Republicans Don't Just Happen, They're Born That Way
Can’t you just feel all of that bipartisan love lately? Yes I’m being deeply sarcastic which, if cable news is to be believed, is pretty much a sign of the times. Just watching the response on last week’s state of the union address is a lesson in bipartisan interpretation if ever there was one. Rather than jump on the polemical bandwagon though, I thought it might be interesting to explore another avenue of discourse, that whole school of thought called seeing things from the other side. What is it that makes a Republican a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat. Money? Tax Bracket? Skin color? Turns out that it may just all come down to a little thing known as our creamy moral center.
Of course the idea of morals has been bandied about in politics since before Caesar, but a paper published last year by psychologist Jonathan Haidt examines how our own ingrained moral character is what defines our political leanings more than anything else. Really, since the culture wars of the 1990’s, Republicans have come to define themselves as the party of moral clarity. Things like anti-abortion, prayer in schools, and a stricter moral dictum have dominated Republican tickets for quite some time. Haidt certainly doesn’t argue against this definition of conservatism, but what he does do is provide a clearer definition of morality so that understanding why such things are important to Republicans becomes a little easier.
The common definition of morality, which has occupied psychologic academia for some time, was established by Berkeley Psychologist Elliott Turiel. Essentially his definition boils down to how we treat each other; “prescriptive judgements of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other.” Haidt’s argument against this idea of morality is that so many of the ancient texts from which we parse our moral and social codes set rules that have nothing to do with effects on others. Grasshoppers are kosher for instance but locusts aren’t. He presents the scenarios of a family dog getting killed by a car and the family eating it and a woman short on rags using an American flag to clean her toilet. More often than not, the response to these was to say that they were morally wrong, but no one could really explain why, as neither scenario in any way causes a person harm. (Except of course the indigestion from eating dog).
Haidt then presents an alternative definition of morality: “morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychology mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.” Essentially morality becomes more about the community or the society than individual autonomy. Things like hierarchy, sanctity, and loyalty are given significantly more weight.
When comparing Democrats to Republicans within this definition, it’s pretty easy to see where the chips fall. Democrats are about justice, they are about leveling the playing field and offering each their own autonomous course of action, relying on a sort of social agreement whereby everybody, to a degree, behaves. Republicans are about a moral order, where people behave because of a rigid structure that has been put into place. Interestingly, Haidt divides morality into five groupings: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/ loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Of these, Democrats endorse the first two while Republicans pretty much endorse all five equally. Republicans feel that the country needs to be steered by that creamy moral center rather than just the individual.
I think where this is most apparent is in a recent poll by Public Policy Polling, which highlighted Fox News as the only news network that more people say they trust than distrust, 49% to 37%. I might be wrong, but I don’t necessarily think that this is because Fox really is fair and balanced. As evidenced by the fundamental definition of morality by Republicans, ingroup/loyalty is very important. Essentially ingroup/loyalty takes its roots in human tribalism, and nowhere is tribalism more rampant than with Fox News. I’m not saying this to denigrate anyone, Fox or Republicans, I’m merely highlighting the fact that where conservatives long for a stricter social order, i.e. a more congruous community, Fox delivers. Fox offers a moral group think. On the other side, liberal MSNBC offers individual expression and a focus on individual rights and justice and they are not as successful. I think the recent death of Air America illustrates this in spades.
There is of course always an inherent danger in stretching too far in either direction, morally and politically speaking. But let’s also not forget that it is important not to discount the value in each. Studies show that religious people in this country tend to have a higher satisfaction of life, and while it may pertain to spirituality, I think that such satisfaction absolutely pertains to community. A sense of belonging for humans is one of our most valuable assets. In the context of too rigid a hierarchical structure though, religions can bring societies to their knees. And it’s not just in terms of religion that an overly rigid hierarchy can be dangerous. After all, most countries that are rife with civil disorder and poverty viciously suppress their women.
