There are only two kinds of Republicans--the rich and the really s--t--u--p--i--d.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...because it stems from the same erroneous assumption that this question always stems from.

Whenever liberals wonder why working class people vote Republican, they often ask a highly biased question that makes a lot of assumptions, usually along the lines of; "Why would they vote for those who don't represent their economic self interest."

I've said this on here before and I'll say it again, and everywhere else this topic comes up I will say it; these people ARE voting against their economic self interest, yes, but they are NOT doing it because of the reptillian brain, because they think "moral" issues are more important, or because Democrats are just too mean to them.

Talk to any Republicans, from the poorest to the richest, and a LARGE majority of them will tell you that they think the GOP's economic plan IS in their self interest.


Yes, we know it's NOT in their self interest, but many Republican voters, INCLUDING those in the working classes, think it is. When the gOP talks about cutting taxes, they aren't just saying that for their rich pals. They KNOW it will also resonate with middle class and lower income voters as well, because the GOP has spent years convincing the public that tax cuts will benefit them in the short and long term.

So, before you go on about any of this other stuff, next time ask those working class voters if they are in favor of tax cuts, and I expect most of them will not only say yes, but go on a big speech about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, how people need to help themselves, how much they hate "handouts", etc.

The right wing, including the blue collar right wingers, hate welfare, social security, progressive taxation, ANY taxation, and all liberal economic policies as much as they hate gays, abortion, and all the other supposedly secular liberal things.

So, yes, in some sense they HAVe been duped, duped in to thinking the right wing economic platform will benefit them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservatives are all about selfishness, at least in the US. Liberals or progressives are the ones who emphasize the collective, community, social goods, and strong relationships to each other over dog-eat-dog, individualism, and Social Darwinism, which are very much at the core of US conservative thought. Comparing our brand of conservatism to the tribal systems or extended family connections of India or something is like comparing apples to oranges.

As for things like religious dogma, the military, and patriotism, I might understand if they served the purpose argued here. But they don't. They thrive on conflict, instability, prejudice, and division. That is the illusion of conservatism, that these things bring order and stability to society. How's that working out?

What this article illustrates best is Democrats' and mushy liberals' obsession with nuance, and willingness to accept any labels that the conservatives slap on us. If we can only understand our brothers and sisters on the other side better and meet them halfway, we can find common interests, make a better world, and all of that other crap. Ironically, of course, that is one of the right's biggest critiques of liberals, and perhaps the only one which is half-way accurate.

I agree that liberals and progressives need a more organic connection to their values, which are at least as simple, basic, and clear as conservatives. How much simpler can you get than the Golden Rule, Live and Let Live, and putting the the interests of the suffering and the outcasts over the interests of a few rich people?...You know, the things that JESUS talked about? No latte-sucking intellectual elites required to figure that one out or explain it to us in long dissertations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. Haidt correctly notes that there is a heritable, genetic component to political orientation, but he then buries that fact in his discussion of moral reasoning. Other social science research that he does not refer to indicates that the main determinant of political orientation is OUR PARENTS' POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS. People vote the same way their daddies voted. There's not much thinking going on at all, let alone moral reasoning. Just imitation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The premise of the article seems to be that Democrats have to become Republicans to defeat them. Why not just give up the fight and let them rule. In reality that is what has happened. Democrats have adopted many right wing notions and helped destroy the welfare safety net and regulatory ability of the government to reign in greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I actually appreciated this article. Thanks for writing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article has too much interesting material for glib comments, and asks some very good questions, but why not consider some radical perspectives on the issue: can the scientific world view resolve the enigma of morality? I fear not, least of all the Darwinian version. Between the reductionist absurdities of Darwinian evolutionary psychologists, and false objectivity of Durkheim on the sacred, liberal culture has found itself proclaiming the 'what's the matter with Kansas' cultures stupid and reactionary when liberal culture has itself produced a kind of stupidity in relation to religion. The current trend of the New Atheism, pace Dawkins, et al, shows this strange state of mind, divorced from reality and any chance of understanding religion from the word go. Liberalism need not be forced into this mould (any more than it should be forced to compromise with traditionalism) and needs a new public philosophy that can do better than Durkheimian rumination on the sacred or the Darwinian pseudo-science of evolutionary ethics. Current brands of scientism haven't a clue on the issue of religion, and are surely far more stupid than anything Frank found in Kansas.
The best way to mediate science and religion was the stance of Kant, who was also a primordial liberal: the 'religion within the llimits of reason', however archaic it looks now in the Kantian version, essentially solved the issue of the (much ballyhooed, and verbiage prone)'sacred' (with an atheist version in Schopenhauer perhaps) by constructing a rational mediation of the limits of both science and religion. Nothing that has come later has surpassed that perspective and we are inundated with the sophmoric diatribes of the Dawkins generation with its wilful blindness to the history of religion, a viewpoint totally incapable of anything but alienating those whose religious lifeboats, however conservatized (and mostly defunct thereby), are all they have, and which they aren't going to exchange for the degenerated liberalism of techonological science whose imperial claims to explain reality to us are almost ludicrous in their one-dimensional incomprehension.
Meanwhile, the conservative character of much religion is arguably a form of religious decline, not religion at all, and these comments are in no way a request for compromise with the entropic remains of so-called religion so visible in the American religious culture spectrum.
To decipher the conservative degeneration of religion is a big study, and may as well start from the Axial Age, and an attempt to understand the mystery of that phenomenon (one whose existence modern science has suppressed because it contradicts its assumptions)
For a different type of analysis of the evolution of religion, check out http://eonic-effect.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many Americans are scared of change, confused, and (I daresay) bitter. This doesn't mean they cling to guns. But they do look to religion and "small town values"--represented by the flag, parades, Country music, etc., to bring order to their lives--to provide them with a measure of comfort.

Republicans simply do a better job appealing to these people, using symbols like flags and crosses.

Look at the McCains. Definitely elitist, but Cindy is into "drifting" (check out ESPN.com for a clip on Cindy going to Japan to learn how to drive very fast while "drifting"), and her hubby likes to attend Nascar races and thank everyone there for supporting the troops.

It's simplistic populism--it's hypocritical at times--but it works.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many people vote their emotions and logic isn't a consideration... If they can relate on a personal level to the candidate... they're sold (or conned).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does intellectal reasoning and emotional flexibility in liberals trump more primitive and emotional inflexibility in conservatives?

Is this why we have liberals, who at times think too much (sic) and conservatives, who think too little (in other words, thrive on more simple emotional points of view that require less critical thinking and exercising the part of the brain used for reasoning)? The more you use your brain, the better to stave off conservative forms of dementia?

Is that why certain things are more disgusting to them; things that aren't necessarily morally wrong? This may explain and defend changes to the legal system over the centuries, where reason showed how slavery was wrong, just one example among many, and we are still a long way from justice for all.

I guess the comfort conservatives feel is indeed dangerous when suppressing reason, and oppressing others...it would seem to fit the profie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the Democrats would quit pandering to the Republicans more often than not and frame the truth so as to be acceptable to voters, they'd have been winning a long time ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have warned before that as long as the GOP and "conservatives" continue to frame their lies as "acceptable" to the public and as long as the Democrats not only refuse to counter their lies but also buy into their lies by voting with them, the Republicans and "conservatives" will continue to win even when this country is 100x worse than the Great Depression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's choosing of an anti-populist Biden is what is further sinking his ship. Hint: Biden's push and support for that disastrous Bankruptcy Overhaul legislation and the consequences of that bill are only starting to show. Is that why Obama doesn't want to even bring up that issue let alone tackle it? Obama had plenty of better opportunities for VP picks such as Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Kathleen Sebelius, etc ... Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of Democrats I like because they're more leaning towards being pro-populist and they'll stand up to the rightwing bullies more often than not. Unfortunately, the go-along-get-alongs including Hillary, Biden, and Obama are the kinds of traitors the Democratic Party must PURGE. Otherwise, more voters will be convinced that the GOP can identify with them and not the Democrats. And one more thing, pandering to the rightwing not only turns off the base but it sends a bad message to swing and moderate voters that the Democrats are nothing but opportunists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like this author, I spent time in India immersed in a "traditional society" of religion and social roles, and it's given me insight into humans' propensity towards conservativism. When I went to India, I sometimes immediately identified ways that the local people could do basic living tasks better. For example, there was a man who cooked all day in a kitchen that filled with smoke, while a fan sat unused. I told him to point the fan away from the stove and turn it on - naturally, it cleared out the smoke, and the man spent the rest of the day wondering how the foreigner figured it out, as if I'd solved a difficult physics problem. At the same time, though, I realized that I engendered a lot of resentment if I suggested too many "improvements," and that even our technology and medicine were in some ways resented as "threats" to their culture, so I mostly kept my mouth shut.

One conclusion I've reached is that humans with average intelligence or less are deeply conservative because they really lack the creativity and smarts to figure things out on their own. Their traditional societies have ways of doing things, and it's best to stick with the tried-and-true rather than experimenting with new ways of doing things - particularly when life is so close to the bone to begin with, and the price of failure could mean hunger. Of course, "traditional" might not mean "best," but people feel safe knowing that their traditional ways work, while new ways are riskier.

Unfortunately, we're in a situation right now where the world has changed very rapidly as a result of globalization, technology, etc. When it comes to things like war, environmental policy, economics, etc., all the old "tried and true" ways simply don't fit. We need to be innovative to address these issues. But this innovation is precisely what scares most people.

For the majority of people, the basic personal morals of times past still have a lot to offer - you are better off being honest, not getting addicted to drugs, etc. That's why many people's personal lives improve when they become evangelical Christians. But the act of living in a human body has changed much less than global economics or technology has changed in the last 100 years. (Even here, though, many old morals need revision - a firm stricture against divorce made some sense, perhaps, when women were unable to even procure food apart from a man, but makes no sense at all now that not-divorcing means staying with an abusive husband for no reason other than "morals.") In the area of public policy, "conservativism" is preventing us from dealing with the realities of a world that has vastly changed. That's why conservative communities like evangelical Christianity often do good for people in their private lives - for example, giving a person with few family ties a place to belong and a sense of purpose - but have done so much damage in the public policy arena.

