LET'S GET INTO THE WEEDS

Men and women are more alike than different, but boy, do those differences make a difference. Liberals and Conservatives are more alike than different, but boy, do those differences make a difference. Both Left and Right have deeply conflicting, but equally heartfelt visions of what we want our world to look like. What we will do on November 8th is vote for that philosophy we would most like to see guide our country. To get that philosophy we have to attach a name to it. This election cycle the names are Hillary and Donald.

Where did we get our social, moral and political philosophy? Where did we get our view of the world? Were we born with a world view (nature)? Did we learn it through life experiences (nurture)? Did we just figure it out all by ourselves (Rationalism)? How we get our philosophies does not seem to be "settled" science. All we know is we all have one.

Much of this article is based on the writings and research of Jonathan Haidt in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion. Haidt claims in our human nature, we have six psychological systems. They are:

CARING-- caring for the vulnerable, sensitive to signs of suffering, despising cruelty, and caring for those who suffer

FAIRNESS-- It's about equality and proportionality but primarily proportionality. It means people getting what they deserve and not getting what they don't deserve.

LOYALTY--challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions, sensitive to team players makes us want to reward team players and punish those who betray the group.

AUTHORITY--being sensitive to rank or status, forge relationships that will benefit us in the social hierarchy

SANCTITY- Feelings that some things, actions, and people are noble, pure and elevated; others are base polluted and degraded.

LIBERTY--make people notice and resent any sign of domination, the urge to band together (freedom fighters) Thus the Declaration of Independence.

Haidt, a professed Liberal, came to the conclusion that Liberals have a three-foundation morality: Caring, Liberty, and Fairness.(Fairness at the bottom). Conservatives have all 6.(Care at the bottom). This is not good nor bad, it just is.

When two people engage in political discourse, the secret of success is to see the other,s argument from their point of view. We don't do it often because both people readily shift into combat mode, and off we go. What I hope to do is give you Haidt's evaluation of the driving philosophies of both Liberals and Conservatives and maybe both sides can see the other side is not wrong, just different, and maybe we treat other people's political views like we treat other sexes. We may not understand the views but we still love the people.

Here are Haidt's study conclusions. Of course, we all don't match everything, but I feel it's pretty darn close.

LIBERAL: being Liberal is seen as, (their brand is), being cool and righteous. Obviously ethical, They march for peace, civil rights, workers' rights, and secularism. Liberalism simply wants to help people . They concern themselves about fairness and social justice. Income redistribution is based on fairness. Fairness implies equality. The Left's idea of equality is equality of outcomes. Small examples of equality of outcomes are; participation trophy, no scores for youngsters sporting events, elimination of games like dodge ball and musical chairs etc. More significant examples of the equality of outcomes are: equality of outcomes cannot be obtained in a capitalist society. Capitalism is in the end, predatory--a moral society will be socialist i.e. people helping each other. This is why Liberals favor higher taxes on the rich, high level of services for the poor and sometimes a guaranteed income for everybody. The Left has a morality that protects individuals and their rights. The Left's loyalty is to individuals without regard to national or other allegiances. A Liberal's motive is neophilia (attraction to new things) openness to experience. open to new people, music, and ideas. The idea of Chasity is set aside as outdated and sexist. Liberal society would be peaceful, open and creative place where diverse individuals would respect each others' rights and band together voluntarily only to help those in need or to change the law for the common good. The Left generally celebrates diversity, supports immigration without assimilation. ( Immigration will bring in new people, new ideas, goods, and technology.) Liberals oppose making English the official language, don't like to wear flag pins, and see themselves as citizens of the world. Liberalism is Egalitarian-- all people are equal and deserve common rights and opportunities; there is no hierarchy. The Left is very concerned with the rights of certain vulnerable groups (race, children, animals) and they look to government to defend the weak. Environmentalist, almost exclusively found on the Right, revile industrialism, capitalism, and automobiles not just for pollution but for degrading of humanities' original nature. As Haidt concluded, Liberals have a three-foundation morality: Caring, Liberty, and Fairness. The Left is basically ambivalent about Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.

CONSERVATIVE: Being Conservatives is seen as, (their brand is), the party of war, big business, racism and evangelicals. The Right's idea of equality is equality of opportunity. For the Right everyone’s outcomes should not be guaranteed, but their ability to pursue those outcomes should be guaranteed. That, to the Right, is fairness. The Right believes people should be rewarded proportionally to what they contribute even if it means unequal outcomes. On the Right you are likely to see more relationships, institutions, contexts, and groups. Conservatives are not so interested in protecting individuals as they are the whole. Utilitarianism could define the Conservative-- always aim to bring about the good of the greatest number even if a few people may get hurt. A Conservative motive is neophobia (a fear of new things) prefer to stick with what's tried and true and care about guarding borders, (immigrants can bring in plagues, epidemics, and new diseases thus threatening the whole). They care about boundaries, loyalty and are strong on traditions. Those on the Right are more likely to talk about the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. They view the body as a temple. The Right seems to have a near-monopoly on appeals to loyalty (patriotism, military, parents, teachers, elders, police). The basic social unit for a Conservative is not the individual but the hierarchically structured family which serves as the model for other institutions. The Right values self-control over self-expression, duty over rights and loyalty to one group over concerns for other groups. Conservatives tend to invoke the name of God (not necessarily Jesus), glorify American Heros, quote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and desire to pull diverse people into one tent. Conservatives are more concerned about their groups rather than all of humanity. They revere the word liberty rather than equality. The Rights' view of Liberty is the right to be left alone, free from government interference and resent it when the Left uses the government to infringe on the Rights' liberties in order to protect the class the Left wishes to protect.

