Books as reasons to agree or disagree with beliefs

What we become depends on what we read after all of the professors have finished with us. The greatest university of all is a collection of books."

• Thomas Carlyle

Ideas

 

We should allow users suggest books as reasons to agree or disagree with an idea. Now start thinking ahead what an algorithm could do, if someone says that a book agrees with their beliefs. Data is readily available from Amazon or E-bay or the New York Times best selling list of how well a book has sold.

 

So there would be three fields. One place where you submit the item that agrees or disagrees with the original idea. The second field would let you classify the object. Is it a book, awebsite, or simply a logical argument. The third field would be a place where the user explains why he thinks the book supports the conclusion that he/she has come to. Of course, people would be allowed to vote weather or not the book actually does support the side that the original user said that it would.

 

This is where the algorithm could get very sophisticated. Would you want to give more credibility to those who said they had actually read the book? Would you want to give even more credibility to those who had bought the book, as more proof that they actually read the book. Or how about people that used the website mediachest and could prove that they have the book, by the fact that they have let others use the book. What about people who wrote an essay on the book on the website. If Google was doing this, they could provide a place for users to write essays on books, similar to how Amazon lets users write essays. Perhaps they could not let people copy and paste essays into the form. It would only allow people to type their essays directly, to prevent stealing of essays. Perhaps people could vote on weather the book-essays were good or not similar to how Amazon lets users rate reviews, as to weather the review was "helpful" or not.

 

So, as an example, you could submit a best selling book as a reason to agree with an idea, and then right a thoroughly convincing explanation of why this book agrees with the idea, and an essay that proves that you understand the main points of the book.

 

If Google really wants to organize the worlds information, they must do this. We have plenty of books, we have plenty of content on the internet. We need ways of organizing this information into what it all means, and how all this information should affect us. The only good way information can affect us, is for it to help us make better decisions. In order for us to make better decisions, we must know all of the reasons to agree or disagree with a particular course of action. In order to do this, we should not start at ground zero, with only our own thoughts in our head. We should bring together all of the great thinkers from the ages from every corner of the planet, and organize all of their great thoughts, so that we can make the right decisions.

 

As you can see, this algorithm could be very simple, but it could also offer programmers hundreds of years of challenges to make it more sophisticated. I believe this is a strength of the idea, because it allows for continual improvement.

 

Examples

 

Books that agree that schools need to be reformed.

1. De-schooling Society, by Ivan Illitch

Interest

Please help me brainstorm the most probable interest of those who agree or disagree with Romney on each issue. Just leave what you think motivates each side in the comment section, and I will add it to the list. Also, tell me the percentage of those who agree with Romneyyou think are motivated by each motivation. I will try to put the most likely motivation towards the top of the list.

The book Getting to Yes, tells us that we need to focus on interest instead of positions. To understand why someone believes something we must understand their interest. What are their values? Different interest or values lead to different positions.

Of course it is best when the author of an idea submits their interest. However others users of the website could submit and then vote on the most likely motivations of each side.

We need to also classify interest as opposing interest or mutual interest. 

Businesses interest might include low taxes and good infrastructure.

Reasons

We need to have reasons to agree and disagree with Romney on the same page. We also need to have a post for each issue (that doesn't change topics), and then brainstorms all the reasons to agree and disagree with Romney, with the best reasons at the top of their respective list.

Steven Write said; "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking ." And it is true. People make decisions becaus they only heard part of the story, and they never examined all the reasons to agree and disagree. That is why I want to use the power of the internet to brainstorm all the reasons to agree and disagree with Romney.

If we separate our reasons to agree and disagree, and classify the reasons we could do some pretty cool stuff with computer software.

For instance we could create a computer algorithm that gives points to Romney's beliefs based on the number or reasons to agree with him. Then each reason can become its own post, with reasons to agree and disagree with it.

Every issue should have it's own comprehensive list of reasons to agree or disagree.

This would allow us to perform a Google duel between all the items that agree and disagree, which could represent the overall strength of the idea.

We could let people rate the reasons to agree or disagree, were the overall score of the reasons that agree contribute to the idea, and the overall score of the reasons that disagree take away from the score of the main idea.

