I don’t think so. I think most liberals, if asked to place something central, would say they value “justice,” or “equality,” and conservatives would say they value “freedom” (and each side would dispute the other’s definition of the relevant words); which has nothing to do with “change” vs. “order.” Nor are “change” and “order” antonyms, nor complementary halves of the Tao. The opposite-or-complement of change is stasis; the opposite-or-complement of order is chaos.
Since we are only using two descriptors (conservative vs. liberal), there will certainly be problems.
When I first heard the speech, the light went off for me in a couple of ways. The primary was my inability to explain why I volunteered for the military. Liberal friends could not understand my patriotism (and some went so far as to say that the US is just another place, nothing special). Others could not fathom the concept of a chain of command and the need to follow it. The concepts were something that they simply did not every consider.
Its a model, I find it interesting and it help me understand why a rational conversation with someone else might sometimes hit a wall - even if both parties are trying their rational best. If I defend something based on Haidt’s Purity + In Group + Authority - a Liberal (if you buy into his research) is going to have trouble understanding me. However, when a Liberal works off of the first two - I understand where they are coming from since I use those as well - but I simply do not give them the same weight.
I think this is a bit misleading.
When society accepts a liberal idea, it tends to internalize and become conservative. If we accept the given that conservatism generally wants the status quo (or the status quo from 50 years ago), then we can easily explain this by saying that liberal ideas become the status quo, and then get adopted by conservatives.
Being conservative is easy. Just support everything the way it is or always was. Liberalism actually makes you go out and think what’s next. It’s akin to the an inventor and a consumer. The inventory looks for new ways to use old things, or makes new things. The consumer simply takes in everything that has already been made.
Witness the idiot Tea Baggers who shout against “socialized medicine” in the same breath they shout about protecting their Medicare and Medicaid. Those ideas used to be liberal. Social Security was seen as socialistic but now conservatives willingly stir up fears about losing it.
I don’t think we are a conservative country. It’s easier to see conservatism than liberalism, because liberal requires constant change.
I think you’re wrong to project this lack of understanding onto all, or even to most liberals. I know they certainly don’t apply to me or to my friends.
If you think liberals don’t understand or can’t grasp these concepts, then I can understand your belief that conservatives understand the world better than liberals. But I think that picture is as much an unrealistic cartoon as the stereotypes of conservatives you rightly deplore.
I think that Professor Haidt’s research shows that Liberals have troubles understanding the perspective of Conservatives. I can also affirm his research with personal anecdotes. I also understand that there is a continuum of the spectrum between Liberal and Conservative. The point is that the two groups do think in different ways.
I have NEVER meant to imply that “conservatives understand the world better than liberals”. The point is that, based on Haidt’s research, there is an arguement that conservatives can better understand the viewpoint of the liberals. This is obviously more accurate at the extremes, and less so as we get to the middle.
He also regularly writes bits to try to help Democrats understand this, so that they can do a better job of getting elected:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
For a more readable take on his research, Miller McCune covered his work:
I have to wonder about the type of liberal friends you have who would not understand that. As mentioned just above liberals can easily grasp these concepts. Chain of command can be understood just by playing a high school team sport (not to mention we know there is a Principal, Vice Principal, Dean, Teachers and so on). Chain of command is a pretty easy concept and not one tied to liberal or conservative notions.
As for patriotism a liberal’s patriotism tends to be different from a conservative’s but no less real or profound to them. Others have said it better than me so I will just quote them:
“Patriotism is proud of a country’s virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country’s virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, “the greatest,” but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.” ~ Sydney J. Harris
“Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism: The right to criticize. The right to hold unpopular beliefs. The right to protest. The right of independent thought.” ~ Margaret Chase Smith
“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” ~ James Baldwin
“‘My country, right or wrong’ is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’” ~ G. K. Chesterton
I wondered about them as well at the time (this was back in the 80s mind you). :; Then again, I still run into the same types of people through my work at the local University. Your patriotism quotes are perfect - YOUR definition of patriotism is vastly different from that of a Conservative. For you to invoke patriotism in that way shows that you just don’t get it. Or, to take the first paragraph from the Miller-McCune piece:
I have, and they just confirm my opinion. They are full of of people detached from reality, who build up fantasy versions of me; and who are fond of veiled threats of violence.
Besides, I’m always being told how weird I am, which makes me a bad example anyway.
I think you are confusing disagreement with an inability to understand. Saying that I don’t agree that patriotism is important isn’t at all the same as not understanding it; it’s not like it’s a hard concept to understand.
Again; it’s conservatives, not liberals who have a hard time understanding the opposition. Not because the concepts are hard, but because they don’t want to.
Der Trihs - they looked me in the face and said, “I don’t get it. You don’t owe the country anything. Why would you let someone tell you what to do?”
Now, these were 18 - 22 year olds away at college, so perhaps all of our communications skills were a bit lacking I admit.
Well there you go. I have a fundamental disagreement with him on what “patriotism” means. From your quote it seems Haidt feels patriotism is supporting your country. Period.
