September 09, 2008
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?
Jonathan Haidt at Edge:
Turiel's description of morality as being about justice, rights, and human welfare worked perfectly for the college students I interviewed at Penn, but it simply did not capture the moral concerns of the less elite groups—the working-class people in both countries who were more likely to justify their judgments with talk about respect, duty, and family roles. ("Your dog is family, and you just don't eat family.") From this study I concluded that the anthropologist Richard Shweder was probably right in a 1987 critique of Turiel in which he claimed that the moral domain (not just specific rules) varies by culture. Drawing on Shweder's ideas, I would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.
When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?
More here. [Thanks to Pablo Policzer.]
Posted by Abbas Raza at 01:58 PM | Permalink
Comments
"Such moralities make it easier for individuals to forget themselves and coalesce temporarily into hives, a process that is thrilling, as anyone who has ever "lost" him or herself in a choir, protest march, or religious ritual can attest"
I'm sure those who attended the Neurenburg rallies were "thrilled" at losing themselves in a crowd. This is the danger of letting emotions trump reason. It can lead an entire nation to delusions of grandeur. To neo-con dreams of "full spectrum dominance". There is a distinction to be made between liberalism and libertarianism. Conservatives are quite right to question the selfishness that Ayn Rand type libertarianism leads to. But social democratic liberals have always stressed the need for individuals to work together for the common good. This is why the neo-cons are hypocritical when they talk of "family values" while opposing every meaningful measure that would help families - universal health care, higher wages and benefits, better schools. For countries that actually support family values, you have to look to social democracies like Sweden and Denmark. Ordinary workers in this country are indeed being duped into voting against their own interests.
Posted by: Jared | Sep 9, 2008 3:37:25 PM
Jared, the argument here is not "all communal experiences are good". The argument is that certain moral sources (ingroup loyalty, authority and sanctity/purity) are powerful forces which allow communities to bond together and forge support networks.
If, as you say, "social democratic liberals have always stressed the need for individuals to work together for the common good.", then they should clearly recognize the value of these moral sources, and start dismantling their commitment to individualism, pronto.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Sep 9, 2008 4:01:35 PM
I think what "makes" people vote republican, given their track record, is propaganda and I think the republican leadership is very, very good at propaganda. And it's not only content, it's process and here again they have set in motion a series of changes that have hobbled our institutions and compromised our ethics both home and abroad.
Posted by: Ruth Ann | Sep 9, 2008 4:27:24 PM
"Rather than automatically rejecting the men as sexist oppressors and pitying the women, children, and servants as helpless victims, I was able to see a moral world in which families, not individuals, are the basic unit of society, and the members of each extended family (including its servants) are intensely interdependent."
1. Q: A roughly equivalent excuse might have been given, by similarly lofty thinkers, for Apartheid South Africa at its peak; why wasn't it?
A: Because it's only the spectacle of *men* being subjugated on a large scale that liberals find abhorrent enough to justify violating the *Prime Directive* with an intervention (and/or excoriating editorials).
2. To the article in general: what's left of America's Left is clearly suffering some sort of essay-generating psychosis. Jonathan Haidt's philosophical backflips here are symptoms of a liberal mind in desperate pain. As a McCain victory looms, it's obvious that W wasn't a bad dream, or just a fluke, or merely the result of a "stolen" election: the mask is coming off the greater American electorate, and it ain't a pretty sight. The repeated use of the word "values" in this context is sickening.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 9, 2008 4:54:17 PM
We "get" that conservatives want a certain kind of "morally ordered society." We just don't want the kind of moral order they have on offer.
Posted by: Michael Drake | Sep 9, 2008 5:05:36 PM
If by moral and family values we mean adultery and cheating, yes: Newt, McCain and just maybe, well...we will wait on that one.
Chastity? sure: Palin's daughter!
In fact, there are fiscal conservatives who have been sold out by the party and social conservatives who turn out to be hypocrites. And, alas, many uneducated religious believers who vote against self-interest. where are their jobs? their home values? their military being sent? their health insurance? and on and on...
That people do indeed always confront some naive notion of Free Market (note the govt subsidies for the free market industries!), turn to the Great Depression and the Right was even then saying govt wshould stay out of things and the market would take care of all things. Ok. Then why bother with bailing out the mortgage lenders with my tax bucks.
