Democrat Politics: Full-on Emotion

[edthecynic]

As a psychologist who is fascinated with the human mind and how it works, I find politics have an interesting tie in. Specifically, the politics of the liberal left who now dominate the democrat party. The universal theme driving their politics is emotionalism. Plain and simple. We've all heard the term "bleeding heart liberal" and this is synonymous with the politics of emotionalism.

It's interesting, the term "bleeding heart" actually comes from the Bible, which most "bleeding heart liberals" have no familiarity with whatsoever, as they are secularist, agnostic or atheistic.

Romans 9:16 - Compassion doesn't originate in our bleeding hearts or moral sweat, but in God's mercy.

And perhaps this is the difference between a "bleeding heart liberal" and a religious right-winger? The liberal feels a moral responsibility to be the stewards of compassion while the religious rightie leaves it in God's hands. I'm a Spiritualist, so I remains somewhat in the middle on this. I feel that we all have some responsibility for our fellow man but at the same time, I also feel that the natural order of the universe sorts things out in the end.

There is a danger in allowing government authority to implement compassion through emotionalism. It's really not any different than a Christian sending $100 to the PTL Club in hopes that it will change lives and make a difference in the world. It may help to ease our conscience but it really doesn't amount to much actual change. However, ceding this authority to the government can really backfire and have dismal consequences. Not only does it not make much difference, it sacrifices personal freedom and liberty for the sake of feeling good.

It's almost always more wise to think with your head and not your heart. Thinking with your heart and allowing emotions to control your actions leads to careening your car into a ditch to avoid hitting a helpless rabbit in the road. Sure, you saved the rabbit but at what cost? Sometimes it is better to avoid your emotional reaction for a hot minute and think pragmatically about the overall situation. Liberals don't understand this because their entire moral foundation is based on self gratification instead of a higher power.

It makes them feel good to know that their politicians are going to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick... pay off all the student loans and dole out free cell phones. They can lay their empty little heads on their pillow at night and sleep well knowing they did their part to support those who care and oppose those who don't care. It doesn't matter that the actual conditions aren't changed or that they gave away more freedom and liberty, the intention is all that is important.

Liberal politicians play on this and exploit the emotive reactions of their base. They draw up the arguments as emotional clap trap and appeal to the bleeding hearts. And the bleeding hearts respond because it makes them feel good about themselves. Most liberals are convinced those on the right want to starve school children because they want to reform the school lunch program to eliminate waste and abuse. The right wants people to die of illness in the streets because they don't support socialized health care. They don't care about the needy and poor because they want to balance the federal budget. They want to push Granny off the cliff because they want to make Social Security solvent for the future. Across the board, pragmatism is met with emotionalism.

A perfect example of what psychologists call PROJECTION.
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

The Liberal left exploits emotional weakness.

And the CON$ervative Right exploits intellectual weakness in addition to emotional weakness, and YOU are a perfect example,
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

Nothing in that post was emotionally-driven. The fact that I hope your daughters and candycorn are brutally raped and butchered by ISIS monsters is not an emotive response. It's totally pragmatic.

Yeah sure, totally "pragmatic" in a purely EMOTIONAL way.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

There is a danger in allowing government authority to implement compassion through emotionalism.

<--Libertarians and Conservatives to the rescue lol

As a psychologist I see you as a deluded stupid moron...you are worried about Government mandated compassion is that correct moron... but you have no concern about Government mandated killing about us having been "at war" since 2003 or that we spend a trillion in Military cost a year or that we have a thousand bases all over the world .....no no no ...you are not worried about that stuff LOl
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,455,590"


Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed(Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,801

Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,653,480,024,431

The Conservatives appeal to the moron war lovers that want to see some "ass kicking" but who hate Social security as well Hate having compassion for anyone except millionaires and billionaires...all of that sopcial safety net stuff is Bad is bad real bad lol

You sure are a moron asshole loser and bastard is my opinion asshole

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Liberal politicians play on this and exploit the emotive reactions of their base. They draw up the arguments as emotional clap trap and appeal to the bleeding hearts.

Conservatives are no different.

That's why Trump can say retarded things like "We will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it," and his supporters believe this nonsense.

It's not a liberal thing or a conservative thing. Cognitive bias a human thing.

A good psychologist would understand this most basic human condition.

Understand the condition. Lots of people are emotionally weak. My point is not people but politics. The Liberal left exploits emotional weakness.

You are cognitively weak you are a worthless moron of Right wing **** wittery...there is too much compassion what an asshole

 

[edthecynic]

I happen to know quite a few very wealthy people and I am willing to bet any amount of money you'd like to wager that they all contribute more to charity each year than you. Wealthy people are generally very charitable.

