The following is an excerpt from The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics.
The contest for power between Democrats and Republicans pits two antithetical value systems against each other; two conflicting concepts of freedom, liberty, fairness, right, and wrong; two mutually exclusive notions of the state, the individual, and the collective good.
A wide range of academic scholarship exploring political belief-formation reveals that those who identify themselves as politically conservative, for example, exhibit distinctive values underpinning their world view and their orientation towards political competition.
Conservatives, argues researcher Philip Tetlock of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, are less tolerant of compromise; see the world in "us" versus "them" terms; are more willing to use force to gain an advantage; are "more prone to rely on simple (good vs. bad) evaluative rules in interpreting policy issues;"
Some of these conservative values can be discerned in public opinion data.
In one September 2010 survey question, The Pew Research Center asked voters, "If you had to choose, would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services, or a bigger government providing more services?" White Republican men chose a smaller government by a 92-7 margin and white Republican women made the same choice by an 82-12 margin. Conversely, white Democratic men chose bigger government by a 53-35 margin and white Democratic women by 56-33. This is an ideological gap between Republicans and Democrats of 57 points among white men and 49 points among white women.
Along similar lines, Pew asked voters to choose between "Most people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard" and "Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people." White Republican men and women both picked "hard work" by decisive margins of 78-21 and 73-24, respectively. White Democratic men and women, in contrast, were far more equivocal, supporting hard work by modest margins of 52-44 and 53-43.
These Pew findings demonstrate that the differences of opinion between liberals and conservatives are far greater than the differences in opinion between men and women commonly referred to as the gender gap.
* * *
The Pew questions are designed to test opinion on public policy issues. The strength of the Pew surveys and other comparable, well-designed polls is that the sample is carefully selected to be representative of either the general public or of all voters. The limitation of such surveys is that they are not designed to reveal more subtle distinctions that can be equally or more significant.
This less easily answered question has been explored by a team of academic researchers collaborating at a website -- www.YourMorals.org -- designed to test a variety of theories about the connection between views on morality and politics. Jonathan Haidt and Nicholas Winter of the University of Virginia, and Ravi Iyer of the University of Southern California, have collected and systematized very large numbers of responses to questions designed to elicit new information about political values orientation. Haidt et al. have ranked responses to a set of online public opinion surveys to show where self-described liberal/moderates differ most sharply from conservative/moderates. The strength of the YourMorals.org surveys lies in the large number of respondents; the weakness grows out of the fact that the participants are self-selected, and represent well-educated elites on the left, right, and center, with little representation of the poor, working class, or lower-middle class.
The findings published by Haidt et al. powerfully reinforce the paradigm of two roughly equivalent political coalitions: the first, a socially and economically dominant coalition on the right; the second, a coalition on the left composed of relatively disadvantaged (subdominant) voters in alliance with relatively well-educated, well-off, culturally liberal professionals ('information workers,' 'symbol analysts,' 'creatives,' 'knowledge workers,' etc.).
What kinds of questions and values statements provoke the sharpest divide between left and right? The team looked at responses to 107 questions and found that the most divisive questions included those in the following areas:
1) WAR, PEACE, VIOLENCE, EMPATHY WITH THE WORLD:
On key questions and statements in this category, liberals scored high, conservatives low: "I believe peace is extremely important"; "Understanding, appreciation, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature"; "One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal"; "How close do you feel to people all over the world?"
On other key questions in this area, conservatives scored high, and liberals low: "War is sometimes the best way to solve a conflict"; "There is nothing wrong in getting back at someone who has hurt you."
2) CRIME AND PUNISHMENT; MORAL ELASTICITY; AUTHORITY:
Again, on some questions in this category, liberals scored high, conservatives low: "I believe that offenders should be provided with counseling to aid in their rehabilitation"; "What is ethical varies from one situation and society to another."
On other questions, conservatives scored high and liberals low: "People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed"; "Respect for authority is something all children need to learn"; "I believe that 'an eye for an eye' is the correct philosophy behind punishing offenders"; "The 'old-fashioned ways' and 'old-fashioned values' still show the best way to live"; "It feels wrong when...a person commits a crime and goes unpunished."
