me:
> "What in heck is a conservative? Defining "conservative" as money
> libertarian, conservatives don't care for others -- only about money for
> themselves and their immediate families (a.k.a. heirs). They define
> "fairness" or "justice" as preservation of their own private property rights,
> while their loyalty refers only to the fellow members of the capitalist
> class. The tradition they respect is that of the power of monetary wealth,
> while the purity is that of the gated community. They favor liberty for those
> with money and reject the oppression that democratic control over the
> government threatens them with. They then justify all of these positions with
> rhetoric involving caring for all of society, fairness with a capital F,
> loyalty to the human race, etc. They justify their privilege by reference to
> alleged benefits for all (i.e., trickle-down)."
David Shemano writes:
> You are a walking parody of Haidt's major point, which is that those on the
> Left are uniquely unable to understand those who are different from them
> (relative to the ability of the Right trying to guess how those on the Left
> think). ...<
Making things personal like this is what spurs flame wars. But I'll
refrain from making things personal in response.
> "The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds.
> Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and
> sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of
> racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt
> found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves
> "very liberal," were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and
> conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral
> judgments of liberals. Liberals don't understand conservative values. And
> they can't recognize this failing, because they're so convinced of their
> rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment. "<
Even though I have not read his book (and because I have read two
reviews, both in the NYT), I think that I understand Haidt's point.
The problem is that I think that the words "liberal" and
"conservative" are extremely slippery and should be defined, rather
than thinking that somehow his research makes one ideology better than
the other (as David seems to be saying here). (Also, I'm not a liberal
or a "very liberal.")
The key thing for me is that psychology is never enough, since we live
in a big interconnected society which encourages and rewards some
ideologies (usually called "conservatism" of either the
money-libertarian or traditionalist sort). Psychology abstracted from
society and economics can be totally abstract, almost meaningless --
especially when we're talking about political perspectives, which _by
their very nature_ are social and economic.
As a professional economist, by the way, I know very well what
"economic conservatism" (a.k.a., laissez-faire, a.k.a. 19th century
liberalism, a.k.a., neoliberalism, a.k.a. money libertarianism). It's
the ideology that has increasingly dominated my profession since I
started this gig and has increasingly dominated the political &
economic elites that run this world (and the policies which they have
implemented). I know what the official line is ("liberty!!") and what
this viewpoint means in practice (financial bubbles popping, austerity
that punishes those who didn't create the bubbles, etc., etc.) Even
though Haidt's research may apply to traditionalist conservatism in
some way (and to standard-issue Democratic Party liberalism), I don't
think it applies to the money libertarians.
--
Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to
be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But
in poetry, it's the exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac. Social science is
in the middle.... and usually in a muddle.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