If there is ever a way to get passed this liberal-conservative impasse, it'll involve recognizing the good that institutions like conservative religion are capable of doing in personal lives, but making it clear to its adherents that their proper sphere of influence is in the personal sphere of life, not the political. We should be able to be a free society where people can live according to their own moral understandings - and in that type of society, those with conservative morals can speak about the benefits that their lifestyle brings them, seeking to influence society that way, while those with other understandings can counter with their own insights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Basically, in my experience, people who are conservatives/Republicans fall into one or more of what I call the three pillars:

1. Racism/fear of the other

2. Greed

3. Hyperpatriotism manifested in the use of force

I thought this story was an excellent look at the underlying psychology behind the three pillars. This stuff drives the right nuts, as well as the fact that liberals tend to be better educated. And business schools teaching cunning required to make money doesn't count as receiving a decent liberal arts education in my book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like 911,
Everything they've ever told you is a Lie!
How Con-servative of them?
The Government and Military is 80% Privatized!
Uncle Dick is running the Show from his Dungeon.
All bets are off!
All the safety nets are destroyed.
Job 1 well done!
BUSH/Cheney/McSame Destroyed America.
King George II has won the War and we are all Victims!
What are Dick and Carl doing behind the Faux Media curtain?
Besides: Lying, Spying, Cheating, Stealing, spewing endless Conditioning Propaganda, starting Phony Wars, selling No bid contracts, shredding Documents, deleting Emails and Wholesaling American Resources at rock bottom prices?
I hear snickering and squealing coming from their orifice!
You name it and they've done it!
All of it Bad!
They are VERY BAD and VERY UGLY!
Is that Fair and Balanced?
It is if you're a multi Billionaire like Rup-pervert the Mur-Dork.
Roasting the Poor is Entertainment!
America is Burning and the Chimp is playing the same old song.
Tax Breaks and Bailouts for Trillionaires.
Hand outs for the Richest Family in America
Talk about single minded.
All for The Rich and
Nothing for you.
Except the;
10's of Millions of Millions in Debt!
Oppressive Poverty, Broken Bodies and Coffins coming back from Iraq!

While your nest eggs are magically vanishing right out from under your noses,
Bush says things are Great!
It is for him with his socialized medicine and ½ a Million Dollar Pension.
That is a lot of money to pay a FU-K UP!
The pens and fences are here to keep you in till
Dead Eye runs another Turkey Shoot!

“It’s off to Dubai” says Dick!
I’ll say hello to Uncle Ben-Laden for you!

What can we do?

Create a sustainable, self sufficient, Humanistic Society,
That’s true to our positive progressive Ideals and Goals.
Let’s create a Healthier, Cleaner, Peaceful, Loving place for our Children and Grand Children to grow up in.

Your VOTE counts.
Vote against:
Business as usual
Vote against Corporate GREED and Corruption!
In NOVEMBER remember to:
Vote The Bush/Chainey/McSame abomination out.
The first step on the Road to Recovery is to
Get rid of these Dirt Bags.
Cast your Ballot for Change,
Vote Bush/McSame Out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the kind of statement that loses me. The author might attempt a more balanced article that also points out how liberals are misunderstood by conservatives, and this statement could be the opening line. This country is divided and to me seems unable to reunite. But putting these kinds of words in the mouths of liberals, even if you're implying that this is a conservative implication, furthers the divide. In the areas that conservatives and liberals differ on childrearing, like spanking and prayer in schools, we don't differ because liberals want all children as free as possible to act on their desires. A more accurate assessment for me would be that I don't want any authority figure hitting my child, and I can pray with him the way OUR family prays. I don't need corporate or tribal childrearing.

This seems the irreconcilable difference: we liberals no longer want to have a kind of tribal belief system that exists mainly for the purpose of bonding us. We want to think beyond our personal experience. This gets us mocked for, of all things, being Do-Gooders and Bleeding Hearts, as if the Jesus constantly intoned by the right wasn't either of these things (and as if he WERE a capitalist). I think at this point, these books and articles about what conservatives are really like and why we liberals don't get it and how we should adapt our thinking have run their course. We do get it and don't like it. We seem to have moved on from an older type of community bonding. I don't think a bridge between the two groups is possible the way things stand now. Both sides would have to adjust. But liberals are hated (and have been for some time) to the point where even the word "liberal" is used (and has been for some time) as angrily, mockingly, and contemptuously as the word "nigger" used to be (and still is among certain of my very own conservative relatives). Conservatives forgot some time ago that liberals are Americans. We, to far too many of them, are scapegoats and objects of derision.

And we can't tolerate the amount of hypocrisy that conservatives seem very well adapted to tolerate. Palin is the newest example of this. She embodies everything that conservatives, until quite recently, claimed to despise: a woman with kids (five! and two with either special needs or deep problems) who doesn't need a job for the money and could easily be replaced by any of a number of candidates, who obviously is very ambitious but because of her beliefs is acceptable in her ambition in a way that Hillary was not, who is under ethics investigation, who taxed and spent and fired, who is far less qualified than candidates who were mocked by other conservatives for being unqualified (and I'm not speaking of Obama here, Karl Rove); it amounts to a level of cognitive dissonance that conservatives seem well able to accomodate but liberals find repellent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I too was a graduate student at Penn in the 1980's, and did my dissertation on the social context of health (published in 1998 as Healing the Social Body). I've thought a lot about the ingredients that go into the creation of a healthy society.

People need connection, it is true, and the mental health of individuals is linked to social cohesion. But there are wholesome ways to create social cohesion, and there are unwholesome ways to form group identity. Germans in the 1930's were hungry for some kind of collective identity and a nation they could feel proud of, and the Nazis exploited that to create a horrific fascist state. They preyed on people's fears, and whipped them up into a frenzy of hate, creating an "us against them" mindset that allowed the Holocaust to take place. This is the quintessential diseased society.

Any "moral order" that is -- at its root -- based on fear and hatred is unwholesome and should be identified and stopped as soon as possible. You discuss the caste system in India as if it were wholly benign. What was one of Gandhi's primary goals? To embrace the "untouchables" and reform the caste system. He recognized it as a form of apartheid, an affront to any true system of morality. Just because India has not abandoned its religious traditions does mean they have gotten it all right.

Yes, human beings need connection, group identities, extended families, etc. But legitimizing the efforts of the right-wing to pervert these healthy psychological needs into "us-against-them" thinking in order to further their acquisition of power is not helpful.

My sister has become an arch-conservative, and in reflecting on her personal journey, it is obvious to me that her political stance grows out of her fears. I think that most people get to a point in life where they realize that they have little to no control over the events they experience (only their response to them). At this stage, we each have to make a choice. Do we find a belief system that promises to create order out of chaos, that gives us a sense of control (i.e., "do what we say and everything will be OK) OR do we learn how to embrace uncertainty, mystery, and change? People like my sister join fundamentalist churches and vote Republican in a (futile) attempt to achieve order and control.

One final thing -- conservatives (as the word is being used in the U.S. today) often lack compassion for others. Once someone is perceived as "the Other" (an immigrant, a black person, a gay person, an Arab, whatever) this person becomes less human, they become dehumanized. This is very dangerous. It was Einstein who said that the "sense of separation" is an "optical illusion of the mind." Conservatives emphasize the separation, and Republicans feed this illusion to hold onto their power.

Arriving at a sense of group identity through dehumanizing "the Other" is one of the most dangerous societal movements possible. This is why the "culture wars" fomented by the Republicans are wrong, unhealthy, dysfunctional and should be exposed to the light.

The bottom line is this: People vote for Republicans because they are afraid and the Republicans play on these fears to maintain their power.

"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged."

"A liberal is a conservative who has been hugged."

In the immortal words of Ringo Starr, "Peace and Love." (or John Lennon, "Love is the answer, and you know that for sure."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People vote Republican, in the main, because they can't stand the idea of losing even a penny. And yes, the nonanal-retentives are just plain stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..and he just doesn't want to admit it! So he keeps voting Republican.

Pride and stupidity are a bad combination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I appreciate the scientific thoughtfulness of this article, but I can't trust the writer for a few evaluative comments he makes. First of all, he says he found the Indian society not to be sexist. My dear sir, if you'd been hanging out in the kitchen you might have felt differently. It's true that in repressive cultures people revere the hierarchy, which makes the society work. But it works by repression. Some people function well with repression, but plenty do not. In hierarchy, oppression is a given. There's no hierarchy without oppression. It's true as Hegel points out that oppressors operate with the consent of the oppressed, and as Althusser mentions consent can be gained by ideological control or regulatory force. If you liked those people, then so what? Liking them doesn't make them right. Look up the history of wife abuse in India.

The new definition of morality is insightful, all except for the word "selfishness," which is an abstract, contextual concept and can only be deployed when accompanied by assumptions regarding means-ends, local values toward actions and things, etc. I guess for this article selfishness would be serving one's own interest or desire instead of or directly in opposition toward the hierarchy. How does that translate into a capitalist society anyway? Republican powerhouses are great at that kind of selfishness in the free market.

Anyway, then the advice for liberals, well I think you are dead wrong about us winning conservatives through environmental issues or animal rights. They believe in manifest destiny, that God gave them the earth to use up and abuse, which is the case for animals as well. And then even if you do get their emotions roused somehow, just wait for it because they'll say something else is more important than those issues. Probably being pro-life. I noticed your advice was silent on that topic. There's no easy answer.

Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses, and you are quite accurate about the way religion and politics merge for conservative voters. Conservative politics are also their opiate. They are willfully stupid, that is the difference. And that is why they are so scary, so hateful, so lacking in tolerance. People who are abject, outside the sacred circle, threaten its mythos by their very existence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd say those who usually vote democrat are duped. They are the ones promised a wonderful world by "upstanding forthright politicians" - are you done laughing yet?. "Don't worry about anything, mommy will take care of you - mommy will make sure nothing bad happens to you". Can you say "New Deal", now 65 years later!!!

Please, republicans are usually those that are willing to work hard and take responsibility for their own lives and don't want handouts.

The problem with both parties is they are a joke and are run by politicians - there is no difference between them!

Anyone who holds that one party is superior to the other is the one duped!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of people have little faith in any politician. Or in government's ability to compete with Industry's manipulations of the public toward keeping us all consuming and subservient. Lots of people think the system has always been an oligarchy. Usually, fairly benevolent, like early Mussolini. Lately harsher, like late Mussolini, or early Hitler. As things get worse, it looks to lots of people like lining up with Hitler might be the wisest choice. Kind of like being on the right side during the Guilded Age, when Tammany decided who got taken care of, not governments elected by the people, of the people and for the people.

