Conflating Patriotism, Party Loyalty, and Faith

[Guest psych_murse]

Hello,

I am a deep believer in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Savior whom we worship.  I grew up in the Church, have served a mission, and was a lifelong Republican...until 2016.  At the nomination of Donald J. Trump, I found that I had too little in common with the GOP and left.  I do not intend to be inflammatory, but I find that the man is immoral, dishonest, narcissistic, incompetent, uninformed, divisive, and dangerous to our country.  If I continue to come out of my shell and post extensively on this site, I assure you I will go into great depth regarding my feelings, which I feel are based on sound principles, both spiritual and scientific.  But for now, I will illustrate the subject of this thread with the following:

Of all the states that voted Republican in 2016, Donald Trump won Utah with only 45.5% of the vote, the lowest of any state that he won.  It seems that part of the likely explanation is that many members of the Church had reservations about him.  Nevertheless, the man became our Republican president.  Even now, recent polls show that 58% of Church members in Utah strongly approve of the job the president is doing.  And this is after his numbers have been declining in the state in recent weeks.  If this is reflective of the general U.S. Church membership, most members of our Church believe that the Republican president is doing our country right.  Even while Republicans in the Senate and House have enabled Trump in his disastrous presidency, Church members appear to stand by the GOP in all things.

I have looked inwardly and outwardly to see how I came to differ with so many Church members on political views, even while I have retained my strong faith.  My father, a big Trump supporter, and I have had many discussions on this topic.  It makes me wonder if there is a tendency for many Church members to conflate certain views.  We are a Church that has long been patriotic and hold our nation to be divinely appointed.  It seems to me that the GOP is generally the more patriotic, faith-based party.  From a psychological/sociological viewpoint (bearing in mind my username, mind you), people are likely to fall in line more with those who match their ideals, even conforming other notions we may have previously opposed to match the general belief system.  To clarify, political ideas really fall into a broad spectrum rather than a binary choice, but a two-party system tends to draw people into greater conformity into one side or the other; many people struggle to hold political views that straddle the political divide.  When someone like Donald Trump, a known adulterer, conspiracy theorist, and generally misinformed man takes the leadership of the Republican Party, members of the Church, even those with moderate views in the past, often deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance by simply accepting what was once unacceptable in our president's character and accepting the further extreme views that he espouses.  Rather than leave the Party or accept even simply accept that there is potential error in its ideology, they endorse the man who is president, the leaders who support him, and the more extreme views the Party holds today than it has in the past.

In other words, being a good Latter-day Saint = being a good patriot = being a good Republican.

For so many, there is a willful blindness to the repugnance that our president is and the GOP leaders have become because these aspects of their identity are so intertwined.  To fall short in one is to fall short in all.  Many would rather make excuses for the poor choices Trump and McConnell make than recognize that the noble ideals the GOP once held have been hijacked.

I know that this may be offensive, but I assure you, that is not my intent.  I hope this generates a great deal of discussion, because believe me, I have plenty more to say.

[Carborendum]

@psych_murse,

I think you'll find that most people here whole-heartedly agree that Trump is very wanting in the character department.  In fact, many life-long Republicans here refused to vote for him in 2016.  I'm one of them.

Here is my take:

But how can we compromise?  How do we really decide which is the lesser of two evils?  Most of the time it is an emotional reaction based on which news outlet we're listening to.  Is there a more thoughtful way?

The key is determining the ONE issue that over-rides all others.  And that is going to be different for each person.  But this was the final issue for me.

I realize this will just make you think I'm a mindless follower.  But whatever.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Carborendum

[Jane_Doe]

For me, faith and politics are two extremely different things that need to stay VERY separated.

Faith in my completely perfect Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Politics... frankly national level  my choices are usually voting between individuals of various nuclear-waste quality, representing a bundled group of beliefs that I completely disagree with some of them.

 

I acknowledge that some individuals are very devoted to one party or stance.  I acknowledge their choice in that matter.  But some other individuals are not.  

[Guest psych_murse]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

@psych_murse,

I don't think you'll find that most people here whole-heartedly agree that Trump is very wanting in the character department.  In fact, many life-long Republicans here refused to vote for him in 2016.  I'm one of them.

Here is my take:

But how can we compromise?  How do we really decide which is the lesser of two evils?  Most of the time it is an emotional reaction based on which news outlet we're listening to.  Is there a more thoughtful way?

The key is determining the ONE issue that over-rides all others.  And that is going to be different for each person.  But this was the final issue for me.

I realize this will just make you think I'm a mindless follower.  But whatever.

I want to be clear, I am not calling anyone a mindless follower.  We are all subject to external influences, no matter how we wish to believe we operate completely independently.  I tend to speak very candidly about my perspective, and I am in the mental health field, meaning I take a strong look at the psychology and sociology of people's thinking and behaviors.  I can understand your reasoning, even if I don't agree.  To me, the sum of Trump's parts is too much evil for me to tolerate, even if his views on religious freedoms are closer to what we hope for than a Democrat's.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective!  Please, always feel free to share ideas that differ from mine.  I think you will find I am easy to get along with, even when we see differently.

