[KaiserJeep]

Because Californians have the Liberal disease. They "feel" things instead of using reasoning. I also of course feel sympathy for the plight of others. However I am not ready to abandon the rule of law, the safety of friends and family, or even the sanctity of my home to grant further priviledges to people who got here and remain here by breaking the laws we have. I don't think you get to pick and choose which laws you enforce and which you do not, without damaging our Republic.

I'm leaving as soon as I can. The wife has plans to give her employers notice next month. We signed an MLS contract to sell the house. We are moving to Nantucket, although we may lease a condo in Wisconsin as well. Both places are also full of people who have the Liberal disease, but are not inhabited by large numbers of undocumented people, nor are they "sanctuaries".

[Newfie]

“Liberal disease”. There seems to be much research that says there is some subtle brain function difference between the two political divides. Its a bit like the difference between a chimp and a bonobo I guess. But anyway scientists think they can image and detect brain chemestry differences consisten with political party affiliation. I’m also pretty sure there is a meme on the L side that says Rs are mentally deranged.

I’ve no idea if that is congenital or learned or what. Perhaps a good bit of both.

Nor am I picking sides to say which best. I don’t think that is possible. I want to be married to a caring, loving, giving, empathetic person. I want my airline pilot to be totally engrossed in the workings of the airplane.

There is also some research to suggest that psychopaths are really best suited for certain professions. The one example I recall is the brain surgeon who needed to operate in a young women’s brain, with a poor chance of survival. On the one hand he had to interact with her as a person to prep for the operation, then chop into her brain knowing he might well kill her. And be able to go home at night being OK with all that and do it again tomorrow.

I’ve always felt more comfortable with things than with people. Things work in more or less predictable ways and are not vindictive. But it’s funny to hear my Wife cussing something because “it hates me!”

[Ibon]

When I was in business one of our key products was surgical operating microscopes for neurosurgery. I had to participate in trade shows talking regularly to neurosurgeons and I also had to be present in the surgery room during brain surgery a number of times. Clipping an aneurysm or removing a tumor is a long surgery performed through a minimal opening and in addition to the optics of the scope there are digital and laser aids like Gamma knifes etc to guide the surgeon below the area that he can visibly see in order to minimize damage.

Neurosurgeons are a unique breed. Super intense, neurotic (no pun intended) and they really do deal with life and death intense pressure. Their brains are constantly on full alert with synapses firing as they are down their cutting through the synapses of their patients. To be a neurosurgeon requires compartmentalizing in a way that goes way beyond a gynecologist who looks at vaginas all day and then goes home at night and makes love to his wife! Also neurosurgeons know going in that they will do damage, its different than say an ophthalmologist who can actually cure. The goal of the neurosurgeon is the minimize the damage he know he will cause during any procedure.

OK, back to immigration!

[Newfie]

This is Mrs Newfie: he shared his post with me but I could not get him to correct one error. Both Conservatives and Liberals are equally emotional, especially as they go more towards their extreme ends, but the types of emotions are different. Statistically speaking, Conservatives seem to be somewhat more prone to anxiety especially in uncertain circumstances, and get more easily disgusted (a biological defense against poisoning)Liberals present something of a mirror image emotionally speaking. I think this explains why it is so easy to polarize because someone with opposite values can come across as irrational and/or disgusting (conservative view of liberals) or rigid and oppressive (liberal views of conservatives). For a good discussion of some relevant research I would recommend Sapolski’s “Behave”.

[Newfie]

The first third of Behave is a groaner, only folks into brain chemistry will enjoy it. Then it’s gets better. Pretty interesting stuff.

[onlooker]

I have come across commentaries which state that a principal difference between Conservatives and Liberals is actually Security. Conservatives attempt to define their world by how predictable, safe and secure it is. They adapt their behavior to attain higher levels of certainty in any and all important endeavors.

On the other hand, Liberals are as Mrs. Newfie alluded to, less anxious than Conservatives. Less afraid. So, they actually look for adventure and spontaneous occurring experiences . You could say they value more freedom and creativity than security. The ironic thing is that liberals are by far more Democrats yet Big Government is highly oppressive of freedom. While Republicans ie. Conservatives have a subset being the Libertarians who value automony and lack of intrusion and Govt oversight.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', ' ')So, they actually look for adventure and spontaneous occurring experiences .

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', ' ')So, they actually look for adventure and spontaneous occurring experiences .

[KaiserJeep]

I'll have you know, I consider myself to be a Classical Liberal. That is a distinct and well-defined philosophy, but one that few recognize in this day and age. Most people recognize "libertarian", and that comes closest of the terms in common usage, so I use that, with a small "l" because I am not a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party. But I find the real Libertarians to be evangelistic and preachy. For a classical Hebrew scholar's version of the differences:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-classical-liberalism-conservative-1507931462

[Newfie]

Personally I’m a “Confused.”

I seem to have bits of every stripe.

[ROCKMAN]

Newfie - Just had a conversation that reminded me of a bad habit of assuming everyone knows the same facts that I do. For instance do you know what country allows more foreign immigrants to enter its country LEGALLY every year then every other country on the planet? For instance 5 million in the 5 year period from 2007 thru 2012.

