Dr. Hudgins

A proper response to your article would require a multi-volume inquiry into the minds of men written by a psychologist with the intelligence and stature of an Aristotle. While I do not consider myself capable of such an immense undertaking, I can provide some insights as to the direction such an inquiry might take.

From your article "It is important to start by making clear the principles in conflict both in politics and in the culture. It is cronyism and strongman government versus limited government and rule of law." Why is it that 100% of governments in history have been based on force? The power to take the individual's property, life, and liberty have only varied by degree no matter the justification employed to support the institution. Even in America, the power to tax (Article 1 Section 8) and the power to take (Bill of Rights 5th Amendment) are embedded in the very fabric of our government.

Is the will to rule over others or to submit to rulers inherent in our DNA? Do we somewhere on our life's path make a conscious decision to do one or the other? Or is it the cumulative result of the family, friends, teachers and times we grew up with - Nurture?

The history of mankind, the endless wars, seems to be a reflection of the internal conflict between our Reason and Emotions. But if this is true, why haven't half of governments looked like Galt's Gulch? Are we biased towards an emotional response primarily and a reasoned one only secondarily?

I think the candidacies of Donald and Hillary are the logical result of a populace trained to use their emotions and only their emotions to achieve whatever their hearts desire today - in the moment.

Joe Gabriele

With nobody using the same set of principles, most of us have stopped caring about sin. Except hypocrisy, and even that only noticeably matters to anyone when the right does it.

Hello DrEdwardHudgins,
Moral relativism, subjectivity and general moral decay have taken over. There is little objective reasoning and adherence to sound moral principles. Our nation is largely uninterested in our founding principles, or any principles that interfere with instant gratification regardless of impact on others. Thanks to generations now educated about tolerance for everything under the diversity umbrella except contrary views that judge right and wrong, one cannot be judgmental in this day and age. Sure people want to talk dirty laundry, but they revel in the salacious and outrageous. They give it no more introspection or concern than a soap opera.

It is creating/empowering factions and destroying the fabric of civil society. Few of us are wiling to judge and be judged. If you judge you are labeled with some epithet ending in ist, are a bigot, or intolerant... Many just turn away and think, why bother? believing they can evade reality so long as they still get theirs, whatever that is at the moment.

Ayn was right and we are on the path to chaos and catastrophe.
"The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life . . .

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist." AS- Galt's speech.

Respectfully,
O.A.

Nice piece, Let me add to the observations:
- Trump supporters are the Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. They are tired of paying for other peoples stuff.
- The public has been brained washed by Madison Avenue with Utopian advertising, An idealized image of food, clothing, transportation, and housing has been presented for the past 50 plus years with the message - "you deserve this." Unrest occurs when these materiel things to which people feel entitled cannot be achieved.
- Bernie, Hillary, and Donald are playing to these various segments.
- governments grow regardless of format. Freedoms decrease and government dependence increases as social and economic programs are put into place "for the greater good."
- ultimately all governments implode from the weight of their mismanagement.

I am suddenly linking the child endangerment transgender edicts of our mad little king to Alinksy's" Rules For Radicals.
Be okay with new advancements in moral decay.
If it feels good, do it.

That's correct...the people have lost their moral principles...morals are subjective and change from one moment to the next, there are no rights or wrongs.
Everything good, right or adheres to self-evident moral principles is Bad. Anything bad, wrong, immoral is good because those that push this are bad themselves. Mankind has evil in their hearts because they do. You cannot rule yourself because of this so they must rule you.

It would seem my friend...most voters either have a severe blind spot or have become victims of the spells the kakistocracy sells them.

That was an interesting essay Dr Hudgins. Thank you for your eloquent rational.
The path to corrupt, strongman political candidates has been paved by the media, the entertainment industry, the public education system and a general lack of responsibility for behavior.
In my life the greatest catalyst reaching the most people for this victim mentality was
LBJ 's Great society . That was intended to help mostly the black community. The message is The Responsibility for your situation is not your own. You are a victim.

The message should have been you are capable and if you become educated and valuable to an employer or community you will succeed and we will give you a level playing field.

Not We will care for you. We will give you a fish not teach you how to fish. It also encouraged procreating with one parent by upping the stipend. Creating neglect , few male role models or educators (my parents, my neighbors , my aunts and uncles)
They all taught by example or word and the lesson was your behavior must be acceptable and ethical. The message sadly missing today not only in impoverished areas but has spread throughout much of society.
The altruism pushed by the groups I listed previously using PC talk and labels(. Name calling)
For any promoter of a different approach or one who says A is A might be called a racist and we have many crash and burn careers examples to warn us not be a ( blank) resulting in rational ideas Not Being discussed they are dismissed or left unsaid.

The emotional thinking and response along with a lack of manners has allowed for increased violence and the PC bullying offering excuses for continued failure in supporting your self and families.
This type of mentality allows for a young black man to commit a strong arm robbery , try to grab a policeman 's gun be shot for those actions and become an instant victim (BLM). The rest is history.

Black people have become victims by the very programs intended to bring them onto the road of self sufficiency.
This culture has spread to include all races and millions of Americans, now 108 million
unemployed.
These people vote for food or who promises them entitlements and they aren't responsible for their behavior why should their care giver (the politician) be responsible.

While we work for institutional reform, voters have to decide how to cast their ballots in the here and now. For those confining their choices to Trump and Hillary, Trump is better (not perfect, but better) on the following issues:

Health care: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/position...

