Your question to Virginia Republicans was: "Why do you approve of Virgil Goode's xenophobia?"

Why do people like Virgil and Ann Coulter go off half cocked and say (and probably believe) bigoted things?  And why do a lot of people adhere to these same beliefs?

Step back for a moment.  We're taught as adults to try to understand why the person who disagrees with us takes that position.  It's helpful in everything from achieving domestic harmony to politics.

Since this is a political blog dedicated to progressive change, I think we should be trying to figure out why people hold hurtful views, and what we can do to change them.

People can change.  I've seen many people in my lifetime (including family members) moderate their views on issues that used to engender narrow minded responses.  And I think our society is, on the whole, much more tolerant than it was fifty years ago.  I also think some people are incapable of change because of their genetic wiring and/or the way they were raised.

But it is clear that on the whole the American people hold better views on such hot button topics as sex, race, etc., than they did 50 years ago. 

I think it's important as we march forward and try to make VA more progressive that we not pop off (and, boy, I have that tendency) and say -- "You bigoted moron . . .".  I think it's important, through public discourse (LTEs, etc.) to be reasonable and point out contradictions in people's thinking.  And sometimes a little bit of humor helps.

Here's an example of light humor that really gets at deep philosophical issues.  In a Simpson's show, Homer, trying to get out of going to church, asks Marge: "But what if we've chosen the wrong church?  Aren't we just making God angrier every week by going?"

It really does make headway to ask people whether they really really deep down think there is only one religious truth, and it is found in their United Reedeemer of the Holy Baptist All Saints AME Congreational Blahdiddyblah.  After gentle probing, thinking people will admit that all religious views should be granted equal respect.

I was raised in a Catholic church that was as conservative as they come.  I've been repairing myself ever since.  But recently the local parish priest, who is over 90 now, said he had come to conclude that there are many paths up the mountain to God (though he still thought he had chosen the best one for him).

We just need to get about a zillion million other people to think like that.

As to the other side of the question, WHY the bigotry, my wife thinks that it is consistent with the evolutionist view  that our species survives in part because of the tendency of people to follow orders.  (I'm stating this inarticulately and she'll make fun of me when she reads this later.)  But a few million years ago, there was a benefit to the species following orders probably more than there is now (Og says big tiger near river. Og says do not go there.)  As humans' brains developed, analytical thinking by individuals became more and more important.  But following our parents' orders is still important.  Some people are not well wired to make the appropriate choice between "follow the old blindly" and "think -- this is a different situation".

In short, the Virgil Goodes of the world are slowly, over millions of years, being replaced by a more analytical type.  But genetic strains evolve very slowly, and the old ones hang around a long time.  And sometimes it is just a minor change in the genetic makeup that makes a huge change in humans.  (Example -- the tendency to get sickle cell anemia is just a click away from resistance to malaria; the horrible disease called Tay Sachs is just a genetic click away from resistance to tuberculosis.)

Basically, the anthropological literature suggests that intragroup cohesion varies in direct proportion to a perceived external "threat."  Basically, the research appears to indicate that "high anxiety subjects" demonstrate a greater affiliative tendency than "low anxiety subjects." Interestingly, there are indications that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. 

Social psychologists have found that one way of measuring the amount of unity, or cohesion, within a group is to look at the level of "perceptual consensus" within that group.  "Perceptual consensus" means, in short, that the group shares a common perceptual frame.  Thus, the level of cohesion for any particular group can be determined by measuring the extent to which that group's preference ordering differs from that of another group.  In sum, one can define a group's level of unity, or cohesion, as the extent to which members of the group:

1) Share a common perceptual base for looking at alternatives
2) Are in consensus on various issues
3) Oppose another group's preferences.

One of the main ways in which inter-group conflict increases in-group cohesion is by serving to establish and maintain the identities and boundary lines of the group.  In this respect, conflict serves a "marking-off" function for different groups.  The cohesion of groups that perceive themselves as under attack from another group will be strengthened, and internal dissension will be reduced (given that it could endanger the mobilization of concerted energies for the outside conflict).

What I'm saying here, in a long and convoluted way - yes, I studied this stuff in college and grad school (ack!) - is that the Ann Coulters and Virgil Goodes of the world may serve an internal cohesion function for Republicans.  To a degree, at least.  The problem is, if they go too far, they may risk actually REDUCING internal group cohesion, WIDENING internal fissures, and actually STRENGTHENING the other group.  In this case, what I'm wondering is if Ann Coulter might have simlutaneously hurt the Republicans and helped the Democrats, with her extreme attempt at "marking off."  We'll see...

P.S.  I think this is a fascinating topic, and originally studied it in the context of Israeli internal cohesion (Ashkenazi-Sephardic, Secular-Religious) when faced with an "external threat" - real or perceived.

And the Karl Roves of the world try really hard to manipulate groups (and win elections) by creating fears?

Is it possible to broadcast a positive, truthful  message that appeals to people's higher instincts?  Or is even a positive message merely the mirror of the fear message?  (E.g., lower taxes reduce the fear of privation.)

Rove has exploited the fears of the religious right to  advantage (e.g., their fear of the unknown including fear of foreigners, the fears concerning what happens after we die, fears of social change because that possibly exposes cracks in the logic of religious belief, etc.)  Fascinating stuff.

I got interested in politics out here in Fairfax County because I feared for the future of my daughters under a political regime in Virginia that discriminated against minorities, manifested a high level of intolerance, and basically wanted to substitute superstitious religious belief for critical/analytical thinking.  I figured that females with non-Caucasian looks would not be favored under such a regime.

So you see a candidate like Chris Craddock, our local Anne Coulter, pushed me into another group.

and hope, greed and altruism, etc.  Positive, truthful messages that appeal to peoples' higher instincts may be a bit harder to communicate, but I think they're ultimately more powerful than simplistic, primitive brainstem-type appeals to fear, hunger, etc.  At least I hope so.