We could assign a score to each reason based on the number of reasons that agree with it. The overall score of the reasons in the "reasons to agree" category would contribute to the overall score of the main idea.

This will allow us to talk to our ancestors, and include all the smart things that they said, about issues that we still face today. As we start thinking about this, we can see why a web site like the history channel may want to adopt it. What does Abraham Lincoln have to say about issues we are facing today?

Like Abraham Lincoln said, it is not so important that we pray that God is on ourside, but that we are on God's side. The same thing about the truth. We shoudn't work to try to prove that the truth is on our side, but that we are on the truth's side. If we have a truth promoting forum, then it is safe to investigate both sides of an issue. We have nothing to fear from those who would disagree with us, as long as we are on the side of truth, and we have a format that alows for rational debate. Using lists of reasons to agree or disagree is a very good way of thouroughly investigating an issue, without letting either side hi-jack the discusion, by changing the topic, talking too long. Each side should bring their best arguments, and list them on a page. If we are not in a shouting mach, or competing for a limited amount of time, why not thoroughly investigate an idea? We don't need to silence the other side, we just need to prove that they are wrong.

Usually, one point won't convince someone they are wrong. Everyone needs to feel that they got all of their reasons out on the table. We are not discounting people's beliefs, we are responding to them.

Solar Panel and Wind Turbine Idea

When wealthy people die, much of their money gets taxed. It is called
the estate tax, by those who like the tax and the death tax by those
who want to make the tax sound morbid. In nations that have the estate
tax, rich people who spend their money on solar panels or wind
turbines could avoid it, with all the money that they use for that
equipment.

This would stimulate the market for this equipment. Billions of
dollars would get invested in this wind turbines and solar panels. And
we wouldn't be going around the estate tax really, because when you
die you are not transferring money, or houses. You give your kids a
pile of solar panels or wind turbines. The "value" of these items do
not get taxed.

So instead of Paris Hilton getting access to offshore bank accounts
when her father dies, she would get millions of dollars of solar
equipment that her dad bought in 2010, that helped stimulate the
economy, and that she can use to produce clean energy.

Obama is right about evolution

 Q: If one of your daughters asked you, "Daddy, did God really create the world in 6 days?" What would you say?

A: What I believe is that God created the universe, and that the 6 days in the Bible may not be 6 days as we understand it. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth, that is fundamentally true. Now whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible, that I don't presume to know. But one last point--I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith. Just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion. And I fundamentally disagree with that. In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Obama is right about anti-intellectualism

Reasons to agree:

1. People hate smart kids.
2. Americans are way over-fascinated with calling smart people nerds, and geeks. This is not done so much in other cultures.

Background: "I try to avoid an either/or approach to solving the problems of this country. There are questions of individual responsibility and questions of societal responsibility to be dealt with. The best example is an education. I'm going to insist that we've got decent funding, enough teachers, and computers in the classroom, but unless you turn off the television set and get over a certain anti-intellectualism that I think pervades some low-income communities, our children are not going to achieve." ~ Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004

Obama is right on Merit Pay

Reasons to agree:

1. We should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. 
   

2. " Teachers are extraordinarily frustrated about how their performance is assessed. And not just their own performance, but the school's performance generally. So they're teaching to the tests all the time. What I have said is that we should be able to get buy-in from teachers in terms of how to measure progress. Every teacher I think wants to succeed. And if we give them a pathway to professional development, where we're creating master teachers, they are helping with apprenticeships for young new teachers, they are involved in a variety of other activities, that are really adding value to the schools, then we should be able to give them more money for it. But we should only do it if the teachers themselves have some buy-in in terms of how they're measured. They can't be judged simply on standardized tests that don't take into account whether children are prepared before they get to school or not." ~ Barack Obama, 2007 Democratic primary debate on "This Week" Aug 19, 2007

Background

Q: As president, can you name a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line & say, "You know what? Republicans have a better idea here?"

A: I think that on issues of education, I've been very clear about the fact--and sometimes I've gotten in trouble with the teachers' union on this--that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers.

Q: You mean merit pay?