[Guest psych_murse]

17 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

For me, faith and politics are two extremely different things that need to stay VERY separated.

Faith in my completely perfect Lord & Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Politics... frankly national level  my choices are usually voting between individuals of various nuclear-waste quality, representing a bundled group of beliefs that I completely disagree with some of them.

 

I acknowledge that some individuals are very devoted to one party or stance.  I acknowledge their choice in that matter.  But some other individuals are not.  

I have come to believe that many people are indeed devoted to one party.  Of course, I am always happy to be proven wrong.  That is why I am engaging in discussion!  But I also know that many people are not.  I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat.  There really is no part that fits me well, and I am okay with that.  There are more independents than registered voters in either party.  Nevertheless, I am amazed that, again 58% of very active members of the Church support President Trump.  That does not mean they support one overriding issue as suggested by @Carborendum, but that they favor the majority of things he does as president.  That tells me that a significant part of our membership overlooks his very unchristian behaviors and supports many of his decisions, policies, and behaviors.

[Jane_Doe]

21 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I have come to believe that many people are indeed devoted to one party.  Of course, I am always happy to be proven wrong.  That is why I am engaging in discussion!  But I also know that many people are not.  I am not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat.  There really is no part that fits me well, and I am okay with that.  There are more independents than registered voters in either party.  

That is fair.

21 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

 Nevertheless, I am amazed that, again 58% of very active members of the Church support President Trump. 

58% of members in Utah.  Only ~13% of members live in Utah.  

Now of that small subgroup, what percentage of them are simply going with the lesser evil of their choices?    Obviously that's not a number we have quantified, but it is an important point to remember.  

21 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

 That tells me that a significant part of our membership overlooks his very unchristian behaviors and supports many of his decisions, policies, and behaviors.

That's an unreasonable extrapolation.  It's possible for a person to think he's done a decent job, but also acknowledge that he's a very flawed character (I think Carb would be in that category).  

 

Let's also remember that a loud supporter is...well loud.  And tend to take a very disproportional amount of the spotlight.   There are many many people whom are quiet and hence tend to just get overlooked.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Jane_Doe

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Nevertheless, I am amazed that, again 58% of very active members of the Church support President Trump.  That does not mean they support one overriding issue as suggested by @Carborendum, but that they favor the majority of things he does as president.  That tells me that a significant part of our membership overlooks his very unchristian behaviors and supports many of his decisions, policies, and behaviors.

That 58% of Latter-day Saints support Donald Trump does not imply that they "overlook[] his very unchristian behaviors". That is purely your own inference. In my judgment, it is a faulty and false inference.

If I support Donald Trump, that does not mean that I have "overlook[ed] his very unchristian behaviors." Rather, it means that, given the potential presidential candidates we have before us, I have judged him on the balance to be the best possible (or likely) candidate to be the US President.

This is not a difficult or particularly subtle distinction to make. On the contrary, even the Book of Mormon explicitly makes a similar distinction, describing the Jaredite king Morianton as a man who "did do justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms; wherefore he was cut off from the presence of the Lord." It is entirely possible to perceive a man's wickedness yet still acknowledge him as an effective ruler.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

Hello,

I am a deep believer in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Savior whom we worship.   

Me too.

 

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

 

I grew up in the Church, have served a mission, and was a lifelong Republican...until 2016.  At the nomination of Donald J. Trump, I found that I had too little in common with the GOP and left.    

I am a classical liberal (which is not the same as American liberal).  I had more in common with the Libertarians than the Republicans and had more in common with the Republicans than the Democrats.  

 

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

 

  I do not intend to be inflammatory, but I find that the man is immoral, dishonest, narcissistic, incompetent, uninformed, divisive, and dangerous to our country.     

I said a combination of most or all of these descriptors in all the US Presidents in my lifetime - which started with Jimmy Carter.  Disclaimer:  I'm Filipino.

 

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

If I continue to come out of my shell and post extensively on this site, I assure you I will go into great depth regarding my feelings, which I feel are based on sound principles, both spiritual and scientific.    

You'll have @Just_A_Guy on your side.  I'll be taking the full on TRUMP 2020 BABY! side.

 

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

But for now, I will illustrate the subject of this thread with the following:

Of all the states that voted Republican in 2016, Donald Trump won Utah with only 45.5% of the vote, the lowest of any state that he won.  It seems that part of the likely explanation is that many members of the Church had reservations about him.  Nevertheless, the man became our Republican president.  Even now, recent polls show that 58% of Church members in Utah strongly approve of the job the president is doing.  And this is after his numbers have been declining in the state in recent weeks.  If this is reflective of the general U.S. Church membership, most members of our Church believe that the Republican president is doing our country right.  Even while Republicans in the Senate and House have enabled Trump in his disastrous presidency, Church members appear to stand by the GOP in all things.  

I believe this has much more to do with Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck turning Never Trumpers than anything else.

And, of course, I believe Trump has achieved more to attain the goals of American Conservatism than any other GOP President in my lifetime even after having all the institutions - including the GOP - against him.

