Jan 19 2009
A Proto-Scientific Political Analysis
If you are a liberal confounded by the seeming back-ass values of conservatives, I suggest reading the essay, WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? by By Jonathan Haidt. I found it thought-provoking.
Haidt makes the following points -
[O]ne of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats.
Hmm. I does seem that Liberals are frequently portrayed as near-anarchists by ultra-conservatives, as free-love, drug-taking hippies lacking boundaries. What kind of order is that?
Here’s my alternative definition: morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.
Is it a bogus over-generalization to say that while conservative tend to focus on the group (their group, naturally) and responsibilities, liberals focus on individuals and rights?
Of course, a curious switch tends to occur when the issue is corporate rights and responsibilities vs. those of the consumer.
The ingroup/loyalty foundation supports virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice that can lead to dangerous nationalism, but in moderate doses a sense that “we are all one” is a recipe for high social capital and civic well-being.
Hmm. Might be true.
The authority/respect foundation will be the hardest for Democrats to use. But even as liberal bumper stickers urge us to “question authority” and assert that “dissent is patriotic,” Democrats can ask what needs this foundation serves, and then look for other ways to meet them.
While this essay did indeed provoke thought in me and seemed reasonable, as a scientifically-oriented thinker I do have my doubts. My overall reservation springs from this important point: argumentation without evidence lacks weight. Sure, it sounds like it very well could be the case that conservatives are more group-oriented while liberals seem to neglect that class of concerns. But is it really the case? Explanations without supporting data remain in the realm of the purely hypothetical.
