Jeb Bush criticizes the nostalgia for Reagan era

On May 3, 2009, the Washington Times had an article about a panel of Republicans discussing the future of the party and it was posted to a message board on May 4:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it’s time for the Republican Party to give up its “nostalgia” for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

“You can’t beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don’t like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that,” Mr. Bush said.

The former president’s brother, often mentioned as a potential candidate in 2012, said President Obama’s message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign clearly resonated with Americans.

“So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it’s great, but it doesn’t draw people toward your cause,” Mr. Bush said.

“From the conservative side, it’s time for us to listen first, to learn a little bit, to upgrade our message a little bit, to not be nostalgic about the past because, you know, things do ebb and flow.”

Someone posted this comment:

I agree completely. It was nauseating watching all the GOP candidates fawn over the Gipper in the campaign. I love Ron, but he wasn't the be-all, end-all of conservatism.

We're 20 years removed from when Reagan left office. Running on a Reagan platform would have been akin to Reagan running on an Eisenhower platform.

Move forward. State your own ideas as your own, and stop trying to be like a guy half the electorate doesn't remember.

I wrote this comment:

I was born during the Reagan era, so I don't remember his Presidency. The biggest complaint against him seems to be that he supported amnesty. We do need someone who is optimistic and patriotic and supports policies that will expand freedom and prosperity, but it has been 20 years since his administration and it is time to look to the future. We shouldn't worry about whether someone is the same as Reagan, the important issue is whether they support the Constitution and the free market. If those policies tend to match Reagan's, then that is swell. I recently saw someone wearing a "What Would Reagan Do" t-shirt and it just seemed quaint and pathetic.

Who Stole Psychology?

On November 5, 2005, Dr. Helen had a post about how the psychology profession is overwhelmingly liberal and has little tolerance for other viewpoints:

I read recently that 93% of all psychologists are left leaning; that explains a lot about my profession. I wish that in the 1980's when I started studying psychology that I had been given the list of rules and regulations outlining the political views I was being signed up for, without my consent. But at that time, I wasn't aware of the "rules"--maybe they were different then, or maybe I just didn't get the memo. If I had, I would have just walked away.

Somehow, in my misguided youth, I was under the impression that in the field of psychology I would study the science of the mind and behavior. Instead, I found myself and other students put on trial for the correctness of our personalities and political beliefs. In my first program in New York, I was in a European style program that had students take a series of exams after their Masters and prior to going into the PHD program. I was in an externship with several of the students who were preparing for these doctoral exams and studied their behavior. They often kissed up to the professors early on and acted as if they held their views in high regard. I realized that my anti-authority attitude was going to get me nowhere and decided another program would be better, and it was, but now I had to contend with political beliefs that I neither believed nor wanted to hear about.

Many of my classes centered around women's rights and multiculturalism. I would find myself seething in class over the liberal views but at the same time, I was unable to speak. I did not see women as victims, but as autonomous beings who were responsible for their own behavior. I felt that affirmative action was unfair and that people should be judged on their merits. I sensed that if I spoke up, the career that I had put so many years into could be cut short; and I was right. A male student in the program made a politically incorrect remark; he was gone a week later. I kept my mouth shut for the most part, until it came time for my dissertation. One of my committee members held up my defense with one trivial change after another. One day, she told me that since I was a woman, I would have to do a dissertion that was better than any man's to prove myself. This, she said, was the way the world worked. (Apparently stabbing your own gender in the back was part of the way the world worked in her eyes.) With my most cold and threatening gaze, I told her that I would do the worst dissertation that any student in my program had ever done who received their degree. She never bothered me again.

On December 21, 2006, I responded with this comment:

I know you wish you could redo your college experience, but I think it is good that you stayed in Psychology. It allows you to expose the left and interject new ideas. Plus it is probably really dangerous if patients are only exposed to liberal ideas. My mom's first cousin (about 30) is earning his PhD in Psychology right now; I think he wants to be a professor. I'm not sure of his political beliefs, but he did seem opposed to the Iraq war. He is a Mormon, so that probably helps somewhat to keep him grounded (though it doesn't seem to work for Harry Reid).

I think that other Psychology student who was released from the program should have sued the university for discrimination. You might as well use liberalism against itself. I think you would enjoy the psychologist in the movie "12 Monkeys." One of the earlier anonymous posters mentioned liberalism in Anthropology. I took an introductory class as a requirement and enjoyed it, but I could tell the professor was a liberal based on some comments she made about homosexuality and religious fundamentalists.

When I was in college I found a girl from the same school while I was on a message board. One time she e-mailed me and said that I might be a predator. I don't think I said anything, but I should have confronted her and said she could also be a predator for all I knew. She was also one of those types that was questioning her sexuality. Probably because all men are evil and there is no way that a sexually liberated woman could be attracted to a man.

Is it political correctness or altruism?