 

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

I have looked inwardly and outwardly to see how I came to differ with so many Church members on political views, even while I have retained my strong faith.  My father, a big Trump supporter, and I have had many discussions on this topic.  It makes me wonder if there is a tendency for many Church members to conflate certain views.  We are a Church that has long been patriotic and hold our nation to be divinely appointed.  It seems to me that the GOP is generally the more patriotic, faith-based party.  From a psychological/sociological viewpoint (bearing in mind my username, mind you), people are likely to fall in line more with those who match their ideals, even conforming other notions we may have previously opposed to match the general belief system.  To clarify, political ideas really fall into a broad spectrum rather than a binary choice, but a two-party system tends to draw people into greater conformity into one side or the other; many people struggle to hold political views that straddle the political divide.  When someone like Donald Trump, a known adulterer, conspiracy theorist, and generally misinformed man takes the leadership of the Republican Party, members of the Church, even those with moderate views in the past, often deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance by simply accepting what was once unacceptable in our president's character and accepting the further extreme views that he espouses.  Rather than leave the Party or accept even simply accept that there is potential error in its ideology, they endorse the man who is president, the leaders who support him, and the more extreme views the Party holds today than it has in the past.

In other words, being a good Latter-day Saint = being a good patriot = being a good Republican.

being a good Latter-day Saint = being a good patriot = being a good Republican.

That's a sad statement.  Very sad indeed.  That's like... I'm a Mormon so I should be cheering for BYU instead of UU... mindless.

 

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

For so many, there is a willful blindness to the repugnance that our president is and the GOP leaders have become because these aspects of their identity are so intertwined.  To fall short in one is to fall short in all.  Many would rather make excuses for the poor choices Trump and McConnell make than recognize that the noble ideals the GOP once held have been hijacked.

I know that this may be offensive, but I assure you, that is not my intent.  I hope this generates a great deal of discussion, because believe me, I have plenty more to say.

Offense away... we're not snowflakes here.

[Guest psych_murse]

12 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That is fair.

58% of members in Utah.  Only ~13% of members live in Utah.  

Now of that small subgroup, what percentage of them are simply going with the lesser evil of their choices?    Obviously that's not a number we have quantified, but it is an important point to remember.  

That's an unreasonable extrapolation.  It's possible for a person to think he's done a decent job, but also acknowledge that he's a very flawed character (I think Carb would be in that category).  

 

Let's also remember that a loud support is...well loud.  And tend to take a very disproportional amount of the spotlight.   There are many many people whom are quiet and hence tend to just get overlooked.

Clearly, most members don't live in Utah.  It is merely an example, but one that can reasonably be extrapolated to elsewhere.  I doubt Utah is drastically different in its membership makeup than the remainder of the United States.

I understand that people consider Trump to be the lesser of two evils.  But strongly supporting sounds very much the opposite.  Of course his character is flawed, but I think even his service as president has been harmful as well.

In the United Kingdom, there is a Head of Government (the Prime Minister) and a Head of State (the Queen, and by extension, the royal family).  Who makes policy decisions and influences legislation?  Why, Boris Johnson, of course!  But to whom do people look for an example of what it means to be a Briton?  Who do they look to for unity and national identity?  They look to the Queen.

In the United States, that role exists in the office of the president.  I have heard many people say, "I support our president's policies.  I just don't like what he says," or, "I agree with how Trump governs, even if I don't agree with his personal life."  When Donald Trump fails to acknowledge the violence perpetrated by white supremacists, he is sending a message to the people as the Head of State.  When he tweets conspiracy theories, makes baseless accusations, or undermines a free press, he is influencing the nation as the Head of State.  When no policy changes, but merely his words influence the stock market, he is acting as the Head of State.  Donald Trump is not just a guy with a unique personality but with great policy decisions.  Even if you support his policies, his behavior influences this country for ill.

I feel my words have been misjudged.  Please read my comments carefully, as I am hesitant to ever use absolutes.  I don't say "all" or "the vast majority" or "always" or "none" or "never" in my initial post.  That is because I do not believe any of this is universally true and I try not to overgeneralize.  I just find such thinking more widespread than I wish.  Be careful not to read absolutes into my statements.

[Guest psych_murse]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

That 58% of Latter-day Saints support Donald Trump does not imply that they "overlook[] his very unchristian behaviors". That is purely your own inference. In my judgment, it is a faulty and false inference.

If I support Donald Trump, that does not mean that I have "overlook[ed] his very unchristian behaviors." Rather, it means that, given the potential presidential candidates we have before us, I have judged him on the balance to be the best possible (or likely) candidate to be the US President.

This is not a difficult or particularly subtle distinction to make. On the contrary, even the Book of Mormon explicitly makes a similar distinction, describing the Jaredite king Morianton as a man who "did do justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms; wherefore he was cut off from the presence of the Lord." It is entirely possible to perceive a man's wickedness yet still acknowledge him as an effective ruler.