[Newfie]

I could guess, but that would perchance spoil the fun. So fill me in please.

[onlooker]

Newfie, that would be the US
https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-i ... -en#page24

[Cog]

And yet the left continues to push the narrative that the right is hostile to immigration. We aren't. We object to illegal and uncontrolled immigration as most countries around the world do.

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'A')nd yet the left continues to push the narrative that the right is hostile to immigration. We aren't. We object to illegal and uncontrolled immigration as most countries around the world do.

[KaiserJeep]

Cog, I would briefly explain: The Europeans invented "Nationalism", and it was arguably the cause of both WW1 and WW2. It is NOT the same as Patriotism, as it includes a belief that your own system is superior and that other people elsewhere in the world would benefit from doing things the same way, in spite of differences in culture, religion, languages, mores, etc.

The Nazi's for example were literally the National Socialist Party, expressed in the German language. Nationalists but not Socialists, IMHO. They - and the other Axis powers - set out to force their system on others.

If you would self-describe as an American "Nationalist", you would believe that we could impose American style governments in place of whatever is present in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Afghanistan, for example - and that they would welcome this meddling with open arms.

I just don't believe that.

[Cog]

I would agree with you KJ, under the stipulations you have placed on the word nationalism. I do happen to believe the American system of a Constitutional Republic is a superior system. For us. I do not wish to force others to adopt it by either intimidation or invasion. Nationalism, at least the way I use the word, is to put your nation's interests first before any others. I fully expect other nations in the world, regardless of how they are organized, to do exactly the same thing.

Nationalism doesn't have to imply isolationism. Trade and alliances can continue to the point it still benefits your own nation in some way or other. But we do not surrender sovereignty to others outside our own nation. Nor should we engage in trade deals that benefit other nations to the detriment of our own.

[Newfie]

I think what underlies some of this is a sense of guilt. Guilt that we have had it too good and that we have unjustly meddled in other countries and caused some of the pain they are feeling.

I think it’s pretty clear that’s what you have going on in Germany. And it also explains the east/west difference of opinion in Germany. The East Germans didn’t have it so good for a long time, they got over their guilt.

Just another way of looking at it.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'I') would agree with you KJ, under the stipulations you have placed on the word nationalism. I do happen to believe the American system of a Constitutional Republic is a superior system. For us. I do not wish to force others to adopt it by either intimidation or invasion. Nationalism, at least the way I use the word, is to put your nation's interests first before any others. I fully expect other nations in the world, regardless of how they are organized, to do exactly the same thing.

Nationalism doesn't have to imply isolationism. Trade and alliances can continue to the point it still benefits your own nation in some way or other. But we do not surrender sovereignty to others outside our own nation. Nor should we engage in trade deals that benefit other nations to the detriment of our own.

[Ibon]

I am going to take this positive sentiment of nationalism expressed in the last couple of posts and extend it a bit and see at which point this raises any objections. Immigration and trade as Cog and others suggested should be put through the lens of how this serves the nations best interests. Now let's go back 25 years before we off shored all of the manufacturing to China and other countries and let's imagine a moment that we had the hindsight we have today. It would have been possible to regulate more strictly the off shoring of manufacturing by deferring to nationalism instead of globalism, restricting off shoring when this resulted in massive unemployment and stripped small towns and communities of their core industries. Back then the argument was to allow unfettered capitalism, allow that all wise invisible hand to find the equilibrium between supply and demand by not applying any restrictions to globalism. Nationalism back then was never raised as an issue. If it was by Reagan or Clinton the argument was that those dirty industries are best left to offshore to developing countries and this will be replaced as we pursue high technology industries. As we all know this did not exactly turn out this way especially if we consider the current trade imbalances with China and the lost intellectual capital. One of the greatest lobbying pressures back then up until today are the multi national corporations who argued in favor of unrestricted globalization. The resulting hallowing out of the middle class and the increased disparity of wealth we find today be traced to putting globalism before nationalism. Same can be said for the financial sector where bank mergers happened outside national borders. As much as the US and the UK have benefited that NYC and London are the financial capitals of the world and as much as the USA has benefited that the US dollar is the de facto world currency there is definitely the argument that the control and power these banks have is imbalanced when looking at this through the lens of a nations best interests and sovereignty.

The defending of a nations best interests can be extended beyond immigration and the control of trade and finance and then be moved toward social issues like health care and a clean environment. Nationalism can be used as an argument to regulate say the insurance and medical industries to best serve the nations population by moving to a single payer health care system, to convert to sustainable energy to increase the long term resiliency of a nation.

You see where I am going with this?

If you take the concept of nationalism and sovereignty and serving a nations best interests to its fullest extent then you end up having to confront something that up until today conservatives for example have been unable to do. There is a strongly held belief that government must be weakened, stripped of its power, deregulated and weakened. That unbridled capitalism and maximizing an individual's personal freedom and liberty always take precedent over any attempts to regulate it. But what happens when this conflicts with a nation's best interests?

At the moment there seems to be two apposing forces that are not compatible. We want to strengthen nationalism at the same time as we want to weaken government, to deregulate it's ability to control the forces that represent potential threats to a nation's best interests.