Politics – Page 54 – Maverick Philosopher

Jonathan Haidt on Why Working-Class People Vote Conservative

When a working-class person votes conservative, isn't he voting against his economic interests? That's what many lefties think and it puzzles them. Why would the workers do such a thing? This gives rise to the duping hypothesis: "the Republican party dupes people into voting against their economic interests by triggering outrage on cultural issues."

Jonathan Haidt demolishes the hypothesis.

According to Haidt, conservatives have a broader "moral palate" than liberals. Liberals have only three concerns to the conservative's six (emphasis added):

. . . we have identified six moral concerns as the best candidates for being the innate "taste buds" of the moral sense: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Across many kinds of surveys, in the UK as well as in the USA, we find that people who self-identify as being on the left score higher on questions about care/harm. [. . .]

But on matters relating to group loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity (treating things as sacred and untouchable, not only in the context of religion), it sometimes seems that liberals lack the moral taste buds, or at least, their moral "cuisine" makes less use of them. [. . .]

In America, it is these three moral foundations that underlie most of the "cultural" issues that, according to duping theorists, are used to distract voters from their self-interest. But are voters really voting against their self-interest when they vote for candidates who share their values? Loyalty, respect for authority and some degree of sanctification create a more binding social order that places some limits on individualism and egoism. [. . .]

Despite being in the wake of a financial crisis that – if the duping theorists were correct – should have buried the cultural issues and pulled most voters to the left, we are finding in America and many European nations a stronger shift to the right. When people fear the collapse of their society, they want order and national greatness, not a more nurturing government.

Even on the two moral taste buds that both sides claim – fairness and liberty – the right can often outcook the left. The left typically thinks of equality as being central to fairness, and leftists are extremely sensitive about gross inequalities of outcome – particularly when they correspond along racial or ethnic lines. But the broader meaning of fairness is really proportionality – are people getting rewarded in proportion to the work they put into a common project? Equality of outcomes is only seen as fair by most people in the special case in which everyone has made equal contributions. [. . .]

Similarly for liberty. Americans and Britons all love liberty, yet when liberty and care conflict, the left is more likely to choose care. This is the crux of the US's monumental battle over Obama's healthcare plan. Can the federal government compel some people to buy a product (health insurance) in order to make a plan work that extends care to 30 million other people? The derogatory term "nanny state" is rarely used against the right (pastygate being perhaps an exception). Conservatives are more cautious about infringing on individual liberties (eg of gun owners in the US and small businessmen) in order to protect vulnerable populations (such as children, animals and immigrants).

In sum, the left has a tendency to place caring for the weak, sick and vulnerable above all other moral concerns. It is admirable and necessary that some political party stands up for victims of injustice, racism or bad luck. But in focusing so much on the needy, the left often fails to address – and sometimes violates – other moral needs, hopes and concerns. When working-class people vote conservative, as most do in the US, they are not voting against their self-interest; they are voting for their moral interest. They are voting for the party that serves to them a more satisfying moral cuisine. The left in the UK and USA should think hard about their recipe for success in the 21st century.

Voter Identification and Voter Suppression

The controversy over voter ID is a fascinating one because it highlights the deep divide between contemporary conservatives and contemporary liberals. That this non-issue is debated at all shows that the Left is bereft of common sense.

Anyone with common sense ought to be able to appreciate that voting must be conducted in an orderly manner, and that only citizens who have registered to vote and have satisfied the minimal requirements of age, etc., are to be allowed into the voting booth. Given the possibility of fraud, it is therefore necessary to verify the identities of those who present themselves at the polling place. To do this, voters must be required to present a government-issued photo ID card, a driver's license being only one example of such. It is a reasonable requirement and any reasonable person should be able to see it as one.

Too many liberals, however, see these common-sense requirements as acts of voter suppression, as witness this astonishing outburst from Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan:

In November, five million eligible voters will find it harder to exercise their rights in America — 150 voter suppression laws have been introduced in 30 state legislatures across the country.

The most common tactics: requiring photo ID, restricting registration drives, limiting early voting and imposing onerous residency requirements. Who do these laws most directly affect? The poor, the elderly, minorities and the young. And how do those groups typically vote? Democratic.

Let's consider photo ID. For Granholm, requiring such ID is a form of voter suppression. How's that for hyperbole? Does she call it bank withdrawal suppression when check cashers are required to produce ID? The other day I withdrew a sum of money from a checking account in excess of what is obtainable from an ATM machine. I was asked to show my driver's license. Was that an infringement of my right to access my own funds? Of course not. The demand was eminently reasonable even though I am known at the bank in question. Similarly with the photo ID requirement at the polling place. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. See the above graphic.

