Friday, February 17, 2012

"Pat Buchanan’s TEN Most Outrageous Statements"

"Pat Buchanan's TEN Most Outrageous Statements"
 
 
Chris Matthews, today you spoke highly of this very sick and evil man and you owe America an apology now!

 
Sometimes victory comes quickly and sometimes it takes longer. In the case of Pat Buchanan, there's been literally years of organizing by progressives to draw attention to and hold him accountable for his racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic statements.

Here's the rundown on his greatest misses:

1. Wanted to close the borders to protect white dominance. As he wrote in his 2006 book State of Emergency: "If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built."

2. Blamed lower test scores on minorities. In his most recent book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, he blames minorities for dragging down the country's test scores. "[T]he decline in academic test scores here at home and in international competition is likely to continue, as more and more of the children taking those tests will be African-American and Hispanic.

3. Claimed Jerry Sandusky's atrocities are because of "Homosexual marriage."Buchanan appeared on a right-wing radio show on November 15 to make some convoluted comparisons: "Let's take this Penn State thing…these horrors, there's an organization that marches in the gay pride parade in New York called—used to—called the North American Man Boy Love Association, which advocated voluntary sex along the lines of exactly what was going on at Penn State. Many of our political icons have marched in that parade right behind that NAMBLA float […] This is now, homosexual marriage is now the civil rights cause of the decade."

4. Said the Jewish population in the United States dropped in the 90s because Jews aborted all their babies. Buchanan explains that the decline in the American Jewish population during the 1990s (a decline that a Brandeis study says never occurred), "is a result of the collective decision of Jews themselves. From Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem in the 1970s to Ruth Bader Ginsburg today, Jewish women have led the battle for abortion rights. The community followed."

5. Asserted Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people including 69 teens in Norway, "may have been right." Buchanan called Breivik a coward, evil, and cold-blooded, and then proceeded to defend his twisted rationale for the killings: "As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right."

6. Claimed that all great nations punish the gays. In a Human Events column, Buchanan attacked California's 9th Circuit Judge Vaughn Walker after his ruling of Proposition 8 as unconstitutional as a "judicial tyrant," before going on to explain that "through history, all the great religions have condemned homosexuality and all the great nations have proscribed or punished it. None ever placed homosexual liaisons on the same plane as traditional marriage, which is the bedrock institution of any healthy society.

7. Penned "The Affirmative Action Nobel." That's the title of Buchanan's October 13, 2009 column on Townhall.com in which he claims that President Obama's Nobel Prize was simply the result of affirmative action. And the column only got worse from there: "They have reinforced the impression that Obama is someone who is forever being given prizes — Ivy League scholarships, law review editorships, prime-time speaking slots at national conventions — he did not earn."

8. Argued that Poland and the United Kingdom had it coming in World War II.Buchanan seems to suggest in a 2009 column that World War II—and all the atrocities that accompanied it—was really the fault of Poland and Britain, for refusing to engage in diplomacy with Germany. "Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland's rescue."

9. Dabbled in Holocaust denial. Pat Buchanan danced alarmingly close to denying key facts of the Holocaust. In a 1990 column for the New York Post, he defended convicted Nazi war criminal Ivan Demjanjuk (whom he later compared to Jesus Christ) against charges from Holocaust survivors that he was guilty of murder by accusing the survivors of misremembering all of it: "This so-called 'Holocaust Survivor Syndrome' involves 'group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.' Reportedly, half of the 20,000 survivor testimonies in Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem are considered 'unreliable,' not to be used in trials[…]The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."

10. Argued Hitler was an individual of "great courage." That's just one of the quotes that the Anti-Defamation League attributes to Buchanan in their compendium of offensive remarks from Buchanan over the years. In 1977, he qualified his labeling of Hitler as racist and anti-Semitic by adding that "he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him[…]His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."

