This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Are Liberals Driven By a Desire for Novel Pleasure and Conservatives by Fear of Pain? If So, How Does that Affect Investing, Politics and Happiness?
Preface: This essay slams partisan liberals and partisan conservatives. If
you think I'm unfairly criticizing "your" side, it might be because
you're falling into a self-destructive pattern of defending your narrow
worldview, which is the whole point of this discussion.
In addition, I would bet that the "conservatives" showing fear are not really conservatives, but
Republican party loyalists and authoritarians, and likewise the "liberals" showing a lack of
discipline are not true progressives but naive, unthinking Democratic party loyalists.
Indeed, some of the bravest people I've ever met are libertarians, and
some of the most disciplined people I've ever met are progressives.
Remember, poll
after poll shows that both national parties are deeply unpopular with
an electorate looking for something new and different. It is those who love one of the two mainstream parties who are the extremists.
Numerous studies have claimed to show that conservatives tend to be more fearful than liberals.
For example, Wired reported in 2008:
In
reflex tests of 46 political partisans, psychologists found that
conservatives were more likely than liberals to be shocked by sudden
threats.
Accompanying the physiological differences were deep
differences on hot-button political issues: military expansion, the
Iraq war, gun control, capital punishment, the Patriot act, warrantless
searches, foreign aid, abortion rights, gay marriage, premarital sex
and pornography.
"People are experiencing the world,
experiencing threat, differently," said University of Nebraska
political scientist John Hibbing. "We have very different physiological
orientations."
The study, published today in Science, has not yet been duplicated, but adds a potentially troubling piece to the puzzle of biology, behavior and politics.
Earlier studies have linked
reflexive responses to threats — which for testing purposes take the
form of loud noises and graphic images — with existing states of
heightened anxiety.
Though the Science study’s authors
cautioned against an overly broad interpretation of their findings, the
results suggest that fear leads to political conservatism.
***
Study co-author Kevin Smith, also a University of Nebraska political
scientist ... agreed that "people with stronger responses are more
sensitive to potential threats in their environment."
And the Telegraph reported last December:
Scientists
have found that people with conservative views have brains with
larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often
associated with anxiety and emotions.
On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at
the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the
bright side of life.
The "exciting"
correlation was found by scientists at University College London who
scanned the brains of two members of parliament and a number of
students.
They found that the size of the two areas of the brain directly related to the political views of the volunteers.
However as they were all adults it was hard to say whether their brains
had been born that way or had developed through experience.
Prof Geraint Rees, who led the research, said: "We were very surprised
to find that there was an area of the brain that we could predict
political attitude.
"It is very surprising because it does
suggest there is something about political attitude that is encoded
in our brain structure through our experience or that there is
something in our brain structure that determines or results in
political attitude."
A Good Thing or a Bad Thing?
Only time will tell whether the above-described studies are accurate or not.
Assuming they are true for the purpose of this essay raises the question: is more fear a good thing or a bad thing?
On
the one hand, there are real dangers in the world, and Daddy and Mommy
won't always be there to deal with them. The government cannot fix all
of our problems ... we're going to have to deal with most of it for
ourselves.
Our fear instinct is there to protect us and to
spur us into appropriate action. If we never felt fear, we would get hit
by trucks or poisoned by food that's gone bad.
As the Wired article notes:
"Threatening
situations do indeed seem to increase people’s affinity for
politically conservative opinions, leaders, and parties," said New
York University psychologist John Jost.
So
there is an argument that conservatives are people who have had to face
dangers - perhaps early in life - and so have a more realistic view of
the world.
On the other hand, too much fear makes us stupid, and makes us easy prey to those who are trying to manipulate us.
As I've repeatedly noted, the government exaggerates the threat of terror for political purposes.
As the Wired article quoted above notes:
Study
co-author Kevin Smith, also a University of Nebraska political
scientist, demurred at making such a connection. "Historically speaking,
politicians have appealed to the ‘be afraid’ response in the
electorate in an attempt to mine votes," he said. "But in terms of
going from campaigning to what we did in the laboratory, that’s a large
leap."***
Asked whether the findings imply a
fearmongering strategy for conservatives, New York University
psychologist David Amodio responded, "Yes.
And some people believe that they are actively using this strategy."