On October 25, 2005, Dr. Helen had a post about Breast Cancer Awareness Month:

So, what harm does this do? It convinces most women (and men who are concerned about women) that breast cancer is just around the corner, especially for younger women. This could not be further from the truth. In 2001, only 900 women under 30 had invasive breast cancer. In fact, almost half a million women die every year from heart disease compared to 40,000 from breast cancer. Yet, heart disease gets little publicity--our local newspaper is not even expected to show up at this year's heart walk; and there are almost no celebrities I can think of that have taken up the cause for heart problems. Heart disease is thought of as an "old person's disease and a good way to die (even if this is true, which it is not, isn't this a little cruel?)."

Yes, it is wonderful that we are finding cures for breast cancer, but if we are doing so at the expense of finding cures for other diseases that take more lives, even those of younger women, are we really fighting diseases to extend the lives of those who have them or are we just trying to make ourselves feel good?

Ben asked her a question:

This is completely off topic, Dr. Helen, but, most women I know are not as concerned as you seem to be with bias against men in the U.S. I truly appreciate you getting the word out about this issue, and I agree. I'm just wondering why you feel so strongly about these issues. Does my question make sense? I'm just trying to get a peak inside your head, that's all.

She responded with this:

Thanks for your question. I will have to do a post on my life and views at some point soon. To sum it up, my emotional makeup was more "masculine" (actually, I found out later that other women felt the same--I just did not know them) while growing up in the South and I never understood the whole girl culture. I was direct with my feelings and opinions and believed heavily in individual rights and freedom.

On October 27th, an anonymous person asked her this:

hmmm. what exactly does that mean--your "emotional makeup" is more "masculine"?

She responded with this:

By "masculine" emotional makeup--I meant that I showed anger more directly to other people than typical women did in the south. I realize that women feel anger just as readily as men but they tend to show it in different ways such as passive-aggressive techniques such as not wanting to be your friend etc. Many junior high age girls were terrified of this rejection (still are) whereas I would just say, "fine, don't be my friend, what friend would say that to me?" I think men in our society are more direct with their anger (although that is changing).

On December 18, 2006, I responded:

I don't live in the south, but my sister is like this and sometimes I think she does it to be mean. I am a very timid guy and I would never want to marry someone with this type of personality.

What's Fair for the Goose is Fair for the Gander

On October 9, 2005, Dr. Helen had a post about men being scared of a false accusation of child molestation:

Reading over the comments to my last post about the Oprah sexual predator offender list really opened my eyes to the sad state of how adults (mainly men) fear involving themselves with kids due to being accused of child molestation. This fear is very real, given the current milieu in America where being called a sexual molester seems to strip one of all normal due process rights. In a world where kids, particularly boys, are in desperate need of male role models, this loss of male influence is dire.

The next day someone posted a Washington Post article called "A Differing Definition Of Justice" and written by Ian Shapira.  Prince William County high school teacher David Perino was accused of sexually abusing a woman with Down syndrome.  He was cleared by a criminal court but still fired by the School Board.

On December 13, 2006, I wrote this:

I read the Washington Post article and the ending about a teacher who committed suicide over a false accusation is really sad:

"I look at the guy," Perino said, squinting out the window at nothing in particular, "and I bet you he was a good teacher and tried hard to help his kids."

Hype and Hysteria

On October 6, 2005, Dr. Helen had a post about Oprah's list of adults who might be child molesters:

Ok, now this is ridiculous. Here is Oprah's list of offender characteristics of child molesters--included on the list are adults who know too much about children's fads or music. I know many people who would fit this bill--I guess they should turn themselves in. But wait--states such as Alabama are tightening up on laws against child molesters--and Oprah promotes one sexual offense and life in prison, so it would probably be too risky. And the courts have very little in the way of restitution if a person is accused unfairly (see this article). In fact, you get more punishment for being cruel to a chicken in Arizona than you do for falsely accusing someone of being a child molester.

Here is Oprah's list:

Adults who seem preoccupied with children

Single adults who work or volunteer with children's clubs/activities and frequently spend their free time doing "special" things with kids

Adults who spend time volunteering with youth groups who do not have children in those groups

Adults who seem to engage in frequent contact with children, i.e., casual touching, caressing, wrestling, tickling, combing hair or having children sit on their lap

Adults who act like children when with children or who allow children to do questionable or inappropriate things

Adults who want to take your children on special outings too frequently or plan activities that would include being alone with your child

Adults who do not have children and seem to know too much about the current fads or music popular with children

Adults that your children seem to like for reasons you don't understand

Adults who seem able to infiltrate family and social functions or are "always available" to watch your kids

On December 13, 2006 I wrote this:

As the others have said, I think the ones about single adult volunteers and adults volunteering in an activity that doesn't have their own children in it, are really lame criteria.

I have a six-year-old first cousin (her mom is close to my age) who is really cuddly and loves to give me hugs. It makes me feel uncomfortable for this very reason.