Now that is a purely EMOTIONAL pontification with no basis in fact.

As Wealthy Give Smaller Share of Income to Charity, Middle Class Digs Deeper

As the recession lifted, poor and middle class Americans dug deeper into their wallets to give to charity, even though they were earning less. At the same time, according to a new Chronicle analysis of tax data, wealthy Americans earned more, but the portion of the income they gave to charity declined.

The Chronicle study found that Americans give, on average, about 3 percent of their income to charity, a figure that has not budged significantly for decades. However, that figure belies big differences in giving patterns between the rich and the poor.

The wealthiest Americans—those who earned $200,000 or more—reduced the share of income they gave to charity by 4.6 percent from 2006 to 2012. Meanwhile, Americans who earned less than $100,000 chipped in 4.5 percent more of their income during the same time period. Middle- and lower-income Americans increased the share of income they donated to charity, even as they earned less, on average, than they did six years earlier.

 

[HappyJoy]

Would anyone else consider the following post to be full of emotion?

What is the psychological makeup of a person who would say such things?

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Please.....let us know what you think.

Wow, Boss is a ******* mess.

 

[BULLDOG]

As a psychologist who is fascinated with the human mind and how it works, I find politics have an interesting tie in. Specifically, the politics of the liberal left who now dominate the democrat party. The universal theme driving their politics is emotionalism. Plain and simple. We've all heard the term "bleeding heart liberal" and this is synonymous with the politics of emotionalism.

It's interesting, the term "bleeding heart" actually comes from the Bible, which most "bleeding heart liberals" have no familiarity with whatsoever, as they are secularist, agnostic or atheistic.

Romans 9:16 - Compassion doesn't originate in our bleeding hearts or moral sweat, but in God's mercy.

And perhaps this is the difference between a "bleeding heart liberal" and a religious right-winger? The liberal feels a moral responsibility to be the stewards of compassion while the religious rightie leaves it in God's hands. I'm a Spiritualist, so I remains somewhat in the middle on this. I feel that we all have some responsibility for our fellow man but at the same time, I also feel that the natural order of the universe sorts things out in the end.

There is a danger in allowing government authority to implement compassion through emotionalism. It's really not any different than a Christian sending $100 to the PTL Club in hopes that it will change lives and make a difference in the world. It may help to ease our conscience but it really doesn't amount to much actual change. However, ceding this authority to the government can really backfire and have dismal consequences. Not only does it not make much difference, it sacrifices personal freedom and liberty for the sake of feeling good.

It's almost always more wise to think with your head and not your heart. Thinking with your heart and allowing emotions to control your actions leads to careening your car into a ditch to avoid hitting a helpless rabbit in the road. Sure, you saved the rabbit but at what cost? Sometimes it is better to avoid your emotional reaction for a hot minute and think pragmatically about the overall situation. Liberals don't understand this because their entire moral foundation is based on self gratification instead of a higher power.

It makes them feel good to know that their politicians are going to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick... pay off all the student loans and dole out free cell phones. They can lay their empty little heads on their pillow at night and sleep well knowing they did their part to support those who care and oppose those who don't care. It doesn't matter that the actual conditions aren't changed or that they gave away more freedom and liberty, the intention is all that is important.

Liberal politicians play on this and exploit the emotive reactions of their base. They draw up the arguments as emotional clap trap and appeal to the bleeding hearts. And the bleeding hearts respond because it makes them feel good about themselves. Most liberals are convinced those on the right want to starve school children because they want to reform the school lunch program to eliminate waste and abuse. The right wants people to die of illness in the streets because they don't support socialized health care. They don't care about the needy and poor because they want to balance the federal budget. They want to push Granny off the cliff because they want to make Social Security solvent for the future. Across the board, pragmatism is met with emotionalism.

Lol are you kidding me? Man is commanded in the Bible to be charitable to the poor. Wealthy people have no place in heaven. They belong in Hell for their apparent selfishness. Jesus was biggest liberal that ever lived. It's so laughable the right-wing doesn't see that.

I happen to know quite a few very wealthy people and I am willing to bet any amount of money you'd like to wager that they all contribute more to charity each year than you. Wealthy people are generally very charitable.

Jesus wasn't a liberal. Liberals like to give away other people's money. Jesus didn't believe in that. Jesus believed in people being accountable and bearing responsibility for their actions. Liberals believe the opposite, that everyone is a victim and no one should be held accountable for anything... unless they are rich republicans... then they think they get to have a say on who gets into heaven.

I guess that's why he never talked about forgiveness .......right?

 

[FA_Q2]

Well this seems to have a few people riled up.