A: Well, merit pay, the way it's been designed, I think, is based on just a single standardized test--I think is a big mistake, because the way we measure performance may be skewed by whether or not the kids are coming into school already 3 years or 4 years behind. But I think that having assessment tools and then saying, "You know what? Teachers who are on career paths to become better teachers, developing themselves professionally--that we should pay excellence more." I think that's a good idea.

Source: 2008 Fox News interview: presidential series Apr 27, 2008

Obama is right to want higher teaching standards

Reasons to agree:

1. Those students in Education departments across the country have had worse ACT, and SAT grades than other college departments. They even have worse grades than Criminal Justice departments (cops). It is sad that cops can know math, geography, history, and science, better than those that we put in charge of teaching our children. We need higher standards for teachers, if we are going to pay them more. I'm not saying every teacher is stupid. If you are a teacher, and you are offended, than you prove my point. You are stupid. The facts are the facts, and if you get mad because of the facts, than you are stupid. I'm from Idaho. I'm not offended when you say bad things about people from Idaho, in general, because I know that you are not talking about me specifically. Of course their are a lot of very smart people who are teachers. I thought about going into teaching. My father, whom I love and respect very much is a teacher. My mother in law is also a very good teacher. Two of my 3 brothers got degrees in teaching. Their is nothing wrong with teachers, with colleges of education, etc, we just need to raise their standards if we want our students to do better. 

"I'll recruit an army of new teachers, pay them higher salaries and give them more support. In exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability." ~ Barack Obama speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention Aug 27, 2008.

Obama is right that quitting high school is quitting on your country

Reasons to agree:

1. "In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity--it is a prerequisite. And yet, we have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish. This is a prescription for economic decline. So tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country. That's why we will provide the support necessary for all young Americans to complete college and meet a new goal: By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world."  Source: 2009 State of the Union address Feb 24, 2009

Obama is right that some heinous crimes justify the ultimate punishment

Reasons to agree:

1. "While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated" The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006

Obama is right about videotape all capital interrogations

Reasons to agree:

1. "Obama had a 2002 bill to stop police abuse. Chicago had become infamous for use of torture by police to help frame innocent people. Thirteen innocent men on Death Row were exonerated and released, some of them victims of these tortured confessions. Illinois desperately needed some action to restore confidence in the police. Obama's proposal was to require videotaping of interrogations of suspects in capital cases. When Obama began, the idea of a bill was opposed by police, prosecutors, most of the senate and the governor. The governor was determined not to appear soft on crime, and had promised to veto any proposal for mandatory tapings. By the time Obama finished his work, the police and prosecutors embraced the bill, it passed in the Illinois Senate by a vote of 58-0. The governor took the unusual step of reversing himself to sign it, and Illinois became the first state to require such tapings." ~ The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.145 Oct 30, 2007. I think Obama is right, however from this paragraph it seems like some people were desperately trying to exaggerate his involvement. But none of that matters in 2012. He does not have to inflate his Resume any more.

Obama passed on stupid urban legends that exaggerated racial problems.

Reasons to agree:

1. "I don't want to wake up four years from now and discover that we still have more young black men in prison than in college." ~ Barack Obama, fund-raiser in Harlem, NY, Nov. 29, 2007.

   "Simply untrue, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There may be a case for arguing, as some Obama supporters have done, that the total number of black prisoners is slightly higher than the total number of black students. But I can only fact check the comparison the candidate actually made, which was between young black men in prison and in college. Rather than acknowledge the error, the Obama campaign declined to provide statistical support." Source: GovWatch on 2008 Pinocchio Awards for Biggest Fib of 2007 Jan 1, 2008. As GovWatch points out, there are more black men in prison (age 18 to 100 years old) than there are "young  black men" in college. However Obama said there were more young black men in prison than in college, which is far from true.

Obama is right about the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine

Reasons to agree:

1. Rich people use cocain. Poor people use crack. It is wrong to punish the poor people more.

Obama is right to try to ban racial profiling

"Obama will work to ban racial profiling" ~ Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 48-49 Feb 2, 2008

Reasons to agree:

1. Race should only be considered when it is used to describe a specific suspect in a specific crime and only when used in a manner like other physical descriptions (e.g., hair color, weight, distinguishing marks). This is often referred to as the "be on the lookout" (B.O.L.O.) exception.
   