Recent Democratic presidents don't provide much better historical reference points than Republican ones for refuting this view of things. For a getting-poorer-white guy trying to raise a family, all of the options seem bleak. As his peers build something analagous to the Nazi Party in Germany, a true grass roots movement that seemed to empower people in an awful but tangible way at the time, his thoughts turn toward survival and away from contributing to an ever more illusory social solidarity based on decency.

If Obama will acknowledge these concerns, admit to his own identifications with the ruling class, and lay out in detail how illusory and dangerous fascism as a solution is today, he will win easily. He needs to paint the McCain campaign not as conservative, not even as regressive -- but as Strangelovian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trying to explain what we could call "republicanoid" thinking and behavior is definitely not easy.


Jonathan Haidt tries, but comparative moral philosophy is not quite up to the task.

I think the problem is deeper.

With no disrespect to other creatures, republicanoid humans seem more like different species.

Wait...hear me out!

Anthropologists and other social scientists have written about how human evolution, approximately since the emergence of "modern humans" (H. sapiens sapiens) has not abated, but now is taking place culturally. And thankfully, the idea of unilinear progress somehow built into this cultural evolution has long since been dropped from this social science theory.

It is more likely that complexity theory and network theory are better explanations of human sociocultural evolution. The scientists are still figuring this out, so we don't have the answers yet.

But is it possible that humans are now a genus because they have speciated ? Could we now have two human species? I don't know the dynamics of how it may have occurred, but comparative ethology shows that it can happen.

It happened with the splitting Chimpanzees and Bonobos. These two species are close enough like that they weren't recognized for a long time. But now there is agreement that there is a Chimpanzee genus with two species (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus). The common chimp--Jane Goodall's subjects and friends--is generally the more aggressive of the two species, and the Bonobo is the more gracile and gentler species.

Primate ethologist Frans de Waal observes behavior in the Bonobos that shows "altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity." In contrast, common chimps show "extraordinarily hostility" to out groups. Yet even common chimps can also "act altruistically toward genetically unrelated conspecifics."

In summary, Bonobos may have a set of more gentle characteristics, but even the aggressive common Chimpanzees also share in altruistic behavior. The ethology of these two near-human species is fascinating, but enough has been said to see a possible emergent pattern.

It may be that the two types of species in the Chimpanzee genus differ less than the two species of humans in the Homo genus. This would certainly seem to be the case given the current ideological gulf between the two closely related but highly different human species of "liberals" and "conservatives."

How to translate this emergent understanding into the U.S. political system is a mystery. For now, it's probably best to watch old Planet of the Apes movies instead of the presidential debates. You'll probably understand things better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because they're missing the essential gene that makes them entirely human. That explains why they lack humility. It explains why they are so inhumane, void of empathy and care little if anything about humanity or our planet.

They are unable to relate to humans that possess 'the humanity gene', in fact we make them furious. Lots of things make them furious, perhaps an anger disorder associated with the lack of the humanity gene. Denial is a huge problem for these individuals making them difficult if not impossible to rehabiltate.

They lie like sociopaths rather than admit they are wrong in any way about anything or to get their own way. They are condescending, arrogant, selfish, snide, ignorant even when well-educated. Another sociopathic trait they possess is the ability to do anything to anyone and justify it to themselves or to anyone else so they are always right and the injured deserved it. Also a sociopathic trait, they think they are better and smarter than anyone else leading them to believe they can get away with anything. In fact they think they SHOULD be able to get away with anything, entitled, omni-powerful. Lots of them end up in trouble and even in jail.

They self-righteously use religion to prove to themselves, and one another, that they really are entirely 'human', or to make themselves believe they are superior. They can recite the ten commandments but they don't believe in nor practice the Golden Rule. They even ridicule people that possess the humanity gene for believing in the Golden Rule at all.

There is only one course of treatment. Long term RAKT, Random Acts of Kindness therapy seven days a week and admit that it is man's inhumanity to man, along with global warming that are the greatest threats to humankind and our planet. Being cured they will spend the rest of their lives working to make the world a better place. Rehabilitated they will never vote republican again and wonder why they ever did.

It is unknown why but white people are much much more likely to be missing this gene than people of color.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did ya'll look at the RNC crowd? My husband and I saw the same black woman over and over again. Republicans are a sea of white folks, and studies have shown that most whites are still racist and would never put a black man into the White House, hell they wouldn't even let a black man into their own house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would love to engage Liberals in thoughtful dialogue. But all I read from them is name-calling, stereotypes and cliches. Sometimes it is laced with foul language. Most of their arguments are based on class envy and the assumption that anyone who has been economically successful must have done something immoral or illegal. I am one of those blue-collar lower middle class Conservatives. I'm not stupid. I'm pursuing the American dream. And if Liberals would get out of the way, and stop trying to make me dependent on government, I might achieve it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ultimately your expansive article ( which I loved - Soc/Anthr/Geron Bachelors), Comes down to Accessiblity & Rhetorical verbage.
The Liberal Dems have been Trying for Decades to change the focus and Priorities of the National mindset.
'Pro Life" means All of LIFE- Preantal to Medicare, Non Human life and environmental LIFE.
American Patriotism means Being involved and Decerning of How Your Democracy is being Run and Honoring the Promise On the Statue of Liberty- We Owe it to our ancestors to Honor that National Oath to Humanity.
The Womens movement did not just come from the right to reproductive choices, or increased Job opportunities- it also stemmed out of the need to address the Needs and Rights of Mothers and their Children!
Green Peace Was not just for the Whales, it was about Human behavior and it's effects on the balance of nature
There are hundreds of Liberal Orgnaizations that have been around for decades- It is not that they have not been Voicing their concerns (morals) they have NOT been Heard!
So the first part of your peice held more reality than the latter part. We have not only been Ignored- We have been effectively Gagged and Shouted Over for Decades. It's not the lack of Voice it's the lack of Access to having it heard.
where the essential issue lies is in WHO has Access and How they Block others from being heard. It is a far more a matter of the Tools which have been created by societal conformation to Aid Us that have become the Masters over their own creators.
What your analysis lacks is the reality of mass Communication, and who controls it.
Very different in a Tribal Setting than a Technologically advanced Culture. Mass Communication is a double edge sword. It can bring in new ideas and thus expand the boundries of Acceptablity, or it can creat a larger collective to adhere to.Previously moderate Religious folks become more rigid in their ideologies to either fit into the larger group (Inclusiveness), or to creat a further deferentiation from the group (exclusivity).
So if the '60's and '70's never happened, the organizations/Ideology which came out of them vanished in the late '70's, I would accept your Hypothesis. If mass media not aided in the redefining of what it means to be a 'Christian/Muslim/Jew and, Patriotic..., causing many to readjust their ideals to conform, I would concur with your Hypothesis.
But this is not 1897, or even 1950..It's 2008. the theories are good but lack applicablity in this day & age.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is interesting. There's definitely some insight to be gained here, but I still don't see a concrete answer of how to solve the problem.

For example, when the author says, "our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom" I say poppycock! Liberals don't find these concepts hard to fathom. We just define them differently than conservatives.

To me our flag stands for ideals. These ideals give me the freedom to burn the flag as an expression of those ideals. Conservatives see the flag as the ideals themselves and the destruction of the flag is the destruction of those ideals. And when it comes to our founding fathers, liberals see their actions one way and conservatives see their actions another way. We can't even agree on whether there is a seperation of church and state. It's not that liberals can't "fathom" their moral importance! It's just that liberals define the moral importance by other terms. The author appears to know this, but still claims liberals don't get it. We get it. We just disagree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This piece would almost be a convincing argument in favor of the usual nonsense about embracing the faith-based wing nuts, except that Haidt keeps praising the way people buy into the Republican message of community identity, while not thoroughly addressing the fact that the wonderful, old-fashioned-looking idea of the world being promoted in this fashion is a complete fiction. You'd think that, after so many decades of cynical salesmanship of the "American dream" as something out of '50s TV shows, more than a handful of "values voters" would have caught on to the fact that they're being used.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupidity retardation or an inablity to see the truth. Like I said STUPIDITY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While your thesis is interesting from an intellectual point of view in real life it has to be filtered through human emotions and that changes what can actually be accomplished. All of your missive can be condensed down to the Golden Rule (do unto others etc.)because of the human condition. To intellectualize the basics of human society may be a schoolroom exercise for sociologists but it doesn't help in the street. Republicans in real life are dupes and greedy apostates having twisted religion to fit their own desires for dominance. They as a party have no morals, ethics or election platform except to take from the poor and give to the rich. While this may suit them it is bad for the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is it that only neocon republicans have the market on morals?
I happen to think that liberals and democrats have much more morality as they are the only ones who care about the middle class and especially the poor.
WWJD?
He would NOT start wars over bogus claims.
He would NOT ignore the poor, sick, handiccaped, homeless, etc.
So, please tell me, why do these so called 'Christians' have it on morality?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First of all, I appreciate the scholarship of this article. It is well written and well thought out. Nonetheless, it sort of strikes me as coming from a right-wing point of view. It seems to suggest that if Democrats want conservatives to vote their way, they must become Republicans; they must accept people are not morally wrong in their acceptance of theft, deceit and bigotry. I can't make that leap.

The writer, an athiest, takes a pragmatic view of morality, as if it is in the eye of the beholder. He uses his visit with an Indian culture to make this point. He suggests If those held in lower esteem in a culture readily accept their place, and things run smoothly, it must be okay. But he fails to explain whether or not these people have, with consent of their fee will, chosen their place. How would they react if given a choice?

I'm not at all a religious person, but I do try to live my life by the words of Jesus. I ask myself if my actions would fit comfortably into His philosophy. I can't imagine Him accepting the bigotry that drives our so-called Conservative movement. And I can't see myself compromising my own principles to move a little closer to them.

One of the above comments talks about how the Republicans have made "liberal" a dirty word. It's true - and appalling. Liberal thinkers who I have known believe in a "live and let live" mantra. Jesus, a liberal, was adamant that people should not judge others. Liberals in America do not try to impose their beliefs on others. Conservatives, on the other hand, have run campaign after campaign on issues like abortion, patriotism, flag burning that are geared to forcing people to see things their way. Liberals are constantly defending freedoms and natural liberties. Would the author of this article have us defend less? Would he have us give up the struggle?

