Well before the November 2010 elections I thought the time was appropriate to reflect on what political labels mean in the real world while ignoring increasingly ugly aspersions cast by ideological opponents. My purpose was to take a no-nonsense look at the traits and ideals that are characteristic of Americans who hold conservative and liberal world views. I was eager to understand why people in both camps who appear to be rational in other aspects of their lives hold political points of view that they seldom analyze. What I found is very briefly summarized in the following pages.
At their core, political conservatives base their ideology on what social psychologists have recently identified as five moral standards: harm/care, fairness/justice, hierarchy/authority/respect, loyalty/tradition, and purity/sanctity. That ideology is individualistic by nature and positioned in staunch opposition to a strong national government. Liberal ideology is largely based on two moral standards: harm/care and justice (fairness, reciprocity, rights, and equality leavened with compassion and tolerance) and is more collective than individual.
Conservatives are more committed to individual liberty and curing society's ills through individuals’ choices to better themselves and others. Liberals are more committed to individual equality under the law and seek to ameliorate society's ills through targeted government intervention. Because of those and other critical differences, conservatives view powerful centralized government with deep suspicion and even loathing. Liberals, on the other hand, see centralized government as a marvelous opportunity to affect change for the greater good.
As a life-long leftist, I must admit both to a curiosity about and an almost visceral distrust of political conservatism. Please note that while intellectually I understand the concepts of in-group loyalty/distrust of outsiders, purity/sanctity, and hierarchy/authority, recognizing them as part of the defining foundations of conservatism, I have relatively little sympathy for them. Which, of course, is a reflection of my personality and innate principles since I respond much more strongly to moral issues associated with protection/care and fairness/justice.
Author’s Note: A fascinating test that will indicate where you fit on the modern political spectrum can be found by following the link below. For full disclosure, my scores are: Economic Left/Right: -7.75 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64. http://www.politicalcompass.org/test. As a step toward self awareness I highly recommend taking the test. Another web site that explores where individuals stand on numerous moral and political issues may be found at: http://www.yourmorals.org/.
The problem is both conservatives and liberals are strongly convinced they, and only they, are on the side of the angels. As a direct result of those deeply held convictions, both sides spout “facts” that support their positions while ignoring or denigrating other “facts” that do not. If you pay attention to the travesty that constitutes cable news commentary on Fox News, MSNBC, and occasionally CNN, you know the salient reality: the louder you shout and the more effectively drown out your opponent, the greater likelihood you will “win” the argument and be proved “right.” Which is idiocy, pure and simple, whether your name is Bill O’Reilly, Keith Olbermann, or Joe/Jane Lunch-Box.
We have stopped talking to each other and, far worse for our future, we no longer listen to those with whom we disagree. We shout our points of view with little regard for rationality or civility. From my vantage point, the critical political problem for the U.S.
When I first embarked on this effort, I was convinced both conservatives and liberals must, as a first step, understand what their opponents believe. That conviction meant we all must work hard at stepping outside our protective shells of self-righteousness and certitude to see the full dimensions of the other’s viewpoint. Regardless of what we believe as individuals, our political opponents are like us, convinced our position is the only correct one. To admit the slightest weakness or uncertainty regarding a specific policy or program (like Social Security or payments to the unemployed) is to invite attacks from opponents as well from like-minded ideologues intent on toeing the party line. I thought that only open and honest dialogue could take us past the present impasse to a middle ground that does not require either side to abandon deeply held beliefs.
After nearly two months of reading and reflecting about what it means to be conservative and liberal, I was blindsided by an insight not previously considered. Four very significant problems contradict the seemingly sage position cited above. First, in terms of practicality, almost no one will do it. Second, doing so would run against key conservative personality traits. Third, political ideologies are not based on rationality thus their adherents will not respond to interactions that rely on reason or logic. The fourth issue also involves rationality and is discussed below.
As far as the first problem is concerned, we’re very happy disliking, demeaning, and attacking people with whom we don't agree and bonding with those with whom we do. We seem disinclined to change those behaviors. Each side knows they are right and their opponents are a combination of dishonest bastards and dumb fuckers. It’s that simple, especially where politics are concerned.
For a fascinating but, for me, ultimately disappointing evaluation of the moral basis of politics and what has been proposed as a way out of our present dilemma, see: http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html. See also the work of psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham, "When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize." Online source: http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pub041.pdf.
