There is nothing “exclusive” in the data or in my post about it. There are individuals in one group who exhibit some of the values of the other. So, yes, you can be a “progressive” and a “Christian” as an individual, but the book focuses on population statistics. What the data, gathered over a decade by a researcher of stellar reputation, show is a clear separation between those who only talk the talk and those who really walk the walk, on a group basis. Read it for yourself.

As to philosophers, artists, etc., John, I agree with you to a point. Close observers of the human condition can provide penetrating insight, but they can also mislead us by stereotyping, by drawing faulty conclusions, or by evoking emotional responses to exceptional circumstances while making them seem to be the norm.

Indeed, one of the central techniques of art is to stimulate us from our torpor by shocking us with the exceptional. For instance, you see a lot more photographs of the impoverished and unemployed from the Depression than you do from the 80% of people who remained employed. Why do you think that is?

(By the way, why also do you think the media is so delighted to compare every current economic circumstance with the “Great Depression.” Reporters seem almost gleeful at finding any evidence that supports this contention.)

Where the technique of artists and philosophers becomes problematic, John, is when used as the basis for public policy. A weepy sick person goes on Capitol Hill and testifies before the cameras about their particular health care circumstance, and Congress in its desire to respond, placate the media, and be seen to be doing something enacts sweeping legislation that affects us all at high cost, with little concern for the significant unintended consequences.

John, humans are fooled all the time by their senses and their experiences into believing that they have access to a broader understanding than they do. The scientific method enables us to distance ourselves from our own shortcomings and objectively test hypotheses. Often the results are counterintuitive.

Two people who had profound insights into the human condition were Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. But if you test their theories in the real world, they were mostly wrong in the conclusions they drew. Yet they held many people in their sway, and still do.

As to global warming, John, the computer models that are used to predict the future do not pass a central test of the scientific model: That you can conduct an experiment to test a hypothesis. Until then, it’s just a belief system. There are lots of data to support the concept, but are also lots of data that do not.

I disagree that those on the right are particulatly characterized by their faith. I didn’t mean to say that they are not.

I for one would strongly disagree that it is those on the “right” who are characterized by faith. It’s likr the false data about “values voters” in the 2004 election cycle. We in the progressive faith community, I hope, do not fall intoi the trap of saying that one has to agree with us politically to exhibit faith values in our political judgments, but the same mistake is made by some on the so-called evalngelical right. And, J. by your characterization of the rights as those who seem to exclusively posess values of “free enterprise, hard work, faith, and family” well that’s the same logic Sarah Palin uses to characterize the “pro-American parts of America.” Please leave your caricatures of those on the left (in this case by use of a false dichotomy) for the conservative echo chamber.

The “Judeo-Christian” values of which you speak are not a monolithic or simple orthodoxy as you would present them. Within those “values” (and I would include the related values of Islam as well) is plenty of room for the type of ideological differences we present. On the left we think of Amos and Micah and Isaiah and the Beatitudes and the commands to hospitality and the assesment of nations and not just individuals. But that’s not to say that you reach different political conclusions from the same, or related, sources. It ain’t as simple as you make it out to be, my friend.

But I hardly think the evidence all around us would bear out your suggestion that belief in hard work, faith, family and free enterprise only belong to those on the right. I think those notions are pretty broadly sprinkled throughout the population and political spectrum.

As for your apparent belief that “data” necessarily trumps all other forms of evidence and accumulated observation, I can’t say I completely share that notion. I (and lots of other classically educated people) happen to come from the intellectual tradition that holds that philosophers, dramatists, writers, journalists and other close observers of the human condition and experience have at least an equal claim to valuable insights as those who practice the hard sciences. Besides, I’m struck by how your reliance on the scientific method is utterly lacking when it comes to, say, evidence about global warming.

For one, if you would take the time to purchase and read the book “Who Really Cares” you would see that the data are clear about who talks the talk and who walks the walk. Those people who generally are regarded to be on the right, who believe in free enterprise, hard work, faith, and family–those people you revile–give significantly more of their wealth and time to charitable and social causes than do those of the left, who believe in government doing that all and are stingy with their wealth and time. Interestingly enough, those on the left have as much wealth as those on the right, they just believe that government should take care of others and, by their actions, they walk away from personal responsibility.

Regarding your incorrect use of Judeo-Christian values to judge my views (also an incorrect application of those same values) the data show that those on the right are doing what they are admonished to do by those values to much greater extent than those of the left.

Yes, the book contains analyses of populations and, within each group, there are people who do not conform to type. Nevertheless, the data are clear.

The author himself admits that he began his ten years of research believing that those of the left were more kind, compassionate, and giving to the needy than those of the right, and that he himself was of the left. After ten years of conducting high-quality, peer-reviewed research, after being challenged repeatedly by colleagues, after wanting not to believe what he was seeing, he could not escape the conclusion of the data: people on the left only talked the talk; people on the right walked the walk.

So what did he do? What any reasonable, logical person does in the face of overwhelming data: He changed his views. Are you willing to do that?

Your views very definitely speak on behalf of limiting the social safety net that can be the vehicle through which millions of people can have a better chance to improve themselves and their financial situation. So in that sense, the doctrinaire focus on maximum individual freedom at the expense of other priorities is at war with increasing opportunity.

I am opposed to totalitarianism of any kind, whether it is “fascism” from the right (a term that you blithely and recklessly throw around without, clearly, understanding what you are saying or to whom you are saying it) or socialism from the left. Each in its own way inhibits individual freedom, which is the basis for a just society.

Government takes its rights from us, not the other way around. I think people sometimes forget that. Moreover, the U.S. is a democratic republic, with the republic portion specifically designed to prevent tyranny of the majority. Even if the majority votes your way this election, that does not grant government the right to abrogate private contracts or confiscate private property.

Now, what was it in my previous post to which you objected and found to be bordering on fascism?

Isn’t “infantry” derived from infant? It’s the kids who make the sacrifices that their elders squander and “change”.

John, it’s people like you, who believe you know what is best for all of us and what is best for all children, who justify manipulating and progandizing children, against whom I am complaining. It’s you who is “badly in need of a change in parties in the White House.” What children need is two attentive parents living in the same house with them, providing them love, nurturing, and the good sense to see through your cynical manipulation of them for your own adult purposes.

Daniella, in English, please.