2. "If we know that in our criminal justice system, African-Americans and whites, for the same crime, receive--are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, receive very different sentences. That is something that we have to talk about. But that's a substantive issue and it has to do with how do we pursue racial justice. If I am president, I will have a civil rights division that is working with local law enforcement so that they are enforcing laws fairly and justly. But I would expect a white president or a woman president should want to do the same thing, because I believe the pursuit of racial equality, of the perfection of this union, is not just a particular special interest issue of the African-American community. That is how all of us are going to move forward. And to the extent that we don't deal with those issues, those longstanding, deep-seated issues, we will continue to be hampered. We will be competing with the world with one hand tied behind our backs." 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
   

3. Q: In the last decade, whites were 70% of persons arrested, but only 40% of inmates. Why?

   A: The criminal justice system is not color blind. It does not work for all people equally, and that is why it's critical to have a president who sends a signal that we are going to have a system of justice that is not just us, but is everybody. I passed racial profiling legislation at the state level. It requires some political courage, because oftentimes you are accused of being soft on crime.

   Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University Jun 28, 2007

Obama has the right approach to fatherhood

Reasons to agree:

1. "How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?" "Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities." "But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child--it's the courage to raise one." Barack Obama, Chicago church speech, in Change We Can Believe In, p.235 Jun 15, 2008. I'm not saying this makes Obama a better dad than Bush, or Clinton. I'm just making a comprehensive list of all the good and bad things about Obama, and I think he is a pretty good dad. We haven't gotten so bad that we don't care about this sort of thing, or elect people who are very bad to their kids.

There was too much pork in the stimulus bill

Reasons to agree:

1. "One of Obama's most poignant missed opportunities was in not using the historic $787 million stimulus package to reorder state and local government's spending priorities. As states and cities continue to spend ceaselessly and without results on education and healthcare, they're crowding out investments in the physical infrastructure that the private sector needs to rebuild the economy.

"In the stimulus, of the more than $200 billion that went directly to states and cities, nearly 70% went to education and healthcare spending. Only 24% went to infrastructure spending.

"But the states and cities in the most trouble already spend way too much on education and healthcare, pushing taxes up and sending private industry away. They don't spend nearly enough on infrastructure, which attracts the private sector and builds the real economy.

"As David Walker, former comptroller general of the US, said at the Regional Plan Association's annual meeting a week ago, nationwide, we are the 'highest in the world' on education. We are 'the highest in the world' on healthcare. 'Nobody comes even close.' On infrastructure, by contrast, we are 'below average' in both critical new investments and in much-needed maintenance spending.

"And, as Democratic governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell said at the same conference, when President Dwight Eisenhower left office, infrastructure spending was about 12.5% of non-military domestic spending. Today, it's about 2.5%.

"This shortfall is obvious to anyone who's ridden on an "express train" to the outer boroughs or driven on the Cross Bronx Expressway recently. But in New York, as elsewhere, the stimulus money has just allowed the state to ramp up spending on its wasteful, inhumane Medicaid program and its nosebleed public-school spending.

"Meanwhile, the subways are about to crumble into oblivion -- taking the economy with them. The same is true of decaying infrastructure in California and in aging states across the nation.

"The stimulus was a once-in-a-generation chance to change this. Instead, it made the situation worse."

-- Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to City Journal

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. Republican Party Affiliation (40%)
2. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
3. Racism (5%)
4. Political laziness & issue crossover.

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. They disagree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)
   
2. Democratic party groupism (40%)
3. Liberal guilt.
4. Political laziness & issue crossover.

Interest of those who agree and disagree with Obama: Money

Poor people are usually democrats, because they think they will get more money from the government if they support democrats.

Rich people tend to be republicans, because they think they will keep more money if they support other republicans.

It has nothing to do with what system people thinks works best, or what type of government works best. It usually has all to do with self interest or greed.

Obama openly promised that he would raise taxes on the very rich and give more to the “middle class”. On video tape he said he would "spread the wealth around".

Self interest is a bad motivation, because if everyone only acted on self interest, bad things would happen.

We need people to act out of what they think will be best for their grandchildren.