Sorry to tell you but the premise, no matter what you think of the OP, is utterly true. The left is very much driven by emotional arguments often to the exclusion of facts. "For the children" is one of those catch phrases that you actually do hear all the time from the left. Unfortunately the right may be worse in may respects considering that they are driven by FEAR. While emotional as well it is a different ballgame. You get a lot stronger response from fear. Normally this is not as big of an issue but we see what happens when presented with something like terrorism that the right simply cannot maintain a rational outlook in foreign affairs anymore.

I once had a friend sum up very succinctly what the difference is in how a liberal and a conservative are politically motivated: a liberal supports things because it feels right or makes them feel better about something, a conservative supports things because they have to or think it is an absolute must.

 

[FA_Q2]

Liberal politicians play on this and exploit the emotive reactions of their base. They draw up the arguments as emotional clap trap and appeal to the bleeding hearts.

Conservatives are no different.

That's why Trump can say retarded things like "We will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it," and his supporters believe this nonsense.

It's not a liberal thing or a conservative thing. Cognitive bias a human thing.

A good psychologist would understand this most basic human condition.

They are quite different if you ask me.

Fear is not the same emotional mindset I believe influences the left.

 

[Searcher44]

As a psychologist who is fascinated with the human mind and how it works, I find politics have an interesting tie in. Specifically, the politics of the liberal left who now dominate the democrat party. The universal theme driving their politics is emotionalism. Plain and simple. We've all heard the term "bleeding heart liberal" and this is synonymous with the politics of emotionalism.

It's interesting, the term "bleeding heart" actually comes from the Bible, which most "bleeding heart liberals" have no familiarity with whatsoever, as they are secularist, agnostic or atheistic.

Romans 9:16 - Compassion doesn't originate in our bleeding hearts or moral sweat, but in God's mercy.

And perhaps this is the difference between a "bleeding heart liberal" and a religious right-winger? The liberal feels a moral responsibility to be the stewards of compassion while the religious rightie leaves it in God's hands. I'm a Spiritualist, so I remains somewhat in the middle on this. I feel that we all have some responsibility for our fellow man but at the same time, I also feel that the natural order of the universe sorts things out in the end.

There is a danger in allowing government authority to implement compassion through emotionalism. It's really not any different than a Christian sending $100 to the PTL Club in hopes that it will change lives and make a difference in the world. It may help to ease our conscience but it really doesn't amount to much actual change. However, ceding this authority to the government can really backfire and have dismal consequences. Not only does it not make much difference, it sacrifices personal freedom and liberty for the sake of feeling good.

It's almost always more wise to think with your head and not your heart. Thinking with your heart and allowing emotions to control your actions leads to careening your car into a ditch to avoid hitting a helpless rabbit in the road. Sure, you saved the rabbit but at what cost? Sometimes it is better to avoid your emotional reaction for a hot minute and think pragmatically about the overall situation. Liberals don't understand this because their entire moral foundation is based on self gratification instead of a higher power.

It makes them feel good to know that their politicians are going to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick... pay off all the student loans and dole out free cell phones. They can lay their empty little heads on their pillow at night and sleep well knowing they did their part to support those who care and oppose those who don't care. It doesn't matter that the actual conditions aren't changed or that they gave away more freedom and liberty, the intention is all that is important.

Liberal politicians play on this and exploit the emotive reactions of their base. They draw up the arguments as emotional clap trap and appeal to the bleeding hearts. And the bleeding hearts respond because it makes them feel good about themselves. Most liberals are convinced those on the right want to starve school children because they want to reform the school lunch program to eliminate waste and abuse. The right wants people to die of illness in the streets because they don't support socialized health care. They don't care about the needy and poor because they want to balance the federal budget. They want to push Granny off the cliff because they want to make Social Security solvent for the future. Across the board, pragmatism is met with emotionalism.

You're a Spiritualist and a Psychologist. Does any of the below relate to what you do?


SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY CAREERS

Spirituality and religion are often very important parts of any culture. Houses of worship can be found in nearly every town and city in the world, and many people attend services regularly. Faith and religion even helps some people going during rough times in their lives. The simple fact is that spirituality has a huge impact on people's thoughts and behaviors.

Spiritual Psychology is a blend of spirituality and science. It uses elements of both traditional psychology and spirituality in order to help individuals feel better and more content with their lives.

Professionals in the field of spiritual psychology understand that the body, mind, and the spirit all work together, therefore, they must be studied together. Each of these elements must be healthy and "in shape" to achieve optimal harmony. This sometimes involves treating a fractured spirit, which is frequently a piece of the human puzzle that is ignored. In a way, spiritual psychology focuses on repairing fractured souls or replacing missing pieces of the soul.