Here's a real world example of people happily attacking those with whom they do not agree and in the process irrationally denying part of the moral foundations that supposedly define who they are. Many millions of conservatives claiming to be God-fearing, church-going, fundamentalist Christians vigorously applauded the U.S. Justice Department's definition of torture as only actions that "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Here's what that definition means in real life: when I attach one electrode to an enemy combatant's penis and the other to his nipple and then deliver one severe electrical shock after another or shove bamboo splinters under his fingernails and set them on fire, those same self-professed, God-fearing Christians fervently profess not to believe that I'm committing acts that are torture, illegal/immoral, or prohibited by international treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. If those scenarios do not blow your mind then you already must have realized that people who have intense loyalty to members of their in-group (in this case patriotic fellow Americans) have little to no regard for the personal well-being or safety of members of an out-group (potential Muslim terrorists) and that intense patriotism/loyalty is a far more significant and deeply held “moral” precept than their vaunted Christianity. Anyone wonder what Christ would think of that “reasoning?” Actually, many conservatives would say, "Yeah, Jesus would OK that." Seriously.
With respect to the second reason for my change of mind, it may come as no surprise that I disagree entirely with Jonathan Haidt’s well-meaning conclusion that the wall separating conservatives and liberals can be taken down brick by brick by each understanding the other’s concerns. The major problem Haidt fails to recognize or address is that conservatives as a group have never valued open-mindedness or tolerance for diversity of opinion. So, asking them to be open-minded or tolerant with respect to liberal beliefs or to be positive about changing the world for the better flies in the face of the very personality traits and "moral precepts" that make them conservative in the first place. Thus, dialogue would be a waste of time and effort unless liberals alone would be expected to compromise their values. Which is the precise position political conservatives have taken in Washington Washington
The third reason I believe dialogue between conservatives and liberals would prove non-productive in terms of achieving genuine understanding is political ideologies are not based on reason. According to Haidt and many other social psychologists, ideology is based on innate moral principles that enable adherents to distinguish between right and wrong. Most conservatives are moral realists who believe in the existence of true moral statements that report objective moral facts and deny that cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior. Most liberals are moral relativists who believe that right behavior has no correct or universal definition and that morality can only be judged with respect to the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. In either case, attempts to use reason and understanding as a basis for effective communication are bound to fail since, for conservatives, the dialogue comes down to good v. evil.
The fourth reason that constructive dialogue is impossible is that when people, for whatever reasons, refuse to recognize reality, meaningful exchange will never occur. Black is white, white is black. Waterboarding is not torture. Our healthcare system is the best in the world. Trickle-down economics and the free market work financial miracles. Evolution is a figment of Darwin America Alice
Does hope spring eternal in the hearts of conservatives or are they willfully blind and deaf to reality because doing so suits their ideological bent and deeply held personality characteristics? The latter is my personal assessment. Therefore, what possible good would it do for leftists/liberals to put effort into understanding their political opponents’ points of view? None. What. So. Ever.
Here’s a personal example. A man I respect and regard as a friend and who I worked with for nearly ten years is a very conservative Republican. About two or so years ago, when the debate over some sort of national healthcare system was firing up, my conservative friend and I engaged in a lengthy e-mail discussion of the problems with healthcare in America U.S.
In my eyes, then and now, our present healthcare system can only be characterized as fatally flawed, condemning the poor and uninsured to suffer illness and death at rates far higher than any other major industrialized nation and far higher than would be the result even if the fictitious “Death Panels” would have been organized and run under the new government-sponsored healthcare program (a vicious slander perpetrated by conservatives). Yet, my friend saw the same system as highly efficient, providing the best medical technology in the world.
Even though I readily admitted my friend was right about the technology aspect and post-diagnosis efficacy, at least for those who have employer-based medical insurance or Medicare, he refused to acknowledge our present system was characterized by flaws and constraints in access to healthcare that callously and regularly result in denied coverage and excess illnesses and deaths. No matter how many decades of medical statistics documented how poorly and consistently we have performed as a nation, those flaws either were figments of my leftist imagination or just didn't matter in terms of our world-class healthcare system. He simply refused to see the inequities.
I’m convinced that attempts by conservatives and liberals at dialogue, no matter how well intentioned, will do no good whatsoever in terms of an open exchange of ideas. After all, what good is it if l understand the conservative point of view since I do not find it credible or even based on rationality or on real-world honesty? Because for all too many conservatives rationality plays no part in the discussion. That said, as a professional urban/regional planner whose work was always grounded in rigorous data collection and analysis, I have never based my political or socioeconomic beliefs on a refusal to honestly examine and engage real-world conditions. That is why it astounds me that many of not most conservatives refuse to accept any number of evidence-based positions (evolution, global warming, the age of the universe/Earth, dating of geological materials, etc.). It has gotten to the point where millions of conservatives believe science itself has been politicized and must be attacked as a bastion of liberalism.
