4 ms·

>I expect that most of the people in charge of the Republican Party are emotionally committed to the idea that they're the "good guys" in an important fight. Th

>I expect that most of the people in charge of the Republican Party are emotionally committed to the idea that they're the "good guys" in an important fight. That doesn't mean that they don't have a price, just that it would tend to be very high Huh? I expect the very opposite. That the scum of the earth is what gets involved into politics AND reaches the higher echelons of both parties. Greedy, power-hungry, amoralistic people. If they had those kinds of "ideals" they left them behind far before they progressed into the party ranks. It's not like congressmen historically gave us any reason to think otherwise...

sbmassey 14y ago
The scum of the earth are often the same people as those who deeply emotionally feel they are good guys, I suspect, hard enough as it is to believe for people who try to avoid cognitive dissonance. Human behavior is more complex than Hollywood would have you believe.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >The scum of the earth are often the same people as those who deeply emotionally feel they are good guys, Sure, but more often than not they are just scum. Thinking of most of Bush's cabinet.
Symmetry 14y ago
Power hungry certainly, but if they were really greedy they could satisfy that far more easily in private industry for the same amount of talent and work. As for morality, well, I think there are two factors at play there. Powerful people tend to become less moral in their treatment of people below them, but that isn't the same as being willing to compromise their ideals. Also, people seem to have a finite desire to be moral, and you can find studies about people being less likely to hold doors for others if they've recently donated to charity, for instance.[1] So if this hypothetical Republican leader feels that his political work is Defending Civilization from Barbarity[2] I imagine that they'd feel more free to be amoral in other aspects of their life. But that doesn't mean they'd be willing to sell out their cause itself! [1] Different people can have very different base desires here, and habit is also a force to consider. [2] See second to last paragraph in this very good post: http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/being-uncharitable-to-those-who-disagree/ http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/being-uncharitable-to-those-...
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >Power hungry certainly, but if they were really greedy they could satisfy that far more easily in private industry for the same amount of talent and work. Not really. The private industry takes far more effort. A guy like George Bush Jr. (family aside) could never had made it anywhere except maybe in a used car dealership in Odessa, TX, or as a McDonalds manager at Boise, ID. The same applies for most good at nothing, silver spoon fed, sons and daughters of statesmen, politicians and the like. And it's not like what they make is their salary at the government or GOP. It's the under the table and side deals that make up most of it. Corporate contributions rarely stop at the party level.

sbmassey 14y ago

The scum of the earth are often the same people as those who deeply emotionally feel they are good guys, I suspect, hard enough as it is to believe for people who try to avoid cognitive dissonance. Human behavior is more complex than Hollywood would have you believe.

pretoriusB 14y ago
>The scum of the earth are often the same people as those who deeply emotionally feel they are good guys, Sure, but more often than not they are just scum. Thinking of most of Bush's cabinet.

Symmetry 14y ago

Power hungry certainly, but if they were really greedy they could satisfy that far more easily in private industry for the same amount of talent and work. As for morality, well, I think there are two factors at play there. Powerful people tend to become less moral in their treatment of people below them, but that isn't the same as being willing to compromise their ideals. Also, people seem to have a finite desire to be moral, and you can find studies about people being less likely to hold doors for others if they've recently donated to charity, for instance.[1] So if this hypothetical Republican leader feels that his political work is Defending Civilization from Barbarity[2] I imagine that they'd feel more free to be amoral in other aspects of their life. But that doesn't mean they'd be willing to sell out their cause itself! [1] Different people can have very different base desires here, and habit is also a force to consider. [2] See second to last paragraph in this very good post: http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/being-uncharitable-to-those-who-disagree/ http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/being-uncharitable-to-those-...

pretoriusB 14y ago
>Power hungry certainly, but if they were really greedy they could satisfy that far more easily in private industry for the same amount of talent and work. Not really. The private industry takes far more effort. A guy like George Bush Jr. (family aside) could never had made it anywhere except maybe in a used car dealership in Odessa, TX, or as a McDonalds manager at Boise, ID. The same applies for most good at nothing, silver spoon fed, sons and daughters of statesmen, politicians and the like. And it's not like what they make is their salary at the government or GOP. It's the under the table and side deals that make up most of it. Corporate contributions rarely stop at the party level.