Political opposition may be in our heads

[TampaYankee]

Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no

By Holly Bailey Mon Apr 11, 11:41 am ET

President Obama and House Republicans may have narrowly averted a government shutdown last weekend, but as the two sides prepare to engage in another round of intra-party feuding over budget proposals, a new study suggests that basic brain science might stand in the way of bipartisanship.

Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety.

"Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation," lead researcher Ryota Kanai writes of the study in the latest issue of Current Biology. "Our study now links personality traits with specific brain structure."

Observers will notice a familiar name on the report: Oscar-winning actor Colin Firth, who commissioned the report while serving as a guest host of the BBC Radio 4's Today program in London last year. (Neurological sources of stammering don't come into play.)

The study, which was conducted with the help of 90 young adult volunteers, comes on the heels of other research that linked political beliefs to genetic differences between liberals and conservatives. Last year, a joint study by the Harvard and the University of California, San Diego, found there might actually be a so-called "liberal gene" that influences political leanings.

While the London study does find distinct differences between Democrats and Republicans, its authors caution that more research needs to be done on the subject. One unknown is whether people are simply born with their political beliefs or if our brains adjust to life experiences--which is a possibility, Kanai writes.

"It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions," he said in a statement accompanying the study. "More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude."

See original article at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110411/pl_yblog_theticket/will-president-obama-and-the-house-gop-ever-agree-science-suggests-no

[RA1]

I thought this thread might be about the LACK of political opposition in the sense of real differences between the parties. Those differences are few and far between. They both spend too much money, want government that is too big and have agreed to the removal or reduction of many of our freedoms.

Even though there may be a few pols here and there that sometimes do "good" things, I say throw them all out and start over. Term limits would be a good start as well as sunset laws.

Sorry to beat the same old drum but until something happens, that is how I feel.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

I thought this thread might be about the LACK of political opposition in the sense of real differences between the parties. Those differences are few and far between. They both spend too much money, want government that is too big and have agreed to the removal or reduction of many of our freedoms.

I agree with some of what you say. Our freedoms have taken a big hit from both sides

The problem with most 'government is too big' people is that government is too big only when it comes to providing services that 'they' do not want to support. However, there are many 'big government' programs they do support. Your comment alludes to this too.

Most conservatives do not want to support some or any of the social support projects from social security and medicare to community health care support such as but not limited to Planned Parenthood. Most do want to support big defense expenditures whether for security, or to support the defense industry in their districts or defense business interests in general. Conservatives are against subsidies for the disadvantaged and for education goals such as Pell grants or grants to local K-12 schools. However, most are for subsidies for Big Oil, Wall St, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. through tax breaks.

All one need do is look at Paul Ryan's proposed 2012 budget which dismantles Medicare and Medicaid and other prorams and spending to the tune of approx $6 billion while cutting taxes (most to the rich and business) of $4 billion, over ten years. This is an ideological budget, not a deficit and debt reduction budget as the CBO and numerous nonpartisan economists confirm.

Most conservatives used to support money for local law enforcement. Now they are going after their unions along with other public employees. Many support putting government in the bedrooms and doctor offices and treating women and LGBTs as second-class citizens.

The ultimate truth is that we are a very large pluralistic society with differing values and priorities. There is insufficient strength in numbers for any sector to impose its will on the others. The practical outcome is compromise -- which involves swallowing bitter pills that nobody likes -- or stalemate. Maybe we are about to see what the stalemate alternative brings.

[RA1]

Thanks for the reply. I am not happy with either party and I think you agree. In particular I would like to address the idea of earmarks. For a long time I thought that what might be one person's trash was another's treasure in that what was viewed in one district as necessary was viewed as pork in another. However, I have come to view this as basically trying to get something for nothing. Why should one area get something that another does not get and why should not every area that does "get" something not pay for it? I am completely in agreement that there are needs that cannot be filled by other than co-operative participation from everyone. The military is one example. Guarding our borders is another. However, very many "needs" have been usurped by the feds and that is a tragedy. If you need a bridge locally, then pay for it locally. Let's quit sending so many of our dollars to DC with the bureaucrats taking their part, then sending them back to the states. The states know what they need. Let them decide and raise taxes accordingly. The local voters will tell them if they are correct.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Thanks for the reply. I am not happy with either party and I think you agree. In particular I would like to address the idea of earmarks. For a long time I thought that what might be one person's trash was another's treasure in that what was viewed in one district as necessary was viewed as pork in another. However, I have come to view this as basically trying to get something for nothing. Why should one area get something that another does not get and why should not every area that does "get" something not pay for it? I am completely in agreement that there are needs that cannot be filled by other than co-operative participation from everyone. The military is one example. Guarding our borders is another. However, very many "needs" have been usurped by the feds and that is a tragedy. If you need a bridge locally, then pay for it locally. Let's quit sending so many of our dollars to DC with the bureaucrats taking their part, then sending them back to the states. The states know what they need. Let them decide and raise taxes accordingly. The local voters will tell them if they are correct.

Best regards,

RA1

Once again I agree with some of what you say. However, I do disagree with the proposition that every community can fund its own needs or else, or that every state knows what is best for them. In the first instance take, for example, a poor rural county in any state. Their tax base may not be able to afford all aspects of health and safety and rudimentary county government they need. To say that they just have to live within their means is not an acceptable alternative. Else crime may run rampant, overspilling into other counties, or the closed county health department may not be able to detect cases of whooping cough or meningitis before it has spread beyond county borders.

You might respond: let the state pick it up. Well, that is the same argument as letting the Feds pick it up -- moving it onto someone else. You might argue that keeping it closer to home is better. I agree there is something to that too and they better know local communities. However, that presumes that all states know how to and will do the right thing. That is not a proven proposition in all cases.

Unfortunately, in this age of air transportation and the potential for horrendous communicable diseases, eg. ebolla, it is not wise public policy to rely on a patchwork of capability and vigilence to guard our national health. All one has to say, whether in California or Maine, am I comfortable for my health safety with the communicable disease capbility and response of Louisiana or Idaho? What about their meat inspection levels for mad cow disease? Or do we exclude imports of food products across state borders.

Some conservatives would say: Let the buyer beware. I'm sure there would be instant buyers remorse over that if their child or spouse should die of botulism or salmonella poisoning. So, to not take over certain state functions, like disease control or safety, the Feds offer grants to supplement state programs while requiring a set of minimal standards and interstate cooperation. Where to draw this line is always controversial but that is the nature of policy and politics.

While local control has much to recommend it for communities there are some very important exceptions that are effectively beyond local control.

[RA1]

We don't disagree on much or so I think. However, I am very tired of big brother telling me or us what to do. Yes, sometimes the big picture is the one in focus but not always. No organization or group is always right. The NIH has made many mistakes and not invented here is not always in the best interests of the nation, for instance.

Certainly there are plenty of tasks and I will not try to make a list thereof, that are the proper domain of the feds but they have taken so many things away from the states that it is time for some effort to go the "other" way.

I won't even go into tasks that might should be the proper purview of the feds that they are failing miserably to accomplish.

Again, we are more in agreement than might appear to a casual reader.

Best regards,

RA1