The Bush administration has been accused of exploiting fears, though it’s hardly a new approach.
"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote journalist gadfly H.L. Mencken,
"is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins."
Jost condemned such tactics. "From an ethical standpoint, conservative
campaigns should not exploit feelings of fear in the general
population," he said.
Are Liberals Novelty-Seekers?
There is some evidence that liberals are more motivated by novelty. For example, the Telegraph article notes:
The
results, which will be published next year, back up a study that showed
that some people were born with a "Liberal Gene" that makes people
more likely to seek out less conventional political views.
The gene, a neurotransmitter in the brain called DRD4, could even be stimulated by the novelty value of radical opinions, claimed the researchers at the University of California
People
who are continually driven to seek novelty will make bad decisions, and
may be more likely to lose money on "novel" investment gambles, to
contract sexually-transmitted diseases, and to face other negative
consequences.
Get Smarter, and Be Happier and More Successful
We
make better decisions when we aren't driven to obsession by a desire
for novelty or scared out of our wits by our own shadows.
For
one thing, we become less susceptible to manipulation. For example, the
powers-that-be try to divide us and demonize the "other side" so that
we won't realize how much we all agree on. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. We can fix our nation if we focus on what we all want.
Moreover, if we reduce the amount that yearnings or fear drive and control us, then we will have more control over our actions. For example, we will make better investing decisions.
And
we will feel better if we lessen our polarity of being either a
yearning-or-desire driven person. As Buddhist psychology has taught for
thousands of years (and as several western psychiatrists have
confirmed), the things that make us most unhappy are:
- Yearning for things we want but can't have
- Trying to avoid things we are afraid of but can't get away from
- And trying to space out and avoid being present in our lives so as to avoid reality
We will be happy to the extent we:
- Let go of the things we want but can't have, and instead appreciate what we do have
- Accept the scary things which we can't avoid
- And are present to the events and people around us
(And see this.)
- advertisements -
Hahaha--
Like "Conservative" or "Liberal" are Platonic Divine Forms. Like YHVH carved these words into stone tablets atop Mt. Ararat and we, the tribe, must forever live by them. As if LVMH even offers handbags in these styles and the global tv-watching, consuming, Servants of Stupid must immediately bow & purchase.
"Conservative" & "Liberal" are not even philosophies. They don't even represent original thinking on anything. They're just words. Tags, even.
These words are meaningless except for their useful ability to divide & rule. These words exist as definitions of professional media handlers. They exist as propaganda. Remember that. Stop believing in it.
I'm gonna say this again...stop me if you've heard it before. Stop if you have a better idea.
Obama-Palin 2012. Bet on it. Precisely because it's the worst of both "worlds". The partisans shall never have another chance at such a gaseous exchange of empty rhetoric. Both leadership camps can highlight the glorious workings of a two-party system which allows such a wondrous exchange of opposites, while assuring Continuity Of Government. Half the posters on this board will fight to the death over it, every two, four, six years, or even 24 hours.
You see.. propaganda exists because it is useful. That's why it is seen everywhere. That's why its messages are vamped & revamped & broadcast everywhere. It's useful because the Mass serves it.
The only way out of this Massive mess is creative action.
All the myriad re-definitions of Lib, Con, Rep, Dem, etc., do nothing for me. It's all just propaganda. I read the Zedge because there are some original thinkers on this board. Let our words not be a wimpy substitute for Action.
Cheers,
Beef
I think GW hit a conservative nerve. How dare he call extremist conservatives the blanket-sucking cowards they are?!?
They are wondering Why?
********************************
Last year 1,000 high schools competed to win the chance to have President Obama attend their graduation exercises. But this year, the White House is scrambling to understand why only 68 schools have applied for the honor.
The Political Hotsheet blog at CBSNews tells us that internal memos are flummoxed as to why so few schools have applied for the competition for this year's graduation.
***********************************
I agree with what you are saying about conservatives being motivated by fear, if you substitute "Neocon" for "Conservative". It's the neocons that wanted to intervene in Iraq and are itching to intervene in Iran and Libya. The real conservatives would just tell Iran to "give us your best shot."