Some liberals say that voter fraud is rare. Maybe, maybe not. In any case, irrelevant. There is a principle at stake. Besides, how many people lack ID? Without ID one simply cannot function in society. To exploit and adapt a slogan of the Harvard logician, Willard Quine, "No [social] entity without [social] identity." You're a nonentity without ID. So when a liberal says that voter fraud is rare, reply, "So is lack of ID. Since almost everyone has it, almost no one is excluded from voting by the ID requirement."

Since liberals don't have even one cogent argument against photo ID, we are justified in psychologizing their opposition to common-sense requirements. Their opposition is rooted in a desire to win by any means, including fraud. As lefties, they believe the end justifies the means. They see themselves as the noble standard-bearers of equality against their disgusting, evil, SIXHRB opponents. (SIXHRB: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, bigoted. HT: Dennis Prager.)

By the way, Governor Granholm is now on the faculty at University of California, Berkeley. Surprise!

Companion post: I Was Forced to Show My Papers!

Elizabeth Warren’s Identity Politics

A great column by George F. Will.

Politics: Would That I Could Avoid It

Using 'quietist' in a broad sense as opposed to the Molinos-Fenelon-Guyon sense, I would describe myself as a quietist rather than as an activist. The point of life is not action, but contemplation, not doing, but thinking. (I mean 'thinking' in a very broad sense that embraces all forms of intentionality as well as meditative non-thinking.) The vita activa is of course necessary (for some all of the time, and for people like me some of the time), but it is necessary as a means only. Its whole purpose is to subserve the vita contemplativa. To make of action an end in itself is absurd, and demonstrably so, though I will spare you the demonstration. If you are assiduous you can dig it out of Aristotle, Aquinas and Josef Pieper. I recommend his Leisure: The Basis of Culture.

So the dominant note of my personality is quietism in the sense just sketched. The Big Questions turn my crank, not this foreground rubbish about abortion, illegal immigration, social security, misuse of eminent domain, leftist race-baiting, etc. It would be nice to be able to let the world and its violent nonsense go to hell while cultivating my garden in peace.

Unfortunately, my garden and stoa are in the world and exposed to its threats. So politics, which has too little to do with truth and too much to do with power, cannot be ignored. This world is not ultimately real, but it is no illusion either, pace some sophists of the New Age, and so some battling within it, ideological or otherwise, cannot be avoided. Besides, the issues of the day all have roots in the Big Questions. So an assiduous and deep-going application to the issues of the day will lead one to the Big Questions. An excellent example is abortion.

Federalism and Governmental Competition

Conservatives understand that competition is good. It breeds excellence. And contrary to what some liberals think, competition that breeds excellence is not opposed to cooperation but presupposes it. We need more competition, not less, and we need it at the level of government not just in the business world and in our private lives.

How is governmental competition possible? Via federalism. See Competition is Healthy for Governments, Too.

Obama and his ilk oppose federalism. Obama must go. And with him his ilk.

The Illiberalism of Contemporary Liberals

When I attack liberals it is always contemporary liberals that I have in my sights. I myself am in several ways a classical liberal. What I object to in contemporary liberals, or 'progressives' as they like to call themselves, is their extremism and their illiberalism. Peter Berkowitz has an excellent article on progressive illiberalism.

There is more true liberalism in today's conservatives than in today's 'liberals.'

Obama on Constitutional Law: Did He Lie or Is He Just Ignorant?

Asked recently whether SCOTUS would uphold the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) or strike it down as unconstitutional, President Obama replied, "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." Strong majority? Unprecedented? As a former law professor, Obama must know that what he said was false. Now a false statement is not the same as a lie. For a false statement to be a lie it must be made with the intention to deceive. But since the statement in question is one that one would reasonably expect a former law professor to know is false, then it is reasonable to suspect a lie on Obama's part. Thomas Sowell concludes that "he is simply lying."

James Taranto rather more charitably maintains that "The president is stunningly ignorant about constitutional law."

Peter Wehner in a seeming synthesis of Sowell and Taranto opines that Obama "jumped the shark."

Daniel Henninger piles on.

According to John Fund, "There appear to be few limits on how far President Obama will distort the facts."

Obama is a disaster for the country. He is ignorant/dishonest not only with respect to constitutional law, but also about the debt crisis.