Republicans would say that Rich people don't want to keep more of their money, they think that this is the cart before the horse. Republicans will say that people who are self reliant, and don't want anything from the government, will become rich. Republicans will say that they would not want anything from the government even if they were poor, and that their rugged individualism would cause them to eventually become rich, or if they were able to pass their self reliance onto their children, that their children would become rich.

Some wealthy people are democrats, and believe that they and other wealthy people should pay more taxes. But the great majority of Rich people are republicans, and the great majority of poor people are democrats. This means most people are acting out of self interest, which is to be expected.

Political Laziness and Issue-Crossover

This is republicans disagreeing with Obama because he is a Democrat, even when he is doing conservative things.

This is democrats defending Obama, even if they would have attacked Bush for doing the same thing.

The cause is political laziness and the result is issue crossover. 

Issue crossover is when you agree with Obama on one thing, and so you tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on other issues. This is only natural, but it can lead to bad policy. 

It is like giving Hitler the benefit of the doubt on his policy towards invading his neighbors, because you like his progressive environmental policy (OK you idiots; I am not comparing Hitler to Obama. I am using a good logical debating technique of proving a point with an extreme case). 

This means that democrats and republicans need to work with each other when they agree, because the other side has to be right some of the time, no matter how bad they are. And this also requires democrats and republicans to oppose people from their same party, because this will result in policy based on thought and logic, instead of whether or not you like the person in power.

Not being politically lazy means you have to think about each issue, instead of republicans who don't like Obama for one thing he did, crossing over that distaste for Obama's decision, to another issue.

Interest of those who agree: Liberal guilt (environment)

When I say that someone is motivated by liberal guilt towards the environment, I mean it as a bad thing. I'm talking about the guilt that knows we have been bad to the environment in the past, and assumes that everything that we do to alter the environment is going to harm it. It assumes it is impossible for mankind to help the environment, even if evidence contrary to their guilt, suggest that an action might increase biodiversity, or the quantity of animal or plant life.

Probable Interest of those who disagree: Party Affiliation Group-ism

This is typified by people who attack people from the other party for doing something, but defend someone from their own party for doing the same thing. It often comes down to making excuses for people that you agree with 90% of the time. It is OK to not agree with everything someone has said or done, but still support them. But at some point you are a total idiot if you make a big deal supporting something, but then opposing it when the other party comes into office.

To the degree you agree with every single thing in your parties political platform, than it is fine to only support republicans, and appose democrats. However if you make arguments against a an action when it is the other guys in the white house, but support the president's right to take that action when they are in power, than this type of motivation will not lead to good policies.

It is the double standard, hypocrisy, or changing standards that have you defend the person when he or she is from the other party.

There are many examples of Party Affiliation Groupism that overrides issues people say they care about. Below are some examples:

Issue that is ignored: saying you want a color blind society, that does not discriminate between background, or group membership, but just votes for the best person. Examples include:

1. Not liking all the racial targeting all the African Americans voting for Obama, but being OK with all the evangelicals supporting Huckabee, or visa-versa.

Issue that is ignored: saying you care about the family values of moral fidelity, but getting madder at people from the other party are unfaithful. Examples include:

1. Republicans who freaked out over Bill Clinton's sex scandal, but defended Mark Sanford, or visa-versa.


2. Feminist who defending Bill Clinton's sex scandals but freaked out with the Duke polo team sex scandal.


3. Liberals who assumed Anita Hill was telling the truth about Clarence Thomas but said Lewinsky's allegations were all part of a "right wing conspiracy",

Issue that is ignored: saying you care the advancement of a minorities power in society but letting your other political interest causing you to only advance minorities from your party. Examples include:

1. Feminist who got all excited about Hillary Clinton, but didn't care at all about Condoleezza Rice (saying your are for women's advancment, but only women who agree with you. They would say that they don't think Condolezza is really advancing women's interest, but I think it has more to do with people liking people from their group, and assuming the worst from people from the other group).

Interest of those who agree : Liberal guilt (race)

Liberal guilt: Race:

People should not be controlled by their guilt into supporting candidates or policies that end up hurting society. 

Guilt is good. People that ignore their conscience are monsters.