It has been my experience in trying to understand Republican voters, that their reasons general come down to a few prime numbers. Somewhere down the line that twinge of bigotry will reveal itself. They don't state policy reasons because there is nothing there. They cannot name anything the Republican Party has done for the country as a whole. As I write this, their candidates for President are running ads claiming they went against their own party. But they are the darlings of the corporate media and they have gotten away with knocking down the twin towers and stealing two presidential elections. They don't feel a bit of moral remorse over any of it and they will do it again and again, fueled ever more by their hatred for their fellow man.

It makes no sense for a liberal to try and change the mind of a bigot. Hell, most liberals are actually more personally, financially and morally conservative than those who wear the "C" mark proudly. Those who vote Republican have a wish for mandkind to self-destruct. They are free to do that. But as a thinking person, I'm not ever going to be turned to their point of view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The responses to this article are highly biased!

While the article offers the possibility that financial interest are better served by the Dem platform, most responders do not! Perhaps a situation where "when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare."

Both the Democrat and Republican points are very disconnected from themselves, even. While most posters on this article are familiar with the inconsistencies in the Rep pov, perhaps they/you turn a blind eye to how inconsistent the Dem pov is. For instance, most Dems support increased diversity, but not of "conservative" values. In other words, they want an increase in SOME diversity, but not all. How about this for arrogantly closing one's mind: the spirit of the article surmises that there is no possible way that someone can rationally choose the Rep platform, so it must be a genetic flaw to overly emphasize the comfort/morality of the known. A couple of the posters have been much more open minded citing that it could also be "selfishness," "Greed and stupidity" instead of a bad genetics.

Another thing that is inconsistent with the Liberal pov is the emphasis on government helping individuals and the focus on sense of empowerment. However, in order to wring maximum value out of such programs, it's necessary to completely ignore the fact that by availing/forcing aid on somebody the government is reinforcing that the individual is nothing without the government and eroding that empowerment. The end result is the sense that we each are limitless in our possibilities as long as we have the government's approval and help.

Then there is this: the Democrat platform hates monopolies on grounds that they are inefficient. Interestingly, they also support a larger government, which is the most insidious type of monopoly, because one can be jailed if they don't use it.

The Dem platform purports to support "community" but ignores the fact that by various means of support coming from the faceless federal government, the sense of community is actually eroded. I no longer need to help my neighbor, because I can correctly assume that my neighbor can get a federal payout for whatever situation they are in and they don't need my help - they've already gotten it by way of my tax dollars. Additionally, I no longer have to be neighborly because when my times are tough, the government will help and neighbors are not needed. This does a HUGE disservice to all of those rural folks (primarily Republican?) who physically roll up their sleeves and open their wallets to help neighbors that are going through certain hard times. Maybe that's a genetic flaw too. It's those types of services that actually build community, not a faceless government redistributing dollars.

Finally, the point that this article misses completely, and I think that most democrat supporters choose not to observe is that the government is highly inefficient at helping others. I attend a church that recently went through a drive to raise money to drill wells for fresh, potable water in Ghana. We were able to dig wells - that serves maybe a thousand individuals - for $8,000 a piece. Do you think that the US government can accomplish that? Believing so ignores most, if not all, of the evidence of governmental efficiency that I can find. Maybe, I can rationally believe that more people could be better helped in the absence of the Leviathan?

Do be clear, I dislike the Republican party as much as I dislike the Democrat party. But people have a situation where they have to choose between two deeply flawed major parties and siding either way has some level of irrationality and inconsistency - and some level of rationality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It always has to be Democrats vs Republicans with no room for others, does it? GEESH !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if a little deep for casual readers like we get on websites. Honestly though, the author raised good points that can be used not just in amorphic politics but in our everyday lives as well. It gave me a framework for my thinking on this subject that I didn't have before. I understand people a little better now.

Thank you to the writer for this new perspective, very highly appreciated. I hope the Dem leadership pays attention to this as it is the key to changing the political landscape in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your research and article are fascinating, but the motives you are talking about have little or nothing to do with voter behavior and your conclusions are dead wrong. Indeed, you cite no research on actual voting habits in the article.

A better explanation for voting patterns in the past thirty years is provided by combining research reported by two quite distinctive but complementary sources: Larry Bartels and Greg Palast.

Bartels, most recently in "Unequal Democracy", argues(and provides concrete numbers to back it up), that people on the whole do vote according to their economic class, but it's the perception of which party benefits them the most that counts at election time. Even though there is irrefutable evidence that Democratic policies lead to more equality and greater wealth at all income levels, the Republicans have been much better at framing economic policy in a way that is alarmist, simplistic and emotive: tax cuts, eliminating the "death tax" and so on. They have also been better, until this year anyway, at creating an economic upswing in election years. Why do you think Bush agreed so readily to the recent tax credits and bail-outs? McCain's problem is the crisis has hit too late in the year, and there's absolutely no money left in the piggy bank to engineer a temporary recovery this time.

Palast's numbers (as detailed in "armed Madhouse") are all about our votes and what happens to them. He shows that across the country the election process is biased against working class and poor voters in a way that transcends race. If you are poor in America, your vote doesn't count, not in a metaphysical or abstract way, but literally: your vote is not counted. If you are poor, it is harder to register, harder to vote and harder to get your vote counted.

By theorizing about moral values and psychological reasons for voter behavior, you perpetuate the myth that Americans are ignorant, superstitious hicks and do a disservice to the class war that has simmered ever since America was founded, which has heated up in the past thrity years, and is boiling over right now in poor precincts in Ohio, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico and everywhere that poor and working class families know damn well that the Democrats are better for them and really would like to vote for change.

Want a permanent, progressive Democratic majority? 1) Make sure everyone gets to vote and 2) tell a better story about the dollar in your pocket, and how the rich will take it from you every opportunity they get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans have Stockholm Syndrome and they're scared to death.

http://www.bankingonheaven.cm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the answer to the title question (at least in this election) is that SARAH PALIN IS THE DEVIL...and obama just isnt jesus...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People, I'm reaing the posts about this article and they have nothing to do with the article itself. Leave out the details of the current politics, take it for a more basic and general understanding of human psychology, then use it as a framework to apply to the current political situation and you'll see what I mean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think this is the best article I have read on Alternet ever. As long as progressives keep calling conservatives stupid and keep thinking that they are just wrong, without trying to understand the mind-set, we will never be able to reach out to everyone.

The challenge is to hold onto our values and think and talk about loyalty, sanctity, and respect. I get a warm, fuzzy feeling being part of the progressive group, in the same way conservatives get that feeling by being Americans. Until we have empathy, until we understand how conservatives see the world, we will have a hard time persuading a lot of our countrymen that progressive values and actions are American values and actions.

There are people who use the conservative banner to promote something like fascism, but the vast majority of conservatives deeply believe that their values are the right values. They are good people who want to do the right thing. If we see them as evil trolls, then I doubt we will ever get them to see our point of view. If we write them off as just stupid, we make the same mistake that they do concerning progressives.

This article seems to give me a starting place to provide a set of common areas and common language. We need to understand what conservative voters consider legitimate concerns before we can talk intelligently to them. Otherwise, we call them stupid, they call us heathens, and we just keep talking past each other.

Thank you for making sense of the conservative mind!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is precisely why I think the Dems miss out by not having their own version of the Green Party's 10-Key Values. The 10KVs work as a form of budo, a systemic institution of thought, a religion of sorts. Like budo in Japanese martial arts (sumo, judo, kendo, Aikido, Iaido, etc.) the 10KV articulates expectations, a framed inquiry to assess progress, and lands on concrete values or priorities that form a pattern of worldview and behavior along those five "bands" on the political equalizer. It's why as a working class progressive I could never and still struggle to tolerate the Democrats' hoi poloi of what I see as vapidness (because of it's overuse of only two of five bands).

But even with this analysis, which makes a hell of a lot of sense to me, I wonder how that works to forge a shared future with conservatism that has gone so far off the rails of reasonableness and peaceableness to now express a form of contemporary proto-fascism. This is the undiscovered country we're facing whether we figure out a progressive-liberal shared political frame using all five bands of the spectrum.

Budo teaches the reality that when a broadband is facing a narrow band, there is clash and conflict. I don't know how a political Aikido would work to forge a shared future with fascist terrorists, which is what the conservative Right has now become. Would it merely turn fascist energy back onto it's proponents while simultaneously forging a future with those that finally see that fascist energy for what it is and drop out of it? I don't know.

Haidt seems to offer alternatives only at the very end and they don't appear to me to be well thought-through, from a progressive perspective. Even my RWA Dad respects a man who'll discard his system because it has a conceivable principle that he might agree with. But ask him to share space with that philosophy and his RWA fundie religion prohibits him from doing so. We can coexist a full continent apart, but we cannot live together in the same state let alone county, and certainly NEVER under the same roof. And yet that's what Haidt seems to suggest is necessary.

But I guess we all have to start somewhere and the frame is a good place to begin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The liberal mindset, in Durkheimian terms, was largely institutionalized in the US by Enlightentenment-minded citizen scholars to eradicate, or at least insure against, those conservative parts of the spectrum that have caused societies the most grief in the past. Sure, the liberal spectrum isn't as rich in tonal quality as the conservative spectrum, but it has purged those elements of base humanity that are known to cause man's inhumanity to man, especially our Fear of the Other. Instead of moralizing about it, or relying on multiple moralities of families, clans and tribes, our Constitution is a liberal instrument meant to subordinate such moralities to an agreed upon norm for the whole of society, the Law. Sure, the Law is artificial, but it forces antagonists to confront their antagonisms through a neutral mediator using agreed criteria for judgment. That conservatives are now willing to deconstruct our Constitution, laws and criteria for judgment in order to get back to a personally comfortable space, a space enclosed by ignorance and fear of the world as it exists, doesn't mean that the great American experiment should be declared over. Our liberalism is what makes America unique in the world. It's built into our political genetics. That half of us find it too uncomfortable only means that we have failed to "indoctrinate" our citizens with the type of education and values that are consistent with American ideals. Like poop in a bathtub, conservatives live in an ugly world of prejudice surrounded by ignorance. That sounds a lot like the world my grandparents left behind when they came to America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

His definition of morality includes suppression of self-interest and selfishness? I find Conservatives to be the most selfish and self-serving people on the planet. We have the Christian Right who want nothing less than world domination by their religion, want their religion's prayers said in public schools, want to impose their sexual morals on others, and want there beliefs to determine who can get married. I can't even get a Christian to listen to my views. Then there are the fanatical gun owners and American Rifle Association who could care less if this country becomes a Fascist state as long as they can have their guns. Who's next? Oh yes, the corporate business and banking industry whose greed and selfish acts of lobbying for deregulation have brought this country's economy to its knees. Conservative politicians gladly accept gifts (bribes) to change restrictive laws and regulations allowing self-serving businesses to profit at the environments expense and the workers loss. The party of Morals? Ha!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When Jimmy Carter left office he and Rosiland went out and began building homes for the homelss, among other good work. And I think they are still at it! lol....