By the time democratic and republican constituents stop fighting amongst themselves due to the deliberate politics of division engaged in by both political parties ... this country will be laid to waste by the bankers and the politicians will all fly away in their private jets to party with their uber wealthy puppet masters in some other country while we bury our dead.
+4,637 Amen, brother.
Hm. One wonders then, which basket our overlords on Wall Street fall into. They certainly don't seem to have much fear.
On the other hand they don't seem to care much for anything but the same ole same ole either....
I guess Plutocrats are different.
your democracy is a cruel joke. I suggest you finish you civil war and come to some kind of concencus, so you can evolve and move forward
And how has your government "evolved", bigred?
Free man? Didn't think so.
Earlier we had Geo Wash channeling the Matt Simmons nonsense. That event caused this critter to consume so much Sigsby Salt that it now clammors for the Courtney Love state of mind. Just looking for novel experiences without any concept of consequences or outcomes. Why would Geo Wash or Courtney Love ever consider the poor recovery rate from those novel experiences?
GW: Interesting.....
.....but the study reported by the Telegraph was a fake study. It was done for a popular British TV program by a celebrity professor. It only involved two subjects, a Labour MP and a Conservative Cabinet Minister. Only later did Prof Rees add 90 students, retroactively, by asking them questions so he could do a "paper".
The "study" defied neuroscience 101 and standard practices of research and even Rees was embarrassed by his own idiocy. Sample size should be larger, all treated the same, be double blind, blah blah blah...... Moreover, the brain tissue is extemely plastic and changes over time with function, and the psychological and physical environment, and does not necessarily reflect brain structure determined by DNA at all. That's why stroke victims can quickly regenerate function around damaged neurons.
"Prof. Rees and his team, who carried out the research for the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, looked at the brain make up of the Labour MP Stephen Pound and Alan Duncan, the Conservative Minister of State for International Development using a scanner.
They also questioned a further 90 students, who had already been scanned for other studies, about their political views." ---Telegraph
Since you brought it up GW, perhaps the definitive source of data on this subject is the book: "Democrat vs Republican : Rhetoric and Reality" by Joseph Fried, 2008. It is an entertaining and well written book with 243 pages covering (at least) 50 years of charts and graphs and all data (virtually), research, studies, polls, surveys and observations on the subject of the liberal vs conservative various parameters.
Democrats and Republicans--rhetoric ... - Google Books
Spoiler Alert: What emerges is the following picture -- Conservatives are happier, more educated, more charitable, more honest, more tolerant (yep), harder working, more wealthy, less likely to cheat on taxes, pay more taxes, less likely to be on welfare or ever been on welfare, more confident they can control the future and also less anxious about the future, more satisfied with their sex life but have fewer sex partners, are less cynical, less bored, and generally find life happier and more interesting to engage in than liberals do.
Again, Fried did not do the studies, it's an assembly of hundreds of other independent works. You're just given the data, not conclusions. But it's pretty clear and straightforward and discussed in an entertaining way that is disparaging to no one.
But the consistent education gap is huge. Conservatives earn 60% more college degrees than liberals do, and the gap is pretty consistent every year since 1955 when records were first kept. That gap is so large that if liberals could just keep up with conservatives, there would be no national debt and social problems would be nil. It's not even counter-intuitive. That's why liberals demand government assistance to get by, while conservatives just want to be left alone by the government.
Example: 85-90% of American prison inmates identify with the democrat party. The gap between a positive college degree lifework earnings, and a negative lifework of crime, is a swing of about $3-4 million dollars per individual over a lifetime. There are about 5 million career criminals in the USA (about 2.5 million are incarcerated at any one time). That's about $13.5-18 Trillion dollars lifetime difference right there. And, this doesn't include the productive savings lost from the mere non-productive dropouts and welfare individuals, who are not criminals, but contribute far less to positive production over their lives, for whatever reason.
That's not to say everybody could, or should, choose to pursue the same lifestyles and goals. But it hardly seems fair for liberals to use the levers of government to try to create the same outcomes when their input was not commensurate, by choice. That must come from the gecko part of the brain we see on their MRIs.
Hahahahahahaha!! This was great, gwar5. Let me guess, you're a staunch Republican FOX-watcher?
"Oh what a giftee the good Lord gie us, to see ourselves as others see us." ~ Robert Burns.