I think that what one can really bring home in all of this though is the need for empathy. There are causes worth fighting for, no doubt about it, but the problem with human beings is we think that because we believe it, it must be right. Interesting how often then we tend to get it wrong. Empathy really is one of the more valuable of human virtues and just because someone, be it because of genetics or conditioning, opposes an idea or belief, doesn’t mean that they are wrong. It doesn’t mean that they are right of course either. It means that, at the very least, the need has arisen for a dialogue. I think what we all need to do to make this country and this world a better place is to listen to what people on the other side are saying and to be okay with occasionally being wrong.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Jonathan Wolfman
Shannon Coulter
Martha Nichols
Jamie Beckett
Ollie's daughter
Don Rich
Salon.com
Comments
But I certainly agree with the call for more empathy and rational dialogue, and you are absolutely correct that rather than focusing on "right" and "wrong" it would be better to focus on hearing and truly understanding each other and trying to find some way to work through our problems together.
I am now an old Conservative and proud of it.
...er, um, to dearth....
"People who scored highly on a scale measuring fear of death, for example, were almost four times more likely to hold conservative views." (J. Jost)
Dogmatic types were also more conservative, while those who expressed interest in new experiences tended to be liberals.
Jost's review also noted research showing that conservatives prefer simple and unambiguous paintings, poems and songs.
The facts hurt when you are one of them. The fact is that status quo maintenance is inandofitself counter-evolutionary and as such inferior. It is based, as is all human life to date, on fear and/or greed. It's the altruistic efforts that supersede this trap, and give physical evolution its collective unconscious continuum.
This planet will blow, our ancestors have to leave or eat shit. Which group you want building the space travel technology?
IMUA
Fascinating piece, Scott.
I think that conservatism is another name for being cautious, or even fearful. Caution is not always a bad thing, but they carry it too far when they automatically oppose anything new and frightening to them, like immigrants, gay marriage, etc. T
he conservatives I know seem to lack the ability to imagine life from someone else's point of view, or to care much about it at all. This often leads to callousness and smugness. They believe that because they have succeeded in the world, anyone who is still poor must be morally inferior.
But if Repubs are "born" that way, then why are siblings different from each other? And parents from children? And what of gender differences?
I am interested in tribalism (so much so that I studied it for a grad class and produced a paper that tied ethnocentric and xenophobic behavior to evolutionary theory), and wonder, if at the end of the day, the two styles of politics/parenting/existing in the world--insofar as they can be reduced to merely two--are just two different strategies for survival, ala Darwin.
The problem with your analysis is that you focus too much on social issues when describing what Republicans are about. Furthermore, you lump all Republicans into the category of social-issues conservatives, which is simply not the case.
If you were to look at other areas, such as economics and free speech, it is the Democrats who support a "rigid structure" which impinges on liberty every bit as much, or even more, than the right wing's pursuit of using government in the social sphere.
Also, your comments about Republicans somehow being more "tribal" than Democrats strikes me as ridiculous and just another not-so-subtle attempt by a liberal to paint Republicans as less evolved or otherwise inferior.
Your comments about Fox News perhaps show your liberal bias more than anything else. You seem to miss the fact that a substantial percentage of Fox viewers are NOT Republican. According to a poll a few months ago, "46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are Democrats or Independents as are 50% of those who watch it “several times each week” or more." And then you say that MSNBC "offers individual expression and a focus on individual rights"??? You must be kidding. You can't tell one MSNBC talking head for another, and they most certainly do not support individual rights on any issue outside the social sphere (and neither does our president.) Meanwhile, there's a huge difference between, for example, Bill O'Reilly's populist so-called conservatism and Glenn Beck's libertarian point of view. Not to mention the fact that Fox routinely has Democrats/liberals on air to give that point of view.
While you're pretending to write a non-partisan article about psychology, you (just like the people you admire on MSNBC) can't stop your misunderstanding of non-liberals from causing you to misstate basic facts and obvious conclusions.
Ross Kaminsky
http://rossputin.com
As for your provocative title, I'd say that Republicans (conservatives) are definitely not born. More often they evolve from Democrats (collectivists) through a process called maturity and enlightenment. Some resist the process more obdurately than others. You've got some real hold-outs on this thread.