Today, we occupy a mind-warp in which an enormous number of Americans have stopped thinking and only react to political stimuli on a visceral/primitive level that excludes, overrides, or minimizes rationality. We no longer are concerned with anything that could be identified as "objective truth" but only with selective so-called "facts" that support our position. That way we can defend Charlie Rangel's outrageous actions because he's a life-long Democrat and needs liberal support. Or defend Tom DeLay's outrageous actions because he’s a life-long Republican and needs conservative support. Or champion the astonishingly empty-headed Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann or Jim DeMint for whatever pseudo-reasons people trump up. It's an utterly bizarre world when we are convinced, deep in our hearts, that shit is 24-carat gold.
Although people today seldom read plays, especially those written 50 years ago, Eugène Ionesco's "Rhinoceros" has an eerie, contemporary feel. In that play, people are transformed into rhinoceroses and start following the rhinoceritis political movement. They can no longer speak but bellow and delight in trampling humans. What better metaphor could we have for our contemporary situation with Republicans eager to drive the country into default rather than to compromise on taxes?
Today, to complete the irony—or is it absurdity?—Tea Party supporters see liberals as unthinking rhinoceroses. Hello Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi; the list goes on and on. And liberals see anyone they classify as right-wing nut jobs as unthinking rhinoceroses. Hello Jim DeMint and John Boehner; the list goes on and on.
With unerring accuracy, Ionesco put his finger on the problem:
People allow themselves suddenly to be invaded by a new religion, a doctrine, a fanaticism . . . At such moments we witness a veritable mental mutation. I don't know if you have noticed it, but when people no longer share your opinions, when you can no longer make yourself understood by them, one has the impression of being confronted with monsters—rhinos, for example. They have that mixture of candor and ferocity. They would kill you with the best of consciences.
That's where we are today. Even though I know on a theoretical plane it's appropriate to engage my right-wing friends in dialogue, I am convinced such actions would be absolutely counter-productive. The only result may likely be for them to hold their conservative beliefs even more strongly.
Of course, I have other problems with conservatism. Here's a big one. Understanding the well-documented characteristics of conservatives to be closed minded, prefer tradition over change, and believe in authoritarianism, gender hierarchy, and social dominance will never lead me to accept the implications of those values, which I reject outright and regard as suspicious at every level and verging on the flat-out immoral. Needless to say, I do not recognize those beliefs as having significant moral values, especially since their practice has historically resulted in one group wielding power and dominion over others, usually with the dominant group using violence or the threat of violence to control subdominant-groups. People who strongly believe in authority, order, and stability, even with adverse costs to “others” not included in their in-group, are highly unlikely to change their belief system simply because they want to "understand" where liberals are coming from. All of which I believe points to the weaknesses of the moral foundation position of psychologists like Jonathan Haidt.
Only now do I understand the invisible wall separating liberal and conservative ideologies. No way can I bridge that separation. Fundamentally, my conservative friends and I have nothing more to say to each other. We no longer communicate on a meaningful level, if ever we did.
Of course that impasse has filled me with ambiguity. I still have affection and respect for many conservative friends. But that didn't and doesn't make me rush to the phone or e-mail, to reach out to heal the wounds. In my heart I know those actions would not result in substantive changes to our respective political positions or in our convictions. I cannot understand their point of view and they, obviously, cannot fathom why I believe what I do. I see the world one way, my conservative friends see it another. Perhaps those differences arise from personality traits, though I firmly believe they are even deeper seated. In any case, it is as if we live on parallel universes that do not intersect or interact. So be it.
The conclusions reached above, combined with my judgment that the American political system is one of the most inherently corrupt and morally bankrupt on Earth, have led to a decision to pull back from political interactions. Regardless of what that charming chameleon, Obama, has said, for meaningful political change to occur, the America we live in will have to wait until a monster tsunami-like wave flushes away the current political system wherein oceans of campaign money corrupt nearly every elected representative at state and national levels. A hypothetical that, of course, has extraordinarily little chance of seeing reality.
So, why just stop talking to your political opponents, indeed, why vote? It's a meaningless charade when your only option is to vote for the least horrible choice. Then hold your nose while waiting for the inevitable piece of shit to be dropped on your dinner plate and pretend it's something else entirely. Tax breaks for the filthy rich are great for the entire country and for the economy. Try changing that steaming turd into a palatable morsel. Yeah. Better to give up false hopes and find solace waiting for Godot.