Spiritual psychology has been around in some form for centuries. Catholic confession, for example, is a way for believers to acknowledge their sins and be forgiven for them, which often makes them feel better. Spiritual counseling has also been available to everyone who needs it for century.

Despite its popularity, spiritual psychology is still not recognized by the American Psychological Association. It does, however, have a division for the psychology of religion and spirituality, which is more focused on understanding the impact that these elements have on a person.

Why Do We Need Spiritual Psychology?
For many, a spiritual crisis can be a very upsetting event. It will usually have an impact on every part of a person's life, from their homes to their workplaces. Many people experiencing such a crisis will often feel stuck and confused, with nowhere to turn.

Spiritual psychology and spiritual counseling enables patients to better understand their own beliefs and work through that confusion. Spiritual psychologists can help individuals by allowing them to explore their spiritual side and work toward repairing any shattered pieces of their souls. These professionals can usually help people feeling despondent and dejected with a number of problems that can't usually be fixed with traditional psychological methods.

What are the Education Requirements for a Spiritual Psychology Career?
Below is the complete educational path for the Psychologists:
Psychologist Educational Track School Programs Average Education Length Choosing Online or Campus
1. Earn a Bachelor's Degree View Programs 4 Years Online or Campus
2. Earn A Master's Degree View Programs 2 Additional Years Online or Campus
3. Earn a PHD or PsyD View Programs 2-4 Additional Years Online or Campus
Aspiring spiritual psychologists should have an education that is a mixture of traditional psychology and spirituality, or religion.

A spiritual psychology career typically starts with a bachelor's degree in general psychology. This usually involves taking a number of psychology courses, including courses in developmental psychology, transpersonal psychology, clinical psychology, creative consciousness, and counseling psychology. Students interested in a spiritual psychology careers should also take classes in theology and religion, particularly eastern religions.

The majority of spiritual psychologists also hold advanced degrees, such as master's degrees and doctorates. If possible, an advanced degree specifically in spiritual psychology is best. Advanced degrees in counseling psychology with a concentration in spirituality are also sufficient.

Find psychology programs in your area using our Find a School page.

What Does a Spiritual Psychologist Do?
The main duty of a spiritual psychologist is to counsel people and help them to achieve spiritual wellbeing as well as mental and emotional wellbeing.

Many of the patients who seek help from a spiritual psychologist are going through spiritual crises. They need a comfortable atmosphere and a non-judgmental ear to listen to their problems and help guide them through the dark times in their lives. A spiritual psychologist can help his patients explore their spiritual paths in life.

He may encourage them to closely examine their own beliefs as well as alternative beliefs. A spiritual psychologist will also usually guide his patients with such things as meditation and altered states of consciousness. These actions can help patients become centered and will often lead to realization of and a better understanding of their own beliefs. Guided visualization is another popular technique used by spiritual psychologists. This involves a patient entering a state of altered consciousness while the psychologist speaks in a calm and even voice, urging them to explore a fictitious world that is representative of their sub-conscious mind.

In many ways, spiritual psychologists are also similar to counseling psychologists. These professionals listen to their patients' problems and help them work through them. They offer advice on how to better communicate, and calm and center themselves. See also: transpersonal psychologists.

Where Do Spiritual Psychologists Work?
Spiritual psychologists can often secure employment in a number of different places, such as churches, mental health facilities, and rehabilitation clinics. Spiritual psychologists can also choose to open their own practices. They might operate as spiritual psychologists or similar professionals, such as life coaches or personal growth counselors.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well this seems to have a few people riled up.

Sorry to tell you but the premise, no matter what you think of the OP, is utterly true. The left is very much driven by emotional arguments often to the exclusion of facts. "For the children" is one of those catch phrases that you actually do hear all the time from the left. Unfortunately the right may be worse in may respects considering that they are driven by FEAR. While emotional as well it is a different ballgame. You get a lot stronger response from fear. Normally this is not as big of an issue but we see what happens when presented with something like terrorism that the right simply cannot maintain a rational outlook in foreign affairs anymore.

I once had a friend sum up very succinctly what the difference is in how a liberal and a conservative are politically motivated: a liberal supports things because it feels right or makes them feel better about something, a conservative supports things because they have to or think it is an absolute must.

To sum up.....you think both conservative's and liberals are driven by emotion and are averse to facts. The difference being that conservatives respond to a negative emotion....fear while liberals respond to what makes them feel good.

Damn......if you had that part about facts correct, you might have something.

 

[Neser Boha]

Well this seems to have a few people riled up.

