Alternative Group Boundaries

One of the Moral Foundations of conservative thought, or perhaps simply a problem for all people, is a tendency to define ourselves as members of an in-group and dismiss the out-group. This is particularly problematic when the same groups are re-enforced over and over: when we decide we are liberals and conservatives, rather than Americans, people, neighbors and a host of other possibilities (not all of which imply opposed groups or outsiders). It's hard to say "no" to in-groups: if we keep repeating that Americans are thinking of themselves as liberals and conservatives and shouldn't, it probably reinforces the thought pattern as much as it breaks down. A more effective technique is to ignore liberal and conservative groupings, and create new ones. These could be inside the liberal and conservative fences: radicals, liberals, liberatarians and conservatives; pro-Choice, pro-Life and pro-Birth. But even more effective is when you create new groups that people will feel loyal to, that cross the liberal-conservative divide.

A big failure, but that we might get right next time, is the way that both Occupy and the Tea Party were against bank subsidies and crony capitalism. The framing for both movements focused on their liberal and conservative status, which was correct but counterproductive. They were seen, they were framed, as subsets of liberal and conservative movements, instead of being framed as two allied wings of the group of people who absolutely had had enough of government subsidizing the rich.

Framing the Hijacked Pope

[Draft]

It appears that the Vatican Ambassador to the US, Carlo Maria Vigano, played sneaky politics with the Pope's visit, getting Kim Davis near enough to the Pope that her team could imply Papal support.

The allegation is he used the Pope as a pawn for his political views, using him to rally conservative-minded Catholics to place their religion in the service of politics.