"My flawed study is better than your flawed study." ~ gwar5
GW is clearly a 'Liberal'. I see nothing wrong with that. My concern would be does he/you really get the difference between 'liberal' and 'progressive"?
The differences are enormous and critically important to comprehend.
Liberal/libertarian represent sanity and a post collapse way forward.
Progressive/military-industrial complex conservative do not.
Freedom from government is essential to liberty. Fair to all? Hell no.
But it's the jungle or the zoo.
Liberty demands the jungle and it is up to individuals in that jungle to make the rules, not the leech government and it's zombie fellow bloodsuckers.
Who do I like?
TD
Ron Paul
Camille Paglia
Hugh Smith.
Chris Christie (on a short leash).
Thank you GW for the time and effort you share.
Thanks. If I was liberal, why would I vote for Ron Paul if he runs for prez in 2012 (Ron, Ron, Run!)?
The thing is, "conservative" and "liberal" are relative terms. It all depends on what you want to conserve and what you want to be liberal about.
Union public sector workers picketing TV cameras (who are likely getting paid for the day off the job) are pretty damn adamant about conserving their (no doubt hard won) comfortable benefits and political leverage. Not a lot of radical agitation and openness to new solutions in that crowd.
Go measure they're fucking amygdalas now.
GW is kicking the hornets nest. Keep at it!
There is no answer to our problem IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUdsTizSxSI&feature=related
I'm a fan of yours, GW, but as a graduate student in the field of mass communication, let me caution you about studies and statistics in the the social sciences. The human mind, the "black box," if you will, is so goddamned squirrely and hard to pin down that social scientists consider it a home run if they can identify JUST 20 PERCENT of the cause of a given effect.
After a career's worth of multiple, narrowly-focused studies of a given phenomenon, you can get within arm's length of an explanation. The results of single studies are a thin reed to lean on when the uber trolls come after you.
I read a psychology study once that came to the conclusion that the less people know, the more they think they know...and conversely, the more they actually knew the less they thought they knew.
Ain't dat sumpin? ;-)
Did that psychology study happen to be the Book of Ecclesiastes or the Tao Te Ching? Seems like I've read that before ;)
LOL...no.
It was two scholarly academic types whose work has apparently been absorbed into the ether of Google hit bots...(another reason to keep a library)...I did look for it 1/2 an hour before giving up seeing the subject matter to be commented on...but I do remember the thrust of the observed psychosis.
But if you can point me to where these two learned professionals plagarized the text I would be grateful ;-)
I haven't read the academic manifestations of that wisdom--it has face validity, I think, and SOMEONE must have thought to test the hypothesis.
Chapter 56 of the Tao Te Ching (translation by Stephen Mitchell):
Those who know don't talk.
Those who talk don't know.
Close your mouth,
block off your senses,
blunt your sharpness,
untie your knots,
soften your glare,
settle your dust.
This is the primal identity.
Be like the Tao.
It can't be approached or withdrawn from,
benefitted or harmed,
honored or brought into disgrace.
It gives itself up coninually.
That is why it endures.
I would argue that the Tao Te Ching is one of the great Anarchist manifestos of history--as well as a damn fine sociological text!
Laozi always seemed like a smart guy to me, among many who have trod the earth.
Don't know about the anarchist part, as the word is understood here in the western world.
And it certainly has never come to fruition in the eastern world (speaking from a western perspective of course) which is what I can only observe from here.
Sociologically, individually...yes, damn fine words to strive for.
It's late here, in my world.
Good to speak with you, cordially ;-)
SeeYa
GW back to your specialty please
Dade Cops Waiting To Get Crime Fighting Drone Airborne -- POLICE DRONES CAN SEE INSIDE HOUSES
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2686273/posts
In the British study how do they define liberal and how do they define conservative? In the United States both definitions have been usurped by the giant, statist, fascist, and wholly corrupt Republicrats. To me, a liberal wants to hang at trndy coffee houses, is anti-war, pro-gay, and likes the idea of a a lifetime job, medical care and pension. A conservative mistrusts governments, academicians, and politicians, likes to hunt or fish, takes business risks, saves a lot, wants to be left to his/her own devices, and wants the government to stop the damned imperialism.