Sorry to tell you but the premise, no matter what you think of the OP, is utterly true. The left is very much driven by emotional arguments often to the exclusion of facts. "For the children" is one of those catch phrases that you actually do hear all the time from the left. Unfortunately the right may be worse in may respects considering that they are driven by FEAR. While emotional as well it is a different ballgame. You get a lot stronger response from fear. Normally this is not as big of an issue but we see what happens when presented with something like terrorism that the right simply cannot maintain a rational outlook in foreign affairs anymore.

I once had a friend sum up very succinctly what the difference is in how a liberal and a conservative are politically motivated: a liberal supports things because it feels right or makes them feel better about something, a conservative supports things because they have to or think it is an absolute must.

Both sides are emotionally driven - or rather - folks on the entire SPECTRUM of political opinion are to an extent emotionally driven. Some more or less, but that is a highly individual thing.

I know lots of liberals that are actually quite logical and matter of fact about a lot of things that you would normally ascribe to 'bleeding heart liberals'. For example, they very much believe in broad and effective welfare system and are willing to pay the high taxes for it (some pay as much as 50% of their income) not because they have bleeding hearts and want to save everyone, but because they themselves (and their children) want to live in a society that is not riddled with poverty, inequality and ultimately crime - so their reasoning is highly objective as well as selfish and has very little to do with being insanely emotional or even wanting to use someone else's money to pay for whatever - it's they themselves that are paying.

That is how many conservatives reason as well, just the other way around.

PS: Just a note about taxpayers/liberals/socialists etc. in US vs. Sweden: The difference between US and Sweden is that in Sweden you can see what you get for your taxes - for example, in Sweden you get universal healthcare and free education. And politicians here are really and truly held accountable/responsible. So of course one would be much more willing to be an active part of this society and be happy to pay high taxes if one can see where his/her money is going and that it's all actually WORKING.

I can see how in the US it's harder to see what your money is actually used for ...

 

[Boss]

As a psychologist who is fascinated with the human mind and how it works, I find politics have an interesting tie in. Specifically, the politics of the liberal left who now dominate the democrat party. The universal theme driving their politics is emotionalism. Plain and simple. We've all heard the term "bleeding heart liberal" and this is synonymous with the politics of emotionalism.

It's interesting, the term "bleeding heart" actually comes from the Bible, which most "bleeding heart liberals" have no familiarity with whatsoever, as they are secularist, agnostic or atheistic.

Romans 9:16 - Compassion doesn't originate in our bleeding hearts or moral sweat, but in God's mercy.

And perhaps this is the difference between a "bleeding heart liberal" and a religious right-winger? The liberal feels a moral responsibility to be the stewards of compassion while the religious rightie leaves it in God's hands. I'm a Spiritualist, so I remains somewhat in the middle on this. I feel that we all have some responsibility for our fellow man but at the same time, I also feel that the natural order of the universe sorts things out in the end.

There is a danger in allowing government authority to implement compassion through emotionalism. It's really not any different than a Christian sending $100 to the PTL Club in hopes that it will change lives and make a difference in the world. It may help to ease our conscience but it really doesn't amount to much actual change. However, ceding this authority to the government can really backfire and have dismal consequences. Not only does it not make much difference, it sacrifices personal freedom and liberty for the sake of feeling good.

It's almost always more wise to think with your head and not your heart. Thinking with your heart and allowing emotions to control your actions leads to careening your car into a ditch to avoid hitting a helpless rabbit in the road. Sure, you saved the rabbit but at what cost? Sometimes it is better to avoid your emotional reaction for a hot minute and think pragmatically about the overall situation. Liberals don't understand this because their entire moral foundation is based on self gratification instead of a higher power.

It makes them feel good to know that their politicians are going to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick... pay off all the student loans and dole out free cell phones. They can lay their empty little heads on their pillow at night and sleep well knowing they did their part to support those who care and oppose those who don't care. It doesn't matter that the actual conditions aren't changed or that they gave away more freedom and liberty, the intention is all that is important.

Liberal politicians play on this and exploit the emotive reactions of their base. They draw up the arguments as emotional clap trap and appeal to the bleeding hearts. And the bleeding hearts respond because it makes them feel good about themselves. Most liberals are convinced those on the right want to starve school children because they want to reform the school lunch program to eliminate waste and abuse. The right wants people to die of illness in the streets because they don't support socialized health care. They don't care about the needy and poor because they want to balance the federal budget. They want to push Granny off the cliff because they want to make Social Security solvent for the future. Across the board, pragmatism is met with emotionalism.