My purpose for this Blog posting is two fold:

1) I'm getting the impression both Conservatives and Liberal, given their druthers, would pick a different candidate. So, maybe if we can identify which of the parties best represents the world in which we would like to live, we can vote for that party. If the characteristics of a Liberal best describes you, hold our nose and pull the lever for Hillary. If the characteristics of a Conservative best describes you, use your one free hand and pull for the Donald.

2) This is the most important. Consider a world run by only Conservatives or only Liberals. There is a reason our human nature gives us so many psychological options. We may feel strongly about our world view but it won't stand up without a smattering of the other. I have often used the comparison of Liberals being the heart of a society and Conservatives being the head, a person cannot live with only one of those (excluding the Headless Horseman), nor can a nation. The question is how much of each is best at this time in our evolution.

Jonathan Haidt laments,"Extreme partisanship may be literally addictive." It needn’t be. We don't generally carry the differences between the thinking of our spouses or partners to the extent we do politics. As a Conservative doing research for this piece, I began to understand the thought processes of the Liberal. I understand why they, as a heart, would stand up for transgender bathrooms for example. I, as a head, disagree totally, but I understand. If I thought about caring/individuals the way they think, I would also come to that conclusion. Understanding does not stop either side from fighting for what they believe is right. That does not stop us from working and voting for the way we want America to look but it should stop us from viewing the "others" as people to dumb to spit downwind.

The Whole Truth and Nothing But.. (REPRINT)

The following is a reprint of the 2/9/2013 Blog posting entitled, The Whole Truth and Nothing But... I am reposting it because the closer we come to the election the more frustrated we become with the logic of the "other side." (Not me certainly, but some people.) It will be a long three months if we can't a least get some feeling for why people may believe as they do. The following explanation of wealth distribution has helped me look through opposite eyes. Not changed, just looked.

The characters

Reginald and Vanessa
Reginald inherited his wealth. He’s a trust fund baby. He thinks of no one but himself (not even his trophy wife Vanessa). His main life’s objective is finding ways in which he can enjoy his wealth. He has all the toys money can buy. He has the private jet, yacht, homes and cars all over the world.  He feels he is head and shoulders above the common man. He is a man of privilege. What’s his is his to enjoy every day of his life.
Bob and Sydney 
Bob and Sydney started their business in their garage, second mortgaged their home, went thru tough financial times (which tested their marriage). After one bankruptcy they reorganized and came out the other end smarter and ready to go. They have since hired 250 people and are now one of the most profitable up and coming companies in the US. Bob and Sydney have a nice home in an upscale neighborhood, send their two children to good schools, have a trust fund set up for their kids' future and still work 40 plus hours a week. They know they have a good life, and they also know how much blood, sweat and tears they put in to it. They have started a foundation to aid new entrepreneur couples.
Frank and Sally 
Frank is a high school graduate, Sally has her GED. They have 4 children and just getting by with Frank’s hourly salary and some extra cash they pick up by Sally’s baby sitting. Frank lost his job through downsizing at his company. He has very actively searched for jobs for over a year. They live on his unemployment check and Sally’s baby sitting extra cash. He doesn’t want "charity," but cannot feed his family without it. When he is not walking the streets looking for a job (he had to sell his car), Frank attends the community college to pick up some new skills to broaden his job potential. This is not they way he wanted his life to be, and he is determined to do everything he can to get himself and his family back on track.
Peaches Williams 
Peaches was never married, has six children, with five men. She has never worked. She lives off of welfare for herself and her children, three of whom live with her mother who is also single and on welfare.  Peaches has a car, cell phone, flat screen TV, and she and her current boyfriend eat well off of food stamps. She and her family are devoted members of the professional poor.

When Liberals contend that we should tax the rich to redistribute the nation’s resources, that it’s unfair that some folks should have so much while others have so little in this land of plenty, they use Reginald and Vanessa as an example of the rich and  Frank and Sally  as an example of  the poor.

“You want to let those people who have more money than they can ever spend and have no idea what the rest of us are experiencing, partying in their penthouses with their servants, big top hats and cigars while we have hardworking people out in the world who are living in tenements and ghettos and can hardly put food on the table?”

Republicans when describing the tax breaks for the rich describe the working rich (Bob and Sydney ) and the non-working poor (Peaches Williams).

“You want to take money from people who have sacrificed so much and given back so much in the way of innovation, creativity, good jobs and charitable donations and give that money to people who have voluntarily contributed nothing and whose main job is looking for who they can get something from. You really want to take money from the productive and give to the unproductive?”

Both are true.