This British study smacks of the government funded disinformation the British are famous for: false flags, global warming, statism, and absolute socialist control.
"Other studies have shown being happy means being old, male and Republican."
last line in following article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110307/sc_livescience/happiestinha...
Hahahahahahahahahaha
As I have often noted, ignorance is bliss.
Presented without comment:
GW, earlier today your write
and then in this article you write:
and you preface the above article with
And I called liberals babies who think mommy and daddy will take care of them, who are impulsive and undisciplined, promiscious and without any values or guiding star ...
But I also added this to the preface:
You look blank, Joe," said Malaclypse. "Has no one explained to you that the human race is divided into two distinct genotypes - neophobes, who reject new ideas and accept only what they have known all their lives, and neophiles, who love new things, change, invention, innovation? For the first four million years of man's history, all humans were neophobes, which is why civilization did not develop. Animals are all neophobes. Only mutation can change them. Instinct is simply the natural behavior of a neophobe. The neophile mutation appeared about a hundred thousand years ago, and speeded up thirty thousand years ago. However, there has never been more than a handful of neophiles anywhere on the planet. The Illuminati themselves sprang from one of the oldest neophile-neophobe conflicts on record."
+5 tons of flax!
Ralphie
Deepest trilogy written. Amazing just how insightful it was and how pertinent it is today.
Even more so than say, Atlas Shrugged.
Which always makes me wonder why no one throws Sometimes a great notion in the mix. Nearly the same theme.
Except the Illuminati don't exist and didn't exist ever.
Yeah, Illuminatis is like the Bible--you can read it over and over and still find something new every time.
"Poll After Poll Shows That Both National Parties Are Deeply Unpopular With An Electorate Looking For Something New And Different"
Dear George,
I enthusiastically propose The Third Party.
The Third Party has only one element in its platform: that its members & elected officials at all times oppose the other two parties, by voting 'NO" to any and all legislative actions by the other two camps.
The Third Party has no ideology or philosophy. It does not debate, earmark, nor legislate. It cannot be bought, lobbied, or bamboozled. It only votes NO to Democrat or Republican sponsored legislation.
I think the "silent majority", sick to death of Washington insider politics could easily get behind The Third.
Thanks for writing,
Beef
Wow, you are taking it on the chin today, GW. Hang in there.
I didn't care for the study you reported. I would have preferred an article written by you on the subject. You're an intelligent observant individual. What do your experiences tell you?
IMO
Conservatives base decisions on fear.
Liberals base decisions on guilt.
Which one is preferable? Fear.
Why? Now there's an interesting article topic for you GW.
Guilt? I don't think that came up anywhere - and I defy you to find a liberal who feels "guilty" about anything in their politics.
Conservatives are more afraid, so their decisions would be cautious and based on (elusive, impossible?) security and will include attempts to control the behaviors.
Liberals like the stimulation of novelty, so their decisions would be more daring (perceived by cons as "reckless"?) and based on greater individual freedom and access to knowledge.
Guilt, schmilt.
My experience teaches me that true conservatives of good faith hate the Republican party because it has sold out the people and our future to the big banks, the defense contractors and the top .1%. They are for prosperity and opportunity and an even playing field (instead of corporate socialism and bailouts for the big boys), true national security (instead of endless wars to make the defense industry rich), and liberty.
My experience teaches me that true progressives of good faith hate the Democratic party because it has sold out the people and our future to the big banks, the defense contractors and the top .1%. They are for prosperity and opportunity and an even playing field (instead of corporate socialism and bailouts for the big boys), true national security (instead of endless wars to make the defense industry rich), and liberty.
Thank you for your thoughtful Reply, GW.
I think we can agree everyone abhors corruption.
What is it Conservatives and Liberal/Progressives disagree about and why? Now that's interesting reading.
(Forget "Republican" and "Democrat." Those are political parties.)
What are Conservatives trying to conserve? What are Progressives trying to progress toward or away from?
I would postulate the label "liberal" has been beat into a steaming pile of goo...unfortunately.
A liberal (notice no quotes around liberal now) is not a statist. A liberal would not impose himself/herself on anothers property, money or life through the power of the state.
A progressive will and does.
This is my observation anyways...and so do some conservatives.