Lol are you kidding me? Man is commanded in the Bible to be charitable to the poor. Wealthy people have no place in heaven. They belong in Hell for their apparent selfishness. Jesus was biggest liberal that ever lived. It's so laughable the right-wing doesn't see that.

I happen to know quite a few very wealthy people and I am willing to bet any amount of money you'd like to wager that they all contribute more to charity each year than you. Wealthy people are generally very charitable.

Jesus wasn't a liberal. Liberals like to give away other people's money. Jesus didn't believe in that. Jesus believed in people being accountable and bearing responsibility for their actions. Liberals believe the opposite, that everyone is a victim and no one should be held accountable for anything... unless they are rich republicans... then they think they get to have a say on who gets into heaven.

I guess that's why he never talked about forgiveness .......right?

Forgiveness requires repentance.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well this seems to have a few people riled up.

Sorry to tell you but the premise, no matter what you think of the OP, is utterly true. The left is very much driven by emotional arguments often to the exclusion of facts. "For the children" is one of those catch phrases that you actually do hear all the time from the left. Unfortunately the right may be worse in may respects considering that they are driven by FEAR. While emotional as well it is a different ballgame. You get a lot stronger response from fear. Normally this is not as big of an issue but we see what happens when presented with something like terrorism that the right simply cannot maintain a rational outlook in foreign affairs anymore.

I once had a friend sum up very succinctly what the difference is in how a liberal and a conservative are politically motivated: a liberal supports things because it feels right or makes them feel better about something, a conservative supports things because they have to or think it is an absolute must.

To sum up.....you think both conservative's and liberals are driven by emotion and are averse to facts. The difference being that conservatives respond to a negative emotion....fear while liberals respond to what makes them feel good.

Damn......if you had that part about facts correct, you might have something.

I do.

You just have a problem seeing the demons planted in your house.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well this seems to have a few people riled up.

Sorry to tell you but the premise, no matter what you think of the OP, is utterly true. The left is very much driven by emotional arguments often to the exclusion of facts. "For the children" is one of those catch phrases that you actually do hear all the time from the left. Unfortunately the right may be worse in may respects considering that they are driven by FEAR. While emotional as well it is a different ballgame. You get a lot stronger response from fear. Normally this is not as big of an issue but we see what happens when presented with something like terrorism that the right simply cannot maintain a rational outlook in foreign affairs anymore.

I once had a friend sum up very succinctly what the difference is in how a liberal and a conservative are politically motivated: a liberal supports things because it feels right or makes them feel better about something, a conservative supports things because they have to or think it is an absolute must.

Both sides are emotionally driven - or rather - folks on the entire SPECTRUM of political opinion are to an extent emotionally driven. Some more or less, but that is a highly individual thing.

I know lots of liberals that are actually quite logical and matter of fact about a lot of things that you would normally ascribe to 'bleeding heart liberals'. For example, they very much believe in broad and effective welfare system and are willing to pay the high taxes for it (some pay as much as 50% of their income) not because they have bleeding hearts and want to save everyone, but because they themselves (and their children) want to live in a society that is not riddled with poverty, inequality and ultimately crime - so their reasoning is highly objective as well as selfish and has very little to do with being insanely emotional or even wanting to use someone else's money to pay for whatever - it's they themselves that are paying.

That is how many conservatives reason as well, just the other way around.

PS: Just a note about taxpayers/liberals/socialists etc. in US vs. Sweden: The difference between US and Sweden is that in Sweden you can see what you get for your taxes - for example, in Sweden you get universal healthcare and free education. And politicians here are really and truly held accountable/responsible. So of course one would be much more willing to be an active part of this society and be happy to pay high taxes if one can see where his/her money is going and that it's all actually WORKING.

I never claimed that there were not level headed and well thought out individuals along the entire political spectrum. These are simply broad generalizations that apply to the partisan bases of the parties. Unfortunately, these generalizations, IMHO, apply to the majority of people who are politically engaged (I am leaving out the apathetic people that have no idea about politics in general) rather than the minority as they should. Otherwise we would have a much more accountable political system.

I can see how in the US it's harder to see what your money is actually used for ...

I can't.

It is obvious in the highly productive, safe and generally well off society that I have all around me. We see how our taxes are spent. The real issue is a fundamental disagreement with the scope and purpose of government.

 

[Mac1958]

Seems fairly obvious to me that among our biggest problems is that both ends of our political spectrum are animated by people whose emotions have overcome reason.

Look at the rampant hyperbole, binary thinking and nastiness in our political discourse. That's emotion taking precedence over honesty and critical thinking.

We do need honesty and critical thinking, right?
.

 

[Boss]

Well this seems to have a few people riled up.

