Since the topic has generated some interesting commentary, here are some final thoughts on Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion:
1) while there are more than two kinds of people, our political system breaks us down that way-- unfortunately, there should be room for libertarians (who give even less of a shit about things than liberals do, but really care about liberty/oppression and have even less empathy than conservatives)
2) you can tell someone's political beliefs by the kind of dog breed they prefer: gentle and independent versus loyal, protective and wary of strangers;
3) Haidt admits that liberals go too far sometimes in their reflexive anti-business stance, and they could endorse the wonders of the free market to solve problems-- he makes a great analogy with food and the silliness of having food insurance, instead of knowing the prices for items and shopping around and buying what works, versus health insurance, where we have no clue what anything costs and so want to be insured for everything-- he brings up the case of lasix, which went on the free market and the price adjusted accordingly . . . we've gone so far in the care/harm department with health care that the spending is utterly bonkers;
4) on the other hand, regulation can also have benefits-- the regulation of leaded gasoline in the late 70's and early 80's, despite Ronald Reagan's attempt to cripple the EPA and its ability to make that change (sound familiar, Scott Pruitt, bringer of asthma and global warming) was ill-founded . . . as are Trump's trade tariffs (it's Smoot-Hawley all over again . . . Smoot-Hawley! anyone? Bueller?)
5) the tug of war between these two groups is significant and important-- the debate between those that are primarily concerned with care/harm and making the world fair and free for as many people as possible-- and those that are concerned with groups and loyalty and liberty and authority and sanctity, as well as the former principles . . . and that's the most important thing that many liberals need to understand, that conservatives es still care about care/harm and fairness, just in slightly different ways;
6) Haidt's final advice is that if you want to truly understand another perspective, follow the sacredness-- I've had conservatives tell me that I don't actually care about endangered species and the environment, because they can't believe that someone would be sincere about that-- and I have trouble truly believing that people are sincere about religion or truly care if gay people get married . . . but we have to try to see why people believe these things, which all make sense in the context of what is sacred . . . and we have to remember that though there are more than two types of people, "once people join a political team, they get ensnared in its moral matrix" and follow the grand narrative of that party . . . but liberals are conservatives are yin and yang and both necessary for the health of a political system;
7) he ends by saying that libertarians and conservatives certainly provide a valuable counterweight to "liberal reform movements" but he sees two liberal points which are profoundly important to the health of society:
"governments can and should restrain corporate superorganisms"
and
"some big problems CAN be solved by regulation"
and I think these are the two points that we need to all come together about, we are rapidly destroying our environment and our resources, and we are rapidly being consumed by larger and larger corporate entities, which have captured the government, making all this tug-of-war and debating utterly useless, if the people no longer have any say in what happens to our country.
5 comments:
What does it mean if you don't want a dog and instead prefer cats?
Libertarianism sounds great until you actually meet a libertarian, then you realize how crazy and dogmatic and inflexible and annoying it is.
Was Fred Smoot involve with Smoor-Hayley? I miss Fred Smoot.
I sincerely do not care about many endangered species or religion. Am I just a jerk?
I miss the sentences about awkward Dave. When was the last time someone left their phone on the roof of the car?
What if you care about religion, endangered species, and don’t like dog “breeds” but rather prefer mutt rescues?
the dog "breeds" were invented for the experiment;
and yes, zman, you are a jerk, because you care about cars more than endangered species. that also seems to be very typical of all humans.
awkward dave has been pretty smooth lately. i've even talked my way through a few phone conversation with strangers . . . but i will try to get in the zone for you, al . . .
I’m planning on reading Haidt since I’m intrigued.
Based on your last paragraph it seems that Haidt and you agree that while “conservatives” may be a good counterbalance on some items, there are two irrefutable liberal points that are naturally correct and that a conservative viewpoint disagreeing with them is naturally wrong. Holding to the binary construct that would mean that the “conservative” group has items that they are inherently wrong on and that inherently wrong belief is, at least in part, based on genetics. That would appear to be an argument that the “liberal” (holding to the binary construct) is genetically superior in that their genetic makeup results in thinking that is more correct.
It’s an interesting argument, a) because of its reliance on a concept roughly akin to Natural Law, & b) it feels uncomfortably close to some of the underpinnings of the eugenics movement of the 20’s &30’s.
In terms of natural law, it feels like some of the same things that Hobbes wrestles with in Leviathan, which clearly challenges organized religion but leaves open ideas of personal belief to support the concept of self evident truths.
I say all of this as somebody who doesn’t feel like a conservative or a liberal.
Post a Comment