I think you have not read the article carefully.  These are people who "strongly support" the president.  That implies that they support his policies (many of which I find unchristian and extreme), and either they are more important than his behaviors, or else they support his behaviors as well.  What they fail to realize is that his behaviors and his policies are part of the office of the president.  If you accept the policies and not the behaviors, then you fail to appreciate the influence the president has on the nation and the world.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

These are people who "strongly support" the president.  That implies that they support his policies (many of which I find unchristian and extreme),

It implies no such thing. Again, that is merely your inference, and not the logical implication.

8 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

and either they are more important than his behaviors, or else they support his behaviors as well.

This is a false dichotomy.

8 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

What they fail to realize is that his behaviors and his policies are part of the office of the president.

I very seriously doubt they "fail to realize" this most obvious of observations.

9 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

If you accept the policies and not the behaviors, then you fail to appreciate the influence the president has on the nation and the world.

Short of being possessed of ESP, how can you possibly make such a judgment?

[Guest psych_murse]

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Me too.

 

I am a classical liberal (which is not the same as American liberal).  I had more in common with the Libertarians than the Republicans and had more in common with the Republicans than the Democrats.  

 

I said a combination of most or all of these descriptors in all the US Presidents in my lifetime - which started with Jimmy Carter.  Disclaimer:  I'm Filipino.

 

You'll have @Just_A_Guy on your side.  I'll be taking the full on TRUMP 2020 BABY! side.

I believe this has much more to do with Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck turning Never Trumpers than anything else.

Eh, I really think it had more to do with Evan McMullin.  But still, as a people who stand for character, I am amazed at how many of our faith have discarded the importance of character in favor of other things.

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And, of course, I believe Trump has achieved more to attain the goals of American Conservatism than any other GOP President in my lifetime even after having all the institutions - including the GOP - against him.

The GOP was against him during the Republican nomination process, but I have seen little opposition during his time as president, even from those who truly have opposed him (e.g. Paul Ryan).  He operates unhindered by the Republican congressional leaders.  And I feel that what I valued as conservatism he has taken too far to the Right.

Admittedly, my disagreement with his extreme (to me) policies is part of what upsets me about him as well.

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

being a good Latter-day Saint = being a good patriot = being a good Republican.

That's a sad statement.  Very sad indeed.  That's like... I'm a Mormon so I should be cheering for BYU instead of UU... mindless.

I do not intend to call anyone mindless.  It's human nature to think heuristically.  Once we've made a conclusion, it's hard to separate ourselves from that conclusion (e.g. Republicans value religious freedom; I am religious; hence, I am Republican).  It really becomes a matter of identity for some people.

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Offense away... we're not snowflakes here.

Well, I will still try to be careful in my wording.  Thanks for the reply!

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Clearly, most members don't live in Utah.  It is merely an example, but one that can reasonably be extrapolated to elsewhere. 

That's an not a reasonable extrapolation. 

7 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I understand that people consider Trump to be the lesser of two evils.  But strongly supporting sounds very much the opposite. 

Also not a reasonable extrapolation.

7 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I feel my words have been misjudged.  Please read my comments carefully, as I am hesitant to ever use absolutes.  I don't say "all" or "the vast majority" or "always" or "none" or "never" in my initial post.  That is because I do not believe any of this is universally true and I try not to overgeneralize.  I just find such thinking more widespread than I wish.  Be careful not to read absolutes into my statements.

I have read your words carefully.  

[Guest psych_murse]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

It implies no such thing. Again, that is merely your inference, and not the logical implication.

Saying they strongly support him means that they do not strongly support his policies?  Then I fail to understand what they could possibly be supporting.

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is a false dichotomy.

A false dichotomy implies there are more than two options.  I strive to avoid those.  Please tell me of what other options one who supports our president in spite of his character could think.  I genuinely do not see other options.

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I very seriously doubt they "fail to realize" this most obvious of observations.

How can a member of the Church support someone who has spoken out against democratic (lowercase D) principles, engages in divisive rhetoric, suggests conspiracy theories that genuinely have harmed others, bullies others into submission, and lies with great frequency?  The only way I can see it is if they do not consider his character as an essential part of his presidency.

Let me put it this way: If I loved every policy decision Trump enacted, yet didn't like his character, when a pollster asks me how strongly I support him, I would not answer "strongly."  To answer in that manner means I support his character and his policy-making.  I could not honestly answer any other way.

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Short of being possessed of ESP, how can you possibly make such a judgment?

Clearly, when people indicate that they strongly support our president, they are putting aside the influence of his personality, at least to some degree, considering it of lesser importance.  Or else they simply agree with him on those things as well.

Is this a false dichotomy?  Again, I see no other answer.  Please provide me with other options.

[Guest psych_murse]

6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

That's an not a reasonable extrapolation. 

Do you think Utah members are generally more conservative than elsewhere?  I would surmise that, at least in the States, that is fairly representative.

6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Also not a reasonable extrapolation.

Please see my previous post.

6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I have read your words carefully.  

If you have, then you can see that I am not generalizing.  I am speaking of "many," but not "all," or even "the vast majority."  I do not know how many feel this way and would not dare to declare anything with greater certainty or generality.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Do you think Utah members are generally more conservative than elsewhere?  I would surmise that, at least in the States, that is fairly representative.

Please see my previous post.

