I recently watched an interview on www.BillMoyers.com with social psychologist Jonathan Haidt about his new book, "The Righteous Mind, Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion." I was throughly impressed with this man’s work and his findings.
In the book and interview, Haidt explains how our differences can “bind us together into groups that seek victory, not truth, and blind us to our own predispositions.” I find Haidt’s material incredibly interesting because of my work and study as a Life Coach. I’m always wondering about why people do what they do and think the way they think. It is at the very core of my work. Very often, I find that people can’t accomplish their goals precisely because they can’t see past or even recognize their predispositions.
Also, as a columnist for Patch, I often encounter readers that couldn’t just say in the comments that they disagree with me, but rather that I was ”bad,” “insane,” “evil” or actually trying to “destroy our nation.” and I got a lot of nasty comments back on that one. I guess they missed the point. Interestingly enough, this typically happens more with articles that either express political viewpoints or with articles where some readers think I’m expressing some kind of political viewpoint. Haidt’s findings are clearly at work here.
In another of my articles, the comment stream totaled more than 140 comments, and they weren’t even talking about the subject matter of my article directly. Someone mentioned a particular point of view about a related topic and other readers came out of the woodwork to inform this person how wrong, nuts and misguided they were. Truthfully, both sides of that discussion were trying to get the other to see where they were coming from. But as Haidt said, people are so stuck in their worldviews, they can’t even hear what the other side is trying to say. It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.
As a culture, it no longer seems enough to simply say “I don’t agree with you.” People seek not only to make another's viewpoint wrong, but to demonize the person as well. Haidt’s book explains how this has come to pass.
His basic premise is that, as a society, we have placed ourselves into groups that only meet and work with people of like mind, we only watch television shows and channels of a particular ideological bent, and we only read materials that agree with our point of view. We have gone from a society where we were exposed to varying ideas and concepts on a daily basis, into one where we have put on "blinders" when it comes to alternate opinions. This situation is clearly disastrous when it comes to trying to get people to work together — Congress or otherwise.
The word "compromise" has become a dirty word because all "sides" have come to focus merely on "winning." The process of give and take, of thrashing things out, has become a lost art. To compromise would mean to accept, at least in part, another’s views on the world and for people stuck one particular worldview, this cannot be. So we end up with “my side is right and your side is wrong,” instead of “I see it differently from you.”
Haidt says, “The first step that we all need to take is to understand that the other side is not crazy. They're not holding their position just because they've been bribed or because they're racist or whatever evil motives you want to attribute (to them).”
In writing about this topic, I hope to spread Jonathan Haidt’s concepts, because I think they can go a long way to softening the “us vs. them” polarity that is gripping our nation. I also hope that people will take the time to read Jonathan Haidt’s book or at least watch Haidt’s interview with Bill Moyers, and think over their own behaviors when dealing with “alternate viewpoints,” so that, as Haidt puts it, when we hear something from "the other side" (whichever side that is for you), instead of saying “See, this shows how evil they are,” you say, “Oh, okay, I see why they're saying that — it’s just a difference of opinion.”
The biggest problem facing this nation is that we have lost our identity as Americans. We are now the country of me, myself, and I. It is now just about how to get the most you can possibly get out of the system, or other people, before the system collapses. We are entering the most dangerous stage of the collapse, where the system is flailing around, desperately trying to hold on. After the great collapse there will be a renaissance that will re define who we are as a nation going forward.
BTW, Joel, Bill Moyers? Really? That would be like me introducing something from one of Rush Limbaugh's radio programs.
Liberals are perfectly justified in believing that Rick Santorum-type conservatives want to force their values on others. There are many examples of this, including drug laws, same sex marriage, abortion, right to die legislation, pornography, and others. While I agree that liberals are more likely to use government to impose certain values (i.e. environmental protection), many conservatives also are guilty of it too.
In addition, neither Ron Paul nor Rick Santorum are representative of conservatives, and that is why neither will get the Republican nomination. (They may represent certain segments, but not conservatives overall.) These two individuals have views that are too extreme (to Paul's point below), and that is why there is such a "BIG" difference between them. On the other hand, in recent years, the Democrats have been represented by the extreme Liberal wing of their party (Pelosi, Reed, Obama, Malloy here in CT, etc.), those who are forcing big government down our throats, in contrast to what the majority of people want. So, while I agree with you, Mr. Earp, that there are some Rick Santorum types in the Republican party, they are not representative of the party overall, and Republicans/Conservatives are far less likely than Liberals to try to force their ideas on others.
Under the umbrella of "conservatism" you have big government types like Santorum, small government types like Paul and supporters of the status quo like Romney. For example, Rick Santorum represents one of the main pillars of the conservative movement - the social conservative bloc - which is decidedly big government in nature. Simply because you disagree with them, does not make Santorum or his supporters as less conservative. I'm happy that you at least recognize this. From a liberal standpoint though, I believe the Rick Santorum bloc of the GOP is indistinguisable from conservatives in general as the GOP has largely adopted its values and policies. Even Romney has adopted a few anti-states rights and anti-individual liberty positions dear to the Rick Santorum wing, such as a Federal marriage amendment. I think you should take a step back and try to recognize the value of what Kristen is saying. Only then, can a more mature dialogue be had.
The former means regardless of your output you should benefit similarly to others. That Government through laws, rules or regulations should provide a 'benefit' to those 'aggrieved' and not receiving the full benefit from society. That society needs to protect you through regulations from the myriad dangers of life. The latter is based upon the concept that all should be given the same opportunity to succeed. Government should not give a benefit that skews the results in a particular direction or make people do things. People should be allowed to make their own mistakes, the good, the bad and the ugly. The broad concepts color all. We all must realize there are no absolutes in politics or in life. In the words we use we color our approach. The difference is an attitude. What is your attitude to life?
Like others, I believe you are participating (at a more civil level, I’ll grant) in what the original article spoke about. While I don’t disagree with your definition of what the conservative narrative is these days, I do have a problem with your “One True Scotsman” fallacy. That is, whenever a popular conservative is mentioned, you are quick to dismiss them as not really conservatives. Not the moralizing wing of the GOP. Not the libertarian wing. I can assume not the conciliatory wing like Romney represents – and he has a proven track record of expanding government. Probably not the Bush/Cheney neocon government bloating, world policing wing. Obviously not the CT/New England “RINO” wing. I’d imagine not the anti-abortion wing. So who does that leave you? When you specifically mention those you claim are super liberal as run-of-the-mill democrats, you are succumbing to the very issue the article is about.
As for the "super liberals" who are leading the Democratic party, are you telling me that Pelosi, Reed, Obama and Malloy aren't super liberal? They may not be "run of the mill" Democrats, but they are the leaders of the Democratic party, and there is no debating that.
I ask you, what in the world has this president done that wasn’t, until perhaps very recently, a GOP platform issue? (Note: let’s dispense with “Obamacare.” Why? For one, his opposition candidate implemented the same rules in Massachusetts but more importantly, the big bugaboo that may doom it in the SCOTUS and what most conservatives take issue with – the individual mandates – has ALWAYS been a conservative cornerstone. Until Obama adopted it. If Obamacare was a single-payer system then yes, you’d have a point. But it’s not… Not even close. So again, what has Obama done or heavily supported that is liberal/socialist/ruining the country, etc?
I hear you. And I guarantee that if you switch the words "Liberals" and "Conservatives" that sentence would ring true for many people as well. I guess the point is that until we all stop thinking that someone else is trying to shove their ideas down our throats (and I admit I'm often guilty of thinking this way!) that it will be impossible to ever come to a consensus on anything. I think that's all the author was trying to point out as well?