And since Republicans are apparently eager to reignite the divisive culture wars of the past, here's Buchanan's famous 1992 GOP Convention speech on the culture wars — a speech many believe helped cost President George H.W. Bush victory in that year's presidential election. Some of the language may be softer, but 20 years hence we still hear many of the same divisive attacks on progressive values from leading conservatives.

http://youtu.be/iO5_1ps5CAc
 

"This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in."
-Teddy Roosevelt- Chicago, IL, June 17, 1912

Response From John Barrasso

Dear John,
 
It is a permissible reading of the 1st Amendment to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the Affordable Care Act but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, like requiring insurers to provide contraception coverage, then the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individuals obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the laws coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the States interest is compelling-permitting him/her, by virtue of his/her beliefs, to become a law unto himself, contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true compelling interest requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.
 
As with its ruling in Lying v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Association, the Court warned of the perils of allowing a religious group to have veto power over laws. The neutrality of laws and their general applicability protect them from First Amendment challenge.
 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:58 PM
Subject: Response From John Barrasso
 

Dear William,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.  I appreciate hearing from you.

I noted your support for the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding insurance coverage for contraceptive services.  After practicing medicine for over 25 years, I feel that health care decisions are best made when left between the patient and their chosen medical provider.  However, I do not believe that the government should mandate private organizations provide insurance coverage for services that violate their religious beliefs.  This is a clear violation of religious freedom guaranteed to all persons by the 1st Amendment.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  While we disagree on this matter, I value your input and hope that you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that are important to you.


John Barrasso, M.D.                                                                         
United States Senator
 

Sen. Johnny Barrasso on Contraceptive Regulations: "This is a clear violation of religious freedom guaranteed to all persons by the 1st Amendment."

Dear John,
 
For a doctor, you are pretty ill-informed about birth-control pills, or contraceptives. In many cases the pills are used for non-birth control health-issues, so what about these women? (Maybe one of those thousands of Canadians you treated a few years back during the debate about the Affordable Care Act can explain it to you. Still waiting to hear on how many you actually treated. You could have found out about socialized medicine right here in the U.S., as the VA System, the best medical care system in this country, and of which I'm a patient, and have been for over 30 years could have answered your questions about socialized medicine rather then you treat thousands of Canadians. Still waiting!) I find it extremely hypocritical that a party that rants about less government regulations and interference, yet when it comes to certain topics, like women's rights and trying to control their uterus, you are all for it. This isn't about religious freedom, it's about women's rights, and you and your gang wanting to limit them. Is there a big kerfuffle about men and their Viagra which is also covered? NO! Why, well because we live in a patriarchy, where the men make the rules. The churches have already been exempt regarding this, but you all want to expand this because you think this is a great thing to stir up your conservative base, the base that you have now sexually neutered, and who supposedly doesn't need or use birth control. Oops, wrong there, because over their lifetime, almost 99% of the woman use some form of birth-control. And how exactly is it a violation of the Constitution to have insurance providers to cover birth control? You know the churches aren't always right, and you yahoos seem to be wanting to ride this horse till it dies. Throughout history secular laws have superseded religious law, although in this case, "churches" already are exempt, but you all and this right-wing extremist "Blunt Amendment" are really grasping at straws. This contraceptive battle isn't about religious freedom, it's about women's rights. Maybe your knuckle-dragging followers will believe your lies and misinformation, but your lies don't float here.

This conflict between Federal authorities and the U.S. Catholic Bishops over rules requiring employees of Catholic institutions such as universities and hospitals to have birth control pills supplied to them as part of their health insurance. Because of Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, the contemporary Roman Catholic church has taken the stand that artificial birth control is immoral. The bishops therefore object to having the church be forced to supply it as part of their employees' health care packages. Yet, there are over 100,000+ exemptions regarding this for churches, but you republicans think you can make this a pivotal issue to ignite your sleeping right-winged anti-intellectual base.

The problem is that birth control is legal in the United States, and birth control pills are used for other purposes than contraception (in fact, contraception may not even be the purpose of the majority of prescriptions). Contrary to what Santorum alleges, the prescriptions are relatively expensive for poor and working class families.