If you have, then you can see that I am not generalizing.  I am speaking of "many," but not "all," or even "the vast majority."  I do not know how many feel this way and would not dare to declare anything with greater certainty or generality.

@psych_murse, IO do find your post to be extremely over generalizing. There's just no way around it.

You can't assume that all 16? million LDS Saints are the same as those found in Utah, as if membership in a church was the only factor determining a person.

You can't assume that being supportive a person's political governance means that they are supportive of a person's personal contact.

You've been given examples to the contrary, but I don't think they're being heard, which furthers the impression that you're generalizing.

 

(Note: I'm saying this all as a non-Trumper whom didn't vote for him last time and won't this time either)

[Vort]

37 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Saying they strongly support him means that they do not strongly support his policies?  Then I fail to understand what they could possibly be supporting.

Possibilities include:

• They support him on one or several issues they consider of overriding importance, regardless of how much they like him generally.
• They think he's a heckuva great guy.
• They like that he bothers Democrats and media types.
• They recognize that he is the President, and they support the current President as a matter of patriotism, regardless of whether or not they agree with him.
• They credit him for an economic turnaround that they have personally experienced.
• They like what they perceive as his "America-first" attitude.
• They like how outspoken he is.
• They like his cool haircut.
• They're into red hats.
• They think his wife is hot.
• They met him this one time, and he was friendlier than they expected, so they're disposed to feel positively toward him.
• He ran into a burning building to save their ailing mother fifty years ago.

Note that the above is not an exhaustive list.

Quote

A false dichotomy implies there are more than two options.  I strive to avoid those.  Please tell me of what other options one who supports our president in spite of his character could think.  I genuinely do not see other options.

The two options you provided for why Latter-day Saints might support Trump are:

• either they [Trump's presidential policies] are more important than his behaviors,
• or else they [Trump's LDS supporters] support his behaviors as well.

Other possible options include:

• They support Trump out of a general principle of supporting one's President, similar to sustaining one's ecclesiastical leaders
• They think that on the balance, Trump does more good than harm.
• They support him against the absurdly lopsided media barrage against him.
• They like his foreign policy.

Heck, read through the first list again for a (non-exhaustive) list of reasons.

Quote

How can a member of the Church support someone who has spoken out against democratic (lowercase D) principles, engages in divisive rhetoric, suggests conspiracy theories that genuinely have harmed others, bullies others into submission, and lies with great frequency?  The only way I can see it is if they do not consider his character as an essential part of his presidency.

They probably disagree with your unfounded assertions, for one thing (e.g. "spoken out against democratic principles"—which principles are these?). They may perceive Trump's supposedly "divisive rhetoric" as simply telling the truth, however unpopular that truth might be among the politically correct and the media types (but I repeat myself). Maybe they actually believe those ideas that you dismiss as mere conspiracy theories. Maybe they see those whom you characterize as having been "bullied into submission" instead as having been forced to admit the truth instead of being allowed to continue hiding behind their wall of perpetual lies. Maybe they don't see many of Trump's claims as "lies", as you characterize them, but rather as hyperbole against the strait-jacketed Democrat Party and their compliant media cronies.

You demonstrate a narrow, rigid view of how things are. You ascribe your own perceptions, many of which are faulty and greatly biased, to everyone else, then wonder how anyone could possibly reach conclusions that differ from yours. If you would open your mind and consider possibilities outside what you're used to—including and perhaps especially possibilities outside the academic realm of sociology and psychology, two notoriously biased and unscientific areas—you might better understand the behaviors that you currently find so baffling.

Quote

Let me put it this way: If I loved every policy decision Trump enacted, yet didn't like his character, when a pollster asks me how strongly I support him, I would not answer "strongly."  To answer in that manner means I support his character and his policy-making.  I could not honestly answer any other way.

And your perception of how you might respond to a hypothetical pollster applies to those who actually did respond to the real pollsters...how?

Quote

Clearly, when people indicate that they strongly support our president, they are putting aside the influence of his personality, at least to some degree, considering it of lesser importance.  Or else they simply agree with him on those things as well.

Is this a false dichotomy?  Again, I see no other answer.  Please provide me with other options.

Yes, you are very obviously using a false dichotomy. This is so obvious that I'm just gobsmacked that you cannot see it.

Perhaps people support Trump in spite of his off-putting personality characteristics, not because of them. They are not "putting aside" those characteristics; they simply think that the good outweighs the bad.

The fact that you are so blind to your obvious biases is rather frustrating. But if you're willing to consider what I've written above, you might find a way out of your own biases and discover an ability to comprehend and perhaps even sympathize with the viewpoints of those who do not see things like you do.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Vort

[Guest psych_murse]

Hmmm...your last paragraph is...ironic.  That said, while perhaps my dichotomies were oversimplifications, your non-sarcastic efforts to create more options essentially fit into one choice or the other of the two that I offered.  And my two choices are not necessarily bad; just broad.  If you want, I can categorize them for you.