Some few years ago the editorial page of The Economist tried to reclaim the word "liberal" to its original meaning, for its purposes on its pages. That didn't work out. Writers are still obliged to use the formulation "classical liberal" and still only get their meaning across to the astute reader. I agree with you it is important to tie "liberals" (in the parlance of our times h/t Lebowski) to their ideological forbears, notably statist progressives whose ideas and enthusiasms preceded and informed both the communist and fascist horrors of the 20th century.
Without question the false left/right paradigm is played out. People are waking up... MSNBC is as wretch inducing as Fox News. Beck wears an asshat just as large as Olberman's. On the political front, the differences between the political parties are manufactured to create dissonance, and more importantly, massive battles over tempests in a teapot that don't even matter.
Check the biggest political story of the day today... It's about the idiot bigwig at NPR who was fired for trashing Republicans. Scaaandalous! [sarc on]. Honestly, this is some seriously kindergarten trivial shit. But it makes front page screaming headline news. Top of fold at Drudge, then the leftist clowns at Media Matters fire back with their liberal take.
Rome is burning around us. Folks like Alex Jones and Amy Goodman get it -- someone who skews right and a progressive... How about that! They agree about more than they realize.
Or to take another example: "Survivalist gun nut" and permaculture greenie hippie. What do they both agree on? That the ability to feed yourself from your own garden/land is by far the biggest threat to the existing power structure... Once you can feed yourself and your family, once you aren't reliant on their toxic Franken-food, once you're free from debt, free from the silly diversions that pass for "better quality of life", once you no longer need to shop in their stores, or buy their goods...you no longer need THEM.
And this absolutely terrifies THEM.
So, all we have to do (individually and collectively) is turn our backs on them. Become as self-sufficient as you can in big ways and small... Cut up your credit cards, grow your own food, own your house, avoid debt like the plague, move out of the country, refuse to vote, barter for services rather than use their fiat, turn off the TV, invest in hard assets that you own rather than their Ponzi.
MLK, Gandhi and others were absolutely right: Passive resistance is the only answer -- turn your back on them and their "system" will crater. Or to take a 60's approach: Tune in, turn on, drop out. Great wisdom from the now wrinkly hippies regardless of your political leanings.
I'm just trying to figure out who would junk this post. Statist centrists?
This post does the exact opposite of what its implied intentions are.
There are conservatives on the left and liberals on the right.
The problem that we face is not contained within any of the four permissible ideological frameworks.
The problem, rather is in the concentration of power itself. Entrenched interests like cartels, MIC, politicos with large constituencies living on the govt teat, hollywood "stars", etc.
Every years these focal points of power get stronger while individuals and communities get weaker.
One's ideology then decides whether you hate the unions or the corporations, the homos or the intolerant, etc.
it's the accumulation of power without check or balance which is the problem. I no more want to live in a world where a single corporation rules everything than I do in a world of state communism
"it's the accumulation of power without check or balance which is the problem. I no more want to live in a world where a single corporation rules everything than I do in a world of state communism"
+1
++1 But, I wonder, is the American psyche more inclined to be anti-communism than it is to be anti-fascism? From my perspective, growing up through the duck-and-cover years, that 'most' Americans know that communism has never, and will never, end well. I'm not so sure the trappings of fascism are as deeply ingrained..
Fascism and communism are brothers...both are socialist...just different ways of going about the "means to the ends"...both depend on statism, which has always been both's undoing.
But yes, fascism is not "taught"...more properly said, understood by Americans today. We are more "conditioned" by the education system to accept fascism over communism...IMHO.
I've been calling it fascism for years and been roundly criticized for it...but fascism is a marriage of the state with industry/commerce that the state holds the pre-nup on...LOL.
This is exactly where we are...Government Motors...Government Banks...Government Medical...Government Education etc...sad really.
The first thing to take back has always been education...they knew this when they took it over in the first place.
Nicely said, couldn't agree more.
Megadittos as callers to the left's great satan of talk radio are known to say.
Yes, all true ... but until we stop being so divided and distracted by the left-right dog-and-pony show, we won't get off our butts to insist that the concentrated powers be broken up:
The powers-that-be try to divide us and demonize the "other side" so that we won't realize how much we all agree on. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. We can fix our nation if we focus on what we all want.