When Reagan left office, his very first job was a speech in China. He was paid one million $$$$$$$$$$$$. I've never heard a single thing about Reagan actually doing an unselfish act. Nada. In the eight years he resided in the White House none of his grandchildren ever visited once. Can you imagine that?

The original family values prez, Reagan got that whole republican scam going while the religious right, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell sank their vicious rabid teeth into the repuglican party, changing it for the worse. The term 'traditional family values' was never used before Reagan, he coined that phrase. As an actor he carried it off very well and became a legend in his own time. But it is and was all a big fat lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is somehow inevitable? Actually, it's a good point. Republicans need something to cling to, and the big lie they keep telling themselves seems based in returning to this stylized Horatio Alger Up-By-His-Bootstraps bullcrap, yes I said it, bullcrap. Ronald Reagan was tested in some HUAC/SAG/Goldwater-esque trial-by-fire exercise designed to show him the divine path to-wait for it-The Party of Nixon!! John McCain's trial by fire has become almost his sole qualification to the White House and he knows it. The POW angle works until examined too closely. It seems more likely that he still needs to exorcise demons or prove to his martially accessorized ancestors that he is worthy of their esteem. How could he be transformed by LBJ's Bad War and yet succumb to the neo-con charms manifested by Bush's nightmarishly totally fucking counter-productive corporate cash-grab war? Makes you think...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You have got to be kidding. These people continue to vote against their interests because of an hysterical schizophernia en mass! They have convinced themselves that they are "Conservative" while not really understanding what that means. Burke defined a conservative as someone willing to "conserve the old order"! What is that "old order" why the aristocracy of course! In America we don't have an official aristocracy, but we do have a "super-class" of rich people (10% to be exact)! These rich folk have been manipulating populations in one way or another from the beginning!

Don't believe, let us take some present day examples: George W. Bush born into a fortune, free-wheeling drunken frat boy, graduated from Harvard no less with a C average! All of the companies that he was in charge of never turned a profit! As governor of Texas - high teen pregnancy rates, poor public education and high drop-out rates! At some point he has a "conversion", now he's found God! Really! Okay, I'll go with that, but why was that a reason to vote him into office! Did God tell him to jump from Afghanistan into Iraq, did God tell him to put incompetent people into federal service where they gutted programs, changed policies, and generally aided and abetted the theft of public money to their friends and cronies?! I don't think so!

Let's take Congress, for the last 30 years they have deregulated the markets to the extent that we are now mired in debt, outsourced to the hilt, families are working harder for less pay! All the while this is going on there is the double speak about: God, guns, individuality, country/flag, cultural issues, and family values! At this moment in time when there are just far too many issues that need to be confronted and critical thought needs to happen, these people are in a fog thinking that McShame/Paleface are going to make this happen how/when/and what universe? These people aren't the party of Lincoln with their trickle down economic theories that haven't panned out for the average worker since Reagan brought that tragic policy to Washington, yet they continue to recycle it over and over!

This is the party of the bought and paid (think Jack Abramoff uber lobbiest) Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Enron, Wall Street, I could go on but you can fill in the blanks! Only an hysterical schizophrenia can account for the fact that these people continue voting against their own interests over and over again! Even as they see the results: massive layoffs, jobs outsourced, stagflation, higher taxes, even as the rich are getting richer! These people are enabling the exploitation of the rest of us by their delusional acts! How bad off does the American economy and their own pockets have to be before they are willing to confront the reality the rest of us live in!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most Republican voters move from one fear-based issue to the next.

Some examples:

The terrorists are gonna get you! Vote for me so I can give $100 billion to Halliburton, or else the terrorists are gonna get you!

The gun grabbing liberals are gonna get you! Vote for me so I can triple the size of the BATF, otherwise the gun grabbing liberals are gonna get your guns!

The liberal judges are going to steal your property! Vote for me so that I can vote in the judges who will steal your property and give you $5 for it. Hey, at least you'll get something eh?

Cervical cancer is going to get your little girl! Vote for me and I will mandate yet one more mercury-laden overpriced vaccine so that your girl can be screwed up just as bad as her autistic brother.

The point here is that fear based politics are always used to front for irrational choices, and that republicans often vote for more liberal policies out of fear. They do that because their controllers know that liberalism is a better engine for global enslavement. As Hitler showed. Hitler brought the Germans health care, gun control, and a host of other wonderful liberal things. And the only price you have to pay is to die! The same thing will happen here in the USA. It's called the 4th Reich. As dumb as those republicans are, many of them know that. And THAT is why they make so many irrational decisions. The people who really run things know that the US needs a heavy push to the left in order to bring in the next Hitler. In order to get a heavy enough push, they needed to demonize Republicans really badly. That was Bush's job. His job was very similar to his grandfather's job.

But in reality, the Republicans' biggest mistake was being too liberal. Too much spending. Too much control. Too much support of a central bank. Hell, they practically licked Greenspan's feet, and now Greenspan is saying this is a once-in-a-century crisis. All this talk about under-regulation is just rubbish. No amount of regulation can stop systematic corruption. Look at 9/11 and the many ways that could have been stopped. The government is too big, all it can produce is corruption. America's answer: Vote for Obama, make government bigger, and trust that somehow it wont be as corrupt? That is a total false choice, Republicans know it, even if they know nothing else. But since they've wrecked their own credibility, we are likely to get Bigger Government, and a Bigger Great Depression.

And 50 million people are going to clap and cheer, because their "team" won. What team? What game? Does it matter? No. Not as long as you love Obama! Do these people have any idea how they're being manipulated? Nope. All that matters is your guy wins, even if the same policies continue. It's a make believe world, modeled after a television show - the only reality many people know. You know your guy is better, somehow, yet you cant even do basic math. Here's some basic friggin math for ya: Obama = McCain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I disagree with the repeated premise that Democrats need to encourage assimilation into the "in group" and that "multiculturalism," etc. is something that pulls us away from conservatives.

Rather than bending people into a White, Male, Hierarchical, Judeo-Christian, safe mold, by establishing and protecting equal rights and opportunity throughout history (for gender, ethnicity, sexuality, etc) progressives are actually exposing conservatives to America and assimilating conservatives into the larger group. Once exposed, people are less fearful of "the other," and then people of all stripes are accepted as having inherent American equality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FEAR!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The latter part of the 20th century and the 21th will be the the Era of the Gene. It is the faux solution to everything...the new substitute to 'god' or the 'devil made me do it'. In the end it is a poor and distracting resolution to issues that require more sophisticate socio-cultural and sociological social-psychological research. Blaming everything on 'genes', especially for obvious cultural, sociological, and historical questions doesn't advance understanding at all. It is in fact a radically conservative and anti-intellectual solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've always thought that many who vote Democrat would really rather be voting Green, and many who vote Republican would really rather be voting Libertarian. That's what the Ron Paul phenomenon is largely about- the Libertarian streak in many Republicans.

The "conservatives" out here in Colorado are (mostly) really Libertarians. There are certainly religious nutjobs in Colorado Springs, but for the most part, people vote Republican because they believe their "get the government off our backs" rhetoric. Denver voted to legalize pot!

If the Democrats want to win over these Libertarian-leaning voters, they need to
1) Point out that the Republicans are the party of massive budgets, interventionist foreign policy, willfully ignoring the Constitution, and government regulation of PERSONAL behavior rather than corporate behavior. Make a Libertarian critique of the Republican party.
2) Do the opposite. Fight to restore the Bill of Rights, and make it an issue. Frame gay marriage as a freedom issue. Stop participating in the idiotic drug war. Quote the Constitution (as Obama should be doing regularly - why has he not shown off the fact that he is a Constitutional scholar?), and point out that Bush has been breaking the law pretty much constantly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What difference does it make? I never got that. OK, on this hand you have McBush. A proven liar who's word clearly means nothing. So just because your a democrat you vote for this idiot? thts the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How can anyone stand behind a LIAR? It just doesnt add up.

Jiff
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author makes many interesting points. However, the liberal perspective as I have always understood IS about the collective. It's about putting the needs of people - all members of society - ahead of the needs of corporations. That seems pretty spiritual to me. The antithesis of that spiritual inclination is to stifle autonomy and free-thinking, and enforce conformity and blind obedience to the support of SELFISH entities that HARM the collective good. I'm really sick of people saying liberals don't have values or aren't spiritual. It's a question of how we feel these issues are best addressed - not that we don't think they should be addressed at all. OF COURSE I don't support militarism when out government lies to us about why we are going to war, does it to support their own wealthy friends in the oil industry, dupes low-income and minority kids into risking their lives because the military seems to offer more stability than these kids would otherwise have access to, refuses to provide adequate care for veterans, ETC. Why? Not because I don't believe in collective responsibility for the well-being of the country - that's what everything we do should be about as a society. I reject the military as an institution because they lie to recruit kids, take advantage of the noble motives of our fellow citizens, steal bodies and lives and spirits - all to protect a very small minority of extremely wealthy people who care nothing about our country - only about themselves and their own greedy interests - and have sent our families to die in a needless war of aggression (AGAIN - different decade, same old story/method.) Democrats once stood for quality public education, labor rights, civil liberties, equality under the law, equal opportunity, a social safety net, taking care of the sick and elderly, taking care of people who can't care for themselves. Democrats once stood for REAL democracy, in which everyone matters and every voice counts. The Republican Party promotes greed by allowing businesses to put profits before the needs of human beings and the environment, promotes violence to support that greed, and promotes selfishness by making people think that if they treat others badly, they too can have a place at the top. While I can see where the author gets his ideas, I completely disagree - I might agree there is a perceptiion that Democrats undermine the social order, but that perception could not be further from the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember Enron? That was Republican leadership.
Remember high oil prices? That was Republican leadership.
Remember huge defense budgets? That was Republian leadership.
Remember the Savings and Loan scandal? That was Republican leadership.
Remember the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? That was Republican leadership.
Remember soaring deficits and increased debt? That was Republican leadership.
Remember the "tax cuts for the rich?" That was Republican leadership.
Remember the illegal wiretapping? That was Republican leadership.
Remember torture at Abu Grahib? That was Republican leadership.