Altruism and empathy are the prime virtues of a liberal mind, but many conservatives, especially those who have gained much of their mature thought from the writings of Ayn Rand, which excoriate "collectivism" and exalt the individual, would not agree that collective "feeling" is a good thing.
I find it really frustrating to try to simplify a definition of either side. Though I am proudly liberal, I'm not a very good proselyte, and don't know how to pass on my own "empathy", which surely (embarrassingly, perhaps) began with my own indoctrination in a rather "conservative" Catholic Church, when I came upon St. Francis for the first time.
I find even a simple reading of "empathy" mind-boggling. Try this wiki entry to begin with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
Like Lainey, I find it fascinating to invesigate the motivations of people, for her, it is "tribalism" for me, "empathy". As a high school teacher, it has been an important study, as I try to constantly watch for the development of "bullying" and torment among my little flock. Sometimes the empathy button clicks on when discussing and having Socratic discussions, and sometimes it seems not to. HOW does one teach "empathy". And how would I get someone, like Gordon to value it, when it seems an immature idea and one to be discarded if one is to be a real "Objectivist" and "individual"?
A few commenters seem to have noticed.
You cannot see yourself having been also infected by the toxicity of pure partisanship, that you see in others.
The ranting Democrat, for example, who actually believes the recession is over. Is no different from those on the right still demanding the President's birth certificate.
As a majority of Americans have now abandoned party loyalty, what remains are only the most extreme (and closed-minded) on both sides.
They are now a minority of all Americans, only 26% , but they are now the defining voice of American politics. How can a minority become the voice, you ask? Because they have become the "base" of each party.
Read this as an example please, not an attack your comments on Republicans on individual liberty have a name, but you cannot see it AND IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT. None dare call it bigotry.
How is this any different from believing all black guys play basketball?
To judge an entire group by it's worst stereotype. To have one's mind closed to any other alternative.
To hear me criticize Obama for all his distortions, and assume -- of course -- I must e a lackey of the Republican Party and the corporate interests.
To hear me say Bush and Cheney and Cheney should be dragged away in chains, and tried as war criminal, I am of course a commie Democrat, blindly lead astray by the MSM.
Bigots cannot think for themselves, independently, so they have no idea how some of us can and do.
It is a toxicity that burns out our eyes to see. No partisan Democrat saw the President INITIATE the insults by calling the Republican the Party of No -- when they have had a comprehensive health plan since last summer. The sheeple are blind.
No partisan Republican sees the hysteria and gross attack from Glen Beck. Never saw the video where he calls Obama a racist, then says I didn't say he doesn't like white people.
Yes, your side is every part as bigoted as the two examples. Buy you can't see it. And each one sees the demons within the enemy.
They say, in defense, "But Obama was right"
Or, of course, "Beck is right."
If you (the generic you) do either of these you are a bigot.
Since when did "being right" excuse the outright abuse of any human being? Duh.
I'll trump your psychologist in defining all this. It has all been defined before, George Orwell.
He called it Groupthink, but his guess of 1984 was off by precisely a quarter-century.
One problem, read Stella as I type, don't mean to pick her out, exempt as an example. She says 1/3 are independents. I say more than half are fed up with both parties, a sharper and more accurate test. She then answers her own question by saying there is a certain quality to each party. Bingo.
The majority of Americans, if asked, define themselves as economically conservative and socially liberal. That fits neither party, but it includes both parties.
So we then watch Republicans destroying our civil liberties, while Democrats keep destroying our economy. I'll prove it.
The dates of peaks and valleys in the business cycle are defined bythe National Bureau of Economic Research. No recession is over until THEY say it is. They don't.
See for yourself. If you read this believing we are in recovery. You have been manipulated and it's your own fault. Go to that site. I;m serious. Let it sink in that there is no recovery, and how colossal a lie it is. You will then know, if you care to look, the real problem in America.
Special interests on BOTH sides manipulate us like pawns, for their own personal power. I dare you to visit that website
http://www.nber.org/cycles/
Lower left of the table. You'll see a recession start date. The end-date column is blank. Now you know how precisely you have been gamed.