Religious practices in the United States are trumped by secular law all the time when there is a conflict. Thus, Native Americans who believe in using peyote as part of their religious rituals were fired from their government jobs for doing so, and the US Supreme Court upheld it in 1990.

Likewise, traditionalist members of the Sikh religion believe that a man should avoid cutting his hair, and should bind it up in a turban. So what if an orthodox Sikh gets a job as a construction worker? He can't get a hard hat on over the turban. Does he have the right to forgo the hard hat on the construction site, so as to retain his turban? The question went to the US courts, and they said Sikhs have to wear hard hats. If a brick fell on the turban and killed the Sikh worker, his family could after all sue the construction company for negligence since it did not require him to wear a hard hat.

Or there are many instances in which Muslim religious laws and practices have been over-ruled in the United States by the courts. American law forbids Muslim-American men to take a second wife, something legal to them in many of their home countries. State law tends to award community property in cases of divorce instead of the much smaller payments men can make to divorced women in Islamic law, even if the couple have specified in their marriage contract that Muslim law (sharia) will govern these issues.

I don't think there is any question that Federal law, and state law, can trump Roman Catholic religious sentiments, just as they trump the religious sentiments and practices of other religious communities where issues of secular justice and equity are at stake.

The tradition of American progressive thought is tolerant of religion even while usually not being religious itself. In my view this attitude of tolerance is rooted in James Madison's theory of democracy, which is that it is best preserved by lively arguments among groups in the body politic that disagree with one another. Thus, while the Roman Catholic Church authorities adopted a negative stance toward modernity, cultural pluralism, and democracy in the nineteenth century, the Catholic community in the United States nevertheless contributed in important ways to modernity, cultural pluralism and democracy. Arguably, had the US been entirely Protestant, its law and practice would have evolved in a less pluralistic and tolerant direction.

A flourishing Catholic community contributed to social debates and so improved American democracy– witness Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. And, the reformist theologians of the twentieth century, most of them European or Latin American, cultivated by American Catholics, made important contributions to our understanding– Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Kueng, Paulo Freire, and Gustavo Gutierrez. I would argue that Vatican II was an important event in American religious life across the board, not just for American Catholics. It is lack of appreciation of Madisonian conceptions of democracy of pluralism and checks and balances that led the late Christopher Hitchens to disregard altogether the enormous positive contribution of the Church, whether to the education of the poor and working classes or to teaching social justice. (By the way, the argument for democracy depending on diverse voices and vigorous debate is also an argument for the benefits for the US of the advent of Islam in American public life).

So, the arguments the bishops are making about the balance between conscience and the obligations of civil law should be welcomed by all Americans as part of our national dialectic.

President Obama is to be applauded for at least trying to find a compromise that doesn't dragoon Catholic institutions into betraying that conscience. In the end, of course, civil law must uphold equitable treatment of all women, and a satisfactory compromise may not be possible. We will be the better for having the debate, and attempting to find a modus vivendi.

What isn't helpful is to have loud-mouthed hypocrites who reject all the humane principles for which the Catholic Church stands getting on a high horse about a third-order teaching such as artificial birth control (on which the position of the church has changed over time, and may change again).

So Johnny, there you have it. Oh, I think I hear someone knocking at your door, oh yes, it's Phyllis McAlpin Stewart Schlafly!

If you can't argue the law, you attack the facts, and if you can't argue the facts you attack the women and secularists.

Good night and good luck!

Best wishes always,

Bill Harasym (Recovering Roman Catholic)

 

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -Paolo Friere-
 
 
 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:58 PM
Subject: Response From John Barrasso
 

Dear William,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.  I appreciate hearing from you.

I noted your support for the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding insurance coverage for contraceptive services.  After practicing medicine for over 25 years, I feel that health care decisions are best made when left between the patient and their chosen medical provider.  However, I do not believe that the government should mandate private organizations provide insurance coverage for services that violate their religious beliefs.  This is a clear violation of religious freedom guaranteed to all persons by the 1st Amendment.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  While we disagree on this matter, I value your input and hope that you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that are important to you.