Posted by: nate zuckerman | Sep 9, 2008 5:45:30 PM
Stephen, the comparison to apartheid South Africa is wildly implausible and something I would find maddeningly offensive if I were a member of the Indian society in question. A 40-year political program instituted by a power-hungry white political minority is not even close to the same thing as a cultural form which has evolved over millenia.
Democracy involves an open-minded engagement with one's fellow citizens, not a broad-brush categorization of one's opponents that characterizes them as morally and intellectually inferior (a primary motivating force behind the apartheid movement, by the way).
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Sep 9, 2008 5:56:44 PM
"A 40-year political program instituted by a power-hungry white political minority is not even close to the same thing as a cultural form which has evolved over millenia."
In other words, there's no evil like an old evil.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 9, 2008 6:09:58 PM
"Democracy involves an open-minded engagement with one's fellow citizens, not a broad-brush categorization of one's opponents that characterizes them as morally and intellectually inferior."
Ah, sophist relativism rears its pretty head as history prepares to repeat itself. Not only is it my contention that much of the American electorate is morally and intellectually inferior... I'd go further and call the buggers selfish, irresponsible, atavistic, venal and cruel.
Eight years of your "open mind" and meanwhile how many dead Iraqis, Nick (and how many voters truly give a damn)? How many catastrophic ecological milestones have come and gone? How many hairline cracks in the Constitution and proliferating Civil Rights violations and profit-driven pogroms on the poor?
It's not a civics lesson in abstractions; I think they've got you right where they want you. I won't change things by ranting, but neither will you change things by seeing "Their" side of the argument, for their side of the argument has prevailed for quite some time, with demonstrably hellish results. At least I know the name of the tune that's playing... I'm afraid that you and Jonathan Haidt, both, are blissfully deaf to it.
People on *this* side of the Atlantic (Old Europe) seem to think Obama is a shoe-in; they're as sold on the propagandistic model of deep-down American goodness as you are, Nick! They will be heartbroken come November.
And, btw: how's this for "a cultural form which has evolved over millenia": slavery. Why do we have such a knee-jerk problem with it? Perhaps Jonathan can tell us.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 9, 2008 6:51:04 PM
Steven -- Please don't concede defeat 8 weeks before the general election. That's the sort of defeatist attitude that Republicans eat up. Have you contributed to the Obama campaign since the primary ended?
Posted by: Mariana | Sep 9, 2008 7:08:17 PM
"Have you contributed to the Obama campaign since the primary ended?"
In fact I have, Mariana. I've taken advantage of the weak dollar to contribute twice.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 9, 2008 7:26:41 PM
In fact I have, Mariana. I've taken advantage of the weak dollar to contribute twice.
That's interesting. I wonder how much Obama has raised from foreign donations.
Posted by: Carlos | Sep 9, 2008 10:35:38 PM
Please, all of you -- don't be Democrats who roll over and play dead just because the Republicans have produced a trailer court theocrat who's a monumental distraction. This is an election in which regressive and progressive forces will be almost matched, and it will matter tremendously what Democrats do and say -- perhaps especially to one another -- for the next 60 days. Caligula has not yet brought his horse to the Curia to outrage the Roman senators, so I entreat you -- give money, volunteer time, stay focused, and vote. In absolute common with ourselves, the Republicans need only do that to win. And if they do win, shall it be because they took from us our solidarity before the fact of defeat? They're very good at that -- it's what makes people vote Republican.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Sep 9, 2008 10:52:23 PM
As Hafez pointed out:
"All rational people have abandoned ship"
(or something like that, even if I am quoting a sufi mystic).
While the Repugs are out looking for icebergs to ram, the dems are changing deck chairs, and arguing if a new captain will help.
I'm with Hafez- get off the boat and into a life boat.
Republicans are psychopathic!
Judge for yourself. A Wikipedia definition of psychopathic:
A psychopath is defined as having no concern for the feelings of others & a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lacking insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any kind of love. It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience.
quod erat demonstrandum
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 9, 2008 11:20:41 PM
Elatia Harris,
I'm voting for Obama-Biden, but I don't think it helps the cause to refer to McCain's vp pick as a "trailer court theocrat." It has, well, a classist ring to it that the "ordinary people" mentioned in the Webinar here might find undemocratic. If you read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, you might understand why some poh folk live in trailers. Palin, of course, is not among them, nor are the McCains.
Soon as my ship comes in, hope to avail myself of your gourmet Meals on Wheels.
Bon appetit!
Posted by: CriticalMass1 | Sep 9, 2008 11:55:08 PM
Well I'm glad Nick at least read the article.
To which of Haidt's five foundations do "Green" values apply?
Is it merely a matter of which set of foundations for one's values? Or must they be expressed in a similar way? For instance, might different purity/sanctity values be considered even more objectionable than no purity/sanctity values? What about the other foundations?
Posted by: Sagredo | Sep 10, 2008 5:30:08 AM
Well I'm glad Nick, at least, read the article.
Posted by: Sagredo | Sep 10, 2008 5:31:37 AM
Strange that a minority of the worlds' population, the liberals, only a few decades old, are the keepers the universal morality. Anyone who disagrees is a dirty nazi, afrikaander,... or other white political groups. In every historical, theoretical or even fictional scenario, the liberals' concious is as pure as white light. Like Clark Kent, if he stays away from red kryptonite.
Even republicans have a certain amount of self doubt. You guys are more self rightious than the vatican.
Posted by: PeterJohn | Sep 10, 2008 5:55:29 AM
Elatia--
End stage Empires are always ruled by the Caligula's and the Fedor the Bell Ringer's.
As Moorecock open one of his novels with:
"It was the end of time, and the human race finally stopped taking itself seriously"--
So, sit back, open a bottle of wine, put on a moose burger, and watch the race to the bottom. Nothing will change under the current political and economic arrangement (take a look around, how are things?)
"If voting could change things, it would be illegal" (Goldman or Adorno, I can never remember which).
The survivors (if any) will sort this out on the other side of the all we are about to crash into.
Have some cheese wiz with that moose burger!
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 10, 2008 10:34:51 AM
Stephen, I'm going to conclude that you (a) don't know what "sophistry" means, and (b) haven't read this article, and (c) have no idea what America is like these days, so I don't think it's reasonable to spend my time arguing with you on this one.
If you're wondering, I'm basing (c) on your spectacularly naive suggestion that the past eight years have been characterized by the kind of open-mindedness that I was talking about. America has never, ever been so polarized.
Sagredo, your question is a VERY interesting one, and in fact, the distinct lack of environmental/ecological morality in the article's taxonomy might go a long way towards explaining why it is so difficult for environmentalists to get moral traction with the population at large: they're just not speaking in terms we understand.
I think this is why the most effective environmentalists speak in terms of harm to humans: destroying our ecological niche will ultimately hurt us. But even this is difficult, because "harm" intuitions tend to arise from a direct experience of that harm (I see you attacked, I feel a moral intuition) rather than a hazy, distant-future imaginary set of harms happening to people who haven't even been born yet.
In other words, humanity needs moral evolution, or the creative construction of new moral sources, if it is going to survive.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Sep 10, 2008 1:49:07 PM
"Stephen, I'm going to conclude that you (a) don't know what "sophistry" means, and (b) haven't read this article, and (c) have no idea what America is like these days, so I don't think it's reasonable to spend my time arguing with you on this one.
If you're wondering, I'm basing (c) on your spectacularly naive suggestion that the past eight years have been characterized by the kind of open-mindedness that I was talking about."
Nick, I write this with no trace of a snarl: it was *your* sophistry-haloed "open mindedness" I was referring to in the cited comment, in full possession and/or comprehension of A) the standard definition of every word I used in said comment, C) the poorly-reasoned contents of the article in question and B) my U.S. passport, with which I've crossed the Atlantic eleven times in not quite as many years.
The essence of your argument is no less an example of sophistry than some rookie's helpful bringing of that old saw "there are two sides to every argument" to the fresh scene of a bloody wife-beating. While it may be true in the best of all possible worlds, my Candide... and so on.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 10, 2008 2:33:20 PM
"Democracy involves an open-minded engagement with one's fellow citizens, not a broad-brush categorization of one's opponents that characterizes them as morally and intellectually inferior."
How is this sophistic? How is it possible to be committed to participatory democracy and consider the majority of your fellow citizens too intrinsically stupid to participate in a democracy? How does "open-minded engagement" preclude you from telling someone you think they are wrong, deluded, manipulated or plain lied to?
If you really think this country should be ruled by a dictatorship of the "liberal" commentariat, then come out and say so, Coriolanus.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 10, 2008 4:19:00 PM
"Das Volk hat das Vertrauen der Pseudointellektuellen verscherzt. Wäre es da nicht doch einfacher, die Pseudointellektuellen lösten das Volk auf und wählten ein anderes?"
B. Brecht, (slightly paraphrased)
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 10, 2008 4:25:05 PM
Anyone who thinks "pointing out a disanalogy" is equivalent to "sophistry" is not in full possession of the standard definition of sophistry.
Anyone who thinks that citing a standard, well-accepted, Polisci 101-component of a functioning democracy is "sophistry" is not in possession of the definition of sophistry.
You say that seeing the republican's side is not going to make any progress: on what evidence do you base this? Seeing their side is not equivalent to voting republican or agreeing with them, and the entire point of the cited article (which, again, I sincerely doubt you've digested at all) is that much of what mobilizes modern republicans is precisely their anger at being treated as moral and intellectual inferiors. Given this fact, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that open engagement will reduce the power of republican elements in America.
Oh, and a helpful hint for the future: citing standard intellectual terms and objects (sophistry, Candide, etc.) when they are largely irrelevant to the debate at hand will only get you somewhere if your opponent is impressed by style over substance. You may want to stick to the actual substance of the argument instead of making ill-informed references you recall from school.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Sep 10, 2008 4:32:45 PM
I think they've got you right where they want you.
One thinks they'd be happier with you, Steven. After all, you've just written off the possibility of making any difference until the "buggers" come to their senses (if ever). Who's the one abandoning the world to the Republicans' fate?
Your example of the battered spouse is apt, for the reason that not only are there people who have beaten their spouses in the past, who we need to identify and hold accountable, but there are also people who will beat their spouses in the future (and people who will, perhaps unwittingly, remain in situations that are vulnerable to abuse).
If our end of the bargain is all sewn up just by being able to distinguish the goodies from the baddies, then we'll have lots of time left over to play golf. But if we're interested in reducing the incidence of spouse-beating in the future, we'll want to study the dynamics of it, and appeal to our fellow humans to act differently.
Over all your snarls over appeasement and relativism, I'm having trouble understanding: What constitutes the moral superiority of your view?
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 10, 2008 4:43:51 PM
You kiddies keep pursuing your "open mindedness" while the Republicans practise *single-mindedness* and win yet another Presidential election, okay?
"Seeing their side is not equivalent to voting republican or agreeing with them, and the entire point of the cited article (which, again, I sincerely doubt you've digested at all) is that much of what mobilizes modern republicans is precisely their anger at being treated as moral and intellectual inferiors."
Spoken like a true Vichy Democrat (look it up, Nick). I've had plenty of time to "see their side", thanks, and the vision featured not only a mountain of dead and maimed Iraqi and Afghani civilians and American soldiers who *all* died for OIL (and to fatten the already porky heirs of the Haliburton Imperium), but an ultra-repressive techno-theocracy that brutalizes dissent at home (catch the footage of those robocops plowing through those kids at the RNC?), behaves as a hypocritic Law Unto Itself across the planet (earning the undying fear/hatred of untold generations of "ferners"), is re-heating a nuclear-themed Cold War with macho games of Yankee-style brinksmanship, pimping the ecology to corporate super-rapists while producing an army of TV-addicted, burger-wolfing morons as shocktroops in the war on critical thinking.
You'll think my mention of these evils is overwrought and unnecessary... because you fail to grasp that this *whole debate* was sparked by the fact that you've become, obviously, inured (look it up, Nick) to these very evils.
That's what I object to: you (your ilk) are not properly outraged. You're not prepared to think the kind of deeply unflattering thoughts about your Fatherland that might open your eyes to the situation.
What "mobilizes" modern Republicans is the getting and keeping of power. Got that? Worry less about feeling Republican pain and more about getting fellow Democrats to *grow up* (and to not, like, you know, um, vote for Palin to send, um, like, a message?).
After *that*, we can discuss the fact that the whole country has drifted so far to the Right in 28 years that the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" are no longer even really meaningful.
Yes, and *then* we can discuss the hideous tenor of the Amurrican knee-jerk anti-intellectual boobism that produced not only GW and the record-breaking Left Behind series but also taught little Nicky and Vicky to believe that ordinary words like "sophistry" and "Candide" are, you know, like, kinda too fancy to use in, like, a normal, uh, you know...
Anyway: sure. Wail away on this comment, kids! Get angry (for a change). It'll be cathartic (look it up, Nick). You're gonna need all the catharsis you can get.
PS Vicky, your reference to "Das Volk" is more apt than you'd like to think.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 10, 2008 6:23:20 PM
"What constitutes the moral superiority of your view?"
If you need to ask that question after the previous eight years, you're far beyond help.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 10, 2008 6:26:55 PM
What makes people vote Republican? The sight of educated Democrats savaging each other over which of themselves occupies the higher ground, perhaps. The Obama phone bank could use some frisky Dems about now...
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Sep 10, 2008 7:02:30 PM
That post put a real fire in my belly, Steven. But the only thing I gotta say is maybe y'all gotta learn ta like, you know, love the buggers. Like, I mean, but I sure hope ya don't get all gruntled again too soon, though. When you're disgruntled like this, you cut through the brothers' and sisters' specious arguments here, and, er, their casuistry.
While sitting here today munching on English muffins with Cheeze Whiz topppin' and hatin' big gub'mint, found some stuff on religion y'all might be interested in. They relate kinda peripherally to sanctity and profanity, if ya know what I mean.
I'm hoping that atomic thing in Geneva doesn't send us all into a black hole in space before the pachyderms and donkeys get the chance. You up on particle physics? Me neither.
Peace, brother,
CM1
fora
orionmagazine
Posted by: CriticalMass1 | Sep 10, 2008 7:09:32 PM
"That post put a real fire in my belly, Steven. But the only thing I gotta say is maybe y'all gotta learn ta like, you know, love the buggers."
No, let's learn to love those dead Iraqis (innocent victims) first, man. Difficult as it may be.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 10, 2008 7:12:44 PM
Steven,
You are demonstrating very poor reading comprehension today. But outrage will do that to a body. (Are you sure you're not a Republican?)
Nobody here (except for PeterJohn) is mounting any kind of a defense of Republican or neo-conservative policies or ideology. The question is not whether to oppose these things, but rather how.
As far as I can see, your way, a sort of Manichean melodrama, is to divide everyone up into camps of good and evil, and then fold your arms in satisfaction. How's that working for you?
Haidt's article, and the comments here supporting it (if you'll just please read them again, patiently) argue that there are dynamics which help explain why people might be attracted to ideologies that Liberals find abhorrent. These dynamics have to do with some basic human desires for order and security, among other things, making them essentially fungible.
Are these desires being manipulated? Absolutely. But they are not wrong in themselves--that is the crucial point. We are intelligent enough to make the distinction between embracing, say, an anti-immigrant policy, and the insecurity over one's livelihood and safety that underlies that embrace. (Let's not get oversimplistic with this argument. Some people are just mean and petty, and can never be reached. But I'm not ready to consign everyone that's ever pulled a lever for a Republican candidate to this category, nor to claim that everyone who's ever voted for a Democrat is some kind of Neitzschean hero).
To insist on attacking these character traits is to ensure that these segments of the population will *never* be won over by Liberal politicians. Bank on it. As Elatia mentioned earlier, the McCain campaign is going to throw everything they have at these very concerns. There's no reason Democrats can't do the same, without pandering*, and without sacrificing their political platform. It's a matter of connecting policies to the primary cares of the electorate. I'm not an Obamamanaic by a longshot, but it's clear he's taken this approach, and it doesn't appear so far that he's had to jettison any more core Liberalism than the candidates of the previous few election cycles.
(* For the sake of this discussion I'm putting aside the fact that most Democrats pander as disustingly as their counterparts, not to mention their near-unacceptable support of the present Corporatocracy. Forest and Trees.)
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 10, 2008 7:19:49 PM
"To insist on attacking these character traits is to ensure that these segments of the population will *never* be won over by Liberal politicians."
What a dreamworld you live in! A regular ride at Disneyland...
Chris, I live in the former heart of the former Third Reich, which only *appears* to be an irony, since Germany learned a terrible lesson via *all that*, resulting in a society that, in many ways (for a few more years, at least), is far more sane/liberal than the countries that taught it the lesson in the first place. Check out the health care; the crime rate; the fact that I could get within a few feet of the Foreign Minister (a guy who was famous, in his youth, for battling cops) when he was lunching in my neighborhood (which happened often).
When America has learned that terrible lesson for itself, things will get better, I suppose, and well-meaning guys like you won't be powdering your noses in a shitstorm. Until that time, I suggest you spend a few years outside the world's most powerful propaganda field before deigning to comment. Because, in many ways, you're parotting the kind of happytalk that keeps the so-called Left as legless and tooth-free as the Right's idea of an ideal date.
It's been fun! Good luck! See you in the virtual voting booth (I vote for Existential reasons; look it up, Nick)...
SA
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 10, 2008 8:01:37 PM
Steven-
(I vote for Existential reasons; look it up, Nick)...
You seem to have a grasp on the political process--
That and your "Vichy Democrat" analysis.
Vicki brought up Brecht, who put the problem in perspective:
"The bastard is finally gone, but the bitch who born him is in heat again".
American ignorance and political illiteracy will assure the bitch will always be in heat.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 10, 2008 8:15:11 PM
Wow, lots of outrage and little careful thinking on evidence around these parts today, huh? I guess the close polls are rubbing everyone's nerves raw.
I'd just like to point out that not *all* Americans vote Republican *all* the time, and it might be worth while trying to figure out why (I don't think the cited article from the Edge helps much in that direction).
One suggestion: it has often been pointed out that the U.S. lacks a distinction between head of state and head of government, unlike many other modern countries. The President functions as both, and consequently voters vote for both roles; some voters mostly for one of them, some for the other, and most, probably, for a mixture.
In 2006, voters showed a tendency to vote for Dems for Congress, where the head of state function is absent. So one might hypothesize that that's where the electorate wants Dems.
On the other hand, lots of voters seem to like Reps as heads of state (can't figure out why they wanted Bill C. in that role, but who can come up with a perfect theory?). Perhaps this year the reason Barack is running behind the Dem vote for Congress is that a lot of voters still think Reps, and McCain in particular, are better as symbols of the state -- more warlike, more racially similar to them, more grandfatherly, richer, etc. We don’t know how many voters think that way, and won’t until the election occurs.
But assume McCain/Palin win (I think Barack still has a good chance, but it’s a lot lower than it was a few weeks ago). In my fantasy scenario, McCain will either die or become somehow incapacitated fairly soon (perhaps before the election, even, but more likely between the election and the inauguration, or during his term of office). In that case, of course, we have President Palin, and someone or other as Vice President. She messes up as president so badly that most people want her removed, but the only way to do that is impeachment. So she’s impeached and removed [on what grounds? I don't know, but if Clinton could be impeached for receiving oral sex in the Oval Office (or lying about it), it could be just about anything], and probably we eventually wind up either with this as yet unknown new VP or with President Pelosi. Crazy, but it could happen.
In any case, I think we’re in for a very wild ride for the next few years.
Posted by: JonJ | Sep 10, 2008 8:17:20 PM
Someone else is as angry as Steven Augustine. He suggests taking the "low road."
Posted by: Ruchira | Sep 10, 2008 9:21:12 PM
Andrew Sullivan's also outraged, but not rude. A conservative for Obama.
theatlantic
His blog and book the Conservative Soul are more convincing than appeals to Durkheim as a means of figuring out why voters succumb to Roveian machinations.
Posted by: CriticalMass1 | Sep 10, 2008 9:55:47 PM
For a country that passively accepted a coup in 2000, and a illegal war in 2003, the odds of any realistic change is a moot point.
Really, a McSame victory will just make this train wreck happen faster.
It may save resources and our entropy entry point may be more favorable for the survivors.
The 21st century will be a huge bottle neck for human survival, and the jury is out as to if we will make it.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Sep 10, 2008 10:03:51 PM
Thanks, Dave Ranning. And now, back to dieoff.com
Cheers,
CMI
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Sep 10, 2008 10:12:30 PM
"I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift boat politics. Enough is enough.”
-Barack Obama
Steven, you seem deeply confused as well as angry. Being willing and able to call Karl Rove and his ilk on their shit has nothing to do with trying to figure out why Aunt Betty in Kansas is taken in by their lies. I don't have the option to watch this all from afar, like an experiment in a petri dish. In the end I guess I love my Republican relatives, my family and (gulp) my country too much to abandon the field to the jackals. While there is any hope of breaking the spell, I will try to do it. I am not looking forward to the electorate being taught some kind of "lesson," as you seem to. As for Dave R., he smacks his lips as loudly as any end-times theologian over the coming cleansing cataclysm.
Your Germanistik also seems a bit confused, but there's this famous advice:
"Also aber rate ich euch, meine Freunde: mißtraut allen, in welchen der Trieb, zu strafen, mächtig ist!
Das ist Volk schlechtester Art und Abkunft; aus ihren Gesichtern blickt der Henker und der Spürhund."
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Sep 11, 2008 12:26:59 AM
You're so right, Vicki. We are not far from anywhere. No one gets to ride this out in Europe. There's nowhere to hide.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Sep 11, 2008 12:50:16 AM
Oooh! School words! Sleep with me!
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Sep 11, 2008 1:58:27 AM
The relevance of Haidt's analysis to the current situation is questionable. Whatever you think of the politics (and ethics) of authority and sanctity, it seems implausible that the American electorate has changed dramatically along those axes between May and now. As such the differing Democratic and Republican moral / aesthetic temperaments, while important in the medium and long term, probably have little to do with the recent uptick in McCain's fortunes. I will grant that some of the less temperate media reactions to Sarah Palin might spring from allied issues, but that apart clearly we should seek other causes.
What other causes? Well, why not the obvious? The Obama campaign has made the staggeringly inept decision to ignore Iraq, the economy, McCain and Bush, healthcare and global warming, and made this election about Obama vs Palin. In so doing, he has lowered himself and raised Palin so now they're at the same level, and McCain is the wise, rugged warrior who stands poised to rule.
When you elevate an underling to your stature, without knowing how to beat her, you lose. And of course Obama can't beat her - she has roughly the same order of experience, is an even fresher face on the national scene and is vastly prettier. Even a six year old might have told him to leave the girl alone and pick on someone his own size.
Posted by: D | Sep 11, 2008 2:22:50 AM
Obama made an unbelievably stupid mistake in not picking Hillary for VP. As for democracy, the US is a plutocracy with democratic window dressing and always has been. As George Carlin said, "This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free". It is still run by slave owners only the former plantation owners now own hedge funds and the slaves get paid a minuscule wage. Unions, the only real source of power workers every had, have been emasculated in this country. The politicians of both parties are owned by the slave owners, like everyone else.
Posted by: Jared | Sep 11, 2008 9:44:26 AM
Vicki, Steven's confusion is self-inflicted. He would rather be right than useful, so he ends up being neither. Ironically this is the same state of affairs among his "buggers," so I guess we can hold out hope that he will someday be afflicted with the empathy that can accompany so great an affinity.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Sep 11, 2008 9:53:14 AM
For an excellent analysis of why the War on Terror is a lot like the Spanish Inquisition, see this link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10144
Posted by: Jared | Sep 11, 2008 12:15:28 PM
Steven's not confused. Haidt is confused.
Michael Palin for President!
youtube
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Sep 11, 2008 1:25:50 PM
Public wound-licking would be less fun without an improvised virtual clique to turn to, I'm sure, but shouldn't you guys be healing the dead by hugging your crypto-fascist neighbors, instead? You've certainly given us a "useful" demonstration of consensus as the do-able Milksop Liberal substitute for action or reason. But what's next? More wound-licking under the next oppressive regime, I imagine.
Here's a bolt of rational sunshine for you to flinch from: the change you affect to seek won't happen via your "empathizing" with a massive polity determined to wipe your vision of civilization from the face of the earth. The mere fact that you think you *can* affect meaningful change this way demonstrates your absolute, insular, laughable-if-it-weren't-fatal ignorance of human nature in general (and of those crypto-fascist fellow 'Murrican buggers in particular).
"Steven, you seem deeply confused as well as angry. Being willing and able to call Karl Rove and his ilk on their shit has nothing to do with trying to figure out why Aunt Betty in Kansas is taken in by their lies."
Vicky, stop patronizing Aunt Betty: Aunt Betty knows what she likes. Aunt Betty likes that shit because she *is* a shit. You should be so lucky to stand for anything so genuine; your pathological fear of being disliked has turned you into a moral cypher.
The following will be difficult for late-Capitalism creatures of convenience to swallow, but the change you say you hope for won't happen in weeks or months or even an election cycle or two. The only possible change will be generational (demographic) in form, i.e., please try to raise/influence lots and lots of little Secular Humanist Liberals (if that's the setting you can all somehow agree on), and maybe, in twenty years or so, things will start looking up.
That is, of course, if the anti-Choice, pro-NRA, segregationist, anti-intellectual, Rapture-anticipating, Darwin-banning, male-first, anti-Gay, warmongering, dollar-worshipping, kitten-killing Right doesn't continue to out-breed, out-gun and out-maneuver your jejune arses on every front that matters.
"You're so right, Vicki. We are not far from anywhere. No one gets to ride this out in Europe. There's nowhere to hide."
Elatia, it's always so difficult to tell American warnings from American threats.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Sep 11, 2008 3:28:47 PM
Wew! I'm glad Steve has no issues with me!
Posted by: Jared | Sep 11, 2008 3:32:34 PM
These posts really are amusing. Many of you offer up a perfect caricature of what's wrong with the left, and why you'll never get the power you so desperately want - you are elitist, angry, vengeful, intolerant, and just as blinded with faith in your ideas as those on the right that you attack. Supposedly the mark of a liberal is open-mindedness. Why then do so many liberals fail to acknowledge the failure of so many liberal ideas? Did you not notice that socialism and the welfare state are failures? Have you not taken to introspection the sharp, meaningful, and utterly scientific intellectual attacks on your foundational ideas of man as a blank slate? Do you not understand that much of the country rejects liberal ideas of social justice because they are tired of being made to feel guilty over their hard won prosperity, and are loathe to provide handouts to the slackers and cheaters of society? (If conservatives are guilty of playing the fear card, then liberals are way guilty of playing the guilt card.) Can you not understand that Americans took the lessons learned from the failure of isolation, appeasement, and inaction before WWII to heart, and that is why we maintain a bias towards a strong, assertive foreign policy? Can you not see the utter constriction, fecklessness, ineptitude, and decay of the 'social' Europe you so admire? Are you blind to the billions of dollars of foreign aid that have been wasted in the name of white guilt? Can you not see the reasonability of the view that we will only achieve world peace and prosperity when all people are governed by limited, constitutional, democratic systems? Do you not understand that many Republicans believe in limited government because we don't want to put more and more of our lives under the control of self-assured arrogant elites such as yourselves? This is not to deny that the left raises issues that we should consider and work through, but this anger and this intolerance, this blindness to the merits of right of center ideas and the failure of many left of center ideas, precludes any sort of dialogue that could lead to progress.
Posted by: Dumb Republican | Sep 11, 2008 3:34:12 PM
"Did you not notice that socialism and the welfare state are failures?"
No, and you don't see the Swedes and Danes worrying about paying for their children's health care bills or going to a school where 80% of the children cannot read by grade 8.
"man as a blank slate"
Of course man is not a blank slate, which is why social institutions are needed if life it to be tolerable
"much of the country rejects liberal ideas of social justice because they are tired of being made to feel guilty over their hard won prosperity"
This would explain the record numbers of people losing their jobs, losing health care, losing pensions and the stagnation of wages over the last 10 years. Some prosperity.
I could go on, but your are so deluded that it would be pointless.
Posted by: Jared | Sep 11, 2008 4:10:15 PM
Post a comment