Liberals VS Conservatives: Why everyone has it wrong
The political war: liberalism vs conservatism. Red vs Blue. Democrats vs Republicans. They are backwards, they are elite - we are right, they are wrong. It's a tale as old as time and a song that most of us are tired of hearing. Is there a different way to approach the issue? You bet.
I am going to propose a series of ideas that John Hadit, a moral Social Scientist and writer of "The Righteous Mind: Why Good people are Divided by Politics and Religion" lays out. If during the process of reading this you find yourself dismissing the argument or thinking to yourself why your side (if you politically identify) is right and the other is wrong then that is OK. That is actually what politicians and the media have been counting on you to do. It is partiality how politics has become so divided. It is a natural human instinct that we have evolved to defend our own biases. We call it "rationalization".
There are a few propositions I will lay out before going into Moral foundation theory that Hadit discloses in his book. You might disagree with one or all of them --- which is what is expected. Remember one thing from this --- you are always a biased social creature living in a complex social world. And...everyone thinks they are right.
Here are the propositions:
1. Rationalization evolved to not be right, but appear to be right.
2. Conservatism is always mainstream and almost always the norm.
3. We are homo-duplex; we have individual motives and group motives.
4. Morality binds and blinds.
Now I will also assume some other things, but I will not raise them as issues to be discussed in this forum (such as the theory of evolution).
Got it? These are the main propositions Hadit lays out. I will disclose my interpretation of his years of social research and apply it to today's political divide.
1. Rationalization evolved to not be right, but appear to be right.
In his book " The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion", Hadit introduces the notion that we humans are social creatures who live as individuals within a very complex world. In this world of complexity, we evolved several systems to deal with the stimuli which we encounter. In the contemporary world, we are lead to believe that our feelings and emotions are separate systems that act differently then our more evolved, rational pre-frontal cortex. It is this "new" part of the brain which we believe differs us from the animals who run around throwing poop at each other all day.
More then this, we are socialized to suppress or control our feeling and emotional instincts and conform to a set of rules that our parents and society teach us. Generally, this has been a great boon for society as a whole. There is an entire argument in "The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined" By Steven Pinker which identifies this as one of the primary reasons we as humans have learned to control some of our self-destructive impulses. However, with every large step forward, there comes strings attached. Enter Rationalization.
There is a folk-psychology notion that we as humans are in a constant struggle with out emotions, feelings, and our cognitive rational side of our brains. I argue that although our experience of these things might suggest this, the truth of the matter is that these systems only process stimuli in the world differently depending on the need. And in fact, most of the time we are always following our intuitions and simply creating reasons WHY we come to certain conclusions about the world in retrospect to the experience itself.
First off, feelings and emotions are two distinct ways of processing. Feelings are more momentary and reactive. I can feel hot one moment, then feel cold several seconds later. They serve a base, momentary functional reaction to current stimuli. Emotions are a higher level of processing. Emotions are generally reflective and take the sum of experience to derive a general state of the human being. I can be in a depressed state for weeks or months, or I can be in an ok state (or manic) --- but never at the same time. There is even a blending; something we in the social field call affect (which is the experience of emotion or feeling as it is always changing). Feelings are like days of the week. Affect is like weeks/months. Emotions are seasons.
These systems always occur. Unless you are a psycopath, these systems are always firing. They are consistently monitoring your environment and developing intricate cognitive maps of the world around you. Where our common error occurs is that we assume these things are "less then" and not equal to the more "rational" pre-frontal cortex. The truth is, we often arrive at some categorization of stimuli in the world long before we are aware of it. If I touch your arm for example, you register it as touch. You don't know if my touch is ME or a spider. You also don't know if you like me touching you, or if you would prefer Denzel Washington. Either way, long before you know it is me, the human Chris, you know that it is a touch.
Let's sum all of these things up as "intuitions".
Moral systems work this way. If you are presented with "Obama" you may think, "That socialist jerk" or "Oh man, that guy is awesome." You always have an intuitive response long before your awareness kicks in that it is Obama. These responses may be negative, positive or mixed, but they are there. The thought of "socialist" or "awesome" are secondary. Even more so, intuitions always influence your arguments to why you either dislike or like a certain thing pertaining to the stimuli (gay, dog, sky, economic stimulus, Iraq, bailout, etc). Never are they not in the decision making process - there is no objective escape from them, even if you are not aware of their influence.