Tax policy: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/position...

Trade policy: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/position...

(Excerpt: “Our goal is not protectionism but accountability. America fully opened its markets to China but China has not reciprocated. Its Great Wall of Protectionism uses unlawful tariff and non-tariff barriers to keep American companies out of China and to tilt the playing field in their favor. If you give American workers a level playing field, they will win.”)

Second Amendment rights: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/position...

Judicial appointments: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/...

Hillary is better on the following issues:

. . . (Hmm, I think I’m hearing crickets.) :-)

Nothing too complicated here. Humans are social animals who defer to strength. No matter how corrupt, any politician who can persevere in the face of a barrage of negative events impresses the populace with their strength. Trump is popular because he's good at playing the alpha male. Clinton is popular with those who are amazed at how well she's avoided the consequences of her own mistakes, and what a skilled Machiavellian operator she is.

Both of these leading figures are pushing the limit of tolerance for their flaws. One would have to wonder about alternate history scenarios and how Rand Paul might have played the game more effectively, or if the Libertarian party had been better financed to portray itself as the rational, sane alternative.

Pragmatists are unable to recognize that their view leads to cynicism. Consider the voter who chooses a candidate based on that candidate's promises held to be relevant to said voter. That candidate either has integrity or doesn't, yet the voter chooses to believe said candidate can and will fulfill his or her promises. That is, that voter chooses based on faith. And so the pragmatic view, which is to dispense with principles, leads the voter from pragmatism to faith and then back to pragmatism. "Candidate X has promised to resolve issue Y. I choose to believe that candidate X represents my values with regard to issue Y. Therefore, I choose to vote for candidate X." Such an argument assumes that the candidate will deliver on his or her promise and that faith is a valid means to make a decision. So you are absolutely correct that it is a failure to act on principle. Faith, as opposed to reason, is not a valid form of cognition. The pragmatist does not recognize that integrity is a necessary precondition of delivering on promises. He does not recognize conceptual hierarchy. As such, his choice is as useless to voting as dirt is to eating.

What's so hard to figure? Mrs. Clinkton has been the heir apparent for eight years, and no matter what, was going to get the nomination. It was a fait accompli so what choice do Democrats have other than make the best of a bad deal and try to blank out the misdeeds of her past. In the case of Trump, he is an avatar blowing off the steam for the frustrated, screwed over folks trying to salvage what is left of what we used to call patriotic pride in their country. And his past foibles look like child's play compared to hers.There is a character in a current series of commercials called "Captain Obvious." I think all the professors, PhDs, and poll takers should hire that guy and his companion, Dr. Commonsense.

I care more about a candidate's "crimes" than his"sins". There is a difference.
I very much did not want Trump for the nominee.
I do not consider him a free-enterprise man. I voted for Cruz in the Virginia primary. But I never get the nominee I want for the Republican party in a Presidential election,haven't since 1976.
Who knows what he'll do if he gets elected?
On the other hand, it's pretty clear what H.Clinton will do if she does. That's what is hor-
rible. And think about the Supreme Court ap-
pointments. The effects of those--well, look at
the long-range effects of Plessy vs. Ferguson.
It is like being forced to choose between
getting shot through the head with a gun one
knows to be fully loaded, and playing Russian
roulette. You've got a slightly better chance
with Russian roulette.
As the little article above mentioned, it is basically more important to try to change the
philosophical culture--I think that if this country is to be saved, the home-school movement will be instrumental in that, even though religion is
usually involved--at least, the teaching would not be so statist. But we can't accomplish much with that between now and November of
2016.

Voters (at least me) don’t care about the candidates sins in this presidential election because until they hit “critical mass” the sins are less important than getting rid of the Establishment. The new sinners have got to be better than the old ones, and it will take time for the new ones to build up their machines. Besides, with any luck, they may even listen to logic on an issue or two, whereas the Establishment will mouth anything to remain in power.

posted to facebook...spot on Dr Hudgins...

I suspect (not defending) people's views is that there is so much negative noise, they can't believe anything in particular, and due to laziness, they integrate the basic statements, perhaps by number and volume.

I have a pretty smart, and well-read, friend that is on the progressive side, who was unaware of the specifics of Hillary's email issue, and took for granted that "...other SOS's had done the same thing." This is not true, but obfuscating noise.

I think this comes down to laziness and a general belief that everyone is a liar including the media. They believe the world is a pile of liars and sinners, and seek to maximize their lot without working at it too hard.

I believe it is similar to why they write off all of the questions and conflicts surrounding their religion. It isn't rational or logical it is emotional because their ego is invested in their political belief.

We are a nation of unprincipled people. Plain and simple...

IMHO, you hit the nail squarely Dr. Nicely done!

The one sin any voter cares deeply about, is hypocrisy. Voters respect brass. (This voter does, anyway.) They don't respect hypocrisy.

Of course, one must ask: sin by what standard? Many voters don't have the old moral standard. They have a new one: "care." At least leftist voters do. So they won't care about how many affairs a candidate has, or the sort of partners he or she chooses. They expect no better, either of the candidate or of themselves. But they might take exception to a candidate who preaches about "global warming" and still consumes energy at a prodigious rate. Because that is hypocritical, by their new moral standard.

What drivel from the atlas society. Waste of ink. All voters want to hear IS the 'supposed sins" of the candidates, not their qualifications for the job.