Earlier today, I referred to McCain as having a "reptilian mind." I admit that I wasn't being literal... just sort of impressionistic. However, some interesting new data has come my way since then and I'd like to share it with you -- the literal, non-impressionistic stuff.
A fascinating new study from the British weekly scientific magazine, New Scientist brings up the question on its front cover, "Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative?" It delves into the serious scientific research on the formation of political opinions. My attention was immediately focused on several conclusions which I had been noticing since my student days when I was president of the freshman class at college and of the school's Young Democrats:
"...a rather unflattering view of conservatives emerges from the studies. They are portrayed as dogmatic, routine-loving individuals, while liberals come across as free-spirited and open-minded folk."
In 2003, John Jost, a psychologist at New York University, and colleagues surveyed 88 studies, involving more than 20,000 people in 12 countries, that looked for a correlation between personality traits and political orientation (American Psychologist, vol 61, p 651). Some traits are obviously going to be linked to politics, such as xenophobia being connected with the far right. However, Jost uncovered many more intriguing connections. People who scored highly on a scale measuring fear of death, for example, were almost four times more likely to hold conservative views. Dogmatic types were also more conservative, while those who expressed interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. Jost's review also noted research showing that conservatives prefer simple and unambiguous paintings, poems and songs....A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity and an interest in different cultures. When these traits are combined, people with high openness scores turn out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.
Combine the genetic influences on personality with the political tendencies of different personality types, and the idea that genetics shapes political tendencies seems very plausible indeed. All of the big five personality traits are highly heritable (Journal of Research in Personality, vol 32, p 431), with several studies suggesting that around half of the variation in openness scores is a result of genetic differences. Some traits that are linked to openness, such as being sociable, are also known to be influenced by the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain. And levels of these chemicals are controlled in part by genes. So while there isn't a gene for liking hippies, there is probably a set of genes that influences openness, which in turn may influence political orientation.
Follow Howie Klein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/downwithtyranny
These differences in mindset are so clearly defined that it’s often an easy matter to deduce one’s political persuasion merely by reading bumper stickers on a car. An American flag sticker typically means: conservative. A sticker picturing the earth as a whole typically means: liberal. A sticker picturing a specific religious symbol usually means: conservative. A sticker picturing all religious symbols placed alongside one another usually means: liberal.
Several of the posts here point out that liberals can be just as dogmatic in their beliefs, and I think that's sometimes true. Hyper-liberalism is really just the flip side of hyper-conservatism, and probably driven by the same genetic tendencies--but simply molded in that direction by environment/upbringing.
For those interested in my full blog entry on the subject, see: http://stevenmeloan.blogspot.com/2008/01/gene-genie.html
The blog says righties are "dogmatic and routine-loving, but then references nuclear power as an example... Isn't that the newest and most high-tech power supply there is?
It also mentions being interested in different cultures as a completely good thing. I would love to try some of the crazy foods you see on No Reservations or GlobeTrekker, but no way do I want to see Sharia law come here to the US. Aren't there any limits? You can't say that liberals have everything right and conservatives are just cave-men.
I still remember what shocked me out of my rigid mindset: The Clinton Impeachment fiasco. It was SO ridiculous and SO uncalled for that I found myself unable to rationalize it away, as I had been able to do with so many other Far Right actions and beliefs.
Far Right mindsets *are* DEEPLY entrenched ... but if a situation is successfully reframed, I believe that some/many will slowly start to come to terms and start questioning.
In my case, once I stopped rationalizing (trying to fit reality to my ideology) and actually started questioning (open to forming an ideology based on reality), my Far Right beliefs collapsed like a house of cards.
We'll stop interacting and the belief theat they will not change or listen to reason will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know it can be maddening "debating' with "conservative," but every now and then ... seeds which we have planted actually do sprout!
I am living proof of that.
There are actually quite a few anecdotal stories like yours. I was once a republican (not a neocon) and believed deeply that what was good for business was good for America. Dog help me, I voted for Reagan. But like you I learn from evidence and soon came to realize that the story told by supply-siders and deregulators made no sense in light of what was happening to America. That and the take-over of the party by the religious right sealed it for me.
I'm still fiscally conservative to the extent that I insist on getting value added for the tax dollars I put in. But I'm not unwilling to put in those tax dollars to contribute to a functioning society - including helping out those less fortunate than myself.
Anyway, your story and the genetics connection are not mutually exclusive. Genetic influence is only just that - an influence. It is not deterministic in the ordinary cause-effect sense.
V.
Regardless of how influential these genes may be, the important thing for anyone interested in ending partisanship to understand is that frequently an opposing political view does not imply an opposite moral value or priority, but instead comes from a different core perspective on the world.
You may be right on some of these assertions. But the psychology, genetics, and neuroscience of thinking styles and personality traits is pretty solid. It has more explanatory potential than personal opinion.
V.
There's been a trend toward elitism, exclusivism, towards one-way conversations, where basically you have these snake charmer people out there trying to GIVE you your opinion, rather than actively soliciting the public's participation in shaping policy.
I think 'liberal' is a label, 'conservative' is a label, when the actual term that's applicable here is 'american', or 'citizen', or 'US citizen', the full target audience of any given piece of campaign rhetoric. (Implied, but I'll state it anyway, other countries need to be taking notes, but not seeking to influence this process to their material benefit, because we just got done watching what 8 years of that BS will get you, a mess, with many consequences.)
Secondly, liberal and conservative are useful categories, and they describe real political philosophies. The conservative philosophy has just been given an opportunity to demonstrate its correctness, and has instead provided us with its total refutation. This is not a trivial thing. It is history. We need to learn from it.
"Many conservatives are not stupid people, but many stoopid people are conservatives!" -John Stuart Mils-