Divisive rhetoric is not just speaking the truth.  How many Republicans were offended at Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment, but give Trump a pass on things like: "[Mexican immigrants are] bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."?  That's just for starters.  That's not just being politically incorrect.  That's not simply speaking the truth in a straightforward manner.  In fact, Trump's boldness does not equate to truthfulness.  He is a well documented liar, with some of his most damaging rhetoric surrounding the current pandemic.

I am actually not very rigid in my thinking.  I am trained in behavioral health and read multiple sides to a story.  My views have morphed a great deal over the years.  I would argue that your views are rigid, as evidenced by your unsupported claim to the lack of evidence surrounding psychology and sociology.

I'm just about out of time right now.  There are many examples I could provide of opposing democratic principles ("When you are president, your power is total"; his excessive use of executive orders at a higher rate than Obama [an unencumbered abuse of power stretching back for many presidencies, mind you] "I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president"; declaring national emergencies for non-emergencies to appropriate funds for a political cause; inviting other nations to interfere with the democratic process of the election; his constant undermining of the independent media), though some might have been better termed offenses to republican (small R) principles.

At the end of the day, we all have bias.  But I choose to adopt a bias based on the most information possible.  I am not selective because I am convinced the truth only comes from Right wing news outlets.  You make a lot of assumptions, my friend, and have become surprisingly offended over all of this.  I can guarantee that I have likely considered far more points of view on this than you, but I don't think my discussion is going as well as I had hoped.  I don't know that I want to continue it.

Edited June 19, 2020 by psych_murse

[NeuroTypical]

I was born into a world that valued the office of President in terms of moral or ethical role model.  Nixon was an exception to the rule, and his party turned on him over watergate.   

Then Clinton had oral sex in the oval office and lied under oath, was impeached and disbarred.  The number of Americans who expect "presidential" behavior to be a good role model, fell drastically.  I watched half the country shrug it off as if it was no biggie.  I watched his wife defend him out of political expediency.  

I don't like many things about Trump, his past behaviors, his divisiveness, and some other things.  I also am aware that the "mainstream media" has been in full-on fake news attack mode for 3 years, and people who get their news from such sources, well, the term "brainwashed" isn't as sensational or out-in-left-field as it used to be.  

 

[Guest psych_murse]

Is fake news fake because it can be demonstrated as such, or just because those who disagree with it label it as such?  Because when I read Fox or OANN vs. AP or NPR vs. CNN or MSNBC, I find that the greatest inconsistency in the storytelling comes from Fox and OANN.

I'll give you one final example, and I will probably stop replying to this topic.

I am a nurse.  I am a nursing director in a hospital.  I am nearly a nurse practitioner.  I have not only studied behavioral health, but also medicine (which is hopefully held in higher esteem 'round here).  Donald Trump says that the reporting on the pandemic is designed to hurt the economy and him, not save lives.  He lies about the numbers.  He lies about the severity.  He lies about the trend of the virus.  He spouts off about the effectiveness of unproven drugs and therapies.  People make decisions based on his lies.  My rural city is starting to get hit hard with this virus.  I am part of the leadership that is witnessing the increasing cases, seeing their severity, planning for the pending PPE and bed shortages.  We have seen people die and we have not even come close to hitting our peak in this area.  This is not a news report that I am reading.  I am witnessing a more deadly virus than the flu.  I am seeing the anxiety of medical experts in this area.  And I see the people of this community shrugging of severity of this disease because they are convinced it is a hoax.  I see them shirking mask-wearing and social distancing because of "fake news."  They haven't seen what we are seeing in the hospital.  In other words, the deaths in New York or Lombardy were not witnessed by them, so they must be fake news.  President Trump's and their hunches and intuition are more valuable meaningful than data and real life happenings.  Those things are just fake news.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

Eh, I really think it had more to do with Evan McMullin.  But still, as a people who stand for character, I am amazed at how many of our faith have discarded the importance of character in favor of other things.  

Evan McMullin... yeah.  I still stand by my theory that Romney put the CIA plant LDS McMullin on the ballot to sabotage the GOP from getting to 270 and call for a run-off that will be decided by his pal Paul Ryan. 

"Character"... yeah, lots of people say that.  They think people have to have a certain "character" when all they really want is somebody who PRETENDS to have such a certain character.  Basically, you can be a sleazeball in private as long as you're a saint in public.

 

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

The GOP was against him during the Republican nomination process, but I have seen little opposition during his time as president, even from those who truly have opposed him (e.g. Paul Ryan).  He operates unhindered by the Republican congressional leaders.  And I feel that what I valued as conservatism he has taken too far to the Right.  

Because the guy is actually doing AMAZING stuff for the conservatives in the GOP.  Not the war-mongering neocons in the GOP-E mind you... 

And, if you think that Trump is taking conservatism TOO FAR to the right... then you're a neocon.  The TEA Party did not try to take over the GOP for no reason.

 

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

Admittedly, my disagreement with his extreme (to me) policies is part of what upsets me about him as well.

I do not intend to call anyone mindless.  It's human nature to think heuristically.  Once we've made a conclusion, it's hard to separate ourselves from that conclusion (e.g. Republicans value religious freedom; I am religious; hence, I am Republican).  It really becomes a matter of identity for some people.

I did not call anyone mindless.  I called engaging in politics like a team sport, mindless. 