Remember the deregulation of the banking industry and the mortgage crisis?
That TOO was Republican leadership.

America is still the leader of the world. Who do you want leading the world?

John McCain is a Republican. REJECT HIM!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the world has to deal with John “Bush, the Sequel” McCain and his sidekick, Sarah “my god can kick your god’s ass” Palin, we can expect more of the same mindless light on brains, heavy on bombs - ignore the economy insanity.

The American people still believe they are the good guys. They still view themselves as the cavalry, but they are in fact viewed as the hostile invaders, the belligerent occupiers and that which must be resisted. Until the American people learn this truth, nothing will change in America.

Vote McCain/Palin and build a bomb shelter.

http://blogoffanddie.wordpress.com

The asshole America elects is usually the one who ends up shitting all over the planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress."

Yeah, if you followed the Reichian crowd. We Hegelians and Marxists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since... the earlier 19th Century. In 1951 Theodor Adorno was already wise to these attempts to biologize conservative mass-movements too. From his essay on "Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda":

"[Freud] rejects the easy hypothesis [that tries to answer the question of 'what makes the masses into masses?'] of a social or herd instinct, which for him denotes the problem and not its solution. In addition to the purely psychological reasons he gives for this rejection, one might say that he is on safe ground also from the sociological point of view. The straight-forward comparison of modern mass formations with biological phenomena can hardly be regarded as valid since members of contemporary masses are at least prima facie individuals, the children of a liberal, competitive and individualistic society, and the conditions to maintain themselves as independent, self-sustaining units; they are continuously admonished to be 'rugged' and warned against surrender. Even if one were to assume that archaic, pre-individual instincts survive, one could not simply point to this inheritance but would have to explain why modern men revert to patterns of behavior which flagrantly contradict their own rational level and the present stage of enlightened technological civilization."

In other words, genetics might be able to provide, at an extremely narrow level, a functional account of a component of ideology. This is not the same as explaining the origins of ideology though, and how and in what way we label that component and its corresponding bio-matter, whether it is liberal or conservative or whatever, is itself to apply an ideological category. It also stinks of the passive liberal attitude that ours is a post-ideological era, with the condescending after-thought that us, enlightened liberals are free from ideology. If we are going to talk about ideology, we might as well accept that it's not simply "an issue with conservatives" or something that happens to "them."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's just that neither of them have been put in play. CA I can understand since the GOP in that state have turned out to be foul brained racists and anti-worker and anti-farmer and pro-DEA big government suckups. The Democrats can easily make Texas a swing state if they get their groove back and find some ways to cut down the in-fighting between the latinos and blacks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I spent my life in rural Illinois and Colorado. Every knuckle dragging conservative there shares the same 'values'.

1. Hates Mexicans.
2. Hates Blacks.
3. Hates Muslims.
4. Hates Homosexuals.
5. Hates the poor.

The neocons loath that wing of the party - but they've found new uses for them...

for instance..

The Sarah Palin pick.... gets Aunt Beatrice off the couch and working for the suit she swore she'd never vote for.

Krauthammer and Kristol are raising their glasses to this new use for the neanderthal contingent....

And DEMS took the bait.... dummies.

Stop savaging Sarah and remember the crooks and thieves who foisted her into the line of fire.

Ms Palin's views will never see the light of day.... should she wake up in the VP mansion - there will be a note under her pillow dispatching her to NRA meetings to boost enlistment of goy boys to die for Israel.

the neocons have taken us all to the cleaners....

AGAIN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the kind of reasoning we need to be doing. Why aren't we doing more of it? Are we too narrow minded or just shallow?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I see a lot of this - I grew up a cowboy, in a devout (regionally 'famous') Mormon family. Now retired I'm still (proudly) a rancher/artist/interior-architectural designer. I'm a modernist - er post modern, artist-designer, politically progressive, agnostic, seriously traditional cowboy, horse breeder, wear an earring, much prefer partying in the city, waking up in the country, etc, etc.

I love the kind of people I grew up around as much as my 'sophisticated' friends in the city. My friends run a broad gamut and don't always like each other but they all like me - not saying I understand how that works or have any special skills but i 'm clearly a novelty in both cultures.

I like the idea of trying to make these relationships work on an informed, 'spiritual' level - almost as much as I fear those Sunday School Teachers with guns and billie clubs, dropping in on Sunday and dragging me and my lady from our bed and off to church, naked, fragrant from lust and still clutching our Mimosas!

Imagine my confusion!

I discovered a slightly different but sympathetic point of view in Joe Bagent's 'Deer Hunting with Jesus'. I highly recommend it too, especially if you have friends and loved ones who bring 'cultural confusion' into your life. It deals more directly with the way these people betray their own economic, health and practical, interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You name it!

Lots of conservatives need simple, total answers to everything that bothers them. If someone commits murder, execute him. If someone commits several crimes, it's 3 strikes and you're out. Rape? Castrate him. And so on.

If some foreign country doesn't want to be friendly, destroy them. If one of these countries sits on top of vast oil reserves, take over and take the oil. It's all so easy, isn't it? If it doesn't work, you're not doing enough of it.

Others know things are bad and they just can't face it. We live in the greatest country on Earth.....right? Of course, we do. Can you say, "greatest country on Earth"? Sure, you can!

A few years ago I served on a grand jury. During a break someone was reading a newspaper article about a CIA assassination. One of my fellow jurors said, "I don't believe we would ever assassinate anyone. We don't do THAT!". This fresh-faced young woman was a Republican, of course. Not a bad person; just not facing reality.

If it's good and virtuous, that's what America is like. If it's immoral or it's an injustice, it either doesn't happen or the people on the receiving end must have had it coming.

Then, of course, there are the Republican mainstays of greed and laissez-faire capitalism. I've got mine, you go get yours. Stop whining! Government is inefficient and expensive. Let the market work it out, no matter how long it takes or how many get hurt in the process.

Global warming? Who are you kidding? It's junk science. It's just a weather cycle. New Orleans had to be punished for lewd, immoral behavior anyway. Who cares? Don't worry about it. Everything will be fine.

To me it all boils down to cowardice. They can't face reality, much less deal with it. They'll just vote for whoever leaves them alone to lead their own little lives.

Remember the movie, "Network"? "You've got to get up now, get up out of your chair, go to the window, open it, stick your head out, and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!".

Well, those of us on the left are as mad as hell, but we're still grabbing our ankles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I enjoyed it. Anything that helps me try to understand such irrational human beings. And, it has definitely made for lively debate which is a hallmark of liberals; they actually enjoy thinking, analyzing their world. Do you think Repubs would ever publish anything to help understand the Liberal point of view?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good analysis, bad prescription. Halfway through, this turns into an apology for broken cultures. You cannot have universal human rights or liberties by saying "all cultures are equal." They aren't.

If a culture values torturing puppies, or boiling people alive, you don't just "accept" it.

This is why we should have worldwide network of human rights monitors and forced compliance with very strict asylum policies. If you want to opt out one of these societies, you should be able to.

All cultures are not equal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can analyze it all you want; put the proverbial lipstick on it; it boils down to deep-seated bigotry or unrealistic belief that "one day I, too, will be rich and powerful, and I will rub elbows with the gods." The poor and middle class who vote Republican are being gamed. They are deluded and unwilling to change their opinions even when faced with overwhelming facts. It is like the realization that there is no god, no divine intervention, no winning lottery ticket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First of all, painting all of your political opposition as ignorant hillbillies does nothing to help your cause. You really think a bunch of NASCAR watching rednecks could accomplish all that the right wing has accomplished in America? You really think a bunch of trailer trash built a global empire spanning the globe?

Oh no, my friends, to assume that would simply reveal your own ignorance. You are dealing with some very, very intelligent people. More importantly, they have a certain outlook on life that most of you are not capable of understanding.

You see, there are fundamentally two kinds of human beings - "sheep" and "wolves." Sheep are always irrelevant at any point in history, so I won't bother discussing them. In the life of every wolf there come a point where he must ask the question, "am I predator or defender?" Most choose to prey upon the sheep, to enslave them, to use them as objects for their pleasure and benefit.

A few, however, understand that the sheep need to be protected against people like them, and further, realize that they are the only ones that can do so. The wolves in America have been feasting upon the carcass of the nation our forefathers passed down to us for decades now.

To an extent, the decision has already been made on a cultural level. We are a nation of sheep that think we are wolves. This is to the delight of the true wolves, no doubt.

What the Democrats, or whoever the opposition party to the Republicans is, needs to do is recruit as many wolves as possible into their ranks. But they need to be careful that they get the sort of wolf that understands the need to protect the sheep against people like themselves. Otherwise you just end up with Stalinist Russia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, Indiana isn't going to be a swing state much as I would have wanted it to be but thanks for the article. Maybe next time there'll be some luck? Well, this state last went Democrat in 1964 so that's going to remain a long shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, the article was a good, well-researched analysis of the socio-cultural situation.

Second, I have some difficulty with the idea that conservatism and liberalism are different psychological profiles as was discussed in the early part of this article, and by Lakoff in some of his writing.

Third, the responses disappoint and sadden me. So much of the left, which often considers itself to be more tolerant and more intellectual than the right, shows itself to be prejudiced and ignorant in the responses. While the article certainly doesn't answer every question about why some people are conservative, it gives some insight to different reasons. Thomas Franks' book, What's the Matter with Kansas received a similarly ignorant reaction. Are AlterNet readers incapable of understanding and sympathy toward conservative followers? Wouldn't a better understanding, rather than simple fault-finding and name-calling be a better way to win people over to a more humane political cause?