John Barrasso, M.D.                                                                         
United States Senator
 

Friday, February 10, 2012

Barrasso Works to Defend Religious Freedom? How? The man's an idiot!

Again "TV" Johnny knows not what he is talking about, and has no clue about the Constitution and the 1st Amendment. This is just more RW bullshit trying to make an issue out of a non-issue.
Subject: Barrasso Works to Defend Religious Freedom- Ha! Ha! Ha!
 

Dear William,

I am writing to update you on my efforts to protect American religious freedoms.

One of the cornerstones of our society is the religious liberty guaranteed to everyone by the Constitution. Under President Obama's healthcare law, the Department of Health and Human Services will require that all health plans, including those sponsored by religious organizations, provide birth control as a free preventive service. This would include religious hospitals and universities.  President Obama's healthcare law is an astonishing attack on the First Amendment and religious freedoms in our country.

I am a co-sponsor of S. 1467, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. The bill amends the health care law by allowing health plans to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor offering the plan or the purchaser without penalty. Similar legislation, S. 2043, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was introduced recently by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). Additionally, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced on February 8, 2012, that the House would move quickly to block this rule. I look forward to supporting this effort if it is brought before the full Senate for a vote.

Please know that I will continue to fight for our religious liberties and the ultimate repeal of President Obama's bad healthcare policy.


John Barrasso, M.D.                                                                         
United States Senator
 

Monday, January 30, 2012

Letters and Lies from Congressman Cynthia Lummis


January 20, 2012

 

William Harasym

200 Smith Street, Apt. 410

Sheridan, Wyoming 82801-3842


 

Dear William:

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding proposals to extend federal Safe Drinking Water Act jurisdiction over the well-established drilling technology called hydraulic fracturing. I appreciate hearing from you.

 

Hydraulic fracturing is a commonly used practice in oil and natural gas production - I have seen estimates that over 90% of all non-conventional wells currently utilize it. After a well is drilled into reservoir rock that contains oil or natural gas, a fluid made up mostly of water and sand is injected under high pressure. The pressure exceeds the rock strength and the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock. These fractures then allow the oil or natural gas to move more freely from the rock pores through an encased production well to the surface.

 

After questions were raised as to this practice's effect on water contamination and human health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) studied the issue in depth. The result of those studies was a 2004 EPA report stating that no evidence has been found linking the practice of hydraulic fracturing to the contamination of underground drinking water. Another such study was just authorized in the fiscal year 2010 Interior Appropriations Act and I look forward to its completion.  Science should drive policy on this issue, not the other way around.

Regardless of the science, several Democrat Representatives in the U.S. House introduced in the 111th Congress the "Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act of 2009" (H.R. 2766), a bill to extend the regulatory jurisdiction of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to cover hydraulic fracturing. The bill sponsors assert that such action is necessary to protect underground water aquifers. The fact is, however, past studies simply do not support that claim.

 

Multiple federal, state and local regulations currently ensure the monitoring, reporting, and remediation of any environmental impacts that occur during domestic oil and gas production. States have historically been the primary regulators of hydraulic fracturing and, as such, have developed comprehensive laws and regulations to provide for safe drilling operations. I am proud of the job the trained personnel at Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality have done to effectively regulate oil and natural gas production practices. Furthermore, in June of 2010 Wyoming's Oil and Gas Commission voted to require companies to disclose to state regulators the contents of its fracturing chemicals. These state-led rules are the strongest in the nation. To extend additional federal jurisdiction to this process is both duplicative and, from a scientific perspective, unnecessary. Further, I fear the delays and costs of additional permitting requirements could curtail the development of vast amounts of unconventional energy resources currently being explored by private industry, resulting in the need for additional foreign imports of fuels we could be developing here at home.

