What is wrong with you people?

[Undertoad]

This extremely difficult, yet extremely rewarding essay appeared over the weekend.

A somewhat easier-to-digest opinion from Penn Jillette, in a short video: The Party of Hate. Republicans are the party of fear, Democrats are the party of hate. Hard to disagree after seeing your thread title. Let me ask you this: if you weren't addressing a group of people -- let's say you were addressing your friend's Aunt, who has said to you that she'll vote for McCain. Would you come back at her with What is wrong with you?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This extremely difficult, yet extremely rewarding essay appeared over the weekend.

A somewhat easier-to-digest opinion from Penn Jillette, in a short video: The Party of Hate. Republicans are the party of fear, Democrats are the party of hate. Hard to disagree after seeing your thread title. Let me ask you this: if you weren't addressing a group of people -- let's say you were addressing your friend's Aunt, who has said to you that she'll vote for McCain. Would you come back at her with What is wrong with you?

How I respond to individuals varies by individual. I try to show respect to all, and the response you illustrate isn't very respectful. I almost certainly would not address her that way, unless I were provoked severely. Highly unlikely and unlikely to be useful in any way.

...the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer.

When I oversimplify the positions of the parties to equal levels, this is what it is reduced to: Reps==intolerant.

But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Pretty good summary, unfortunately.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?

The label elitist is earned as much as close minded is. The labels are practically useless. Why is the author bothering to use them? Did he just call me broad minded, color blind and smart? Is he suggesting that those elitist Dems are name calling? Is that a good thing? Is he calling names? Is that ok?

Back in the United States the culture war was going strong, but I had lost my righteous passion. I could never have empathized with the Christian Right directly, but once I had stood outside of my home morality, once I had tried on the moral lenses of my Indian friends and interview subjects, I was able to think about conservative ideas with a newfound clinical detachment. They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate of schools and discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of single motherhood and weaken the traditional social structures that compel men to support their own children? Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later), and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

So now "moral equivalence" is a virtue?

One critical cultural distinction that is absent in this analysis is that our very foundation as a country "exalts" the individual. "All men are created equal..." Remember that? And that ours is a country of laws. And that there's a bona fide process for creating those laws, obeying those laws and enforcing those laws and penalizing those who don't obey them.

I believe our country's respect for the rule of law is the very essence of what distinguishes us from every other society.

And another thing,

think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

Yeah? So what? What weight does the author assign to "heartfelt-edness"? SonofV has some very heartfelt visions of how our family should be run, at least a heartfelt as his parent's visions. And they're often in direct conflict with each other. But that has no real bearing on their validity. Why not? Because they're bad visions. All play, no work, all dessert, no vegetables, etc etc. I exaggerate for effect. My point is that it is a false premise that how intensely one feels is a reliable basis for deciding the worth of an idea.

Originally Posted by philosopher David Hume

that reason is "the slave of the passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them."

Author Jonathan Haidt argues for rational thought to rule our decisions. He then lays the very cornerstone of the foundation of his arguments in the sand of his passions. I am wary of structures built on sand.

I struggled considerably with the feeling that I was on the hook for his accusations of Democrat's shortcomings, especially that *I* don't get it. But I'm over it. I'm not bitter. Really.

The end of his article was quite good. The addition of three channels comprising his definition of morality, ingroup/loyalty, purity/sanctity, authority/respect was understandable and reasonable. I"m not certain of my level of agreement yet, but I'm willing to keep an open mind.

In the meantime, the difficulties in ascribing motivations to groups as large and diverse and contradictory and amorphous as political parties aside, I'm more concerned with understanding smaller collections of politically tainted people, namely candidates. That's a lot easier for me to process with confidence.

Thanks UT for the informative article.