A look in the mirror
This post is by Michael, a guest contributor. It is offered as an appeal to reason, and to good will in order to address the collapsing dialog between conservatives and liberals in our country. These good words are a call to self reflection.
BLUE STATE, red state. Big government, big business. Gay rights, fetal rights. The United States is riven by the politics of extremes. To paraphrase humor columnist Dave Barry, Republicans think of Democrats as godless, unpatriotic, Volvo-driving, France-loving, elitist latte guzzlers, whereas Democrats dismiss Republicans as ignorant, NASCAR-obsessed, gun-fondling religious fanatics. An exaggeration, for sure, but the reality is still pretty stark. Congress is in a perpetual stalemate because of the two parties’ inability to find middle ground on practically anything.
According to the experts who study political leanings, liberals and conservatives do not just see things differently. They are different—in their personalities and even their unconscious reactions to the world around them. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/]
For more than half a century, psychologists have been tracking the hypothesis that different psychological motives and tendencies underlie ideological differences between the political left and the right. [Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, John T. Jost, Stanford University, et.al. faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf].
Finding fault with the study, or at least concerned about having their heads examined, Jost and his team were blasted by Ann Coulter, George Will, and National Review for saying this; congressional Republicans began probing into their research grants; and they got lots of hate mail. [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias]
What fascinates me about the exchange between two members of our group, each on the opposite side of the divide, is not so much the actual topic, (does anyone remember what the topic actually was?), but how the exchange proceeded, consistently and rapidly, perhaps inevitably, to its ultimate impasse. It seems important to understand why such a breakdown occurs, which it has pretty much as clockwork on every exchange over the last several years. It would be very easy to explain this phenomenon by simply concluding the “other side” is just a bunch of douchebags, but this approach, though offering some satisfaction, is ultimately counterproductive. As the national political scene appears almost 50/50 divided, (an election statistic I find completely puzzling), this inability to carry on productive discourse becomes a handicap of great importance. I venture here with great timidity, fully aware that the “other side” may not see this as a problem, or even perceive any significant breakdown.
Our philosophy meetings are much different from my one Philosophy 101 class: There, on Monday Dr. Ammerman explained the assigned reading, getting everyone to nod their heads, thinking, “That really makes sense!” Then on Wednesday, he would tear into the same reading, pointing out how it was a load of crap. On Friday, the TA, following the Socratic tradition of never bathing, would question us. Philosophy in this academic setting was a competition of words, with one school of thought always remaining unsoiled by the other, and the Professor acting as sort of a referee. Our weekly meetings are different. Interesting materials are brought to the table, and (on a good night) people sift through the material finding items of value, or statements lacking support. On good nights we all learn something. Seldom is an entire work dismissed as garbage. One possible explanation for the divide between our two members is that one is grounded in traditional academic Philosophy, where all the nails must be driven in thoroughly. Another member has been frustrated on several occasions when I appear to understand his thesis, but still fail to agree with it. To the Conservative Mind, if one understands something one must agree with it, (or conversely understand its flaws and believe in its inherent evil), else the understanding is flawed, hence the accusations towards fuzzy-headed liberals. The concept of “What if?” or provisional acceptance is not good Conservative Philosophy, but is very common among liberals searching for answers.
Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, identifies five foundations of morality; Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Authority/Respect, In-group/Loyalty, and Purity/Sanctity, and has presented a study showing how liberals and conservatives value each of these differently. A very nice summary of this, along with much additional material, may be found at [http://www.ethicsdefined.org/the-problem-with-morality/conservatives-vs-liberals/].This article must be read with caution, as the interpretation may show too liberal bias, and be offending to certain individuals. To summarize with less bias, the study shows that liberals value Authority/Respect, In-group/Loyalty, and Purity/Sanctity much less than conservatives, and conservatives value Fairness/Reciprocity significantly less than liberals, and slightly less than Authority/Respect, In-group/Loyalty, and Purity/Sanctity.