What it ignores is the very values this country was founded on. Says it right in the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
How about the Declaration of Independence? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
So, to just suppose one should be blindly patriotic is to ignore the very foundations the US government was built on. By this measure I’d say it is the conservatives (and Haidt it would seem) who just do not get it.
Not to mention Haidt conveniently ignores the pithy bumper stickers and slogans beloved of conservatives such as “Love it or leave it” or “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (to name two).
Well, they certainly don’t fit the liberals I know ( since we are trading personal anecdotes ). Who may or may not respect patriotism, but find it easy enough to understand. For that matter, “I don’t owe the country anything” is a sentiment that I hear far more from the Right than the Left ).
Quoth msmith537
Isn’t it tautological that liberals and conservatives will each think their own philosophy superior to the other? The whole reason that a person identifies as “liberal” (or “conservative”) in the first place is that that person thinks that liberalism (or conservativism) is superior to conservativism (or liberalism). Why is this surprising?
I’ve always seen Conservative defined as:
1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness
…while liberal was defined as:
1.favorable to progress or reform.
IOW, Conservatives value preserving order over change while Liberals value progressive change over the status quo. At lest that’s how I’ve always understood their meaning.
I don’t know if this is descriptive of a particular political philosophy as much as it is a philosophy of lazy, spoiled, overprivileged, overindulged children. When people grow up with all their needs provided for them, they often do not grasp the concept of how those needs are provided. They’re like gerbils. Gerbils don’t build their habitat or defend it or even understand where their food and water come from. All they know is if they hit this button, a food pellet comes out of that hole.
Well, no one said they were good ideas. They are mostly simple ideas, easy to sell, which is good if you don’t have to worry about ideas being correct or feasible. Cutting taxes and government spending sounds great, until political reality that cutting spending (which is always spending wanted by someone else) is impossible, and so you get a deficit. Cut regulation, because since you wouldn’t sign for a bad mortgage, no one else will either. Except that you and others aren’t nearly as smart as the conservatives tell you you are, and most people can be sold a bill of goods. Palin ranted about death panels, and the tea baggers and associated morons didn’t want to or were not smart enough to learn the real story.
I think it is more a case of demonizing those they don’t want to support by calling them impure. It is much easier to cut welfare if you think all the recipients are Cadillac Queens or sluts, not women suffering from a terrible environment and terrible role models.
Not in-group at all - conservative spit on unemployed Republicans every bit as much as unemployed Democrats. I think there is an in-group consisting of a meritocracy that every one of these people think they are members of. Remember, Joe the Plumber was basing his beliefs on eventually owning a plumbing business, when he didn’t even have a license. You’ve seen conservatives tell the unemployed to get a job even in this labor market. It is like Ralph Kramden supporting tax cuts for the rich because he is sure he’s going to be rich some day.
I
I suspect that this was from immaturity, not politics. As a conservative in college, I didn’t want any part of people telling me what to do either. I’m unaware of liberals having a harder time fitting into a normal corporate environment than conservatives. I can see liberals being less interested in the split second obeying of orders which is required in the military, but that is a very specific requirement.
Remember, it was JFK who said “Do not ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” And how does hatred of paying taxes have anything to do with patriotism?
It is possible that the people you mention were still feeling the backlash of Vietnam - back then the military was held in much lower regard than it is today.
Yes, but liberals don’t just disagree with conservatives, they often think conservatives are evil. And conservatives often think liberals are stupid.
I’m not sure why prioritising things differently means that you cannot understand those things. Not judging situations by the same measures doesn’t mean you don’t get those measures, it just means you don’t feel that they’re appropriate or relevant, or maybe just as necessary.
If I measure the length of a stick with a tape measure, that doesn’t mean I don’t know how to use a stopwatch. If I measure a situation, as a liberal, based on those ideals I feel are important, that doesn’t mean I don’t understand other ideals that other people might choose to look at in my place. I’m not patriotic, but that doesn’t mean I have no clue as to why someone might be.
Exactly. I think many conservatives here view me as being mostly liberal, but I don’t like change. I like what is comfortable and familiar. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. My liberal side says “If it is broke, then fix it”. I’m NOT one who goes along with “change just for the sake of change”. I like order, because without it, there is chaos. But order does not preclude speaking for the weak or oppressed. If anything, that supports order and stability. After all, isn’t justice one of the main purposes of having order? You can’t have justice where there is chaos.
Is there anyone, liberal or otherwise, who wants change just for the sake of change?
People identify a problem, real or imagined, they think needs fixing and so agitate to get the problem solved.
To me the liberal/conservative divide is liberals tend to identify problems others experience (as well as their own) and want to see it fixed. Conservatives, as long as they themselves are content, do not want anything fixed unless it directly impacts them.
So, a white liberal might identify a civil rights issue that affects black people and want it fixed. A conservative who is not black probably doesn’t want it fixed as the conservative is fine, change might change that, so leave it be.
Conservatives are very “me first” (read Ayn Rand for examples of that).
You meant to say “misread” Ayn Rand for examples of that.
I see the difference more as that, once conservatives have identified the problem, they ask whether the government should fix the problem or not based on their beliefs about the proper role of government. Liberals don’t even disagree with conservatives on the proper role of government, they just don’t ask the question about the role of government in the first place.