Power to the sheeple.
http://PoliticallyHomeless.net
principle over partisanship - economic AND social freedom
The primary obstacle is the shrill noise that demonizes the other group. Finding shared ground is deemed blasphemy, or corruptive compromise by the extereme in every group.
So perhaps the first goal is to go at the idea of commonality as being productive and decent in a deliberative democracy? and try our own kind of "gentle shunning", against those who ostracize out-of-hand? OS is just such a place.
Reward those who speak with passion then retreat gracefully, in our post comments. Begrudge each other. Don't try to win with flame warriors. This is tricky. One must allow a first comment to be provocative withing certain constraints, rules of engagement.
I find this hard to do. I am not sure I really have it right yet. I struggle to control my initial provocations. But I have mastered the 2nd part: slow it down, ease it back, once I make my point.
We really do share so much. All parents cheer at local girl's softball. Shared smiles at "happy birthday" in the local diner. Compassion for Haiti. We let each other in, in traffic, and respect the middle yellow line.
After the 60's liberals and progressives had to get thick skin, and several ties since. Walk back from the wretched absurdities of "off the pigs". Right now, the right is approximately where the left was in 1975. Thin-skinned. Shrill, still. But waking to the fact that the extremists of the SDS and the Weathermen did not speak for anyone but psychotics. That we needed the Church Amendment, not up against the wall.
We need to understand the average right-wing American as overstimulated by their shrill media celebrities, wanting a more stable country, fearful of the future. We need to listen, say our part, and then let it rest a bit. Re-establish how to deliberate together.
I don't think there really is any such Animal as an American Conservative. Our economic and political system is such that over 50% of the population relies on govt spending for their wages.
We may hold some ideas and ideals about self reliance and independence but the system as a whole is built on the fact that the USG is the largest purchaser on the planet. I disagree with T.S's point but I wont insult him here because I believe the main flaw in the system is that neither he or I are actually represented by the politicians whom we support. Like T S, I resent my tax bill as well but I am more resentful about corporate subsidies and military spending while T S is unhappy with the welfare state. We could argue about it but why bother because the system really isn't concerned with what either of us think. I'd rather raise a brotherly toast to T.S as I gather my W2's once again, because the so called debate is as pertinent as a game show.
Scott as an actor I hope you return to Playwrighting.
Having listened to the rather politicized Obama discussions with Democrats and Republicans of late, I don't think I've heard even HE say that it's (the recession that is) over. As a matter of fact, one of the metaphors he used is that all of the administration efforts have simply given us a "floor" so that we are not in such tremendous free fall. I have NOT heard him say that we are out of trouble.
This view is not conservative but reactionary. They also see no problem with the Patriot Act, Guantanimo, and eavesdropping without obeying the FISA Act. Their view is repressive and regressive. It is also not very smart. When a Republican Congressman has to explain Medicare to a "Teabagger", who shouts out, "Get big government out of my Medicare", this shows how ignorant and idealogically driven this so called "conservative" movement is. Obama can't be a socialist, a fascist and a Muslim all at the same time. There seams to be no room for dialog or compromise with these extremists whose view is that all government is evil and can't work. The all taxes are evil and are wasted by government on the poor and the immigrants. The root problem is corporate corruption of the government and they don't see that or understand that. They have been duped and they don't even know it.
from the GripeVine.... & Rufus..// (or is it Donah ??)
That's how Hitler described the Jews.
And on the other side of the coin, does this mean Democrats are now the Master Race? Sieg Heil?
http://PoliticallyHomeless.net
principle over partisanship - economic AND social freedom
Traits like openness to new ideas, fear of change, respect for authority, belief in the supernatural...all heritable. Ask any animal trainer if different breeds have different personalities and behaviors.
In my opinion, it's getting more pronounced nowadays. Where in earlier times people were limited in the choice of a mate to those of the opposite sex who lived nearby, nowadays people are able to seek out those with the same mindset.
In other words, political identity doesn't appear for most people to translate into personality. And I find that even more interesting.