The example Hadit gives for this is as followed: We humans evolved to appear correct in social groups, not always be correct. It is more important to appear competent and to gain the trust and good will of others then to actually be competent in all situations at all times. This is why politicians often give contradictory statements. In the moment it is more important to gain the short term appearance of competency and certainty then to doubt yourself (or appear wrong). We disguise these appearances in "rational" arguments that only seek to justify our biased stances. We like the appearance of certainty (and giving of that appearance) more then actually being certain.
This is where a lot of "if this happened...." or "if only...." comes into play. We want to justify our positions; how we see the world...our biases and rationalization evolved to do this. John Stewart is often great at pointing out these disparities.
Its not that being competent and correct is not important over the long term, usually such rationalizations can be dis-proven. But the appearance of these things is a strong social motivator in the short term. More-so if you can rationalize your biased positions, then you seemingly have a "objective" justification for believing what you believe, and sell these rationales to others. Rationalization is a psychological process of post-hoc reasoning to create a narrative When other's believe it, it gives credence to your view of the world. And we as humans are stubborn to change our beliefs even if our rationalizations are proven false. IQ is not a predictor of how well you can understand someone's viewpoint. It is the biggest predictor of how well you can construct arguments (reasonable or not) for your own.
Remember when I bought up psychopaths? They reason, but do not particularly have emotions. Babies have emotions/feelings, but do not reason. Rationalization is a process which can (and does) include reason. But, the difference is rationalization is a story telling process. You are not always needed to step back, and reflect all the time; just reason good enough to win an argument, or confirm your own bias.
Remember when I bought up psychopaths? They reason, but do not particularly have emotions. Babies have emotions/feelings, but do not reason. Rationalization is a process which can (and does) include reason. But, the difference is rationalization is a story telling process. You are not always needed to step back, and reflect all the time; just reason good enough to win an argument, or confirm your own bias.
In the end, it is never emotions vs. rationality. Emotions are a way of cognitive processing, neither right nor wrong on their own accord (unless you have a mood disorder). It is more intuitions vs. reason. And rationalization is not a perfect method of reasoning (if such a method exists), just a good method of social selling and personal belief justification. The problem occurs when we take these rationalizations as self-evident truths and do not continually question what they present. That is what we need science and peer reviews for. Again, intuitions always come first. Rationalizations (the story) come second.
2. Conservatism is always mainstream and almost always the norm.
If you were to look at that sentence in isolation and compare to to the Republican party of today, you might recoil at the notion (depending on your allegiance, of course). But the truth is, most people, most of the time, are conservative. Most people fall towards the norm, although they differ on very distinct issues which cause political groups to rise. That is the next section however. In this section we will ask: Where do moral beliefs derive from?
In the book, Hadit proposes that humans evolved morality "taste buds" which form moral matrices or filters to which we view the world. I won't go into detail the reasons he propose for the distinct ones he offers (read the book for that) but I will indicated that he and other researchers have been researching this decades across cultures to determine which moral receptors humans posses universally. The point is we are born with these filters and certain tastes, which rest on moral receptors. Although this is not genetic destiny, just disposition. We are pre-wired as humans, neither blank slates or hard-fixed. They evolve to like or dislike whatever is socially fed to them. They are as followed (the definitions are from the book):
1. Harm - Care foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children. It makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need; it makes us despise cruelty and want to care for those who are suffering.
2. Fairness - Cheating foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of reaping the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited. It makes us sensitive to indications that another person is likely to be a good (or bad) partner for collaboration and reciprocal altruism. It makes us want to shun or punish cheaters (or free-riders).
3. Liberty - Oppressing foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions. It makes us sensitive to signs that another person is (or is not) a team player. It makes us trust and reward such people, and it makes us want to hurt, ostracize, or even kill those who betray us or our group.
4. Loyalty - Betrayal foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forging relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies. It makes us sensitive to signs of rank or status, and to signs that other people are (or are not) behaving properly, given their position.
5. Authority - Subversion foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forging relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies. It makes us sensitive to signs of rank or status, and to signs that other people are (or are not) behaving properly, given their position.
6. Purity - Sanctity foundation evolved initially in response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore’s dilemma, and then to the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. It includes the behavioral immune system, which can make us wary of a diverse array of symbolic objects and threats. It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values—both positive and negative—which are important for binding groups together.
Here it is straight from him (Start at the 5:30 min mark) He only talks about the 5 that were founded at the time:
Why is conservatism the norm? Individuals who identify as conservatives all over the world, use all six of the moral bases. Liberals use two, or at most, three. Libertarians also use only a select few, and often fall under Conservatism. Note: These titles change across culture. These are just generic compilations of each identified faction. They vary by individual.
For now, lets stick to the narratives we tell ourselves to justify our moral positions. Remember, rationalization is a story telling process that comes after the intuitions.
