Club, and others all who deemed this very much-loved “soldier of love” man a communist terrorist are the same identities of today who have done nothing but obstruct and demonize President Obama. The same ones that called Martin Luther King, Jr. a Communist, home-grown terrorist, and urged Hoover to put him under FBI surveillance.

The George Wallace Crowd Are " Alive  & Well"

The Untied States Of Corruption, What Happen To We The People?

" We The People Losing Its Luster Around the World."

America's Constitution has seen better days. We have enacted legislation that suggest corporations are people and that a dollar bill represents 'free-speech.' We have seen the Supreme Court rule on issues that are in complete violation of the ' church and state.' doctrine.[See Article]
The Constitution is the founding document of this country and the oldest written and still valid set of laws and precepts still in force anywhere in the world.[See Source]

“Of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.” [Time]

According to a recent study,  conducted in 2012 by David Law of Washington University in St.Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virgina. The U.S. Constitution seems to have lost its luster as a model for constitutional drafters.


Mila Versteeg

“Among the world’s democracies,” Professors Law and Versteeg concluded, “constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s.”

The United States of Corruption! 

There are several factors that can be attributed to this decline of influence. Our research here at the House of Public Discourse has identified these factors as follows.

1. Instead of having short publicly funded political campaigns with limited or free advertising like many European countries. Here in  America we have long drawn out affairs in which those running for office have their palms greased with money by a particular interest. [Special Interest] Therefore they spend much of their time fund-raising. The general view of most Americans is that those running for political office are on the take. For example, House Majority leader John Boehner recently passed out cash on the floor of the House from the tobacco industry to other House members. The Citizens Untied case is the grand-daddy example of all time of how money has influenced American politics and given it a black-eye from other countries perspectives.

American politicians don't represent " We The People," they represent the 1%. American democracy is being corrupted out of existence. [See Source]

2. Politicians in America are being bribed by capitalistic lobbyist to reduce regulation of their prospective industries. This political corruption, for example, has led to the financial corruption that is so apparent in our society today. In some cases, this corruption has been legalized. Without oversight, regulations, and government auditing, Wall Street went wild and actuated corrupt policies that led to the 2008 stock market crash.

3. Let's reflect for a moment. 90% of Americans still have not recovered from the 2008 Wall Street crash under then President George Bush II. Any valid thinking mind knows there were malfeasance and criminal behaviors undertook with a conscience. The mere fact that not one person has gone to jail is the epitome of corruption.[See Article] 

4. The United States spends more money on the military than the next twelve countries combined.[See Source]  What goes unreported is that about half of this spending goes for outsourced services, not on the military. This spending is nothing more than a prime example of corporate welfare on the grandest of scales.

Grand Theft Pentagon :Tales of Corruption and Profiteering in the War on Terror

5. There has been a concerted effort among venture capitalist in American to privatize prisons. The results of making a business of criminal activity is evident in the swelling prison population of American citizens to the tune of 2.2 million and growing daily. It is the view of the House of Public Discourse that it's wrong for corporations to profit from putting and keeping people behind bars. This wrongful trend is  even more aggravated by the move in the justice system spurred on by the aforementioned lobbyist to give over-the-top sentences for minor, non-violent crime. Then deny parole and "void"  people from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.[See Article]

6. The growing inequality gap in America has reached epidemic proportions. With the narrative of the Republican Party, to cut taxes for the wealthy, with a view, that miraculously there will be this " invisible hand" to trickle money down to the minion. Has been a complete policy failure by the Republicans.[See Article] As a writer, one of my most fundamental beliefs is that history does repeat itself. This difference we see in these modern times is very much like the times in our nations past when the Robber Barons roamed the earth. Both of these periods are marked with corruption.

7. The National Security Agency[NSA] domestically spying on American citizens in the House of Public Discourse view is a violation of the very basic principles of  American democracy. The Patriot Act itself the way it was written and implemented lends itself to corruption. This practice could be the grand wizard of all present day crime. So many of the already modern-day Robber Barons[1%] and corporations masking themselves as human beings "legally " mind you have violated the rights of citizens to unwarranted search and seizure of many fronts. This Constitutional imbalance and moreover contradiction created a server lack of trust and paranoia in the American populist. 