And here you are, thinking Republicans value religious freedom, yet you face THE President who has actually defended religious freedom by EXECUTIVE ACTION rather than just claiming religiosity heading the Republicans and you're jumping ship.  Where's your identity?

 

1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

Well, I will still try to be careful in my wording.  Thanks for the reply!

I'm not very careful.  But English is only my 3rd language, so I have a ready excuse. 

 

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Hmmm...your last paragraph is...ironic.

How so?

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

That said, while perhaps my dichotomies were oversimplifications, your non-sarcastic efforts to create more options essentially fit into one choice or the other of the two that I offered.

None of my examples was sarcastic. You continue to miss the point, which is simply that people can have all sorts of reasons why they say they support Trump, outside the narrow false dichotomies that you presented.

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

And one of my two choices is not necessarily a bad choice.  If you want, I can categorize them for you.

Let's examine this claim. Here is your judgment on your fellow Saints, a short quote taken directly from your original post for this thread:

3 hours ago, psych_murse said:

When someone like Donald Trump, a known adulterer, conspiracy theorist, and generally misinformed man takes the leadership of the Republican Party, members of the Church, even those with moderate views in the past, often deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance by simply accepting what was once unacceptable in our president's character and accepting the further extreme views that he espouses.  Rather than leave the Party or accept even simply accept that there is potential error in its ideology, they endorse the man who is president, the leaders who support him, and the more extreme views the Party holds today than it has in the past.

In other words, being a good Latter-day Saint = being a good patriot = being a good Republican.

For so many, there is a willful blindness to the repugnance that our president is and the GOP leaders have become because these aspects of their identity are so intertwined.  To fall short in one is to fall short in all.  Many would rather make excuses for the poor choices Trump and McConnell make than recognize that the noble ideals the GOP once held have been hijacked.

Note the bolded statements you make above. Each of them is a judgment that you have passed on your fellow Saints. Each of them is completely made up by you, not said by anyone else, least of all by those whom you are judging. And in each case, you apply your (mis)judgment of your fellow Saints as if what you write is somehow true. You are no longer discussing hypotheticals, if you ever were. You are rather impugning your fellow Saints and acting bewildered at their stupidity.

How can you not see the problem with this?

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Divisive rhetoric is not just speaking the truth.  How many Republicans were offended at Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment, but give Trump a pass on things like: "[Mexican immigrants are] bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."?

To apply Trump's words to Mexican immigrants in general is unfair. That much I agree with. But is anything Trump said about the effects of illegal Mexican immigration untrue? Do illegal immigrants not bring drugs? Crime? Rape? And are not some immigrants good people?

Quick question: Does Mexico enforce its southern border against illegal crossings? (Hint: Yes, it does.)

And of course if you are honest, you have to consider the context in which Trump made these statements. The Democrats literally want open borders. Literally. They want no border enforcement. That was the context of Trump's comments, and it is dishonest to remove Trump's comments from that context. In context, Trump was clumsily saying that we need to keep our borders enforced, because if we don't, we invite all sorts of criminal activity.

And of course, Trump was right about that, as any and every honest person must concede. Regardless of his juvenile and possibly inflammatory wording, this is what he was saying. You were there. You know that's what he was saying.

I agree that it was a politically stupid thing to say. Trump is good at saying politically stupid things, and apparently surviving them. But underneath his cloddish wording, Trump had a perfectly valid point. In contrast, what was Clinton's point? "Anyone who disagrees with our Democrat agenda is deplorable."

And you don't think that's divisive?

The two are not even comparable. Clinton's words are vastly more divisive and evil than Trump's.

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I am actually not very rigid in my thinking.

psych_murse is not rigid in his thinking. Want proof? Just ask him.

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I am trained in behavioral health and read multiple sides to a story.  My views have morphed a great deal over the years.  I would argue that your views are rigid, as evidenced by your unsupported claim to the lack of evidence surrounding psychology and sociology.

Unsupported? Seriously?

Look, I mean no personal offense. I understand that you have a personal and professional vested interest in defending psychology and sociology as scientific endeavors. But you cannot possibly be ignorant of what goes on in published circles. Undoubtedly you are familiar with the infamous Sokal affair. Likely you are familiar with the similar Grievance Studies affair. Whatever your opinions on the relevance or rigor of sociology or psychology, please do not try to claim, explicitly or implicitly, that a sociological study generally meets anything like the same rigorous standard as a published study in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, or any engineering discipline (other than "social engineering" 😂).

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

At the end of the day, we all have bias.  But I choose to adopt a bias based on the most information possible.

Right. You're Mister Information. That's why you are so perplexed at the actions of your fellow Saints. It's because you're so darn unbiased.

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I am not selective because I am convinced the truth only comes from Right wing news outlets.

Huh? That's totally out of left field. What do "Right wing news outlets" have to do with anything we've been discussing?

...hmmmmm...

...ooooooh. I get it. You're rather artlessly implying that I must get my opinion from believing that "the truth only comes from Right wing news outlets." With no evidence whatsoever, you simply make this assumption and attribute it to me because, after all, that must be what's going on. Because why else would I hold the wrong opinions I do, instead of joining you in your enlightened state?