The Voter Photo Identification ‘Issue’

Some positions are so absurd as to be beneath refutation. To respond reasonably to the unreasonable lends them a veneer of credibility to which they are not entitled. Mockery, derision, and ridicule are often much more appropriate and effective. Oftentimes, all it takes is a cartoon to refute a stupid liberal. By the way, this voter ID 'issue' — pseudo-issue, actually — is a perfect example of the lunacy of contemporary liberalism. But it is worse than lunacy given that the motive (not the reason, they have none) is to encourage voter fraud. For a leftist, the end justifies the means. Does it take fraud to win? Then you commit fraud.

In the Arena

Say what you want about politicians, they are in the arena taking the heat, under their own names, unlike the wordslingers, too many of them hiding behind pseudonyms, who snipe from the sidelines:

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat. (Theodore Roosevelt, "Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910.)

Why are Conservatives Inarticulate?

From the mail:

My two cents on why so many people who hold conservative views come across as inarticulate: most of the values that ordinary, conservative people live by do not require much reflection or explanation. After all, how much justification does a man need for being loyal to his friends, not cheating his customers, and being kind to his neighbors? It is the man who seeks to undermine those values who needs the rhetorical dodges and obfuscations. It takes little mental skill to tell a lie, but it takes quite a bit of deviousness to construct a justification for abolishing the principle of honesty altogether . . . .

My correspondent supplies part of the explanation. For those with a conservative bent there is a defeasible presumption in favor of traditional practices, beliefs, and values. They place the burden of proof on those who would question the traditional practices, beliefs, and values. For the conservatively inclined there is no need to justify that loyalty is good, cheating is wrong, being kind is better than being cruel, and that killing infants is murder. Feeling, with some justification, no need to justify his practices, beliefs, and values, the conservative rarely acquires the skills to do so, and so comes across as inarticulate and unreflective to those skilled in the verbal arts. Of course, I am talking not about conservative intellectuals but about ordinary conservative folk and their political and talk-show representatives.

What my correspondent may not appreciate, however, is that it is not enough to have the right views and values; one must also know how to articulate and defend them when they come under attack. And this is where conservatives are woefully inadequate. How many conservatives could say what I said in the preceding paragraph? Can you imagine George W. Bush speaking of "a defeasible presumption in favor of traditional practices, beliefs, and values"? Even if he could get the words out without stumbling, could he explain what they mean? His defense of marriage consisted of the repetition of the flat-footed, "Marriage is between a man and a woman." A gratuitous assertion, however, calls forth a gratuitous counter-assertion. His mere assertion, unexplained and unjustified, makes him appear a bigot to those who find opposition to same-sex marriage 'discriminatory.' What he ought to have done is provide a brief justification of why the state is involved in marriage in the first place and why same-sex 'marriage' is not something the state should support. But could he do that off the top of his head? I doubt it. He's got the right view, but he can't defend it. And that's the problem.

Or consider Charlie Sykes the talk-show host I mentioned the other day. He claimed that the reasoning in support of the moral acceptability of infanticide was "academic gobbledygook." When you say something like that about careful and clear reasoning, you make yourself out to be a dumbass, allergic to distinctions and nuances. You come across as a rube, a redneck, a hick, a yahoo, an anti-intellectual, an Archie Bunker, a beer-swilling, sports-watching, tobacco-chewing ignoramus, a benighted denizen of fly-over country. Many others who got worked up over that infanticide article claimed that it was 'illogical,' thereby betraying a failure to understand what logic is. They thought that since the conclusion is morally outrageous, which of course it is, the reasoning to it had to be incorrect. But that's an elementary mistake since one can reason correctly to a false conclusion.

A local talk show guy, Mike Gallagher I think it was, was fulminating againt the article in question and came out with the remark that 'medical ethics' is an oxymoron. Well of course it isn't. What he was trying to say was that a medical ethicist who argues that infanticide is morally permissible cannot be an ethicist . . . .

Or consider my man O'Reilly. He often points out that we live in a capitalist country. It's true, more or less. But citing a fact does not amount to a justification of the fact. What O'Reilly may be incapable of doing is to provide arguments including moral arguments in favor of capitalism. That is what is needed in the face of libs and lefties who, when told that we live in a capitalist country, will respond, "Well then, let's change it!"

But having a nasty streak of anti-intellectualism in him, O'Reilly would probably dismiss such arguments as mere 'theory' in his Joe Sixpack sense of the term.

Conservatives, by and large, are doers not thinkers, builders, not scribblers. They are at home on the terra firma of the concrete particular but at sea in the realm of abstraction. The know in their dumb inarticulate way that killing infants is a moral outrage but they cannot argue it out with sophistication and nuance in a manner to command the respect of their opponents. And that's a serious problem

To beat the Left we must out-argue them in the ivory towers and out-slug them in the trenches. Since by Converse Clausewitz politics is war conducted by other means, the trench-fighters need to employ the same tactics that lefties do: slanders, lies, smears, name-calling, shout-downs, pie-throwing, mockery, derision. And now I hand off to Robert Spencer commenting on Andrew Breitbart.

Politics is war and war is ugly. We could avoid a lot of this nastiness if we adopted federalism and voluntary Balkanization. But that is not likely to happen: the totalitarian Left won't allow it. So I predict things are going to get hot in the coming years.

York on Breitbart: Culture is Upstream from Politics

Here:

Breitbart knew instinctively, as people in Washington and most other places did not, that movies, television programs, and popular music send out deeply political messages every hour of every day. They shape the culture, and then the culture shapes politics. Influence those films and TV shows and songs, and you’ll eventually influence politics.

The Left had known that for generations, but on the Right, so many people in politics thought only about politics. To Breitbart, that was folly.

The Feckless Mr. Obama Did What?

He apologized for the unintentional burning of some copies of the Koran. Unbelievable and disgusting. If we can't dump this incompetent come November, it may be all over for this great nation. 2012 is indeed a watershed election year.

Wise up, conservatives. Don't hang back because Romney is not a true conservative. He isn't, of course: he's a wishy-washy, flip-flopping pretty boy. He's going to get shot up like hell in the crossfire from the Tea Party and the Occupy-X malcontents. But he's electable and better than Obama. He's the best we got.

Politics is a practical business. It is always about the lesser of evils, except when it is about the least of evils. It is not about being ideologically pure. It is about accomplishing something in a concrete situation in which holding out for the best is tantamount to acquiescing in the bad. Political choices are forced options in roughly William James' sense: he who abstains chooses willy-nilly. Not choosing the better amounts to a choice of the worse.

Each of the Republican contenders has drawbacks. But any of them would be better than Obama. Even Ron Paul.

Never forget: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. (Voltaire) "The better is the enemy of the good." The thought is perhaps better captured by "The best is the enemy of the good." In an imperfect world it is folly to predicate action upon perfection. Will you hold out for the perfect spouse? Then you will remain alone. And if you yourself are less than perfect, how can you demand perfection in others?

Meditation on this truth may help conservatives contain their revulsion at their lousy choices. Obama, who has proven that he is a disaster for the country, got in in part because of conservatives who could not abide McCain.

To expect perfection in this fallen world is to succumb to the sort of pernicious utopianism that characterizes leftists.

On Calling Obama a Socialist

It is a tactical mistake for libertarians and conservatives to label Obama a socialist. For what will happen, has happened: liberals will revert to a strict definition and point out that Obama is not a socialist by this definition. Robert Heilbroner defines socialism in terms of "a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production." To my knowledge, Obama has never advocated such a thing. So when the libertarian or conservative accuses Obama of socialism he lets himself in for a fruitless and wholly unnecessary verbal dispute from which he will emerge the loser.

It is enough to point out that the policies of Obama and the Democrat Party lead us toward bigger government and away from self-reliance, individual responsibility, individual liberty, and sound fiscal policy.

It is even worse to label him a 'communist.' Every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist. If our president is not a socialist, then a fortiori he is not a communist. It is intellectually irresponsible to take a word that has a definite meaning and turn it into a semantic bludgeon. That's the sort of thing we expect from leftists, as witness their favorite 'F' word, 'fascist,' a word they apply as indiscriminately and irresponsibly as 'racist.'

The Stupider the Citizen, the More the Justification for Governmental Overreach

If this Daily Mail story is to be believed, a 17 year old English girl has subsisted on little more than McDonald's chicken nuggets and fries for the past 15 years. "The factory worker – who says she has never tasted fresh fruit or vegetables – had to be taken to hospital earlier this week when she collapsed after struggling to breathe."

Stories like these are used by nanny-staters to justify ever more government intrusion. But the more the government intrudes, the less self-reliant and childish the people become — which justifies even more intrusion. Or as Dennis Prager likes to say, "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." To which I add, "The bigger the government, the more to fight over." So if you want a politics increasingly polarized and embittered, agitate for more government control and less individual liberty.