Sorry to tell you but the premise, no matter what you think of the OP, is utterly true. The left is very much driven by emotional arguments often to the exclusion of facts. "For the children" is one of those catch phrases that you actually do hear all the time from the left. Unfortunately the right may be worse in may respects considering that they are driven by FEAR. While emotional as well it is a different ballgame. You get a lot stronger response from fear. Normally this is not as big of an issue but we see what happens when presented with something like terrorism that the right simply cannot maintain a rational outlook in foreign affairs anymore.

I once had a friend sum up very succinctly what the difference is in how a liberal and a conservative are politically motivated: a liberal supports things because it feels right or makes them feel better about something, a conservative supports things because they have to or think it is an absolute must.

I disagree that the right is driven by fear. Fear is an emotional weakness. Yes, some on the right are emotionally weak. That is not what drives conservative philosophy. The position of the right on combating terrorism is pragmatic not emotional. Fear is when you are unable to utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism" because you're afraid you might offend a Muslim.

Conservatism is not an ideology, it is not ideologically driven. Just as it's the case with emotional weakness, some conservatives have strong ideological beliefs but that is not what drives conservative philosophy. Conservatism is a pragmatic approach to problem solving through experience and history. Traditional values are preferred because there is a pragmatic reason they are traditional values.

This is why you find conservatives in many different flavors. A libertarian conservative may be for legalizing marijuana where a social conservative is staunchly opposed. The same for gay marriage or even abortion. All conservatives are not bible-thumping Jerry Falwell types. They are also not all Ron and Rand Paul types. Liberalism IS an ideology, driven by emotionalism (aka: emotional weakness...fear).

 

[Boss]

As a psychologist who is fascinated with the human mind and how it works, I find politics have an interesting tie in. Specifically, the politics of the liberal left who now dominate the democrat party. The universal theme driving their politics is emotionalism. Plain and simple. We've all heard the term "bleeding heart liberal" and this is synonymous with the politics of emotionalism.

It's interesting, the term "bleeding heart" actually comes from the Bible, which most "bleeding heart liberals" have no familiarity with whatsoever, as they are secularist, agnostic or atheistic.

Romans 9:16 - Compassion doesn't originate in our bleeding hearts or moral sweat, but in God's mercy.

And perhaps this is the difference between a "bleeding heart liberal" and a religious right-winger? The liberal feels a moral responsibility to be the stewards of compassion while the religious rightie leaves it in God's hands. I'm a Spiritualist, so I remains somewhat in the middle on this. I feel that we all have some responsibility for our fellow man but at the same time, I also feel that the natural order of the universe sorts things out in the end.

There is a danger in allowing government authority to implement compassion through emotionalism. It's really not any different than a Christian sending $100 to the PTL Club in hopes that it will change lives and make a difference in the world. It may help to ease our conscience but it really doesn't amount to much actual change. However, ceding this authority to the government can really backfire and have dismal consequences. Not only does it not make much difference, it sacrifices personal freedom and liberty for the sake of feeling good.

It's almost always more wise to think with your head and not your heart. Thinking with your heart and allowing emotions to control your actions leads to careening your car into a ditch to avoid hitting a helpless rabbit in the road. Sure, you saved the rabbit but at what cost? Sometimes it is better to avoid your emotional reaction for a hot minute and think pragmatically about the overall situation. Liberals don't understand this because their entire moral foundation is based on self gratification instead of a higher power.

It makes them feel good to know that their politicians are going to feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick... pay off all the student loans and dole out free cell phones. They can lay their empty little heads on their pillow at night and sleep well knowing they did their part to support those who care and oppose those who don't care. It doesn't matter that the actual conditions aren't changed or that they gave away more freedom and liberty, the intention is all that is important.

Liberal politicians play on this and exploit the emotive reactions of their base. They draw up the arguments as emotional clap trap and appeal to the bleeding hearts. And the bleeding hearts respond because it makes them feel good about themselves. Most liberals are convinced those on the right want to starve school children because they want to reform the school lunch program to eliminate waste and abuse. The right wants people to die of illness in the streets because they don't support socialized health care. They don't care about the needy and poor because they want to balance the federal budget. They want to push Granny off the cliff because they want to make Social Security solvent for the future. Across the board, pragmatism is met with emotionalism.

You're a Spiritualist and a Psychologist. Does any of the below relate to what you do?


SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY CAREERS

Spirituality and religion are often very important parts of any culture. Houses of worship can be found in nearly every town and city in the world, and many people attend services regularly. Faith and religion even helps some people going during rough times in their lives. The simple fact is that spirituality has a huge impact on people's thoughts and behaviors.

