I enjoy watching Greta van Susteran on right-wing Fox News. I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow on left-wing MSNBC. And, I enjoy watching Fareed Zakaria on semi-centrist CNN. When he recommended this book by Jonathon Haidt last week as "required reading," I decided I would read it. Humorously, Haidt appeared on Zakaria's show this morning, after I went to the trouble of reading his book.
Sadly, much of the book is a scholarly exploration of moral values, structures, etc. While important, cynical economists normally find the subject a bit "squishy" for them. Toward the end, however, the book gets very interesting.
One thought stream is that people have a need for "belongingness" which explains our need for religions and political parties or tribes. We simply need to belong. He cites another scholar with saying "it is religious belongingness that matters for neighborliness, not religious believing."
Philosopher John Stuart Mill said liberals and conservatives need each other, saying "A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life." Yet, it seems we have drifted back to the third century Persian prophet, Mani, who preached the world is either black or white, either good or bad, and you must choose. Haidt tells us "if you think about politics in a Manichaean way, then compromise is a sin. God and the devil don't issue many bipartisan announcements".
He explains the political parties have become too pure. Today, the most liberal Republican is still far more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. The number of voters describing themselves as moderates dropped from 40% in 2000 to 36% in 2011. (I suspect the percentage is still dropping.)
We are less likely to see members of a different party or tribe than before. In 1976, only 27% of us lived in communities where the incumbent Republican or Democrat won by more than 20 points, called "landslide counties." By 2008, 48% of us lived in such communities. In other words, Republicans don't see or talk with as many Democrats as they used to, and vice versa. We have become more segregated, not by race but by political parties. (Undoubtedly, some of this is also due to re-districting into safe legislative districts, but that was not discussed by Haidt.)
Big business knows this, of course. Did you know that 62% of the counties that had a Cracker Barrel restaurant voted for John McCain, while 89% of those counties with a Whole Foods grocery store voted for Barack Obama in the last Presidential election.
I think Haidt's thesis is this: we start with a slight gene bias about defensiveness. Some small kids are more alert to possible danger than other kids. Some kids are more open to new experiences than other kids. The safety-loving kids have a slightly greater probability of becoming Republicans, while the experience-loving youngsters have a slightly greater probability of becoming Democrats. Of course, many things later in life can alter the trajectory, but there does seem to be some genetic predisposition.
Haidt also believes that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives, because liberals hear conservative principles such as loyalty and authority as mere code-words for a police-state or, even worse, a theocracy. In addition, liberal writings are more plentiful than conservative writings, making liberals less informed about conservative thought. Liberals are less likely to "get it" or understand the point because they "over-think" it.
He cites one seemingly innocent suggestion of Newt Gingrich in 1995 as a major contributor to the vileness that is Congress today, when he urged the newly-elected Congressmen to leave their families at home, so they could save on living expenses. That effectively precluded the traditional cross-party friendships that has served our nation so well for over two centuries.
The book ends poignantly with a political cartoon of a father and mother sitting in a living room, having a serious discussion with their young son. The father explains to the boy "your mother and I are separating because I want what's best for the country and your mother doesn't."
Yes, America, we are that divided . . . and it is getting worse.
Sadly, much of the book is a scholarly exploration of moral values, structures, etc. While important, cynical economists normally find the subject a bit "squishy" for them. Toward the end, however, the book gets very interesting.
One thought stream is that people have a need for "belongingness" which explains our need for religions and political parties or tribes. We simply need to belong. He cites another scholar with saying "it is religious belongingness that matters for neighborliness, not religious believing."
Philosopher John Stuart Mill said liberals and conservatives need each other, saying "A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life." Yet, it seems we have drifted back to the third century Persian prophet, Mani, who preached the world is either black or white, either good or bad, and you must choose. Haidt tells us "if you think about politics in a Manichaean way, then compromise is a sin. God and the devil don't issue many bipartisan announcements".
He explains the political parties have become too pure. Today, the most liberal Republican is still far more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. The number of voters describing themselves as moderates dropped from 40% in 2000 to 36% in 2011. (I suspect the percentage is still dropping.)
We are less likely to see members of a different party or tribe than before. In 1976, only 27% of us lived in communities where the incumbent Republican or Democrat won by more than 20 points, called "landslide counties." By 2008, 48% of us lived in such communities. In other words, Republicans don't see or talk with as many Democrats as they used to, and vice versa. We have become more segregated, not by race but by political parties. (Undoubtedly, some of this is also due to re-districting into safe legislative districts, but that was not discussed by Haidt.)
Big business knows this, of course. Did you know that 62% of the counties that had a Cracker Barrel restaurant voted for John McCain, while 89% of those counties with a Whole Foods grocery store voted for Barack Obama in the last Presidential election.
I think Haidt's thesis is this: we start with a slight gene bias about defensiveness. Some small kids are more alert to possible danger than other kids. Some kids are more open to new experiences than other kids. The safety-loving kids have a slightly greater probability of becoming Republicans, while the experience-loving youngsters have a slightly greater probability of becoming Democrats. Of course, many things later in life can alter the trajectory, but there does seem to be some genetic predisposition.
Haidt also believes that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives, because liberals hear conservative principles such as loyalty and authority as mere code-words for a police-state or, even worse, a theocracy. In addition, liberal writings are more plentiful than conservative writings, making liberals less informed about conservative thought. Liberals are less likely to "get it" or understand the point because they "over-think" it.
He cites one seemingly innocent suggestion of Newt Gingrich in 1995 as a major contributor to the vileness that is Congress today, when he urged the newly-elected Congressmen to leave their families at home, so they could save on living expenses. That effectively precluded the traditional cross-party friendships that has served our nation so well for over two centuries.
The book ends poignantly with a political cartoon of a father and mother sitting in a living room, having a serious discussion with their young son. The father explains to the boy "your mother and I are separating because I want what's best for the country and your mother doesn't."
Yes, America, we are that divided . . . and it is getting worse.