    

We could go on for hours, days and years about the corruption in the Untied States government today. This factual presence of corruption alone has created many qualified eligible voters to disenfranchise themselves from voting and engaging in our countries governance. The larger questions that linger to the people who still care is how do " We The People,"  overcome this corruption. No matter your political identification it is a given that most Americans feel our government is corrupted. The question we here at the House of Public Discourse raise are you one to surrender or fight? Because, this country without  a doubt is in a severe state of polarization and overall malcontent. Which begs the question, " What Happen To, "We The People."

Separation Of Church And State, Unplugged.

In America today, there is no more polarizing issue than the separation of church and state clause in our Constitution. The issue was highly debated at the inception of our country, and the debate continues today.

What does the Constitution say?

The phrase " separation of church and state," has been bandied about in our society for so long most people are dumbfounded to learn that neither the phrase or its concept as it is presently used can be found anywhere in the founding documents of the United States of America.   The phrase " separation of church and state," doesn't appear in any government document of the United Sates. Not the Declaration, Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This reality being the case, what do these documents have to say about freedom of religion? In the 1st amendment we see mention of religion. Congress shall make no law; (1) respecting an establishment of religion, or (2) prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So, this 1st amendment is a very important part of both our Constitution and our constitutional law. These two aspects of the 1st amendment came the phrase " separation of church and state." 
Many constitutional scholars debate this claim. Firstly, the governing branch of this issue is identified. Congress. Secondly, it defines the activity that Congress is forbidden to do. Make no laws, respecting religion or the freedom to practice or not to practice. Let's take a moment to explore what this means. In this writer's view, these proclamations were  placed first for a reason. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble are all basic tenants of our culture. With that said, it's also important to understand there are two parts to this equation. Not to establish and not to stop the exercise of religious views one way or the other.

Its important to note that there were other variations under consideration at the time these issues were being debated by our founding fathers.

• No religion shall be established by law. (House Select Committee-7-28-1789)
• Congress shall make no law touching religion. (Proposed during House debate- 8-15-1789)
• Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or mode of worship or prohibiting free exercise of religion. (Senate Version 9-9-1789)

What is very evident with any fair evaluation of the data and history is that Congress would not set up any national religion, denomination, or church. Moreover, that Congress would not set up any "state controlled " church. There is no ambiguity concerning these matters our founding fathers were empathic that government was to stay out of religion and vice versa. The scope here is specific. The Executive branch nor the Judicial branch were even mentioned.  And, here is why. If no laws are to be passed by Congress then, there will be no laws for the President to enforce, and no laws to be interpreted by the courts. The bottom-line is the Federal government has no jurisdiction to intervene of matters of religion and for the most was left to the States, Cities, and local communities.  Nor, does religion or religious factions have jurisdiction to intervene is the affairs of " We The People." [Government]

Conservatives Want to Redefine Religious Freedom To Suite Their Political Ideology.

Conservatives in America want to expand the power of religion and their religious organizations. The facts have shown they do this with no regard they are undermining the basic principles of religious freedom.  Religious freedom is not a general liberty to conservatives. To them it's not a matter of one's personal conscience; they won't religious freedom to be some unique type of liberty. Conservatives claim they deserve special treatment and favor unavailable to others who do not share their religious convictions. Yes, it is clear that the founding fathers wanted government to stay out of religion, and it is also clear they wanted religion to stay out of government as well.

The Politics Of Morality, The Political Divide (Part 2)

freep.com

It goes unspoken that many of today's 'hot-button' issues are related to morality. Abortion, stem-cell research, gay rights, tax reduction, health care, and even foreign affairs. In part one, The Politics of Morality (part 1), the aspects of morality discussed were of a personal nature. However, the morality at the center of today's moral discourse is social. Social morality has developed into a set of standards. In the case of abortion-how much should society value life? With stem-cell research- what should be the limits of scientific study? In regards to gay rights, how people should live and to what extent should people's civil rights be associated with the way we live? Health care begs the question, how should public taxes be distributed. The tax debate is centered around on what society rewards and encourages. Lastly, regarding foreign affairs -how should society spread its morals to other societies. [Source: Morality and Political Discourse by Yanpei Chen]

Personal Morality is absolute. 