Reframing is an accepted model of political persuasion by most contributors and readers of AlterNet, and a model that I appreciate very much. The author of this article is basically provided us with well-researched information that can help the Left re-frame issues in ways that appeal to conservative followers. There is a need to get over the knee-jerk reactionism to the Right and some of its distasteful aspects, so that we can understanding and engage in a constructive way to bring about social change that benefits everyone in the society.

While I might disagree with some of the details in the article, I find his basic analysis that conservative followers are looking at issues from a society perspective, rather than an individual rights perspective, to be correct. I've lived in Africa for 20 years, and I've grown to understand and appreciate the community-oriented outlook. It certainly is not perfect, open to abuse of 'deviant' individuals at times. Though healthy African communities, for example, are always looking for ways to incorporate even 'deviants' into the community, and to care for the marginalized. This is something the conservative movement in America doesn't do.

However, in any case, if we on the Left can learn to understand the concerns for a healthy community on the part of conservative followers, than we might have a real chance to effect positive social change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GREED
Under/No Education
GREED

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This man speaks many truths and has done his homework. Thanks for the great article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Through reading the posts by Republicans commenting on this article you would think there is some government office you can go to and get an endless supply of money to live off. Who is getting all this supposed money and what are these programs with which the Democrats are supposedly ruining the country?

I am working class and no one I know gets government handouts. In fact, it seems like the few programs that did help out the working class and middle class are going down the toilet. For example, I go to night school and have an excellent GPA. I don't get any grant money from the government. I barely get enough in financial aid to pay for two classes a semester at my univerity and those loans are unsubsidized loans.

It just seems to me like the Republicans keep harping about the nanny state, but I don't see any nannying of the people. The only nannying I see is for corporations. The Republicans give out corporate welfare at every turn, but they tear down programs that would actually help out the most needy in our society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An incredible number of people who call themselves Republicans use "values" - religion, traditional family, etc. in a hypocritical way to express hostility, intolerance, racism and narrow-mindedness. Republican politicians use so called "values" issues in a cynical manner to deceive voters into believing the candidate's values are similar to their own. The author's idea that liberals need a better understanding of morality is a gross oversimplification of the issues. According to his argument, I can only assume he thinks liberals need to understand that a constitutional ban against same sex marriage is Republicans' attempt to have a healthy society (according to his "new definition" of morality that liberals apparently "don't get"). This is superficial tripe.

Liberal views don't easily lend themselves to "sound bites" about values and morality. That doesn't mean liberals don't understand the makings of a moral society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do people vote republican? Very simply:

They are the party of the purist competitive capitalist.

Quite frankly, I don't believe the government should be involved in helping our fellow man. That isn't the role of government.

Do I believe in helping my fellow man? Yes, I do. But I want to do it personally, so that I can choose who I am helping, whether it is in person, or what organization I am giving to.

The government forces me to give to those I find undeserving. That is wrong. If there are enough that find certain groups deserving, than they are free to give to them. I don't want to, and shouldn't be forced to, via my taxes.

In normal times, I don't believe the government should be involved with the economy and business, other than to ensure free enterprise and prevent monopolistic abuses.

Currently, we are not in normal times, and we have companies involved in monopolostic abuses, and I think the government should step in.

That is ONE of the reasons that I am an Obama supporter. There are quite a few others.

Now you know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Christian and Conservative are opposites, regardless of whatever an individual experienced as a child in a "Church". A Christian is supposed to be someone who will give their all to aid people, even their enemies. Today's "Christian" is very self centered and greedy. All consumer based and led by instructions from Mega-Pastors in huge and expensive cathedrals.

These believers are imprinted now, and very hard to give new info to. I know, as I have a few of those folks in my own family. Only when they drink heavily do they fess-up and admit that their side has gone insane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is my first response to an Alternet article. I’ve been tempted many times before, but it is this issue that has compelled me to respond. The cultural division tearing our country apart is demoralizing. And I don’t know how it is to be overcome. I’m very angry at the people who have hijacked our government and who use advertising gimmicks to “sell” the continuing destruction of our nation. These folks are truly repugnant. But what of those who continue to vote for them even after their evil purposes have been exposed? Do they understand what the neocons are up to? Do they really support destroying America? I think that’s why so many believe these voters have been “duped” or are “stupid.” Otherwise, they are as wicked as the neocon leaders. It’s hard to believe that of so many of our fellow Americans.

I have conservative friends and I care for them. But, over the past eight years, the only way we can maintain a friendship is to assiduously avoid any discussion of politics.

Recent polls (if you can believe any poll) indicate that the country is not as culturally conservative as you might think. Young people are definitely more liberal than the average (thank goodness). This is encouraging, but I’m really tired of waiting and don’t think I can take another Conservative-Republican administration. I can barely recognize my country as it is.

I’ve read all the linked articles, am a fan of George Lakoff, and even went out to YourMorals.org to see where on the spectrum I fall. I’m so liberal, my results went off the charts. But while I’m desperately trying to understand conservatives, I believe that the only reason conservatives would try to understand me would be to manipulate and hoodwink me. How can I possibly talk honestly to a conservative?

I’m not sure if I totally buy Prof. Haidt’s five foundations theory. If true, then I don’t see how the rift can be healed: the three conservative foundations (representing Community and Divinity) are diametrically opposed to the two liberal foundations (representing Autonomy). The three conservative foundations are questionable—I can acknowledge some small regard for ingroup/loyalty and authority/respect, but I totally reject the nonsense of purity/sanctity. At best, these are not foundations of morality at all, but simply distractions.

Does anyone know how we can be reconciled?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"why did so many ancient texts devote so much space to rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom?"

Because those texts weren't just about morality, a lot of those rules were about practicality. Taking menstruation and sex as an example, if I remember correctly, the rule was something like don't have sex during menstruation. As it turns out, women are generally most fertile between days 8 and 15, the week after menstruation. In an era where death rates were relatively high, that rule almost guaranteed people would be good and horny at the fertile stage. Yeah, so they fudged a bit and made it a sin. Greater good... or the power structure's way of controlling the masses, depending on your perspective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This type of article/study is and should be at the very essence of any progressive, world-improving thought. It rises above the black and white notions of right and wrong that both sides of the equation fall prey to so often. Thank you for once again imbuing this weary world with the notion that we can all come together someday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the 3 Durkheimian factors mentioned, and I believe the strongest, is the ingoup/outgroup factor. Getting Americans behind the GWOT is easy, as you just identify the evil outsiders.
When Democrats make the super wealthy the outsiders, they do well. Its just that this has not really been done much in the past few decades.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think that some of these individuals who select a candidate based upon how they look or a few catchphrases have a very low capacity to think at all. They simply react. They react to generalizations that were made previously. One cannot call a reaction "morality". It simply is not. What percentage of individuals believe EXACTLY what their parents believe? What percentage of individuals follow authority right or wrong? They have no capacity for reflection at all. Recall Maslow's pyramid of needs and most live within the first two rungs of that pyramid. What we hate to admit is that even though we are supposed to be an educated society, we are not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, roughly 50% of Americans choose not to vote. Republicans help protect Democrats. If Democrats were killed and none remained, then what's left of humanity would I guess then be the republicans. But then amidst them would arise new democrats, because they're traitors who want the world and themselves and republicans destroyed. If Republicans were killed, then the Democrats would go dying with them. Or would be left out to dry and then new Republicans would grow out of them. Fortunately, only like half of America votes and is Republican or Democrat or cares about any of this stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I mean, you may know them, but if they don't know you and you don't give them the gift personally then it screws up their life more than it was before you even thought of giving them charity or welfare or incognito gifts at long distance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People enjoy paying for items, because it means their work has value. If everything is free, then there's no more enjoyment in the items and then you can't even use them as gifts if you want to give a loved one, or a starving person, a gift.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why vote at all! The only dfofference in a Republican from a Democratic is which set of rich people own them. If you are not rich it will make no difference which pasrty you vote for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People who signed the Constitution should have been killed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies?

There's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats on economic issues, and hasn't been for a long time. Democrats were the ones that did NAFTA, remember?

This being the case, working-class whites may as well vote Republican. At least they agree with us on social issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I will vote for the candidate that will reduce the size of our out-of-control growing government.

I will vote for candidates that promote the freedom of choice - for example, giving parents school vouchers and letting them choose where to sent their children (Obama is against this freedom of choice and wants only government schools forced upon children that can't afford private school).

I will vote for candidates that are not puppets of the unions. (Obama has almost 1/2 BILLION of union $$$ spent on his campaign - who do you think he's a puppet of?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Expecting that they will finally grow a spine and impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney?

Vote 3rd Party, don't waste your vote on a spineless Democrat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Earth to liberals, rational, intelligent people have heard your rants. You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. It is down right frightening how delusional you folks are. Your childish calumnies are rooted in narcissism and profound confusion. I pity you. I dismiss your idiotic comments out of hand. How do you make money at this? Even Jimmy Swaggert had more integrity than you. I think this writer and these preposterous posters are pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uber Skeptic Michael Shermer, in response to the author’s article, quoted another author: “…conservatives win most elections because of their Machiavellian manipulation of voters' emotional brains.

None of this is true. Although Republicans defeated Democrats 25 to 20 in the 45 Presidential elections from 1828 to 2004, in the Senate Democrats outscored Republicans 3395 to 3323 in contesting 6832 seats from 1855 to 2006, and in the House Democrats trounced Republicans 15,363 to 12,994 in the 27,906 seats contested from 1855-2006.”

Is Shermer clever, or is his own brand of statistical bias (or ignorance?) showing? Investors point to statistics for the period immediately following the Great Depression, through the next eighty-some years, with yields in the market averaging 6 to 8% (depending on who is telling the story). The lesson: regardless of ups and downs in the market, keep your money invested long term.

However, as investment prospectuses state, past performance is no guarantee of future outcome; and in my use of the Shermer analogy, even skeptics should know past overall electoral counts aren’t predictors of future elections.

Why note a study spanning 176 years, then another spanning 151, and of the three results, prez: (D-44.44%/R-55.56%); senate (D-49.69%/R-48.64%); house (D-55.05%/R-46.56%), how can these percentages tell us anything about year-to-year majority counts between democrats and republicans in Congress, including democrats that vote republican and vice versa?