The State of Wyoming has also made itself very clear on this issue. During the 2009 General Session, our State Legislature passed a Joint Resolution asking Congress not to extend Safe Drinking Water Act jurisdiction over the hydraulic fracturing process. I commend them for this action, and will do my best to steer my colleagues in Washington toward Wyoming's common sense and science-based approach to this issue. Protecting our nation's drinking water supply is a goal we can all support. We should be basing the rules and regulations to accomplish this goal on science and expertise, however, not emotion and scare tactics.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me.  I value your input.  If you haven't done so already, I would like to encourage you to visit my website at www.lummis.house.gov.  There you can sign up to receive my newsletter, and have access to a wealth of other information.  I won't flood your email box, but I will provide you with updates once in a while about activities in Washington that affect our lives in Wyoming.  I hope you will sign up so that we can stay in close touch, and I look forward to seeing you in Wyoming.

 

 


 

 

January 20, 2012

William Harasym

200 Smith Street, Apt. 410

Sheridan, Wyoming 82801-3842


Dear William:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate hearing from you.

In the years since President Obama was sworn into office, the EPA has proposed and promulgated a staggering number of new and updated regulations. Prior to the Republicans retaking the majority in the House of Representatives, the agency also enjoyed an astronomical increase in their tax-payer funded budget. While the total number of regulations is somewhat difficult to quantify, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce estimates that the agency is currently reviewing or has recently completed as many as 69 separate regulatory measures in recent years. Some of these are relatively small, and some, like regulating green house gas emissions, would have dramatic altering affects on the U.S. economy.

That the agency is undergoing regulatory reviews is not in itself surprising. Rather, it is the insistence of the Obama Administration that these rules should go into effect absent any thought or care to the consequences on our nation's businesses and economy. In efforts ranging from farm dust, to brick kilns, to cement manufacturing, to boilers used at the nation's universities, to recyclable coal ash, the EPA is insisting upon standards so burdensome that in many cases the technology either doesn't even exist to satisfy the standard, the timeline to implement the changes is impossible to meet, or the costs to make the improvements would mean an astronomical rise in prices for consumers. In the case of coal ash, the EPA is considering classifying this recyclable material as a hazardous waste, thereby ending its recyclable uses. For example, coal ash from Wyoming was used to help build the runways at Denver International Airport. I was pleased to vote for H.R. 2273, which would allow for the continued beneficial use of coal ash. Perhaps most troubling is the EPA's use of agency "guidance" documents, which are intended to offer technical guidance on implementation of laws, but in recent years has been used to broaden the scope of the EPA's mandate outside the legal process.

When operating as a cooperative agency that offers technical assistance to states, and policing bad actors under existing law, the EPA can be an effective and helpful agency. Rather than attempting to usher in rule after rule that pays no attention to the real life consequences, the agency should work to help reduce emissions in a manner that is achievable, and does not sacrifice our economy for the sake of limited environmental benefit. Keep in mind that current rules have resulted in a 60% reduction in emissions since 1970. In other words, EPA and state enforcement of current rules is already successful, and calls into question the need for additional layers of bureaucracy at great cost. With my seat on the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the EPA's budget, I intend to use the budget to help steer the EPA toward a more realistic vision. In addition, I have joined as cosponsor on a number of EPA related legislative efforts, including bills to require the EPA to take a realistic look at how its rules would impact jobs. I am very pleased that the House has taken up a number of these bills, including H.R. 2401, the TRAIN Act, and H.R. 2018, a bill to restore the appropriate balance between state regulatory agencies and the EPA when it comes to Clean Water and Clean Air Act guidelines.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me. I value your input. If you haven't done so already, I would like to encourage you to visit my website at www.lummis.house.gov. There you can sign up to receive my newsletter, and have access to a wealth of other information. I won't flood your email box, but I will provide you with updates once in a while about activities in Washington that affect our lives in Wyoming. I hope you will sign up so that we can stay in close touch, and I look forward to seeing you in Wyoming.

Sincerely,

z

Cynthia M. Lummis

Member of Congress

Sunday, January 29, 2012

“Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice”

"Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice"

 

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatismand racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A study of averages

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

"We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

Simple viewpoints

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is adangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.

You can follow LiveScience senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.

 


"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -Paolo Friere-