In general, people tend to agree or disagree with personal morality traits of an individual. In comparison, social morality, in today's moral debates, there is a huge disagreement between people on what should be social norms. People gather themselves in groups and try vehemently to impose their morality on others as being the proper social norm. In America, these disagreements have formulated along political party lines, factions, and demographics. [See Article: Party Identification Has Become the Lens Most People See Through ]

In America's two-party system, these disagreements have tended to lump 'We the People' into opposing sides on just about any issues period, but; especially moral issues.

With the election of America's first person of color to the White House, we have seen no compromise whatsoever. In fact, many citizens in this country feel that the obstruction by the Republican Party has bordered on sedition. [See Article: Tea Party Seditionists Say Default Not So Bad] This environment has led to an " us or them," mentality.

No Moral Issue Can Be Settled To The Satisfactions of All!  

The above truism brings this writers research to the realities of just how conservatives and liberals think. Political thinking is very much cognitive. Thus, Cognitive science plays a role in the evaluation of how these left and right factions of political thought process issues in their brains. One thing is for sure; you can't think without a brain. Cognitive science suggests how our brains are shaped determine very much on how we think. Any idea that you may have that you have learned that you use over and again makes up a part of your mindset [way of thinking] according to many Cognitive scientists and is physically represented in our brains. This fact matters in our way of political thinking enormously. The idea that people have the same rational is absurd. People do not think the same. We all have our own unique conceptual systems of thought. However, there are some universal systems of thought. In terms of morality, there are lots of metaphors. Morality is righteousness. In general, morality is a sense of well-being. Helping people. Being a person of high morals is seen as a person of emotional wealth. For example, a person who tends to help people will have many who feel indebted to them thus emotional wealth. On the flip side, when a person does things to harm others there becomes a sense of making restitution for the wrong-doing so morality can be seen as a form of emotional economics

Forgiveness plays a huge role in morality. Revenge for a wrong done plays a role in morality. Feelings of guilt have a place in the realm of morality. Once again, all this goes to the moral accounting metaphor. Metaphorically speaking, morality has an economic system of accounting that calculates a person's morality. How does all of this relate to politics? In a word, framing. Cognitive thought creates framing [images] in our minds. For example, when you say apple, an image of that fruit appears in your mind. Politically, when you speak of tax relief what frame or image comes to your mind? We all remember when George Bush, Jr took office his first order of business was the Bush tax cuts.[Tax Relief] The first mental image that comes to mind is the word relief. If there is a need for relief, there must be an affliction of some sort. The term relief means that some faction is being harmed by taxes, and the moral thing to do is to provide tax relief for those afflicted. So, because of this harm Bush, Jr political handlers set him up as a hero and anyone trying to stop him are the bad guys. So, when you add text to that metaphorically, what they are saying is " taxation is an affliction."

So, for many in America today when they hear the term 'tax relief' this is the frame that appears in their minds. When they hear this over and over it becomes a part of their physical brain. What happens when this accrues is 'taxation is an affliction,' becomes common sense to the person. Now, with this said, it becomes clear. How media outlets like Fox news, which claims to be fair and balanced, can have two liberals and two conservatives on a discussion panel, but; the host is conservative and can frame the questions with the now known factor that most right- wing authoritarian followers will have in their mindset that 'taxation is an affliction. If you take the other sides terms, if you are opposing it politically, and you take a question that fits their ideology and argue against it you are basically arguing for it cause you will be offending the common sense of the targeted Fox news viewer. Your argument will, in fact, reinforce that ' taxation is an affliction.'

      In terms of the modern day debate over taxes and how they should be implemented and who should pay what share of them [taxes] I was reminded by George Lakoff book: Moral Politics , of Dan Quayle's acceptance speech at the 1992 Republican convention when speaking about the progressive tax  he made the statement:

Dan Quayle 

      "Why should the best people be punished?"