3) THE POOR, REDISTRIBUTION, FAIRNESS:
Liberal high, conservative low: "It feels wrong when . . . an employee who needs their job, is fired"; "I think it's morally wrong that rich children inherit a lot of money while poor children inherit nothing"; "I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me."
Conservative high, liberal low: "[I place a high value on] safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self"; "[It's desirable when] employees [who] contribute more to the success of the company receive a larger share"; "[I value] social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources."
4) MORALS, HEDONISM, SELF-FULFILLMENT, HIERARCHY:
Liberals high, conservatives low: "I see myself as someone who . . . is original, comes up with new ideas"; "Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself"; "What is ethical varies from one situation and society to another."
Conservative high, liberal low: "If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems;" "People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong;" "Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs that traditional culture provide"; "[I favor] restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms."
Their findings show how profound the chasm is on values questions between liberals and conservatives. Generally speaking, not only do liberals place high importance on peace, mutual understanding, and empathy for those who have difficulty prevailing in competition, they demonstrate concern for equality of outcome, while conservatives place pointedly low or negative importance on such values.
From a different vantage point -- taking data from American National Election Studies (ANES) surveys conducted between 1972 and 2004, the University of Virginia's Nicholas Winter analyzed the words respondents used to describe the two political parties. In "Masculine Republicans and Feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans' Explicit and Implicit Images of the Political Parties," Winter categorized words respondents volunteered as stereotypically "male" or "female:"
I can live with conservatives who have some principle, but I cannot live with the theocrats who seem to be running the Republican party these days.
Notice the difference:
Answers from Republicans show almost no diversity of opinion: 92-7, 82-12, 78-21, 73-24.
Among the Democratic party such difference of opinion is fine and positions besides just "Liberal" are certainly allowed and welcomed: 53-35 ,56-33, 52-44, 53-43.
What makes a civilization "civilized"?
IMPO...............It's when people can put the good of the group, ahead of personal gain.
It's what separates us from primitives, where it's every animal for itself.
Too many go through life thinking only of themselves, "he who dies with the most toys wins".
My perspective is that all we really have in life is time. Leading a totally selfish existence seems rather pointless to me.
In a life filled with uncertainties the one thing I have learned is that you really can't take it with you. Once you have enough to live securely and comfortably, why desire more?
"No man stands so tall, as when he stoops to help a child"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yjeva/4488693762/
I invite you to look around the next time you go shopping.............scenes like this are remarkably rare. That's unfortunate, for us all.
Conservatives are perfectly willing to help a child, but not the mother who chooses to have children she can't afford.
Consider this, too, while you're at it: Suppose a woman believes in the right-wing interpretation of Christianity, doesn't bother to learn a trade, marries young and expects her husband to be the breadwinner and herself to take care of the children. Suppose that woman's husband loses his job, or is killed, or just leaves her. When her fortunes turn worse, do you expect her to just abandon any of her children? For your sake I hope not.
1. THOSE with money and status (this includes corporations) that comprise most of the 1% began to see the future. And the future was written by the past. All societies evolve from conservative to liberal, from individual justice to collective arrangement.
2. The HAVES (1%) did not want to compromise their HAVE. They do not want to discuss, share or renegotiate their toys or how they got them for the collective better good or future. It's the "mine mine mine mine..." you hear coming from small infant children when learning to play with other children.
3. The HAVEs began to coerce legislation to ensure they never have to share their toys and force the demise of any element in society that might make them share. This escalated into a cold war within the U.S. The only difference is that the other 99% are too ignorant to understand they are IN A WAR. And the results are now unfolding.
4. The results still baffle most of the 99% because they refuse to accept they are victims of the HAVES and are losing pitifully.
5. One of the first things to die in War is TRUTH. The HAVES are making sure YOU dont know the truth or capable of distinguishing it. Because if you did, you'd be pissed off and vote their puppets out of office.
...contin...
Maybe that's why all societies fall?
"... Those reports, since leaked, plainly discuss the power of the Plutonomy in America, and how it would only strengthen, as long as the "the rest us" (the non-plutonics) could be kept in the dark about the Plutonomy existence, its role, and its over-arching control in the American Economy."
"Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was -- one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation on the rich (or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous (home-grow)] laborers, in a push-back on globalization -- either anti-mmigration, or protectionism. ..."
-Citigroup Plutonomy Report
More here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6694962
Why is it that a huge group of comic book artists chose to locate in Portland, OR and how does the fact that Portland is the most bicycle-friendly city in the US help attract that kind of resident? The people attracted to Portland were more artistic, nurturing and free thinking than average. More and more like them showed up. Now you have a classically Liberal community without starting out that way politically.
Like minded people in groups tend to be more extreme than if they were in groups which reflected several different political philosophies. Our diversity is waning in direct correlation to fact we can now see, hear and read only that with which we agree 24/7. Ten years ago there was no HuffingtonPost. Twenty five years ago there was no FOX News.
More and more of our Congressional districts each year are becoming completely safe for one or the other party and thus removing the need to compromise to please a varied constituency. Think about the logical outcome of this over the next ten to fifteen years. This is not a bell we can unring.
If we are really want to find a common ground we must first understand that we may not mean the same thing.
republican=conservative=right wing
These used to be six different notions with some overlap. Now we have only two with equivalent terms used interchangeably. Imagine, both of the major parties once had a liberal and conservative wing, a silly notion nowadays.
A far better idea would be to reduce the power and influence DC has over the country and let the states experment with the level of government intrusion they feel best for them. If you don't like the choices your government make, you vote with your feet to find a place that better suites your needs. If one state has figured out an idea that works well for them, then other states will make changes in their laws to incorporate these good ideas in their society while bad ideas will fail to flourish.
This way, everyone gets what they want.
They believe their opinions...on every issue....are fact....and they believe they're the only faction who should 'set the standards' we all have to live by.
The fewer of them we must deal with....the better.
I just know you are going to bring up the recent 10% Congressional approval rating. What this fails to explain is that while we might loathe everyone else's Representative or Senator, we generally love our own and wouldn't change them for the world.
We have enough safe districts now so that compromise is no longer necessary to stay in office.
One important first lesson is that fact, itself,, because, until you understand that, then your entire existence must be devoted to the destruction of everyone who doesn't think like you - and that is almost everybody!
I would point out I'm either a very moderate conservative or an ultra conservative progressive. Labels, blehhhh
Meanwhile, let's look at this statement you made:
"As the older generationÂs pass on, and younger ones sprout up, it seems likely that the nurture paradigm will at some point be pretty much the norm (it has picked up incredible speed in the past decade or so)."
Well, they'd better hurry up!!
To me it looks like the predominant organizational model for humans, all the way back through history has been an authoritarian one. For all of that history that resulted in a fairly stable social environment (on a macro scale). It encompassed societies run by small elites with a 'strongman' at the top (king, dictator, etc.), with powerful underlings constantly competing with each other and trying to displace/replace the strongman.
A world filled with societies like this was fairly stable, also, because one or another might gain ascendance, but it didn't really matter. No one could do enough damage to endanger all of humanity, so the strongmen could battle each other (or send their armies against each other), and the only outcome would be that a strongman would end up in charge.
1945 changed that environment. Now we have the ability to exterminate our species.
As a result, we must adapt our fundamental culture, or sooner or later, someone will trigger extinction-causing events.
As for Peyton - I am not much of a praying person, but I am tebowing daily for Peyton lol!
It couches the 'differences' more realistically as the justice paradigm vs. the nurture paradigm. Let's face it, America has run on the justice paradigm for over 200 years, and starting in the past century, has slowly evolved more and more into the nurture paradigm. Conservatives, contrary to popular progressive opinion, are not stupide (generalization), they simply are basing their world view on the justice paradigm, which the older you are, the more likely you are to have been raised with that world view.
Also, contrary to popular conservative opinion, progressives are not stupid, either, or elitist. Their world view is more closely aligned with the mother/child relationship - nurture, in other words. The younger the person is, the more likely they are to have been influenced by last century's continuing evolution, and the more likely they are to be progressive.
The biggest difference is most things are black and white to conservatives, whereas progressives, following the nurture paradigm, tend to see alot more gray.