Like Mark Twain, I am supremely confident of one thing: Washington
While I was in the initial stages of investigating the differences between the two main opposing American ideologies, I compiled the following summary of what it means to be conservative and liberal. It should be noted that the points presented are brief rather than lengthy and are not meant to be all-inclusive. Many of those points, if not most, have been culled directly from web sites devoted to explaining differences between conservative and liberal ideologies. Despite my avowedly leftist nature, in describing conservatism I have made an effort to be objective and not load up on pejoratives or knee-jerk labeling. If you are conservative you should be able to find plenty in the first list that pleases you. If you are strongly leftist or merely lean left, many of the points in the list of progressive values should strike a resonant chord. Independents should find much to like and detest on both lists.
* * *
While I was in the initial stages of investigating the differences between the two main opposing American ideologies, I compiled the following summary of what it means to be conservative and liberal. It should be noted that the points presented are brief rather than lengthy and are not meant to be all-inclusive. Many of those points, if not most, have been culled directly from web sites devoted to explaining differences between conservative and liberal ideologies. Despite my avowedly leftist nature, in describing conservatism I have made an effort to be objective and not load up on pejoratives or knee-jerk labeling. If you are conservative you should be able to find plenty in the first list that pleases you. If you are strongly leftist or merely lean left, many of the points in the list of progressive values should strike a resonant chord. Independents should find much to like and detest on both lists.
Remember, such lists are never perfect, no matter who compiles them.
Specific Positions Many Conservatives Advocate
- Reduce national and state governments, slash Federal spending, balance the budget, cut the deficit, and deregulate business.
- Conservatives want to lower taxes across the board for individuals and businesses and eliminate the “Death” Tax and thus shrink government at all levels. It would be better to bring down the government than to raise taxes.
- A powerful centralized government threatens the individual, family, and private institutions and seeks uniformity and absolute compliance. Government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry.
- An originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution should be adopted.
- Repeal or revise drastically Obamacare; strongly support free market mechanisms in the healthcare effort.
- Restructure Medicare and Social Security as required by fiscal necessity and open both to significantly more free market functions (privatization).
- Strengthen the military and the nation by increasing defense spending.
- War—or the credible threat of first-strike military action—is an acceptable solution to many of
- Vigilant patriotism is a must—
- Dissent is not patriotic. Criticizing
- Government should emphasize law and order to control the unruly, lawless, and godless elements in society.
- Liberal efforts to increase government regulation of business and the economy are forms of socialism that must be resisted.
- Individual liberty is strongly preferred over individual equality.
- Duty, respect, and obedience are critical civic virtues. Bumper stickers that urge people to "question authority" and protests that involve civil disobedience are antisocial, un-American, and dangerous, not heroic.
- Equality is best sought through exercise of the free market, not through government laws, regulations, or programs that restrict those who are in superior positions.
- Inequality is the natural order of things. Human beings, in terms of innate talents and personal attributes, are inherently unequal and a social hierarchy is a natural consequence of that inequality.
- Poverty is largely caused by negative individual personality traits and character defects—including laziness, poorly developed intellectual ability, complaisance, and the lack of competitiveness, frugality, self-discipline, and self-reliance, etc.—not by structural socioeconomic conditions.
- By their nature human beings need structure and constraint to flourish; institutions like organized religion, marriage and the family, authority/law and order, and social hierarchy, etc. provide those benefits.
- Chaste, spiritually minded, and religious people are virtuous and morally superior to those who are not.
- Homosexuality is an unnatural abomination, a lifestyle choice people freely make; those who practice it commit inherently repugnant and evil acts. Morally, homosexual acts are much the same as incest and bestiality. Same sex unions are a direct threat to marriage and the family.
- A worldview that proposes "If it feels good, do it" is the philosophy of the devil.
- Conservatives are generally much more favorable of control and punishment than of personal freedom and diversity.
- The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a foundational element as long as such possession does not threaten national security.
- Evolution is either a flawed theory or an unsubstantiated fiction; Intelligent Design and Young Earth theories should be taught in public school science classes as viable/valid alternatives to evolution.
- No chain of causality links legal, easily-obtainable handguns and high murder rates. People kill people; guns are merely one of many instruments of violence.
- Border security and immigration laws should be tightened because of the adverse effects of illegal immigrants on American society. People who immigrate to
- Global temperatures are completely unaffected by fossil fuel emissions, which means the current climate change/global warming issue is, at best, a myth since its causes are natural, or, at worst, an out and out lie foisted on a gullible public by corrupt, liberal scientists.
- The best way to manage the environment is to open natural systems to the actions of the free market; meaning logging companies should be able to clear-cut anywhere they please and oil companies should be able to drill where and when they like without governmental restrictions, etc.