Authority does not have to take the form of a human authority figure. A meme that a person or group holds near and dear, a sacred value, can have authority. It is perfectly reasonable, to a conservatives way of thinking, to be in favor of gun ownership, and against any sort of gun regulation, strictly on the authority of the Constitution. Liberals are not persuaded by this argument as they value Authority/Respect much less than Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity.
This difference in prioritizing values may also explain the conservative minded party’s Nixonesque comments about another members pony tail, and indeed why said member chooses to style his hair in his chosen manner. The conservative minded folk see nothing at all absurd about their remarks. It is simply another strike against Political Correctness. [Now, Donald Trump’s hair, on the other small hand…]
Conservatives see the world as a challenging place in which there is always someone else who is ready to steal your lunch. Confronted by a potentially hostile environment, the best course is to take precautions and to ensure your own well-being and that of your family. The liberal world view is mostly the opposite. Liberals take a more optimistic view of the world as being somewhat more benign. Government is a vehicle through which the citizens of a democracy can solve problems and improve the well-being and happiness of most people.
| Conservatives are pro-gun because they want to be able to defend themselves against criminal threats of any type. | Liberals feel that protection of citizens against crime is better left to police and that armed citizens are a threat to those around them. |
| They are mostly religious because religious rituals foster feelings of safety in a dangerous world such that the most dangerous countries in the world are also the most religious, | They are less religious than conservatives because they perceive the world around them as less threatening. Moreover, they rely more on science, and education, as a means to solve problems. |
| They tend to be more hostile to immigrants, foreigners, and racial or ethnic minorities and to view them as more of a threat. | Liberals are more welcoming to immigrants. They are less likely to view foreigners, and racial or ethnic minorities as a threat. |
| They fear attacks by other nations and therefore support a strong military and a bellicose foreign policy on the theory that a good attack is the best defense. | They favor negotiation and consensus-building over warfare in foreign policy and do not believe in excessive military buildups that drain social spending. |
| Apart from military defense, where government is an asset, conservatives fear government intrusions into their lives and particularly fear having their wealth eroded by taxation. | Liberals are happy to pay their taxes if they believe that the money is being used to improve the quality of life of others whether they are poor or rich. Instead of being a threat, the government reflects the will of the people. |
| They are pro-family because being surrounded by close relatives is the best defense against threats that surround them. | Liberals are less interested in family ties as a protective bubble. |
| They oppose welfare for the poor because this encourages dependence so that the failures of a society are parasites on the successes thereby inverting the proper incentive structure. | They support welfare programs for the poor because these may reduce child poverty, as well as reducing crime and social problems. |
| They admire wealth because successful people are seen as having worked hard in pursuing a moral obligation to provide for themselves and their families in a difficult and uncertain world. | Liberals are suspicious of wealth feeling that much of it is inherited or obtained through sharp business practices or outright corruption. They also feel that concentrating resources in the hands of the one percent impoverishes everyone else thereby undermining social trust. |
Both liberals and conservatives take whatever moral reasoning “route” leads to their ideologically-predetermined preferred outcome. This suggests that left or right, liberal or conservative, our values not only dictate what conclusion endpoint we’d like to end up at, but what kinds of mental processes we take in order to end up there. This sounds like the kind of bias we’re quick to note in our opponents, but never see in ourselves. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-courage-our-conniptions/201009/morals-and-motives-why-liberals-and-conservatives-can-t-see]
Can neuroscience provide evidence for a liberal and conservative thinking style?
Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC—useful in detecting and judging conflict and error—and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place. More than one study has shown these same results. It may seem like a stretch to say that one could predict whether you lean left or right by looking at a brain scan—no questions asked, no opinions voiced—purely based on your neuroanatomy. However, this might not be too far from reality—at least insofar as predicting thinking style. I will not dwell on this topic as it came up a year or so ago, and some took offense, thinking we were accusing their brains of being “defective.” This struck me as a particularly emotional fear response, but more need not be said here. A fairly complete review of this topic, including links to flaws in the studies, can be found at [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/#.V4EzcDWGPlw