If you are a liberal, your narrative might go something like this: "I am a liberal, and I believe we should care for each other's rights. We should tolerate each other's differences and stand to the defense of the oppressed against the powerful. Conservatives are often traditional bigots who care about maintaining their power and the status quo. The inequalities of society limit people's happiness and we have to fight to obtain those rights. Corporations limit and oppress the poor and make the rich richer. You should be open to believe anything you want to as long as you don't harm anyone in the process. The repression inherent in the system limits individual freedoms."
If you are a conservative, the narrative you tell yourself and others might go like this: "I am a conservative and I stand for traditional moral values. There was once a time where things were very good; where the moral fabric of the family kept society in check. Premarital sex, abortions, and gay marriage destroy those things. Liberals often establish enormous bureaucracy that handcuff the invisible hand of the free market. They subvert our traditional values and oppose/destroy faith. Instead of requiring that people work for a living, they take money from hardworking Americans and give it to lazy people who don't want to work for it. Instead of punishing criminals, they try to “understand” them; some people are just bad. I want to take our country back from those who sought to undermine it."
A strong social group is hard to come by because it relies on multiple branches. However, when a cohesive group does emerge, it is highly effective due to the social capital that arises. It naturally suppresses the individual motives of individuals for the greater whole as a group. This is an internal social capital which must exclude others to work --- and it takes a lot of work to maintain. It is reasonable to see why conservatives view liberals, who often seek to change things at a rapid pace, as a threat to group existence or eroding moral fabric.
1. Governments Can and Should Restrain Corporate Superorganisms.
2. Some Problems Really Can Be Solved by Regulation.
2. Conservatism is always mainstream and almost always the norm.
If you were to look at that sentence in isolation and compare to to the Republican party of today, you might recoil at the notion (depending on your allegiance, of course). But the truth is, most people, most of the time, are conservative. Most people fall towards the norm, although they differ on very distinct issues which cause political groups to rise. That is the next section however. In this section we will ask: Where do moral beliefs derive from?
In the book, Hadit proposes that humans evolved morality "taste buds" which form moral matrices or filters to which we view the world. I won't go into detail the reasons he propose for the distinct ones he offers (read the book for that) but I will indicated that he and other researchers have been researching this decades across cultures to determine which moral receptors humans posses universally. The point is we are born with these filters and certain tastes, which rest on moral receptors. Although this is not genetic destiny, just disposition. We are pre-wired as humans, neither blank slates or hard-fixed. They evolve to like or dislike whatever is socially fed to them. They are as followed (the definitions are from the book):
1. Harm - Care foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children. It makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need; it makes us despise cruelty and want to care for those who are suffering.
2. Fairness - Cheating foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of reaping the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited. It makes us sensitive to indications that another person is likely to be a good (or bad) partner for collaboration and reciprocal altruism. It makes us want to shun or punish cheaters (or free-riders).
3. Liberty - Oppressing foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions. It makes us sensitive to signs that another person is (or is not) a team player. It makes us trust and reward such people, and it makes us want to hurt, ostracize, or even kill those who betray us or our group.
4. Loyalty - Betrayal foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forging relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies. It makes us sensitive to signs of rank or status, and to signs that other people are (or are not) behaving properly, given their position.
5. Authority - Subversion foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forging relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies. It makes us sensitive to signs of rank or status, and to signs that other people are (or are not) behaving properly, given their position.
6. Purity - Sanctity foundation evolved initially in response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore’s dilemma, and then to the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. It includes the behavioral immune system, which can make us wary of a diverse array of symbolic objects and threats. It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values—both positive and negative—which are important for binding groups together.
Here it is straight from him (Start at the 5:30 min mark) He only talks about the 5 that were founded at the time:
Why is conservatism the norm? Individuals who identify as conservatives all over the world, use all six of the moral bases. Liberals use two, or at most, three. Libertarians also use only a select few, and often fall under Conservatism. Note: These titles change across culture. These are just generic compilations of each identified faction. They vary by individual.
Liberals
Libertarians
Conservatives
These are moral matrices, not religion. Religion came after morals and adopted certain moral codes to support certain bases. Morals are not religious orthodox.
If you are a liberal, your narrative might go something like this: "I am a liberal, and I believe we should care for each other's rights. We should tolerate each other's differences and stand to the defense of the oppressed against the powerful. Conservatives are often traditional bigots who care about maintaining their power and the status quo. The inequalities of society limit people's happiness and we have to fight to obtain those rights. Corporations limit and oppress the poor and make the rich richer. You should be open to believe anything you want to as long as you don't harm anyone in the process. The repression inherent in the system limits individual freedoms."