- Corporations never purposely injure anyone to make money and, given the appropriate free market environment, will take excellent care of their employees. Even if the actions of corporations might inadvertently injure people or they might treat their employees less than benevolently, the proper corrective measures should be meted out by an even-handed free market, not by government or by lawsuits brought by greedy trial lawyers. As a corollary, reform of the present tort system is a must.
- The National Rifle Association is good for the country because it supports and affirms the Constitution; the American Civil Liberties Union is bad for the country because it distorts and weakens the Constitution.
- Abortion is morally wrong since it kills human life and should be illegal.
- The national news media (with the exception of Fox News) are systemically biased toward liberalism.
- Repeal strict environmental laws, regulations, and enforcement since they cost too many jobs and damage the economy by reducing corporate profitability.
- End all government public assistance and welfare programs; replace them where necessary with private individual, institutional, and corporate charity.
Specific Positions Many Liberals Advocate
- Adopt a single-payer, national healthcare system.
- Concepts like pluralism and toleration contribute to the development of liberty and should be promoted.
- Strengthen Medicare and Social Security as required by fiscal prudence but prevent the privatization or gutting of those programs.
- Reduce Social Security benefits for individuals with annual incomes greater than $250,000; eliminate benefits for individuals with annual earnings in excess of $1 million; for taxing purposes raise the annual income ceiling to $1 million.
- Tightly regulate and make transparent all political campaign spending by wealthy individuals, corporations, unions, and special interests.
- Oppose interventionist American foreign policies as well as first strike military action.
- Reform
- End the war in
- Decrease current levels of defense spending by cutting unnecessary programs, downsizing overseas troop levels across the board; reduce the nuclear arsenal and end the space-based missile defense program.
- Issue Presidential Orders forbidding the use of torture (water boarding and other similar techniques most other countries acknowledge as torture under the Geneva Convention), secret renditions of suspected terrorists, electronic surveillance absent court order, and targeted assassinations overseas.
- Close the Guantánamo prison camp.
- Abolish "Don't ask, don't tell" in the military.
- Support disarmament treaties and the United Nations.
- End the heinous practice of Presidential “signing” statements.
- Normalize relations with
- Take a harder position with
- Support science-based regulation/enforcement by the EPA.
- Support science-based regulation/enforcement by the Food and Drug Administration.
- Significantly increase government policies and financial incentives to corporations for sustainable energy and pass legislation that would curb emissions of heat-absorbing gases.
- Institute more federal regulations for Wall Street and the major banks to insure the economic collapse that led to the Great Recession of 2007-2008 never happens again.
- Abolish the death penalty; make it more difficult to try children and youths as adults.
- Liberals want to revise the tax code through progressive taxation to fund government. Which means adopting a code that is fairer and simpler than what is currently in place with lower corporate tax rates similar to what are currently in force in
- Support labor unions and “union shop” laws.
- Prohibit the teaching of Intelligent Design and Young Earth ideas in public school science classes.
- Interpret the Constitution as a "Living" document, not one frozen in time.
- Support more stringent state and local gun control laws.
- Support government programs to rehabilitate criminals in society; reduce the number of the incarcerated.
- Support taxpayer-funded public education system.
- Establish a higher minimum wage and higher poverty level thresholds.
- Support laws that combat prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance of differences and diversity (sex, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, etc.); legalize same-sex marriage.
- Legalize and regulate drugs in much the same way alcohol is today.
- Eliminate government censorship of speech, publishing, news media, and the internet.
- Restrain the exercise of government power in the "political" realm, such as the freedom of expression or right to privacy.
- Seek expansive governmental powers in "economic" and "social" arenas in the name of protecting disadvantaged and less powerful groups that otherwise find themselves at the mercies of entrenched institutions and influential groups that historically have run roughshod over the weak and disenfranchised.
- The government has no right to control your body so abortion and a voluntary decision to end your life should be legal.
- Promote government policies to protect the less powerful. As a foundation of those policies, liberals believe a country is evaluated on the basis of how it cares for those of its citizens who struggle to care for themselves.
- Free people from “oppressive” institutions, including governments, religious institutions, social caste or class, customs and traditions, or powerful financial/commercial interests.
- Liberals embrace progressive societal and governmental change as both necessary and desirable for the betterment of the people.
- Government is the only agent capable of applying rational problem-solving techniques to trenchant socioeconomic difficulties and having the authority to carry out such policies at the societal level.
- Social and economic development ought not to be left to chance or to power-wielding groups that have been known to dominate political-economic systems.
- A totally unregulated market economy runs counter to both equality and freedom from domination by business/financial interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment