Random Politics Thread

[DiscoBiscuit]

One of the most interesting political graphs on US politics Ive ever seen. Goes to illustrate the massive realignment we are seeing.

 

[Coriolis]

One of the most interesting political graphs on US politics Ive ever seen. Goes to illustrate the massive realignment we are seeing.

Is there supposed to be a link or a graphic here?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Is there supposed to be a link or a graphic here?

Do you not see the image?

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

I am not surprised by that graph. Today there is strong correlation between knowledge and high paying jobs. However people who are quite into genuine knowledge will not vote for what is religion or populism heavy. What means that such people will be moving away from the right. This isn't exactly a rocket science.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I am not surprised by that graph. Today there is strong correlation between knowledge and high paying jobs. However people who are quite into genuine knowledge will not vote for what is religion or populism heavy. What means that such people will be moving away from the right. This isn't exactly a rocket science.

I love how no matter the topic it can always come back to "we're just better people than they are".

Whether one wants to define that by intelligence or culture, cosmopolitanism or religion.

Like, do you not know how disgusting this sounds to someone who isn't you? Isn't from where you're from. Doesn't think what you think.

Its almost as if some are flabbergasted as to how anyone who disagrees with them could exist at all.

Which isn't surprising given that the vast majority of mainstream media they consume, be it music, movies, news, commercial or corporate brands repeats these views back to them.

Liberals have no normal interaction with views they don't agree with. Conservatives see it every day. Every time they see a movie, or watch TV. Every time they listen to music or watch the news.

I don't think your intention is to be mean (maybe it is Im not a fly on the wall of your brain) but come on. Your best response to my chart can't be some snide comment about intelligence.

Maybe, just maybe, the reversal of political alignment for the party that has historically positioned itself as the champion of the downtrodden working man, is slightly more interesting than remarking that well the rich must be intelligent so of course they are now on the left! Especially when the party messaging of eat the rich streams from every party apparatchiks megaphone. Not to mention that if the rich are the intelligent then how come they weren't in the leftist camp until five minutes ago? Did they suddenly discover erudition and realize the titanic error of their ways then move to the only righteous political party?

Maybe that's a slightly more interesting conversation to have than, well of course we're the smart ones.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Maybe, just maybe, the reversal of political alignment for the party that has historically positioned itself as the champion of the downtrodden working man, is slightly more interesting than remarking that well the rich must be intelligent so of course they are now on the left! Especially when the party messaging of eat the rich streams from every party apparatchiks megaphone. Not to mention that if the rich are the intelligent then how come they weren't in the leftist camp until five minutes ago? Did they suddenly discover erudition and realize the titanic error of their ways then move to the only righteous political party?

Hey Disco, here's some political history for you that addresses your chart.

The 1980s was the biggest single reversal of red-to-blue, and it corresponds with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US was suddenly safer (no longer threatened with imminent destruction), so people didn't need to band together against the external threat. There's an old theory in political science that an "existential threat" from an out-group (Soviet Union) leads to greater cohesiveness among the in-group (allies). But when the threat disappears, the in-group then becomes more divisive because it can now focus on internal divisions and disagreements.

Ben Shapiro mentions this theory in an interesting interview with a staunch liberal thinker (Matthew Yglesias) toward the middle of the video clip linked below. It's an interesting clip; Yglesias wrote a book about exactly the subject (divisiveness in internal politics) that you're raising in your post, but from the liberal perspective. Link to clip:

Getting back to your chart: In the 1990s the disappearance of the threat from the Soviet Union led to the appearance of Newt Gingrich and the increased divisiveness of the Republicans at that time. Newt and his friends forbade across-the-aisle agreements and openly called for more "Manichaeism" in US politics: More divisiveness. See this link on Gingrich's role in political polarization; it's quite historic and represented a huge departure from "business as usual": Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Role_in_political_polarization

After the 90s, I would blame the rise of the baby boomers to power. They had embraced liberalism in the 70s (anti-war stuff, civil rights, women's lib and all that), and by 2000 they were running things. With liberal boomers in power, the Democrats embraced a shift from blue-collar activism among the lower and middle classes to white-collar activism in the halls of education, corporate governance, and power centers. (The rise of the Clintons and that generation basically represented the opening salvo of the boomers entering power.)

Of course, that kind of white-collar activism represents an abandonment of the blue-collar and middle-class sectors by the Democratic party and leaves those folks (lower and middle classes) politically adrift and up for grabs. Hence the growing shift toward Republican populism in the last decade or so, and the rise of the blue-collar and middle-class right wing...

[Edited to add:] I'm a boomer who has been living in one of those rich counties mentioned in your chart (on-and-off) since the 90s. So I've seen first-hand the changes that your chart represents.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Hey Disco, here's some political history for you that addresses your chart.

The 1980s was the biggest single reversal of red-to-blue, and it corresponds to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US was suddenly safer (no longer threatened with imminent destruction), so people didn't need to band together against the external threat. There's an old theory in political science that an "existential threat" from an out-group (Soviet Union) leads to greater cohesiveness among the in-group (allies). But when the threat disappears, the in-group then becomes more divisive because it can now focus on internal divisions and disagreements.

Ben Shapiro mentions this theory in an interesting interview with a staunch liberal thinker (Matthew Yglesias) toward the middle of the video clip linked below. It's an interesting clip; Yglesias wrote a book about exactly the subject (divisiveness in internal politics) that you're raising in your post, but from the liberal perspective. Link to clip:

Getting back to your chart: In the 1990s the disappearance of the threat from the Soviet Union led to the appearance of Newt Gingrich and the increased divisiveness of the Republicans at that time. Newt and his friends forbade across-the-aisle agreements and openly called for more "Manichaeism" in US politics: More divisiveness. See this link on Gingrich's role in political polarization; it's quite historic and represented a huge departure from "business as usual": Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Role_in_political_polarization

After the 90s, I would blame the rise of the baby boomers to power. They had embraced liberalism in the 70s (anti-war stuff, civil rights, women's lib and all that), and by 2000 they were running things. Hence a shift from blue-collar activism among the lower and middle classes to white-collar activism in the halls of education, corporate governance, and power centers.

Of course, that kind of white-collar activism represents an abandonment of the blue-collar and middle-class sectors by the liberals and leaves those folks (lower and middle classes) politically adrift and up for grabs. Hence the new Republican populism...

I don't see how this applies specifically to the rich. Which was the point I was getting at. It speaks to the political reshuffling after the collapse of the USSR and the loss of the unifying nature of a common enemy. Im also not sure how instructive a departure from business as usual in congress is given that business as usual had been Dem ownership of the House from 1933 - 1995 (with brief interruptions). Of course the Republicans were going to flex their muscles having been out of power for 60 years. I don't think the baby boomers are as politically monolithic as you make them seem.

Pew from 2018

I think the increases specifically stem from the existence, or rise of the political mono culture in elite circles that exploded after Obama's election. Which then lead to the rise of woke capital that we see today. Though there are some positive developments in resistance to it not the least of which being DeSantis' rebuke of Disney here in Florida and Elon Musk's bid for twitter.

More interestingly as the rich increasingly lean leftward, for how much longer can the lefts nostrums about the evil nature of wealth be taken seriously. I can only understand them as ornamental dressing meant to keep the socialist base in line, while those with their hands on the levers of power in the Dem party make nice with the monied interests.

The most interesting thing I think is the clash between the classic understanding of the dems as the party of (if not the middle class at least) the working poor and the new requirements of catering to the wealthiest members of society. And its not even all the wealthy. Only those that live in large metro areas.

More long term I think the big issue is outmigration from blue population centers to more business and tax friendly red states. A trend that's been going on for over a decade now. Many speak of turning Texas blue etc etc. But I think assimilation to the local red culture is much more likely. The same calculus plays for latin american immigrants. As the left leans harder and harder into culture issues especially those surrounding gender and traditional mores, latin americans steeped in catholic traditionalism will increasingly turn off to them. Even on immigration issues this is true, as once they are here they usually want stricter immigration controls except where family reunification policies are concerned and that is until they get their families here.

What I'm really waiting for is the Dem party having to reconcile its current ideological foundations with the fact that as people migrate away from the places that birthed those foundations they may need to rethink the value of tilting at the windmill of social justice enlightenment.

The biggest loss I think is cultural. Being a liberal isn't cool or punk anymore. The former anti establishment rebels of the 60's own all the levers of power now, in culture in media in politics. To quote batman they didn't die a hero, they lived long enough to see themselves become the villain. They are now the establishment they once sought to overthrow. They can only punch down now from the heights of their ivory towers.

The coming years are going to be very interesting.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

The coming years are going to be very interesting.

Just to recap what I said in my previous post:

My point about the collapse of the Soviet Union and Gingrich's polarization was mainly that the old alignment of parties and their preferred classes increasingly broke down. There was an "unshackling" of the old alignment (Democrat->blue collar and Republican->white collar), and a scrambling-up of alignments as internal divisions came to the forefront.

In turn, that "unshackling" opened the door for the rise of the liberal boomers and the new alignment: Democrat->white collar, which in turn is leading to the increasingly new alignment of Republican->blue collar.

Anyway, having said that, I agree with everything in your latest post:

The Democrats tend to push everything too far. Recent liberal crusades and victories in the white-collar sector are leading to backlash in the middle and lower classes, which represents an opportunity for the Republicans to grab the center ground and be champions of traditionalism. So I agree with you that we're going to keep seeing a growing country-wide shift away from radical white-collar liberalism and toward middle-class traditionalism, with people like Trump and Musk and Thiel (who were all previously liberals) spotting the shift and positioning themselves to become Republican spokesmen for traditionalism and free speech.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

@DiscoBiscuit
Also gotta add:

I love it when the socialist/SJW echo chamber here at TypoC increasingly finds itself in the position of pandering to the government elite and white-collar corporate bosses. The SJWs here are like blue-collar and middle-class frogs who are slowly being boiled alive: They are dimly starting to realize that they are being turned into lackeys and stooges of the white-collar elites, but they don't have any clue when they are supposed to jump out of the pot and abandon their warm, comfortable liberal/corporate/white-collar allegiances with all the big corporate money and fashionable government spokespeople.

It's probably going to take them another few years before they see it. They aren't very bright.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Just to recap what I said in my previous post:

My point about the collapse of the Soviet Union and Gingrich's polarization was mainly that the old alignment of parties and their preferred classes increasingly broke down. There was an "unshackling" of the old alignment (Democrat->blue collar and Republican->white collar), and a scrambling-up of alignments as internal divisions came to the forefront.

In turn, that "unshackling" opened the door for the rise of the liberal boomers and the new alignment: Democrat->white collar, which in turn is leading to the increasingly new alignment of Republican->blue collar.

Anyway, having said that, I agree with everything in your latest post:

The Democrats tend to push everything too far. Recent liberal crusades and victories in the white-collar sector are leading to backlash in the middle and lower classes, which represents an opportunity for the Republicans to grab the center ground and be champions of traditionalism. So I agree with you that we're going to keep seeing a growing country-wide shift away from radical white-collar liberalism and toward middle-class traditionalism, with people like Trump and Musk and Thiel (who were all previous liberals) spotting the shift and positioning themselves to become Republican spokesmen for traditionalism and free speech.

Ahh thanks for clarification, I didn't pick up that your main point was unshackling from the original post. To be honest we are still dealing with the political realignment that began (slowly) with the death of the USSR. Pax Americana post USSR was only ever going to be the last gasp of the globalized system we set up with Bretton Woods. The US bribed everyone after WWII with free trade in exchange for unification against the USSR. We were willing to foot the naval bill for ensuring free trade if they were willing to join us in a united front. Without Russia the need for us to ensure free trade breaks down. China can't be nearly the threat the USSR was at the height of its power. Given that the US can produce all the fuel and food it needs domestically we were always going to eventually retrench from the global system. This might have happened sooner if some assholes hadn't flown two jets into the twin towers. The shale revolution for domestic energy production was really the last nail in the coffin for the US secured system of globalized trade. My greatest joy will be to watch Europe who has shat on the US for its international intervention beg us to be their protector once again after we withdraw and become more isolationist as our current trend towards populism and domestic issues indicates.

Most importantly the global system that allowed the west (read Europe and other western allies) to become so successful is the only thing that allowed them focus more on made up problems like colonialism than real ones like defending their borders. The coming years of deglobalization will force these countries to get reacquainted with the real world and fund their militaries and hopefully quell their tendency towards post modernist navel gazing. Watching the real world slap bohemian Europe in the face will be a real treat. Europe needs fuel and food. France does a pretty good job of producing food domestically, but no European country can handle the production of both domestically. I expect that they will look to their former African colonies to help them make up for the loss of Rus oil. They can afford to pay for their food luckily.

The US can produce all our food and energy domestically and is surrounded by a rather large oceanic moat on either side, so security needs are handled esp considering the power of our navy. Mexico and the rest of South America can handle manufacturing lost from China, and we can handle onshoring most manufacturing back here to the US, which will be a boon to US job production.

Politically this will all lead the US to be more domestically focused which will hopefully allow us to get our (admittedly) messy house in order. I think the big thing to take from this is the economic power of many of the elites, that being the global system of trade, is about to be irrevocably shaken up diminishing their power. Think the Davos crowd. This presents a unique opportunity for a new elite to rise. This also presents an opportunity for a shift from the post modern bullshit politics we've seen to a more grounded form we've needed for a while.

With regards to the left they have no more truly animating battles. The legalization of gay marriage was the last one. Does anyone really think that debating how many genders there are or whether men should be allowed to compete in women's college athletics is as important as that? Please. They're grasping at straws trying to recreate the urgency for progress the nation saw during the civil rights era of the 1960s. But the fights they are picking now turn off the vast majority of the American populace. They are going to have to lose a few elections and get humiliated culturally for a few more years before they'll be willing to actually rethink their current course of action.

The only real serious issue I see facing us politically is if we decide to get rid of the filibuster in the senate. If we do all bets are off and things could turn real ugly real quick. Imagine a country where every so often once one party controls the senate, house and pres they get to institute anything they want and repeal anything they want besides constitutional amendments and other items contained therein. It would be absolute chaos. I worry that once the current old guard in the senate dies and those with less adherence to the traditional practices of that legislating body come to power that we could actually see the loss of the filibuster.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Ahh thanks for clarification, I didn't pick up that your main point was unshackling from the original post. To be honest we are still dealing with the political realignment that began (slowly) with the death of the USSR. Pax Americana post USSR was only ever going to be the last gasp of the globalized system we set up with Bretton Woods. The US bribed everyone after WWII with free trade in exchange for unification against the USSR. We were willing to foot the naval bill for ensuring free trade if they were willing to join us in a united front. Without Russia the need for us to ensure free trade breaks down. China can't be nearly the threat the USSR was at the height of its power. Given that the US can produce all the fuel and food it needs domestically we were always going to eventually retrench from the global system. This might have happened sooner if some assholes hadn't flown two jets into the twin towers. The shale revolution for domestic energy production was really the last nail in the coffin for the US secured system of globalized trade. My greatest joy will be to watch Europe who has shat on the US for its international intervention beg us to be their protector once again after we withdraw and become more isolationist as our current trend towards populism and domestic issues indicates.

Most importantly the global system that allowed the west (read Europe and other western allies) to become so successful is the only thing that allowed them focus more on made up problems like colonialism than real ones like defending their borders. The coming years of deglobalization will force these countries to get reacquainted with the real world and fund their militaries and hopefully quell their tendency towards post modernist navel gazing. Watching the real world slap bohemian Europe in the face will be a real treat. Europe needs fuel and food. France does a pretty good job of producing food domestically, but no European country can handle the production of both domestically. I expect that they will look to their former African colonies to help them make up for the loss of Rus oil. They can afford to pay for their food luckily.

The US can produce all our food and energy domestically and is surrounded by a rather large oceanic moat on either side, so security needs are handled esp considering the power of our navy. Mexico and the rest of South America can handle manufacturing lost from China, and we can handle onshoring most manufacturing back here to the US, which will be a boon to US job production.

Politically this will all lead the US to be more domestically focused which will hopefully allow us to get our (admittedly) messy house in order. I think the big thing to take from this is the economic power of many of the elites, that being the global system of trade, is about to be irrevocably shaken up diminishing their power. Think the Davos crowd. This presents a unique opportunity for a new elite to rise. This also presents an opportunity for a shift from the post modern bullshit politics we've seen to a more grounded form we've needed for a while.

With regards to the left they have no more truly animating battles. The legalization of gay marriage was the last one. Does anyone really think that debating how many genders there are or whether men should be allowed to compete in women's college athletics is as important as that? Please. They're grasping at straws trying to recreate the urgency for progress the nation saw during the civil rights era of the 1960s. But the fights they are picking now turn off the vast majority of the American populace. They are going to have to lose a few elections and get humiliated culturally for a few more years before they'll be willing to actually rethink their current course of action.

The only real serious issue I see facing us politically is if we decide to get rid of the filibuster in the senate. If we do all bets are off and things could turn real ugly real quick. Imagine a country where every so often once one party controls the senate, house and pres they get to institute anything they want and repeal anything they want besides constitutional amendments and other items contained therein. It would be absolute chaos. I worry that once the current old guard in the senate dies and those with less adherence to the traditional practices of that legislating body come to power that we could actually see the loss of the filibuster.

I'm in agreement with much of your post.

As for your contention that globalized trade is breaking down: I agree.

Russia's adventure in Ukraine has definitely removed a lot of the luster from the idea of globalization. It used to be said that once all nations were proper capitalists, it would be the end of large-scale warfare: The attraction of profits and trade would outweigh the attractions of war. So globalized trade was to be the wave of the future.

But Russia and China are both capitalist (more or less). And Russia is warring in Ukraine, and China is on the edge of warring in Taiwan. So that kind of puts the lie to the previous way of thinking, which also calls into question the basic idea of globalization.

Of course, globalization will continue in some areas, like politics at international bodies such as the UN and IMF and all that. But trade is going to get more regionalized, as you suggested.

As for the filibuster, I'm probably more sanguine about that issue than you. Congress has always been screwing around with procedural rules, and the filibuster has already gone through a number of changes across the years.

What's really at issue is the popular assessment of whether the US government basically works or not, and whether lawmakers should do massive changes to the system (at the risk of trashing it). Everything from eliminating the filibuster to stacking the Supreme Court, etc.

My own feeling is that most people understand that the system works well enough to be defended, and that no big changes to the system are realistically in the works any time soon. If anything, the trend tends to be toward preserving the status quo. Historically, changes were more frequent in the past than in recent decades.

Of course, anything can change. Regardless of how one feels about abortion, the Supreme Court's recent indication that it's considering overturning Roe v. Wade is kind of a slap in the face for the legal principle of "stare decisis" (respecting judicial precedents). And that kind of pertains to the issue of respecting how government runs.

But whatever. Like I said, long-term I feel like there's still a basic respect for not overturning the apple cart when it comes to how government runs. So I suspect that procedural changes will continue to be incremental rather than big and portentous.

By the way, it's always good chatting with you and comparing notes! I like your forward-looking attitude toward politics.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

@DiscoBiscuit

Disco, you might get a kick out of the following.

In "The Righteous Mind," social psychologist Jonathan Haidt identifies 6 moral values by which to evaluate a political party or philosophical idea. He calls them "the 6 moral foundations."

He also says that a lot of traditional, historical political philosophy was only based on a single "moral foundation," which was supposed to function as a cure-all for society's ills. Haidt calls this "moral monism" (basing your policies on a single value). Examples of moral monism: Libertarianism, Anarchy, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," etc.

The problem with moral monism is that when politics are focused on a single value, the party in power tends to overreach, resulting in tyranny sooner or later. Haidt says that 20th century Fascism and Communism are good examples of well-meaning moral monism that turns into tyranny. In other words, the problem isn't left or right; the real problem is moral monism and overreach.

Anyway, looking at today's political parties in the US, Haidt says that US liberals are focused on only 2-3 "moral foundations," whereas US conservatives are focused on all 6 "moral foundations."

--The favorite 2-3 moral foundations of US Liberals are: Concern for the vulnerable (the poor), concern for fighting off oppression (from the wealthy or from authoritarianism), and to a lesser extent respect for economic fairness in the sense of redistributing wealth

--The 6 moral foundations of US Conservatives are: Concern for the vulnerable (the hard-working underclass), concern for fighting off oppression (from tyranny), respect for economic fairness (in the sense of fair taxation and keeping the profits of your labor), and respect for Authority, Sanctity, and Loyalty.

The end result of this analysis:

--US Liberals are traditionally more likely to slide into extremism and tyranny, in the sense that they are closer to moral monism: They have fewer "moral foundations" underpinning their politics, so they are more likely to overreach in their policies. Also, with appeals to fewer values, it's easier for them to alienate and piss off the broad middle class as they get in power and overreach, and their appeal gets narrower and narrower.

--US Conservatives are better at finding the middle ground and avoiding overreach, because they have a broader "base": They have more "moral foundations" underpinning their politics. If anything, their danger can sometimes be fragmentation and chaos: They may have trouble defining their identity and try to embrace everything. It can lead to vagueness and appeals to foggy generalities like nationalism or patriotism or "family values" or whatever.

To sum up:

So this is why US Democrats historically tend to "lead change" (a narrower focus allows them to target their policies better) but also tend to overreach and end up close to political tyranny and abuse (for example, blaming everything they don't like on "right-wing extremism" and trying to outlaw it). Whereas Republicans tend to follow behind and pick up the sectors that become increasingly disaffected with liberal overreach.

This basically mirrors what you said about liberal overreach in Florida and elsewhere in your earlier post.

(By the way, Haidt is a lifelong liberal. He wrote "The Righteous Mind" in order to try to persuade liberals to broaden their base of "moral foundations" in order to be more successful and have a broader appeal in their general politics, like conservatives. Otherwise, he says that over the long-term conservatives will ultimately win because they have the broader appeal.)

Anyway, take it for what it's worth. You might want to check the book out. It's mainly psychology rather than politics, but it has some interesting applications to politics.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I love how no matter the topic it can always come back to "we're just better people than they are".

Whether one wants to define that by intelligence or culture, cosmopolitanism or religion.

Like, do you not know how disgusting this sounds to someone who isn't you? Isn't from where you're from. Doesn't think what you think.

Its almost as if some are flabbergasted as to how anyone who disagrees with them could exist at all.

Which isn't surprising given that the vast majority of mainstream media they consume, be it music, movies, news, commercial or corporate brands repeats these views back to them.

Liberals have no normal interaction with views they don't agree with. Conservatives see it every day. Every time they see a movie, or watch TV. Every time they listen to music or watch the news.

I don't think your intention is to be mean (maybe it is Im not a fly on the wall of your brain) but come on. Your best response to my chart can't be some snide comment about intelligence.

Maybe, just maybe, the reversal of political alignment for the party that has historically positioned itself as the champion of the downtrodden working man, is slightly more interesting than remarking that well the rich must be intelligent so of course they are now on the left! Especially when the party messaging of eat the rich streams from every party apparatchiks megaphone. Not to mention that if the rich are the intelligent then how come they weren't in the leftist camp until five minutes ago? Did they suddenly discover erudition and realize the titanic error of their ways then move to the only righteous political party?

Maybe that's a slightly more interesting conversation to have than, well of course we're the smart ones.

Read my post again, I never mentioned intelligence or who are better people. I only said that education pushes people away from the right (or at least the right as the US knows it). Therefore I didn't really say anything that you are not. While correlation between genuine higher education and better paying jobs is in general pretty obvious. Plus I agree that democrats are becoming about high paying jobs and even elitism, while republicans are more about rural voters and working class. I even linked a video recently how the democrats "evaporated" in the countryside due to that change. However the main difference between the two parties is exactly the mentioned education. We can debate the quality of that education but the fact is that it is quite large factor in determining how a person in the US will vote.


On the other hand I don't consider myself to be the hater of the right. In the case you missed it I even said to some people here to quiet down their rhetoric on the subject. Although those words were mostly warped into how civil war in US must be prevented. Since both sides have much bigger fish to fry than one another. But ok, that rocket science ending of my post was perhaps clumsy statement on my part. But the point of it was that the American left will get obvious financial edge for investing more into the education of their youth. Since education if done right is a very powerful social tool. What is because knowledge is power and that for the most part results with high paying jobs. What should have been the point of my post. Which is why for me this is the trend that is expected and why for me this isn't rocket science.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

@DiscoBiscuit

Disco, you might get a kick out of the following.

In "The Righteous Mind," social psychologist Jonathan Haidt identifies 6 moral values by which to evaluate a political party or philosophical idea. He calls them "the 6 moral foundations."

He also says that a lot of traditional, historical political philosophy was only based on a single "moral foundation," which was supposed to function as a cure-all for society's ills. Haidt calls this "moral monism" (basing your policies on a single value). Examples of moral monism: Libertarianism, Anarchy, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," etc.

The problem with moral monism is that when politics are focused on a single value, the party in power tends to overreach, resulting in tyranny sooner or later. Haidt says that 20th century Fascism and Communism are good examples of well-meaning moral monism that turns into tyranny. In other words, the problem isn't left or right; the real problem is moral monism and overreach.

Anyway, looking at today's political parties in the US, Haidt says that US liberals are focused on only 2-3 "moral foundations," whereas US conservatives are focused on all 6 "moral foundations."

--The favorite 2-3 moral foundations of US Liberals are: Concern for the vulnerable (the poor), concern for fighting off oppression (from the wealthy or from authoritarianism), and to a lesser extent respect for economic fairness in the sense of redistributing wealth

--The 6 moral foundations of US Conservatives are: Concern for the vulnerable (the hard-working underclass), concern for fighting off oppression (from tyranny), respect for economic fairness (in the sense of fair taxation and keeping the profits of your labor), and respect for Authority, Sanctity, and Loyalty.

The end result of this analysis:

--US Liberals are traditionally more likely to slide into extremism and tyranny, in the sense that they are closer to moral monism: They have fewer "moral foundations" underpinning their politics, so they are more likely to overreach in their policies. Also, with appeals to fewer values, it's easier for them to alienate and piss off the broad middle class as they get in power and overreach, and their appeal gets narrower and narrower.

--US Conservatives are better at finding the middle ground and avoiding overreach, because they have a broader "base": They have more "moral foundations" underpinning their politics. If anything, their danger can sometimes be fragmentation and chaos: They may have trouble defining their identity and try to embrace everything. It can lead to vagueness and appeals to foggy generalities like nationalism or patriotism or "family values" or whatever.

To sum up:

So this is why US Democrats historically tend to "lead change" (a narrower focus allows them to target their policies better) but also tend to overreach and end up close to political tyranny and abuse (for example, blaming everything they don't like on "right-wing extremism" and trying to outlaw it). Whereas Republicans tend to follow behind and pick up the sectors that become increasingly disaffected with liberal overreach.

This basically mirrors what you said about liberal overreach in Florida and elsewhere in your earlier post.

(By the way, Haidt is a lifelong liberal. He wrote "The Righteous Mind" in order to try to persuade liberals to broaden their base of "moral foundations" in order to be more successful and have a broader appeal in their general politics, like conservatives. Otherwise, he says that over the long-term conservatives will ultimately win because they have the broader appeal.)

Anyway, take it for what it's worth. You might want to check the book out. It's mainly psychology rather than politics, but it has some interesting applications to politics.

While I haven't read it Im pretty familiar with the righteous mind. The most interesting question I think would be if we asked a liberal prior to 1920 about their beliefs how many of those 6 foundations would they use describing their ideology. I bet it would be more. I think their current narrow focus can be tied to two things. The great depression leading to concerns about the wealth gap etc. And civil rights leading to concerns about the oppressed etc. Liberal ownership on these two issues lead to their dominance politically over the 20th century. Dem domination of the house began with FDR and the great depression in 1933 and lasted (with brief interruptions) until 1995. The problem was that their myopic focus on these few moral foundations never changed after the situation on the ground changed. With regards to race they are always arguing that this that or the other thing is like Jim Crow 2.0. When the fact on the ground is that the US is one of the least racist countries top to bottom on planet Earth. We are literal lightyears from where we were in the 60s but try getting a liberal to admit that. We are to a point where they literally need to manufacture racists in order to fill the demand for them so they can continue their moral crusade. My worry is that over time focusing on indentitarian politics will actually get the white voting block, or at least a very large percentage of it to see politics in the same indentitarian way that blacks do. When ID politics dominates a group that makes up one tenth the populace its a problem. When it takes over a group that makes up over 50% its a catastrophe.

I also think they still have other moral foundations they just manifest themselves differently than with conservatives. Take purity/sanctity for example. Traditionally its has been tied to things like sexual chastity and the sanctity of holy ground at church or holy ground like at a veterans cemetery. It can also be tied to things like food with Kosher and Hallal diet practices in Judaism and Islam respectively. But you can see that same inclination in the current fad of veganism and the obsession with food purity. Its directly analogous to religious practice but if you were to mention this to a vegan they would look at you like you just sprouted a third eye. Look at authority. Where that traditionally meant the family or the priesthood, it now means academics, science, and media news personalities, from whom God's truth now flows. Not only is it wrong to disagree with them on things like climate change or whatever their current hobbyhorse is its literally heretical demanding excommunication from good society. While they may be narrowly focused on a few foundations especially the mitigation of harm, see the importance of safety in everything these days and the definition of harm including hearing ideas you don't like, I think they do incorporate the others just in weird novel ways.

I also think these foundations are farther downstream from political outcomes than it would appear. People generally aren't thinking about their moral foundations then drawing ideological conclusions from them. They just sort of exist in the deepest part of their moral mental frameworks and political reasoning happens later using inputs from those foundations.

The biggest issue as I see it is the bifurcation of worldview. We used to have the same conception of what the "Good" was merely disagreed in the process by which we would get to it. Now we disagree on what that "Good" even is not just on the means of achieving it. I imagine this happens in all societies where things break down over time and the things that once united us erode away. The victor in this clash of competing "Good's", being able then to define the "Good" for the populace writ large, may be able to dominate the next century politically like the liberals defined the last one.

For the left I think that they've ideologically written themselves into a corner. The further we move on from the battles that animated them in the past the farther disconnected their world view becomes from the reality of the world on the ground where those battles have already been litigated and dealt with. The more this disconnect increases, the harder it is for them to own truth as the disparity between their pronouncements and what people see and know in their everyday lives becomes ever clearer. More than even that the more they divorce themselves from the real world the more they become incapable of creating policy prescriptions to deal with it. Look at inflation, they (I assume) know its a problem, but the answers to it would require a rethinking of their ideological priors and thus they prescribe solutions that would actually make it worse because those are the only policy positions they're allowed to have. I get that New Deal big spending worked for you once a hundred years ago and allowed you to own solving the great depression, but can you not see how vastly increasing gov't spending forces the treasury to print dollars making inflation worse? I get that the majority of people don't think about monetary policy that deeply, but for anyone with even the slightest interest in it, that point is obvious.

The current liberal malaise won't change unless and until they can start seeing the world for what it is, not what it was in the 60's and 30's. Now dont think I mean that this means that Republicans will win everything from now until forever. They wont. What it does mean is that politics and culture generally should slowly start to look different. Its the culture side of this thats more important given that liberal dominance of culture has been virtually uncontested for so long. Look for things like the new Top Gun movie to be popular where the primary message is that America is good and awesome without the self loathing navel gazing that so often comes with liberal media projects.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Read my post again, I never mentioned intelligence or who are better people. I only said that education pushes people away from the right (or at least the right as the US knows it). Therefore I didn't really say anything that you are not. While correlation between genuine higher education and better paying jobs is in general pretty obvious. Plus I agree that democrats are becoming about high paying jobs and even elitism, while republicans are more about rural voters and working class. I even linked a video recently how the democrats "evaporated" in the countryside due to that change. However the main difference between the two parties is exactly the mentioned education. We can debate the quality of that education but the fact is that it is quite large factor in determining how a person in the US will vote.


On the other hand I don't consider myself to be the hater of the right. In the case you missed it I even said to some people here to quiet down their rhetoric on the subject. Although those words were mostly warped into how civil war in US must be prevented. Since both sides have much bigger fish to fry than one another. But ok, that rocket science ending of my post was perhaps clumsy statement on my part. But the point of it was that the American left will get obvious financial edge for investing more into the education of their youth. Since education if done right is a very powerful social tool. What is because knowledge is power and that for the most part results with high paying jobs. What should have been the point of my post. Which is why for me this is the trend that is expected and why for me this isn't rocket science.

My point was do you know how that argument sounds to someone who isn't you?

Which was why I mentioned it. The rest of my post is how it sounds to me. I didn't think your intention was to be mean, and stated as such. I merely wanted to give you a taste of how your argument sounds to me. Hopefully in an effort to take that consideration into account when posting in the future.

Why use the term genuine knowledge in the original post? Is the only real truth to be seen inside the ivory towers of academia?

And also I think that the current model of higher education especially and education writ large isn't working. People aren't gaining the knowledge to get good jobs they are paying (or going heavily in debt) for a 4 year vacation from normal responsibilities.

I actually think there is quite a bit of rot in education, especially where the explosion of administrative staff is concerned. That increase in non teacher staff in no small part accounts for the explosion in education costs, but benefits the student not at all.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

While I haven't read it Im pretty familiar with the righteous mind. The most interesting question I think would be if we asked a liberal prior to 1920 about their beliefs how many of those 6 foundations would they use describing their ideology. I bet it would be more. I think their current narrow focus can be tied to two things. The great depression leading to concerns about the wealth gap etc. And civil rights leading to concerns about the oppressed etc. Liberal ownership on these two issues lead to their dominance politically over the 20th century. Dem domination of the house began with FDR and the great depression in 1933 and lasted (with brief interruptions) until 1995. The problem was that their myopic focus on these few moral foundations never changed after the situation on the ground changed. With regards to race they are always arguing that this that or the other thing is like Jim Crow 2.0. When the fact on the ground is that the US is one of the least racist countries top to bottom on planet Earth. We are literal lightyears from where we were in the 60s but try getting a liberal to admit that. We are to a point where they literally need to manufacture racists in order to fill the demand for them so they can continue their moral crusade. My worry is that over time focusing on indentitarian politics will actually get the white voting block, or at least a very large percentage of it to see politics in the same indentitarian way that blacks do. When ID politics dominates a group that makes up one tenth the populace its a problem. When it takes over a group that makes up over 50% its a catastrophe.

I also think they still have other moral foundations they just manifest themselves differently than with conservatives. Take purity/sanctity for example. Traditionally its has been tied to things like sexual chastity and the sanctity of holy ground at church or holy ground like at a veterans cemetery. It can also be tied to things like food with Kosher and Hallal diet practices in Judaism and Islam respectively. But you can see that same inclination in the current fad of veganism and the obsession with food purity. Its directly analogous to religious practice but if you were to mention this to a vegan they would look at you like you just sprouted a third eye. Look at authority. Where that traditionally meant the family or the priesthood, it now means academics, science, and media news personalities, from whom God's truth now flows. Not only is it wrong to disagree with them on things like climate change or whatever their current hobbyhorse is its literally heretical demanding excommunication from good society. While they may be narrowly focused on a few foundations especially the mitigation of harm, see the importance of safety in everything these days and the definition of harm including hearing ideas you don't like, I think they do incorporate the others just in weird novel ways.

I also think these foundations are farther downstream from political outcomes than it would appear. People generally aren't thinking about their moral foundations then drawing ideological conclusions from them. They just sort of exist in the deepest part of their moral mental frameworks and political reasoning happens later using inputs from those foundations.

The biggest issue as I see it is the bifurcation of worldview. We used to have the same conception of what the "Good" was merely disagreed in the process by which we would get to it. Now we disagree on what that "Good" even is not just on the means of achieving it. I imagine this happens in all societies where things break down over time and the things that once united us erode away. The victor in this clash of competing "Good's", being able then to define the "Good" for the populace writ large, may be able to dominate the next century politically like the liberals defined the last one.

For the left I think that they've ideologically written themselves into a corner. The further we move on from the battles that animated them in the past the farther disconnected their world view becomes from the reality of the world on the ground where those battles have already been litigated and dealt with. The more this disconnect increases, the harder it is for them to own truth as the disparity between their pronouncements and what people see and know in their everyday lives becomes ever clearer. More than even that the more they divorce themselves from the real world the more they become incapable of creating policy prescriptions to deal with it. Look at inflation, they (I assume) know its a problem, but the answers to it would require a rethinking of their ideological priors and thus they prescribe solutions that would actually make it worse because those are the only policy positions they're allowed to have. I get that New Deal big spending worked for you once a hundred years ago and allowed you to own solving the great depression, but can you not see how vastly increasing gov't spending forces the treasury to print dollars making inflation worse? I get that the majority of people don't think about monetary policy that deeply, but for anyone with even the slightest interest in it, that point is obvious.

The current liberal malaise won't change unless and until they can start seeing the world for what it is, not what it was in the 60's and 30's. Now dont think I mean that this means that Republicans will win everything from now until forever. They wont. What it does mean is that politics and culture generally should slowly start to look different. Its the culture side of this thats more important given that liberal dominance of culture has been virtually uncontested for so long. Look for things like the new Top Gun movie to be popular where the primary message is that America is good and awesome without the self loathing navel gazing that so often comes with liberal media projects.

Yep, good post. Those are all good points, and Haidt himself raises a number of them. Naturally my short summation of his book can't do justice to all the points he raises; the book is almost 500 pages.

In the final chapter of the book, Haidt does an interesting comparison of the best points offered by all the political parties. Thus:

Governments should restrain corporations
This is a Liberal concern, related to the Care foundation. Haidt says, "I think liberals are right that a major function of government is to stand up for the public interest against corporations and their tendency to distort markets and impose externalities on others, particularly on those least able to stand up for themselves in court (such as the poor, or immigrants, or farm animals). Efficient markets require government regulation." (p. 347-8)

Governments should regulate some things like environmental protection issues
This is a Liberal concern, related to the Care foundation. Haidt gives the example of government removing lead from gasoline back in the 1980s, which was causing an enormous amount of pollution and toxicity. Thus, he is in favor of agencies like the EPA. (p. 349)

Markets should be preferred over government economic intervention
This is a Libertarian concern, related to the Liberty foundation. Haidt gives numerous examples of government interfering improperly in markets and driving up prices due to inefficiencies. When the government interferes and removes market incentives, there is no reason to cut costs or improve quality. Government interference means that prices increase and quality declines. So the Libertarians have it right: The free market and its invisible hand should be utilized whenever possible. (p. 354-6)

Support community values
This is a Social Conservative point related to Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity foundations. Haidt says that conservatives are better attuned than liberals to what's good for local communities. Liberals dislike the Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity foundations and dismiss them as exclusionary. But too much diversity and inclusion does have a negative impact on society: "Diversity seems to trigger not in-group/out-group division, but anomie or social isolation. In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to “hunker down"--that is, to pull in like a turtle." Thus, in their zeal to help victims, liberals often "push for changes that weaken groups, traditions, institutions, and moral capital. For example, the urge to help the inner-city poor led to welfare programs in the 1960s that reduced the value of marriage, increased out-of-wedlock births, and weakened African American families. The urge to empower students by giving them the right to sue their teachers and schools in the 1970s has eroded authority and moral capital in schools, creating disorderly environments that harm the poor above all. The urge to help Hispanic immigrants in the 1980s led to multicultural education programs that emphasized the differences among Americans rather than their shared values and identity. Emphasizing differences makes many people more racist, not less." Haidt says that in their desire to help a subset of a community, liberals do things that weaken the community as a whole. (p. 360-1)

So Haidt basically agrees with you. Ideology gets in the way of good solutions. Both sides need to get past over-simplistic policy prescriptions and think more in terms of what's actually best for people.

 

[Virtual ghost]

My point was do you know how that argument sounds to someone who isn't you?

Which was why I mentioned it. The rest of my post is how it sounds to me. I didn't think your intention was to be mean, and stated as such. I merely wanted to give you a taste of how your argument sounds to me. Hopefully in an effort to take that consideration into account when posting in the future.

Why use the term genuine knowledge in the original post? Is the only real truth to be seen inside the ivory towers of academia?

And also I think that the current model of higher education especially and education writ large isn't working. People aren't gaining the knowledge to get good jobs they are paying (or going heavily in debt) for a 4 year vacation from normal responsibilities.

I actually think there is quite a bit of rot in education, especially where the explosion of administrative staff is concerned. That increase in non teacher staff in no small part accounts for the explosion in education costs, but benefits the student not at all.

I admit that it doesn't sound pretty as a statement but that doesn't make it wrong by default. The Republicans in general care less about the education as a topic and therefore they left it to the Liberals for the most part. Which found the ways how to use it for good and bad stuff and therefore now Republicans are basically in the position that they have to declare basically the whole education system as their enemy. However in doing so they are also alienating huge chunks of the center and that could be a electoral problem down the road. As you pointed out newer generations are much more democratic in thinking.

I used the term "genuine knowledge" because today every smartass thinks he or she knows all the secrets of the universe. I mean not all information is knowledge.
This is exactly why you have complains that today's education isn't always in it's best form and there are indeed some pretty gray zones. This is also exactly why I said that "education if done right is a very powerful social tool".

However as you probably know I am from the other side of the Atlantic and here there is also a fair share of arguments and debates about "trivialization of education". Since the systems are introducing some questionable standards from US and passing the exams is becoming easier and easier in general (and the internet in parallel is pushing a good amount of BS) . Therefore in that point I am on the similar page with you. What returns us to the why I said "genuine knowledge". Since education shouldn't be just about hanging out and sleeping or chatting at classes. What is indeed good chunk of modern American education today. What kinda only deepens my claim that the US style education is often pushing people away from the political right. Since it is pushing them away from healthy right that is the discipline or practicality and is pushing them away from unhealthy right that is religious extremism and similar to that. Therefore I stand by my claim that US style education is generally pushing people away from the right. However a loss of practicality can become a long term problem if economy becomes purely a mind game or popularity contest, even if there are huge amounts of money in it. But that doesn't really change the fact that current education models are generally pushing people away from the political right.


What altogether is kinda why USA is falling apart. The intellectuals and practicians are in their own worlds and they can't really cooperate. Since politics is running cheap election campaigns for decades and the country got lost in 24/7 culture war. Therefore my only real mistake when making that post was not paying attention to the scale of this culture war since I am from abroad. This isn't the first time I am being accused that I am siding with "the enemy" here.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

This is dirty. But we are in the era where it doesn't really matter, dirt is everywhere.

However helping the GOP to stabilize the insanity in itself in probably a worthy cause. Since some people there are just going too far on regular basis.