Recent signing statements and erosion of our civil and constitutional rights, both for citizens, and protection from absurd “legal” analysis placing Cheney outside of the Executive Branch, including numerous presidential vetoes, clearly shows one party needs more than a historical majority. In 2006 democrats won the House majority, but without a veto majority against the president, all other majority successes are useless.

Mr. Shermer is taking advantage of those who don’t analyze, a huge strike against the conservative mindset: Don’t think, authority will think for you.

Next up, how generous are cons vs. liberals?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“Further, according to the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Surveys, 1972-2004, 44 percent of people who reported being "conservative" or "very conservative" said they were "very happy" versus only 25 percent of people who reported being "liberal" or "very liberal." A 2007 Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Republicans versus only 38 percent of Democrats said that their mental heath is "excellent." One reason may be that conservatives are so much more generous than liberals, giving 30 percent more money (even when controlled for income), donating more blood, and logging more volunteer hours. And it isn't because conservatives have more expendable income. The working poor give a substantially higher percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, and three times more than those on public assistance of comparable income—poverty is not a barrier to charity, but welfare is. One explanation for these findings is that conservatives believe charity should be private (through religion) whereas liberals believe charity should be public (through government).”

Ignorance is bliss, besides, why would a conservative, who is also religious, ever claim to be anything but happy, otherwise showing themselves to be morons for (allegedly) having the answers to life, as found through religion, but still be unhappy? And if you grow up not questioning racism, sexism, see Report From Florida, well your recipe for happiness is complete. As I said in an earlier post, questioning accepted concepts such as slavery was an intellectual breakthrough, something conservatives still fail to see.

Generosity studies are shamefully biased and uncontrolled, in several ways: How do we know people who were polled were honest with their answers? People lie to hide negatives, like STDs, but when boasting, exaggerate the (alleged) positives, like number of sex partners (higher in men, lower in women).

Even answers given verbally can be more greatly skewed vs. more honest when provided anonymously. And participants skew results when their motivation to participate in surveys bias the outcome, including who is funding the survey.

The sequel to the Shere Hite Report, relying on 4500 responses out of 100,000 mailed, showed higher infidelity rates that didn’t correspond with results from other surveys with a much larger response, and are people with a grudge (or who like to brag?) more likely to participate in surveys? What demographic takes the time to answer phone surveys?

To say poor people give a higher percentage of their income than any other income group is an absurd and misleading use of statistics. If I’m poor and only have $10, giving $1 is 10% of what I have; if I have $100 and give the same $1, I am pegged as giving less, even though the amount was the same. The mathematical correlation is simple, giving any amount and having less than others who give the same amount supports this observation but it has nothing to do with levels of comparison regarding “generosity.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And how do we compare people living on public assistance (poverty is not a barrier to charity); what else can be taken from this statement, that the receiver of charity is implied here to give less than they get? Imagine these same people aren’t allowed to give money away when they must account for their earnings in order to qualify for public assistance. Besides, there are always exceptions: people on welfare who help others, and rich people who donate a high percentage of their wealth. Where are the stats showing the number of conservatives surveyed vs. number of liberals. The worst (lack of) comparison is liberals who support government give thru taxation, now that Faith-Based Initiatives receive secular tax dollars, can churches claim to be more generous than individuals? Why don’t our taxes, as liberals, get accounted for when providing social goods and services? Why do individuals get taxed, but not churches; doesn’t it make it easier for them to claim they are doing good with FBIs when in fact there is no accounting? Conservatives need to prove to liberals they are in fact more generous than us.

LAST SHERMER QUOTE: Why are academic social scientists so wrong about conservatives? It is, I believe, because almost all of them are liberals!

Why do people vote Republican? Because they believe their lives—and the lives of all Americans—will be better for it. And as often as not they are right.

Try telling that to the hundreds of thousands who lost their jobs, homes, medical insurance these last eight years.

And Mr. Skeptic believes lights hovering in place for hours in Arizona were flares the military used in an exercise. You don’t have to belief in UFOs, but what manner of physics explains flares that hover for hours? Why in several televised interviews wouldn’t he bolster these statements with reason?

Because as a liar for money, people mentioned in the original article must defend their point of view, even when it doesn’t make sense…just like conservative beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Conservative ideals appeal because they reflect heartfelt visions of a 'good society.'

How can denying other people rights and opportunities and trying to force their narrow views on the rest of society equal a "good society".

How can denying science while reaping the benefits of science equal a "good society".

I could go on, but you get the point

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While the authors present a plausible series of possibilities, I believe there is more to the reasons for people's positions and reactions in life, including why they vote for one candidate or another.

This theory can be confirmed by personal experimentation and observation, and through scientific work with the use of EEG or biofeedback EEGs, and lie detectors, and field testing.

Why does it seem that lies are more readily believed than the truth?

Lies tend to be more tantalizing, and gripping, and stay in the mind longer than the truth. Lies produce an interesting energy package in the brain. First, most people have a sense of truth deeply embedded in their minds. When they are told a lie, the immediate reaction is a slight fixation in the mind, caused by force of the conflict of the true-lie energy dichotomy. The idea lingers in the mind. The person has to think about it; and the existence of this energy makes many feel busy and constructive. Lies provide intrigue and fascination which gives empty minds something to work on.

The old saw, “Know the truth and the truth shall set you free,” is incredibly true, as the effect of the truth on the mind is to discharge the locked up energy that makes the lie entertain the mind, and the person will experience a sort of release.

The application is clear: Debunking lies can often be accomplished with ONE SINGLE STATEMENT, declaring that a given lie is just that, a lie; and it is false.
I should be followed with a statement of the actual truth. Explaining why a lie is a lie, can introduce further conflict in the mind, as it requires additional mental analysis, and the lie will not dissipate.

Unfortunately, the truth, in dissipating the lie, can, at times, leave a sort of “absence” of thought which to some people can be an uncomfortable state of mind, for some people of lower intellectual capacity.

It does seem I'm suggesting that McCain may win if his lies are not discovered and debunked in the minds of those who have heard them...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most people are naturally of good will and good faith. They seek equality, justice, and well being for all. Throughout history, people have joined movements and cults because these promised a new world, or the justice and equity and goodness they desire. The logic presented in these cults, is often compelling, and often difficult to refute, unless one dares question the motives of the person generating the "half truths" which make these lies stick.

(See my post: Anatomy of Lies)

Because most of us wouldn't dare tell lies which are intended to mislead and harm others, we can't fathom the idea that there are some who will stop at nothing in lying, and cheating, and fabricating lies. We might twist the truth a little to make it more palatable; but there are people who in actual fact do invent lies of things which aren't even hinted at by events in real life, never mind distortion of facts.

I'm not sure what percentage of the population can outright create bold-faced lies, but it probably is around 2 to 5%... (Rough guess).

People are attracted by simple statements that ring true, even when on further analysis they are found faulty. People can't believe others will fabricate outrageous lies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This paradigm infects, if not completes, America and worse. Roveadope stains our hopes as thoroughly as our international standing. He should be in custody.

Instead he etch-a-skeches another electoral college, this time on the lamb of congressional contempt while the participatory democracy burns like wells ablaze on new years eve.

The shorter telecom-immunity candidate's silence on this can be understood. The taller's is a whole other bag of piss.

The unequivically unbridled electoral college media economy vitiated the hope of the people's impeachment at every turn. Where is either party's credability after kissing the ring of the lame shucks administration? Thats why people vote Rebublkin. Racism needs financing too.

And that is even if they do. The nation's forever hero, The Excellant Congresswoman from Ohio, Mrs. Ella Bullings-Cummings(maybe), took her precious life to the end fighting for the chain of custody of the voting machines. Maybe something like a deciding state having had their machines to the workers house the night prior? Come on. This is yet another reason for Rebublcan "victories". May her story finally teach us.

Then there is the supreme count. We used to have a court of law. Funny.

2012 warchests will again top anything conceived to point more knavery then this college straight down our children's throats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's something I wonder about when reading this article. The mass of African-Americans are certainly not less religious than other Americans. And "traditional values" (especially in the South)have a solid hold in many black communities. Notions of "sacredness" are no less esteemed than elsewhere. Most would respond the same way to eating one's pet dog as the persons interviewed by the author of the article. Many black Americans (to my chagrin) hold conservative attitudes to homosexuality and gay marriage (though the young seem to be getting more tolerant)
Yet the overwhelming majority of African-Americans vote against the Democrats. In fact, the majority of blacks of all social classes vote against Republicans, even those who share similar attitudes toward abortion or gay marriage.
Why do the values by which the author thinks Republicans succeed in attracting even poor Americans fail to attract poor black Americans?
I'm an African-American professor of Philosophy, not very religious and politially LEFT of the Democrats. I know that very religious black people, including poor relatives of mine in East Baltimore will vote for Obama, and would have voted for Mrs. Clinton if she'd gotten the nomination.
Most would find the idea of voting for Republicans (no longer viewed as the party of Lincoln and Emancipation) practically nauseating. I repeatedly hear blacks saying that they view the Republicans as being unsympathetic or simply hostile to the poor and people of color. Moreover, I've read that the majority of blacks who do vote Republian (rarely more than 10% and often less) are more likely to belong to the privileged classes.
Still traditonal values also hold in black communities.
How to explain that? I wonder if perhaps Blacks even view traditional and sacred values differently than do most other Americans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trying to imagine reading an article written by a conservative that begins with "Not everyone who votes Democratic has been 'duped'. Democratic ideals appeal to some because they reflect heartfelt visions of a 'good society.'

Just can't imagine it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From what I've experienced, it all comes down to a simple tendency of conservatives to be, well, conservative - especially in social matters. Conservatives quite simply believe that everyone in the world should live the way they do, believe their beliefs, follow their ideals, make the choices they proscribe. Sure, it has a lot to do with fear, and along with religion that often turns into hate, which has often turned into war, but that fear is based in something more fundamental - tribalism. The tribal, separatist aspects of the human psyche seem to be given a new voice in conservativism.

Progressives, on the other hand, have a tendency to avoid these thoughts, and tend toward accepting the fact that other people may not live like we do. Others might have different beliefs, unrecognizeable ideals, make different choices in life, and that might be frustrating, but progressives generally do not have designs to go out and change other people's ideals or force their choices. Progressives are, well, more progressive and liberal-minded in these social matters, and while they are just as prone to the tribal aspects of being a social animal, the cosmopolitan ideas usually override the fear of "us" and our society, versus "them", or "those people".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]