If you are a conservative, the narrative you tell yourself and others might go like this: "I am a conservative and I stand for traditional moral values. There was once a time where things were very good; where the moral fabric of the family kept society in check. Premarital sex, abortions, and gay marriage destroy those things. Liberals often establish enormous bureaucracy that handcuff the invisible hand of the free market. They subvert our traditional values and oppose/destroy faith. Instead of requiring that people work for a living, they take money from hardworking Americans and give it to lazy people who don't want to work for it. Instead of punishing criminals, they try to “understand” them; some people are just bad. I want to take our country back from those who sought to undermine it."
Sound vaguely familiar? Those are the narratives playing to your moral intuitions about how the world works. Or is supposed to work. And you have been sold those narratives to feed your moral tastes since birth. Rather or not you agree with the narratives in their entirety or not, they are built to activate one or more of the bases you identify with strongly in certain ways.
It seems from Moral Foundation Theory (http://www.yourmorals.org) research that Conservatives wish to preserve all six (6) moral foundations to some degree, but will restrict care/harm for out group individuals to maintain group cohesiveness You can't care for everyone, so you must look out for your own. There is often the conservative narrative that humans are imperfect and need society (sometimes in the form of religious organizations) to give people morals in order to defend against their own flawed nature. This creates strong social capital. In a world where everyone shares similar beliefs and are embedded in each other's well-being, there is a high level of trust that you can depend on another person to do as you would. There is an elimination or reduction of the "free rider problem" (a situation in which individuals or organizations consume more than their fair share of a resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production -- via wikipedia) because there are multiple internal checks and balances to keep people from behaving entirely in their own self-interests. From this perspective, government overreach can only harm that trust between individuals. Haidt talks about it here:
Now, if you are a conservative, you might be going "ah HA! I knew we were better than those liberals!" Remember, that is a reflex, an intuition about group affiliation. If you are a liberal, you are seeking to spread around social capital which was perhaps hard to obtain in the first place. You are breaking bonds. Now, in isolation neither of these things are good or bad. Conservationism might create tight groups, but the Nazi was a tight conservative national group. Conservatism can be blind to the challenges of the oppressed minority in-groups, trading their concerns for the total cohesiveness of the much larger structure. At the same time, liberals might move too fast, spend social capital, and burn out movements that cannot be sustained by the larger, moderate group. Liberals also are not as good at reigning in free-riders, who could potentially threaten the entire system.
In fact, Hardit proposes that liberals, libertarians, and conservatives are all blind to their moral...well, blind spots. He states the following ways the groups see things differently and are often right, and how their opposing sides can't see them due to their conflicting interests. I won't go into his reasoning (read the book).
Liberals
1. Governments Can and Should Restrain Corporate Superorganisms.
2. Some Problems Really Can Be Solved by Regulation.
Conservatives
2. You Can’t Help the Bees by Destroying the Hive (We need groups, we love groups, and we develop our virtues in groups, even though those groups necessarily exclude nonmembers. If you destroy all groups and dissolve all internal structure, you destroy your moral capital...i.e. endless, open caring.)
The reason I will propose to why Republicans are not in control politically (and why they do not share a majority support group) is primarily because there is a difference in group affiliation and moral affiliation. The Republican party in America has a plethora of interests, not just moral in nature. Even if you are morally conservative (or more conservative then liberal), you may not identify with the group. Perhaps the moral structure the group identifies with is a subset (or too extreme) then the actual moderate beliefs of most Americans. In other words, the party hasn't caught up to the new normal (which isn't exactly liberal either). This will take us into the group selection process.
3. We are homo-duplex; we have individual motives and group motives.
By this point, you are more then likely getting the picture. We are individuals who are inter-dependent on one another, with varying degrees of moral complexity. Intuitions come first, rationalizations next. We defend our biases. Self-reliance alone will not solve everything, nor will seeking to take care of everyone without having some sort of check and balances that are self-sustainable. People are not just self-interested, we are also group-interested. And a lot of the times, we put our personal groups above our own self-interests.
