Responding to Carroll: My use of "conservatives" and "liberals" probably does a disservice to Haidt's analysis, because the words mean different things to different people and are very nation/place specific. Haidt is trying to create a meta-analysis of certain universal values, and show how your political views derive from you view about those core values, and "conservative" and "liberal" are simply shortcuts to describe categories of people who share similar values, which manifest itself into common political beliefs. For that it is worth, in the American context, I think Haidt would agree that "conservatives understand progressives better than progressives understand conservatives," and that liberals and progressives share more core values and have more in common than liberals and conservatives, even though there are political differences between progressives and liberals.
David -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:33 PM To: 'Progressive Economics' Subject: Re: [Pen-l] The Righteous Mind David Shemano: "conservatives understand liberals better than ------ And it appears that conservatives & liberals are united at the hip by a strong desire to believe that together they make up the whole polity. The are joined in silent agreement not to recognize the existence of radicals, a term that better describes at least a number on this list. Personally, I see liberals as the enemy & conservatives as merely a wringkle in the liberal fabric, not of much interst. Carrol P.S. The book title suggests a rather stickily moralistic a conception of politics. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