Spiritual Psychology is a blend of spirituality and science. It uses elements of both traditional psychology and spirituality in order to help individuals feel better and more content with their lives.

Professionals in the field of spiritual psychology understand that the body, mind, and the spirit all work together, therefore, they must be studied together. Each of these elements must be healthy and "in shape" to achieve optimal harmony. This sometimes involves treating a fractured spirit, which is frequently a piece of the human puzzle that is ignored. In a way, spiritual psychology focuses on repairing fractured souls or replacing missing pieces of the soul.

Spiritual psychology has been around in some form for centuries. Catholic confession, for example, is a way for believers to acknowledge their sins and be forgiven for them, which often makes them feel better. Spiritual counseling has also been available to everyone who needs it for century.

Despite its popularity, spiritual psychology is still not recognized by the American Psychological Association. It does, however, have a division for the psychology of religion and spirituality, which is more focused on understanding the impact that these elements have on a person.

Why Do We Need Spiritual Psychology?
For many, a spiritual crisis can be a very upsetting event. It will usually have an impact on every part of a person's life, from their homes to their workplaces. Many people experiencing such a crisis will often feel stuck and confused, with nowhere to turn.

Spiritual psychology and spiritual counseling enables patients to better understand their own beliefs and work through that confusion. Spiritual psychologists can help individuals by allowing them to explore their spiritual side and work toward repairing any shattered pieces of their souls. These professionals can usually help people feeling despondent and dejected with a number of problems that can't usually be fixed with traditional psychological methods.

What are the Education Requirements for a Spiritual Psychology Career?
Below is the complete educational path for the Psychologists:
Psychologist Educational Track School Programs Average Education Length Choosing Online or Campus
1. Earn a Bachelor's Degree View Programs 4 Years Online or Campus
2. Earn A Master's Degree View Programs 2 Additional Years Online or Campus
3. Earn a PHD or PsyD View Programs 2-4 Additional Years Online or Campus
Aspiring spiritual psychologists should have an education that is a mixture of traditional psychology and spirituality, or religion.

A spiritual psychology career typically starts with a bachelor's degree in general psychology. This usually involves taking a number of psychology courses, including courses in developmental psychology, transpersonal psychology, clinical psychology, creative consciousness, and counseling psychology. Students interested in a spiritual psychology careers should also take classes in theology and religion, particularly eastern religions.

The majority of spiritual psychologists also hold advanced degrees, such as master's degrees and doctorates. If possible, an advanced degree specifically in spiritual psychology is best. Advanced degrees in counseling psychology with a concentration in spirituality are also sufficient.

Find psychology programs in your area using our Find a School page.

What Does a Spiritual Psychologist Do?
The main duty of a spiritual psychologist is to counsel people and help them to achieve spiritual wellbeing as well as mental and emotional wellbeing.

Many of the patients who seek help from a spiritual psychologist are going through spiritual crises. They need a comfortable atmosphere and a non-judgmental ear to listen to their problems and help guide them through the dark times in their lives. A spiritual psychologist can help his patients explore their spiritual paths in life.

He may encourage them to closely examine their own beliefs as well as alternative beliefs. A spiritual psychologist will also usually guide his patients with such things as meditation and altered states of consciousness. These actions can help patients become centered and will often lead to realization of and a better understanding of their own beliefs. Guided visualization is another popular technique used by spiritual psychologists. This involves a patient entering a state of altered consciousness while the psychologist speaks in a calm and even voice, urging them to explore a fictitious world that is representative of their sub-conscious mind.

In many ways, spiritual psychologists are also similar to counseling psychologists. These professionals listen to their patients' problems and help them work through them. They offer advice on how to better communicate, and calm and center themselves. See also: transpersonal psychologists.

Where Do Spiritual Psychologists Work?
Spiritual psychologists can often secure employment in a number of different places, such as churches, mental health facilities, and rehabilitation clinics. Spiritual psychologists can also choose to open their own practices. They might operate as spiritual psychologists or similar professionals, such as life coaches or personal growth counselors.

Are you in need of a life coach or personal growth counselor?

I am retired now but I often counsel people pro bono.

 

[JoeB131]

I disagree that the right is driven by fear. Fear is an emotional weakness.

i think you are confused, bud.

The rank and file STUPIDS like yourself who vote Republican and then wonder why your job went to China, you guys act out of fear, just like the rich want you to.

Fear of minorities.
Fear of "Terrorists"
Fear of feminists telling women they don't need you.
Fear of Gays actually having equality.
Fear someone might tell your kids there really isn't a God.

The Rich are only afraid people might finally figure out Republicans aren't working for their interest.

Meanwhile, Uncle Tom Carson is going down in flames.