Now, politicians and news organizations (which are actually entertainment organizations) implicitly know about these moral receptors and play to your specific triggers to get you to listen to their particular station. Fox News and MSNBC are not fair and balanced. They want to give you rational arguments (which remember come later...) to feed your own moral biases. You will either strongly agree or strongly disagree with one or the other depending on how they feed your bias ---- so that they can have ratings, which equal money. Again I will defer to John Stewart on Obama's 2nd Inauguration:
Political parties were created to primarily solve collective action problems. Most people are not polarized on specific issues. Most people have complex, often conflicting stances on a variety of issues --- if it is abortion, gay marriage, financial policy, etc. It is actually pretty hard to get a group of individuals together to decide on one course of action and actually...act. There are "key" issues which polarize people to voting for one party or another. It is these issues which polarize people to one party or another. They vary from person to person, depending on their circumstances. Once a person decides what issue(s) polarizes them enough to vote, they join or identify with a group.
These groups change over time. At once point in history, Democrats were seen as the conservative party, while Lincoln (who was a Republican) was seen as a "radical" with his branch of Republicans. Groups exist for power dynamics. A more cohesive, strong group, defeats the other. It is ideas that win these battles and proliferate (see how important rationalizations are?) What is the Democratic party today can easily morph into another party a decade or two from now. I will argue that the reason Democrats are currently winning the popular vote is that the Democratic party is more politically moderate then the Republican party. If the Democratic party was strictly a liberal party in the classical sense (and the Republican party a conservative one), it would naturally have a much smaller base, as conservatives naturally have a more bases to appeal to.
Again, these are parties, not moral foundations. Indeed, by their design, parties often limit the morality bases of its members (or force them to decide one issue or another) in order to win political power. However, if you restrict too much or side with ideology over pragmatism, you loose people. There is a difficult balance of including enough people with varying moral branches and excluding others enough to be different from the opposing group for political power. This is not to say there are other outside interests (corporations, money, gerrymandering, etc.) I am strictly speaking to the moral branches each parties appeal to in order to draw a large enough base to win elections. And if you can't win that base, then using subversive means to obtain it is the next best option.
4. Morality binds and blinds.
Now...what do we do? We are biased, we come up with rationalizations to support our bias, and we are stuck in a two party system with multiple interests. Even our research concerning political morality has been skewed, because we rarely measure things outside of the contemporary notions of "liberal" and "conservative" and what we think it means to be those things. It seems we are screwed.
Maybe not. Morality is evolutionary adaptive. Groups who could form strong moral, cohesive societies out-competed other groups. However, it also ties us to those groups in a way which blind us from opposing views. Having a strong group does not mean that you or your group is right, just that you think you are righteous. And lets assume even if you are right. What if our view is right one moment, then wrong another? If we are blinded by our group affiliation (and our own self-reassurance) we could be missing something vitally important which could undermine long-term success. What can we do to overcome this?
I propose a few steps for the individual. I doubt this will change the discorse on a national scale; many more systematic changes would be needed to regain civil politics once again. However, you and I can perhaps learn to get out of the chest pounding which passes for political discourse these days and learn to listen a little more.
1. Assume you are wrong.
2. Be wary of group affiliation.
3. Empathize with people who disagree, do not rationalize with them.
Assume you are wrong.
Although intuitions come first, it does not mean they are static and unchanging. In fact, people often evolve over time morally (which is why people generally become more conservative over time, by embracing and associating with multiple branches). We grow emotionally, we learn that we are not perfect beings with pure reasoned minds. When you are researching a topic, don't simply read sources you will or want to agree with. Although it might be comforting and feel right, it might not be. Often being discomforted is a sign that you are moving beyond your comfort zone. Take that risk. You will never have all of the answers (and they wont either). And there is nothing wrong with that, even if you appear foolish in front of others. Who knows, you might already and just not realize it.
Be wary of group affiliation.
Political groups exist for one primary reason: political power. Even if they trigger your moral intuitions, they themselves have conflicting interests. Don't affiliate with a group just because it seems right. Challenge the group, disagree with it, change it --- if you have to be a part of one. Groups do miraculous things that we as humans cannot do alone. They can also be a channel for horrible wrongs that we as humans cannot do alone. Morality binds and blinds. Groups amplify this --- choosing one side means by definition you exclude some other side.
Empathize with people who disagree, do not rationalize with them.
Rationalization evolved to appear right, not be right. If you find yourself in an argumentative stalemate with someone else, step back and actually reflect on what that person is communicating, not what they are saying. What are their fears --- what do you fear about those ideas? What is making you react the way you do? Remember, intuitions are always a part of the process. There is no strictly objective viewpoint. Don't just challenge the idea, try on the idea. You might find that it grows you in a way you never foresaw. And besides, when you are rationalizing with someone, you are not really communicating. You are only throwing poop at each other.
And that's all folks. If you want a much more in-depth reading on Moral Foundations theory and the Social Psychological science behind this theory, I strongly suggest you read --
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Comments
Post a Comment