The first questions are why is this even considered an argument against the progressive income tax. Second, Dan Quayle assumption is that people with the most money are the best people. And, in terms of morality, this is completely false. But, to a person who has been condition on the notion that " taxation is an affliction," will buy it hook, line and sinker, even though, it goes against their own best interest. Why? Cause it plays into their misconception of their common sense. Why do I use the term misconception? Let's look at current events of current common sense discrepancies among right- wing authoritarian followers.

What are right-wing authoritarian followers?  

In general, a conservative person is against abortion and for a flat-tax. As a liberal, I am totally opposite to this position, so I don't get what the two issues have to do with one another. More baffling, why people are for the flat-tax but against environmental regulations. Moreover, why people who are against environmental regulations are overwhelmingly in favor of gun ownership no matter a person's mental capacity. Then, I can't understand why these same people who are for no gun laws whatsoever are for tort reform. Confused? These examples are pretty wholesale among conservatives, but; what do they have to do with one another? This conundrum is a typical example of a Cognitive science problem. What is it that brings these ideas together and unites them for conservatives? What brings these example into some natural order that certain mindsets of people agree in totality? What is it that makes this possible? Liberals ask the questions how can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? How you can be pro- life for a zygote, but; be for cutting aid to starving children and support and create laws that would detain and punish refugees [mostly children] from fleeing oppression. Conservatives claim liberals as irrational for not wanting to put a murder to death and sanctioning abortion. What this boils down to is different world views.

 What is it that defines the different views of the world people have physically embedded in their brains? Why do conservative's talk so much about family values? With all the complex problems we as a society face in these troubled times, why is the main issue for conservatives always family values? Some conservatives see their way of thinking and the grouping of these mindsets as a family of like-minded souls. In practice, however, the reality is that there are many different world views which lead to the conclusion there are many different notions of family. As previously pointed out there are two notions of family.

• Strict father figure family. [Authoritarian]
• Nurturing parent family. [Egalitarian]

Regarding the conservative authoritarian model which has been the model embraced by conservatives throughout the country my research led me to one James Dobson. Dobson has so many people writing for him he requires his own zip code.

Who is James Dobson?   

Dr.James Dobson

   Dr. James Dobson is the Founder and President of Family Talk, a nonprofit organization that produces his radio program, “Dr. James Dobson's Family Talk.” He is the author of more than 30 books dedicated to the preservation of the family, including The New Dare to Discipline; Love for a Lifetime; Life on the Edge; Love Must Be Tough; The New Strong-Willed Child; When God Doesn’t Make Sense;Bringing Up Boys; Marriage Under Fire; Bringing Up Girls; and, most recently, Head Over Heels.


Dr. Dobson is one of those individuals accredited for much of the Republican Party's move to embrace religious factions [Christian Right] into the party fold and his Focus on the Family operation was a huge mechanism in answering the question; why do conservatives always focus on family values. However, ask any liberal and they will tell you flat out that Dobson view of family is distorted.

Case in point.

    

What Dobson has done is use fundamental theology and other doctrines and geared his writings and precepts of the ideal family into conservative ideology. This en-turn creates politics of morality, which causes a political divide cause as we have learned there are many world views, and many notions of  family.  Dobson, and many of the Christian right and the Republican Party claim to have a strict view of morality. It goes like this; it's a gender system of family structure. Daddy is different than mommy. The father must be strict he is the head of the family the authoritarian figure. There is evil out there in the world and it's the father's role to protect the family from it. Because there are winners and losers in this world, the father must be a winner to support the family. In the Dobson model, children are born badly, in the sense as a child if it feels good they want to do it. Children don't know right from wrong, and you need a strict father to teach them right from wrong. The major dilemma here is the various views on how to teach children right from wrong and this dilemma indirectly has caused a political divide in America and morality is the root.