Politics is not always about fighting for the best policy. Sometimes people look at political office as a form of approval, and voting for someone or appointing someone is a way to right a past wrong. Cynical people might appoint someone who check's all the right boxes, and they use liberal guilt as a way of daring their opponents to oppose their appointee.

In a perfect world, I think all these side issues would be brushed away. Politics would be more focused on good policy, instead of personalities. Minority groups would represent more than just their percentage of the population, as olive branches to their communities, and international bragging rights, but people would not be controlled by their guilt into supporting candidates or policies that end up hurting society.

American has been guilty of racism.

Because of this some defending a minority, Obama, because he is a minority.

See Racism and Liberal guilt as motivations on each side. Liberal guilt feels like a good motivation. It is motivated out of shame.

Have very many bad things been done out of guilt or shame? I don't think as many bad things out of guilt as have been done out of hatred.

However if we agree with minorities, because they are minorities, without making sure we actually agree with them, than we are setting them up for failure, because we will allow them to make decisions that are uninformed by a lively debate. Perhaps this is not a big deal now.

I think it was a big deal during the primaries, but the media is no longer pulling their punches.

Guilt is not a good motivation, but it is not very bad, and can probably be forgiven, except in very important decisions. Perhaps it shouldn't even be brought up as a motivation of some people, because just talking about it can be seen as racist, or can be used by others to justify racism. However I want this to be a site that tries to address the motivation of those who agree and disagree with Obama. Please help me do this in a more intelligent way, so that we expose both sides, so they have to deal with their true motivations.

Interest of those who disagree: Racism

For the interest of this blog, this includes people who oppose Obama because of his race. This can be people who do it consciously, hard core racist, and subconscious.

Also, in terms of advancing the best policy from a color-blind policy argument standpoint, it is also less confusing when side issues such as race come into the picture. For instance you might tell people to vote independent of race and background, encouraging even minorities to to support people based on their policy not their race. However, it might not be as big of a deal with minorities because by definition minorities are less likely to monopolize policy in a republic, unless everyone thinks of themselves as a minority, and each minority group is not interested in the general advancement, but only their minority group's advancement.

See Racism and Liberal guilt as motivations on each side.

Racism is alive and ugly. It is often silent, and even unconscious. It would lead to people opposing Obama even when they might otherwise agree with him. Or if they already disagree with him, letting it get them more upset about disagreeing with him.

Bush derangement syndrome took hold because a lot of people don’t like Jocks. A lot of people don’t like privileged children of wealthy oil men, like Bush. People have interest that motivate them to oppose people like Bush, and everyone should make sure they are not getting any more upset at Obama than they would have got at Bill Clinton, All Gore, and John Carry.

However people like Keith Oberman should stop calling everyone who disagrees with Obama racist. It makes their side look stupid, and provides cover for real racist. There were stupid white people carrying stupid signs in stupid crowds, when Clinton was in office also.

Probable Interest of those who agree: Party Affiliation Group-ism

If they are a democrat, defending a fellow democrat. Or if they share other characteristics with Obama (race, career, home town, home state, religion, background, etc) they would identify with these (to the degree you agree with every single thing in your parties political platform, this is acceptable, but to the degree that it is a mindless rooting for the home team, party affiliation is a motivation that will not help us make better decisions.

Probable Interest of those who agree: The desire to promote more positive role models for our youth

The desire to promote more positive role models for our youth (60%). This is understandable but will result in the government making more bad decisions. Sure, you want people with inspiring life stories to have success, however, if everyone allowed themselves to make decisions on whether or not to support or oppose Obama based on this motivations, Obama would gain more support for his unwise policy decisions than they would be able to gain, in a battlefield of ideas that were less impervious to motivation not related to the issue being discussed. You can still want Obama to succeed overall but fight with him on specific issues. The desire to promote more positive role models for our youth is a bad reason, by itself, to agree with Obama on specific policy decisions.

Probable Interest of those who agree: Self Interest

Self Interest (of those who are not Rich, 90%). These people believe they will “get more” from Obama (90%). Obama openly promised that he would raise taxes on the very rich and give more to the “middle class”. This is a bad motivation, because if everyone only acted on self interest, bad things would happen.