Karen McKim

Karen McKim
Location
Wisconsin,
Birthday
August 30
Bio
Also at http://karenmckim.wordpress.com/ Middle-aged, middle-class Midwesterner. I have conservative political values: I want to conserve things like our traditions of liberty, justice, voting rights, Medicare and Social Security, good public schools, religious freedom, and safe communities. Because I do not want to sacrifice those things to increase the profits and power of international banks and oil companies, most would call me a liberal.

MY RECENT POSTS

Karen McKim's Links

Salon.com
AUGUST 23, 2012 1:35PM

We're not just 'right' or 'left'

Rate: 7 Flag

Here's some lazy blogging. I just wrote an email to my niece and realized it would probably make a decent blog entry. Maybe I'll come back later and edit it, but right now I'll just copy-and-paste to save time.

* * *

Thanks! I'm glad you liked my guest editorial. I also blog about political conversation. If I can discipline myself enough to be a working freelance writer, I’d love to write magazine articles about it. All the “political communication” literature I can find focuses on one-way outgoing “messaging,” and all the interpersonal communications literature focuses either on family or business relationships. Last week, I was talking with one of the two political scientists I have found so far who come closest to studying methods of interpersonal political communication, and she verified for me that I haven’t found any how-to literature because none exists. (In her research, she studies the extent to which people influence the political beliefs of others in small social groups, but has stayed away from any how-to angle.) So, I need to get off my retired butt and become a serious freelance writer.

Anyway, back to your questions. The 2x2 matrix I sketched out on the paper plate came not from a book, but from a website. Take the test; I think the questions are good ones. (My dot landed pretty much on top of Gandhi’s.) There’s a different website—which may have more research attached to it; I can’t quite remember—that describes pretty much the same two axes, but I can’t find that bookmark or URL right now. I’ll send it along if I can find it later. (I do remember that those authors were so convinced that no one is extreme on more than one axis that their matrix chopped off all four corners and became diamond-shaped.)

 PoliticalCompass

Since I took that Political Compass test and read through their explanation, I’ve been noticing that this matrix fits/explains almost everything else that touches on political leanings sooooo much better than the one-dimensional liberal/conservative continuum.

The book I probably mentioned was EJ Dionne’s Our Divided Political Heart. The ‘divided heart’ in his title is the horizontal axis of the Political Compass: our genuine attraction to both the communitarian and the  individualistic ends of that continuum. The first part of his book reviews American political history to show how strongly and frequently the pendulum has swung back and forth. For example, right now, we associate Republicans with individualism and Democrats with communitarianism, but look at the names of those two parties! They got those names for good reasons, back when American conservatives were highly focused on building strong political structures and liberals were the ones who were all about the noble, free individual.

Another recent, fascinating book (which, like Dionne’s book, also contains no explicit reference to anything resembling the Political Compass) is Jonathon Haidt’s Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Haidt focuses more on the vertical axis—the authoritarian/libertarian axis—how and why conservatives value loyalty, authority, and sanctity more, while liberals are all about fairness and individual well-being. Haidt’s book bothered me a bit in that he clung so tightly to the liberal/conservative dichotomy that his analysis suffered, but the first part of his book was a very good high-level summary of some of the neuroscience explaining our political values.

Setting those two books side by side, the take-away for political conversation is that, if you want to connect with someone else about political beliefs, you need to be sensitive to where the person sits on both axes, but simply take the vertical axis into account while expecting any significant flexibility only along the horizontal axis.

Probably more of an answer than you were hoping for. It was lovely talking to you last weekend. I always get so frustrated with the limited opportunity for meaty conversation at big family gatherings like that, and talking to you was a real bright spot for me! Bon voyage, and start getting those Kremlin photos on Facebook right away!

Karen

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
-7.75, -5.03

I've done that, taken e-mails or PM's and, usually with a tiny bit of editing, using them as posts.

This makes sense. In looking at the scale and international leaders, it scared me how close Obama was to Romney, though I knew some of that, and I also noticed that Romney and Netanyahu were about identical, which doesn't surprise me at all.

Personally, I'm less concerned with authoritarian/libertarian right now than I am with communitarian/individualistic. As a community we're in bad economic trouble and I don't see anyone understanding how and why, even though I find it absurdly obvious. Authoritarian/libertarian can get nasty but, in the US, it won't affect everyone, but a malfunctionaing communitarian/individualistic balance will affect almost everyone personally. Unfortunately, when it does, it will also affect the rest of the world because we'll stop buying and that will throw everyone out of whack. I don't know how to steer the bus away from the cliff.
-6.62 -5.54

nice post
-5.9,-3.7 I'm hanging out over there with you and Gandhi. I too am slightly shocked to see Obama in the same crowd with Romney. I guess that just confirms what I already knew; i.e., I would make a lousy politician.

Lezlie



Lezlie
Sorry about that double signature.
-5.5, -6.92

Some of the questions were based on artificial assumptions so that skews things a bit, e.g. the term "free market" has been redefined to mean "no regulation" when in fact it means "let the consumer decide". But Jesus was a liberal. That's all anyone needs to know.
-7.12, -6.72

This is very deserving of circulation, nice work.

I can rant and vent with anyone, but, the hard facts are that authoritarians will never do anything but create fear based propaganda, while the "left" has the solutions overall, yet is hamstrung by it's own effete snobbery. Until the "educated" Salon attending class can get off it's high horse (hee-haw;he-haw:) and start doing what Rove/Luntz does, speak in only the language of the hoi polloi, the process will remain glacial.

Imua (Onward)
I've done these a couple of times and always wind up closest to the Dalai Lama. If it's the same grid, he and I would be close to Ghandi. I started this one but it seemed to have more "It depends" questions than I remembered.
Oahusurfer,
That's the point of about 90% of what I do on OS.
Intriguingly informing; well done, Kim
Welcome back! I am glad you mentioned Dionne's book because it clarified so many things for me in my struggles to understand that in moving across the political spectrum from the "conservatism" of my youth and early career to the "liberalism" of today I've really been standing still the entire time.

Liberalism and conservatism overlap in many, many ways if you understand what's really behind these ways of thinking. Political parties have to find ways to separate and divide us (and ourselves) in order to make a Red State/Blue State choice. But the truth is that seemingly contradictory ideas can coexist within us at once, presenting a kind of Holy Trinity conundrum (Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one?) that's not always easy to puzzle out.

I am strongly anti-authoritarian. I hate bullies. And so on that score am an individualist. But individualism seems to be the wholly owned subsidiary of the right wing Republican Party right now, so that doesn't make sense.

My understanding of conservatism has always been the virtue of promoting social peace and tranquility through a greater appreciation of history and tradition and a suspicion of grand utopian visions. But now I find that communitarian vision shared more by liberals, and the reckless destructors of institutions are the "conservatives" who think the rich ought to be able to use their money and property however they see fit in advance of whatever brave new world entices them, the rest of us be damned.

So, how to reconcile the instinct we have for both individual freedom and the security of community? By understanding, along with Dionne, that the two go together no matter how conceptually untidy that may be for political operatives trying to get us to believe that their side is the only proper choice because only they represent "real" American values.