In fact, having grown up in the 50s, which were more oppressive than some would believe now, I entered university in 1960. It was literally my graduating class which launched the entire decade plus. I was there but you tell me it was impossible for us to do that.
Larry Summers to George Stephanopolous (sp?) was the strongest statement yet: "Everybody believes the recession is over."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/12/summers-job-growth-by-spring.html
Also Paul Krugman, NY Times columnist, Nobel Laureate in Economics, one of two intellectual leaders of the "New" New Deal, has been saying it, off and on for months. He's basically the Glen Beck of the left, if far better mannered,
Party labels tell us less than "philosophy" A majority now self-defines as economically conservative and social liberal, which fits neither party well, but is the "classical liberal" profile of our founders.
Here's the scary part. The two SMALLEST factions are also the most feared: social conservatives and economic liberals, but they are the voice of each party (almost everyone else has left), and the most intolerant (as a rule).
To me, the first step toward independence is when one accepts that one's own side is just as corrupt an inept as the other side. For me, a Goldwater voter who came in from the right, it happened when I accepted that the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal spews as much misinformation as the New York Times editorial page.
The fans of Dave Beck refuse to admit he's ever wrong., just like the fans of Rachel Maddow.
I don't like the words moderate and centrist.That's not it. In the libertarian(generic) scale, right and left are almost irrelevant. There's also a vertical axis, authoritarian on the bottom and libertarian (generic) on top. Simply stated, are you tolerant or do you use government to impose your values on everyone else.
I've seen that so clearly as an activist since the 60s. My own twist is that if you're on the top of the scale, anywhere between far right and far left, you can work on political projects with others anywhere on the left-right scale. I've done it.
Even simpler language: do you acknowledge people as they are? Both left and right have authoritarian types (thugs), and tolerant love-and-let live types. It almost seems self-evident to me that tolerant people not only get along with everyone, we can work together on political or civic projects.
Unless, of course, they're as wordy as me.
1.Many studies have shown that Republicans tend to be religious believers, Democrats not so much if at all. I can verify this within my own family. Almost all of us who have remained Catholic and are under 75 are Republicans. The fallen away who do not attend another church are Dems. The fallen away who attend another church tend to be Pentecostal, and are the strongest Repubs.
2. Abortion and empathy? Hmmm.....? Seemingly no empathy for the dead fetus on the Democratic side( please note that as a gesture of bi-partisanship I did not say "murdered fetus"), which is the only party completely innocent. Isn't there a disconnect there?
3. Obama. Now he did go to Church. In fact, for 22 years he went to Trinity United, the "God Damn America" Church. You've got to have a lot of empathy to be around a sweet guy like Jeremiah Wright. And it's only been 2 years since Obama hasn't had a church. I guess the preachers in Washington don't say 'God Damn America" enough for him and his fellow Dems.
4.Militant murderous Atheism often cloaks itself in the mantle of Social Justice. Lenin promised "Peace, Bread and Land" but gave the people the NKVD (only a temporary commissariat) and Lefortovo. His successor made war on his people, stole their land and then denied vast portionsof the population, especially the Ukranian population, bread; creating a Holocaust that seems to exceed even that of Adolph Hitler.And he made the NKVD permanent, renaming it "The People's Commission for State Security, KGB, on the theory that religious believers, among others, were a threat to the state. Look at the tens of thousands murdered by Ernesto Gueverra, called "Che". He especially liked murdering priests while he shouted" God Damn America" to his firing squads.
And then there was Mao. 35 million dead during the "Great Leap Forward" and another 6-10 million during "The Great proletarian Cultural Revolution". And many millins more in the late forties and early 50s when every Christian missionary and village elder was considered counterrevolutionary and shot.
The real problem is that Atheists, such as you and your friends here(including the Prez-if he was a believing Christian he would have found a church in a few weeks) need to think you have the moral high ground. You've even convinced yourselves that killing babies is the moral high ground and have turned Tim Tebow into a secular devil because he doesn't agree.
Why don't you start your own church? You can worship Gaia. Abortion can be your sacrament. and you'll be full of empathy.