Dr. Dobson model advocates punishment when they do wrong. Dobson claims that the punishment must be painful enough that the child will correct themselves next time when confronted with a choice. The idea is that the child will internalize the correction and not do wrong again. Dodson advocates spankings. Dobson claims beating a child is okay as long as they are over the age of 15 months. In the Dobson model and subsequently the republican model, a child and person can only become moral through discipline. The claim is through this discipline a person will become self- reliant and a prosperous adult.

Conservatives believe there is a link between morality and prosperity.

Discipline allows one to be obedient to the moral authority which makes one more successful, happy, and prosperous. There is a logic here. Suppose someone is not prosperous. Then you're not discipline enough. And, if you're not discipline enough you're not moral. So, you deserve your poverty. We see this mentality played out in our modern day political debate. We have seen Tea Party, Libertarians, and Republican Party main-streamers and related legislation on both the federal and state levels take on a " go fend for yourself," narrative. This attitude is a prime example of the politics of morality and how it has caused a political divide in America. All of this has social implications.

Another major part of the Dobson [conservative] model is after a child has grown and become mature if they have gotten the self-discipline they can go out into the world and take care of themselves. If they haven't, adhered to this discipline they should still go out into the world [tough-love]  and let the world discipline them.[The School of Hard Knocks] If they can't make it, too bad. Now, there is another part of this. Why is it moral within this system or doctrine to pursue your self-interest? Dobson is very clear about this; he proclaims this as being in step with Adam Smith version of capitalism. 

Noam Chomsky brings perspective on Adam Smith.          

Adam Smith claimed that if everyone pursued their profit by the 'invisible hand' the law of nature would maximize one's goals. The model suggest it's good to pursue your self-interest because that's good for everybody else. In this model, what's bad, is to interfere with someone's self-interest. According to Adam Smith taxation is an interference. And, that's why Dan Quayle said "why should the best people be punished." So, fast-forwarding to our modern day times, under this "train of thought" the Koch brothers are the best people because they are pursuing their self-interest. The next interference is government regulation. Government gets in the way of people pursuing their self-interest. There is also a term in conservative language for those who don't pursue their self-interest. When people pursue the good of the community they are labeled by conservatives as " do-gooders."

 A 'do-gooder,' is one of those people who is trying to help somebody and are getting in the way of those so-called best people self-interest. Once again, this is a prime example of the politics of morality and, how, it has created a political divide in America. Now, there are lots of other facets of this family values model. What does this conservative family values model say about social programs? Conservatives claim that all social programs are immoral. Why? They claim they hurt the people they are trying to help. Because, they are giving people something they have not earned. This action makes people dependent on the state, hence the term "nanny state." This dependence takes away their ability to be discipline that takes away their ability to be moral beings. So, in the cognitive minds of the right-wing authoritarian follower social programs are immoral according to this logic. In addition, you have the mindset as the father as the strict figure with the moral authority. Moral authority can be a very interesting idea because it brings together two trains of thought.


Morality
Authority
In the text, this translates to morality and power. Part of conservative thought is that people who are in power, who have pursued their self-interest, are moral and should have the authority over the rest of us do-gooders. In short, moral people should rule. The discipline people should rule. This belief gives rise to a conservative hierarchy or moral order. In the moral order which is part of the conservative model, you have GOD above man, man above nature, adults above children, western culture above non-western culture, America above other nations. It's the idea if you look at forms of authority historically that will show you what GOD has made moral. Then there are other versions. The bigotry ones, the ones that are so out front in today's Republican Party. It goes pretty much like this man above woman, whites above non-whites, straight people above gay people, Christians above non-Christians. Now, in fairness, not all conservatives have those bigoted views. There are non-bigoted conservatives. However, it is important to understand as a liberal it has been hard for me not to lump all conservatives into the irrational, mean- spirited, greedy and stupid box. In fact, all conservatives are not irrational, mean- spirited, and stupid. Conservatives have a strict interpretation of morality. For the most part, most conservatives see themselves as moral people. In this writer's view, this reality can sometimes be a "hard-pill-to-swallow."

What Morality Do Progressive and Liberals Have?    

Written By: Johnny Hill

Article Source: Moral Politics by: George Lakoff