At their core, political conservatives base their ideology on what social psychologists have recently identified as five moral standards: harm/care, fairness/cheating, authority/subversion, loyalty/betrayal, and sanctity/degradation.[1] That ideology is individualistic by nature and positioned in staunch opposition to a strong national government. Progressive/liberal ideology is largely based on two moral standards: harm/care and justice, which is understood as fairness, reciprocity, rights, and equality leavened with compassion and tolerance and is more collective than individual and generally favors a strong national government.[2]
Conservatives are more committed to individual liberty and curing society's ills through individuals’ choices to better themselves and others and a free market unencumbered by government regulations. Progressives 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 strong government as a marvelous opportunity to effect change for the greater societal good.
As a life-long progressive, I must admit both to a great curiosity about and an almost visceral distrust of political conservatism. Please note that while intellectually I understand what some psychologists posit as the moral foundations of conservatism, specifically the five moral standards mentioned above, I have relatively little sympathy for that interpretation. Rather than taking a supposedly moral foundations approach, I see the basis of conservatism more conventionally as resistance to change (expressed as commitment to tradition, authority, and social convention) and acceptance of inequality as natural and unavoidable.[3] I believe those critical foundations are driven by personal needs to reduce uncertainty and fear through threat reduction or avoidance, which, of course, I realize may be a reflection of my personality and core principles, though I can live with that awareness.
The problem is both conservatives and progressives are 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 yell our points of view with no regard for rationality or civility. From my vantage point, the critical political problem for the U.S. in 2015 and coming years seemed straightforward: if our myriad problems have any chance of being positively addressed, both sides need to engage in genuine civil discourse and acknowledge that no single political ideology has a lock on “truth” or moral rectitude.
When I embarked on this effort several years ago, 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 immigration) is to invite attacks from opponents as well from like-minded ideologues intent on toeing the party line. I thought then 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 several years of reading largely academic literature in sociology, political science, and psychology and reflecting about what it means to be conservative and progressive, I was blindsided by an insight I had not previously considered. It struck me that four significant problems contradict the seemingly sage position espoused above about engaging in genuine discourse and acknowledging that no one political ideology has a lock on the “truth.” First, in terms of practicality, almost no one would do it. Second, doing so would run counter to key conservative personality traits. Third, political ideologies are not based on rationality thus at least some of their adherents respond poorly to interactions that rely on reason or logic. The fourth issue also involves rationality and is discussed several paragraphs below.
As far as the first problem is concerned, most of us are happy to dislike, demean, and attack people with whom we don’t agree and to bond 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 stupid assholes. It’s that simple, especially where politics are concerned.
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, 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." In real life that definition means when I attach an electrode to an enemy combatant’s penis and deliver one severe electrical shock after another or shove bamboo splinters under his fingernails and set them on fire, or imprison an enemy in a freezing cell without blankets or adequate clothing for weeks those same self-professed, God-fearing Christians fervently profess not to believe that I’m committing acts that are torture, illegal/immoral, and are 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 a despised 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 how Jesus Christ would react to that “reasoning?”
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 or Jesse Graham’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 and his colleagues fail 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 progressive 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 progressives alone would be expected to compromise their values. Which is the precise position elected conservatives have taken in Washington, DC.
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, that 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. Water boarding or weeks of sleep deprivation under temperature extremes are not torture. Our (pre-Affordable Care Act) market-based healthcare system was the best in the world. Trickle-down economics and the free market work financial miracles. Evolution is a figment of Darwin’s imagination. The Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. America doesn't have gun problems or race problems. Global warming doesn’t exist; scientists who claim so are charlatans and liars.
No amount of evidence will change those beliefs because they are not based on objective rationality. And progressives are supposed to dialogue with people who believe and spout such nonsense? Hello Alice in Wonderland.
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 conservative Republican. Several years ago, when the debate over some sort of national healthcare system was hot and heavy, my conservative friend and I engaged in a lengthy e-mail discussion of the problems with healthcare in America. Naturally, given my leftist convictions, I argued that we needed a government-regulated system, a position he adamantly opposed. After I ranted about the historically abysmal ranking of the U.S. in a broad array of medical statistics with respect to other industrialized nations, my friend wrote back that the best way for adequate healthcare to be delivered to all Americans was through free market functions. I was astounded and aghast. His email was written several years after the collapse of the economy in the Great Recession of 2007-2008 and even after the once venerable and deeply embarrassed Alan Greenspan recanted his previous Milton Friedman look-alike economic ideology, hung his head in public ignominy, and admitted to Congress that the market was in obvious need of more stringent government regulations to control Wall Street’s immeasurable and rapacious greed.