Remember what I said before about the biases inherent in the mindset of sociology and psychology? The above is a really beautiful little example of exactly that; though I don't expect you will likely concede or even recognize it as such.

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

You make a lot of assumptions, my friend, and have become surprisingly offended over all of this.

What are you talking about? I'm not "offended over all this." Yet another false inference on your part. I have simply been giving direct, simple answers to your questions, reasons why your fellow Saints might believe as they do despite the information that you think is to the contrary. But it does appear that at least one party in this conversation has become offended.

I think that's what the psychologists call "projection".

Serious question: Why do you refuse to acknowledge your own heavy biases and the clear fact that your inability even to understand the opinions of your fellow Saints might be due to your own insufficiencies rather than theirs?

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I can guarantee that I have likely considered far more points of view on this than you

😂 Another great psychology/sociology statement. How can you demonstrate your guarantee? Let's see it. I will pay you $1000 if you can demonstrate your guarantee above, and you pay me $1000 if you cannot. Deal?

14 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

but I don't think my discussion is going as well as I had hoped.  I don't know that I want to continue it.

I realize it's a bit painful when your sloppy thinking gets called out in a discussion. It happens to the best of us. But stomping your foot, shouting "No fair!", and slinking away isn't the most productive way to proceed. You might do much better to actually internalize and truthfully consider the points I have brought up.

[Vort]

27 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I am a nurse.  I am a nursing director in a hospital.  I am nearly a nurse practitioner.  I have not only studied behavioral health, but also medicine (which is hopefully held in higher esteem 'round here).  Donald Trump says that the reporting on the pandemic is designed to hurt the economy and him, not save lives.  He lies about the numbers.  He lies about the severity.  He lies about the trend of the virus.  He spouts off about the effectiveness of unproven drugs and therapies.  People make decisions based on his lies.  My rural city is starting to get hit hard with this virus.  I am part of the leadership that is witnessing the increasing cases, seeing their severity, planning for the pending PPE and bed shortages.  We have seen people die and we have not even come close to hitting our peak in this area.  This is not a news report that I am reading.  I am witnessing a more deadly virus than the flu.  I am seeing the anxiety of medical experts in this area.  And I see the people of this community shrugging of severity of this disease because they are convinced it is a hoax.  I see them shirking mask-wearing and social distancing because of "fake news."  They haven't seen what we are seeing in the hospital.  In other words, the deaths in New York or Lombardy were not witnessed by them, so they must be fake news.  President Trump's and their hunches and intuition are more valuable meaningful than data and real life happenings.  Those things are just fake news.

Question for you, psych_murse:

What ever happened to "flatten the curve"? When and why did it morph into "Never ever ever get COVID-19 ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER!"?

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

Is fake news fake because it can be demonstrated as such, or just because those who disagree with it label it as such?  Because when I read Fox or OANN vs. AP or NPR vs. CNN or MSNBC, I find that the greatest inconsistency in the storytelling comes from Fox and OANN.  

I will demonstrate to you Fake News in one image... Ready?

 

19 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

I am a nurse.  I am a nursing director in a hospital.  I am nearly a nurse practitioner.  I have not only studied behavioral health, but also medicine (which is hopefully held in higher esteem 'round here).  Donald Trump says that the reporting on the pandemic is designed to hurt the economy and him, not save lives.  He lies about the numbers.  He lies about the severity.  He lies about the trend of the virus.  He spouts off about the effectiveness of unproven drugs and therapies.  People make decisions based on his lies.  My rural city is starting to get hit hard with this virus.  I am part of the leadership that is witnessing the increasing cases, seeing their severity, planning for the pending PPE and bed shortages.  We have seen people die and we have not even come close to hitting our peak in this area.  This is not a news report that I am reading.  I am witnessing a more deadly virus than the flu.  I am seeing the anxiety of medical experts in this area.  And I see the people of this community shrugging of severity of this disease because they are convinced it is a hoax.  I see them shirking mask-wearing and social distancing because of "fake news."  They haven't seen what we are seeing in the hospital.  In other words, the deaths in New York or Lombardy were not witnessed by them, so they must be fake news.  President Trump's and their hunches and intuition are more valuable meaningful than data and real life happenings.  Those things are just fake news.

Now all those bolded phrases above is a by-product of Fake News.

You're a nurse.  I'm a Systems Engineer.  I deal with DATA MODELS.  We don't get personal with the numbers that's why they call Systems Engineers to come up with these objective models and not nurses who looks at the numbers and sees patients and family members they have to tell bad news to.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, psych_murse said:

In the United Kingdom, there is a Head of Government (the Prime Minister) and a Head of State (the Queen, and by extension, the royal family).  Who makes policy decisions and influences legislation?  Why, Boris Johnson, of course!  But to whom do people look for an example of what it means to be a Briton?  Who do they look to for unity and national identity?  They look to the Queen.

In the United States, that role exists in the office of the president.

Ever since Bill Clinton, I honestly cannot think of a single person who looks to the POTUS as a role-model of what it is to be American.