Even though I readily admitted my friend was right about the technological superiority and post-diagnosis efficacy of American medicine, at least for those who have employer-based medical insurance or Medicare, he refused to acknowledge our then system was characterized by flaws and constraints in access to healthcare that callously and regularly resulted in denied coverage and excess illnesses and deaths. No matter how many decades of medical statistics documented how poorly and consistently our national healthcare system performed, he believed those flaws either were figments of my imagination or just didn’t matter in terms of our world-class healthcare system. He simply refused to acknowledge inequities.
Thus, 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 honesty? Because, for all too many conservatives, rationality, and even historical reality, 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., etc, 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 evil liberalism.
Today, 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" or "objective evidence" but only with selective “factoids” that support our ideological position. That way we can defend Brack Obama’s outrageous actions because he’s a life-long Democrat and needs liberal support. Or defend Mitch McConnell’s outrageous actions because he’s a life-long Republican and needs conservative support. Or champion the astonishingly empty-headed Donald Trump for whatever pseudo-reasons people invent. It’s an utterly bizarre world when we are convinced, deep in our hearts, that ideological 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 fully prepared to drive the country into default rather than 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 Scott Walker and The Donald; 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. Source: Martin Esslin. 2001. The Theatre of the Absurd. New York: Vintage Books, pp. 181-182.
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 would likely be for them to strengthen and reconfirm their conservative beliefs.
Of course, I have other problems with conservatism. Understanding the well-documented characteristics of conservatives to be closed minded, prefer tradition over change, favor their in-group and be hostile to out-groups, 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 on every level. Needless to say, I do not recognize those beliefs as having positive moral value, especially since their practice has historically resulted in one group wielding power and dominion over others, usually with the dominant group using violence and 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 progressives are coming from.
Only now do I understand the invisible wall separating progressive and conservative ideologies. No way can I overcome that division. Fundamentally, my conservative friends and I have nothing to say to each other. We do not communicate on a meaningful level and I doubt we ever did. Thinking we could was only an illusion.
Of course, that impasse has filled me with ambiguity and sadness. 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 attempts 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. I now believe that those differences arise from personality traits, though I firmly believe they may be even deeper seated in the psyche. In any case, it is as if we live on parallel universes that do not intersect or interact. So be it.
Those conclusions, 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 all but the most basic political interactions, such as voting. Regardless of what that charming and utterly untrustworthy 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 washes 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 zero chance of seeing reality.
Like Mark Twain, I am supremely confident of one thing: Washington politicians on both sides of the aisle will continue bending over backward to prove they are conscienceless hypocrites who gleefully pad their pockets and those of their campaign contributors at the nation’s expense. And thanks to the partisan rulings of an ideologically charged U.S. Supreme Court, that situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.
So, what’s left for progressives and conservatives? Here’s a directly related question: Why did I write this essay? The answer to both questions is the same: to appeal to people who are supposedly in the middle, the moderates or centrists who are not overtly committed to either ideology. My hope is that rational appeals to mainstream independents will carry the day, which is why I’m absolutely ecstatic to see that pompous gasbag dipshit Donald Trump pushing all the GOP Presidential wanna-bes way off to the right on issues like immigration and birthright citizenship. Does anyone out there think that when it comes time to vote in the national election, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and various other immigrants will quickly forget the racist slurs and vulgar slights that now crawl out of the mouths of most of the GOP contenders? Peoples’ memories are not that short and anyway the eventual Democratic candidate will never let them forget those heinous comments that GOP candidates made during the primary to their batshit crazy base about rapist immigrants, anchor babies, and illegal aliens intent on stealing jobs from white Americans.
Reminding voters in the presidential election that the GOP is the party of white identity whose burning desire is to remain in control despite their coming loss of majority status shouldn’t be too hard or even much of a stretch.
Here’s my strategy and it should be the Democrats as well, to engage mainstream independents with rational arguments about immigration, voting rights, healthcare, the environment, government regulations reining in Wall Street, taxation, etc. My guess is that well-reasoned arguments will win the day and that progressive candidates will also benefit.
Have to wait and see what develops in the real world. In truth, I'm not optimistic.
Endnotes
[1] See
http://www.moralfoundations.org/ and Graham, Jesse, Jonathan, Haidt, Sena
Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, Sean P. Wojcik, and Peter H. Ditto. 2012. Moral
foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
47: 55-130.
[3] See Jost, John T., Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser, and Frank J. Sulloway. 2003. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3): 339-375; available online at http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment