Formative Characteristics of Liberals and Conservatives:
Can the Left Meet the Right?
by
Marty Rempel April 12, 2018
Presented to the Victoria Club
Woodstock, Ontario
“Liberals are at their best when they’re tearing down walls that shouldn’t be there, conservatives are at their best when they stop liberals from tearing down walls that should be there.” Will Black (English anthropologist and journalist
Formative Characteristics of Liberals and Conservatives: Can Left Meet Right?
People with opposite points of views usually are not friends, do not date, marry, co-habilitate or communicate in any meaningful way. Sapiens have a sleek means of streaming themselves in many different ways. People form hierarchies according to income, race, religious, political affiliation, common beliefs such as held by the Flat Earth Society, Southern Baptists, any exclusive men’s club. There have been caste and class systems, social barriers and gender barriers, blacklisting and glass ceilings, so many creative road blocks to equality and understanding.
People who watch and listen to right wing news sources such as Fox news do not listen to BBC, CBC or MSNBC the reverse is also true. These sources are all mutually exclusive! The ideologies they represent are seemingly located on different planets and therefore worlds apart on the political spectrum. Think of Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, the same concept of distances and separation applies when listening to news sources outside of our comfort zone.
Definition of Liberalism and Conservatism
For the purposes of this paper liberalism and conservatism aren’t specific ideologies so much as they are general attitudes or mind sets. By definition a conservative wishes to conserve, or save and a liberal does not. Conservatism of the day, in Canada, the United States or anywhere will criticize the existing living breathing liberalism of the day, no matter the issue at hand.
Historically, liberalism of the past ages has been around so long it is now part of a legacy and therefore has been “cleansed” of its radical nature, that is why conservatives in the past would naturally criticize liberal ideas of the past but are more likely to accept those same ideas today as it is now part of set doctrine. This is why contemporary Conservatives can hold classical liberal beliefs and not see it as a contradiction. Progressive policies were liberal when first proposed, but over time become part of tradition and so conservatives of today will serve to conserve them and as a result perpetually be out of step with current liberal policy.
Liberalism of the day is constantly changing, constantly expanding boundaries, constantly trying new things, and as such liberalism is not a set ideology or a single set of beliefs and policies. It is a way of thinking. When conservatives reach the stage of accepting classical liberalism, liberals are already on to a new concept, or system that by nature conservatives will oppose. “Liberals adapt to present circumstances seeking to go in new directions, while conservatives generally do not.”
During the era of the French Revolution King Louis the XVI convened the National Assemble consisting of the Estates General because he was in financial crisis and needed support from the full spectrum of society. I think the king assumed, in his arrogance, the Assembly would do his bidding.
During this historic meeting the first and second estates representing the upper classes, specifically the clergy and the nobility sat on the King’s right hand. They, like Trump today and the Republicans strove to do everything in their power to maintain the status quo, being certain that the privileged remained as the ruling 1%. Privilege was after all privilege and as power corrupts today that’s only because corruption has a long and successful legacy.
Hypothetically, if Fox News existed in the late 1700’s in pre- revolutionary France they would be in strict support of the monarchy, despite the personal idiosycracies and lack of leadership exemplified by the KIng. Image if you would an entire class of people supporting an unstable narcissistic, power hungry, elitist ruler while many in the realm were literally starving to death. This, level of abuse of course, could never happen in the modern age, but I’m talking pre-French Revolution, things were obviously crazier back then before democracy and our array of checks and balances. What modern, educated, cultured, sophisticated society would allow a narcissist to rule. Historically kings could rule by Divine Right as ordained by God. Clearly we have come so far.
Likewise, on the left, as the King gathered the National Assembly with all of the three estates in one place at one time it was truly unprecedented somewhat like calling a joint session of Congress, the Senate, a heavenly host of televangelists, and members of the working poor all in one room in order to decide the future of the nation.
Siding with the masses and the peasant class in the Third Estate, in my hypothetical scenario, would be MSNBC with Rachael Maddow tag teaming with Oliver Lawrence, together joining all of the dots and explaining why the gaps between the rich and the poor were unjust and reform was needed. Naturally, the narcissistic King would ignore the pleas for reform because, well the king is chosen by God and has lots of rich friends, then to top it all off his wife, Marie blurts out in all her insensitivity like some super model, “Let them eat cake.” The rest is history. Thousands of heads were chopped off, including the King’s and Queen’s as the country went into an orgy of violence.
Sadly, the left and right didn’t listen to each other or understood each other any better during revolutionary days then they do in today’s political spectrum. As a result there was a revolution in which the ruling class was removed and eventually replaced with another king and finally a military dictatorship. Perhaps, some of that grief could have been avoided had their been more communication. Unfortunately, there were Koch-like brothers, vested interests, ignorance and the likes then as now.
We hope to learn from history, and likely those lessons can best be learned if we first learn to understand what motivates Left and Right and how each side can more effectively communicate, otherwise we are likely doomed to repeat many of the worst aspects of human history, including revolution.
Turning to Science
Apparently, there is an entire branch of science, specifically neuroscience which has devoted some significant research to cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives.
In today’s society left winger’s tend to be more open minded, Democrats for example voted in the first Black president and were working on electing the first female president. Studies have shown that individuals with lower cognitive abilities tend to gravitate towards more socially conservative and right wing ideologies that maintain the status quo, this according to studies at Brock University. The reasoning being, for these conservative choices, the status quo provides a sense of order and continuity, therefore it is safe.
Right wing beliefs tend to value traditions, they concern themselves with individualism, smaller government, survival of the fittest. They believe in economic freedom which ironically usually favours the rich over the poor because business should not be regulated. People should look after themselves therefore a social net which might include “free tuition”, universal health care and the like are viewed suspiciously as creeping socialism and/or communism and a direct threat to personal freedom.
Right wing believers tend to idealize symbols such as, the Constitution, the National anthem and the flag, and they may be also conservative in their religious believes thereby supporting anti abortion initiatives and oppose any form of gay rights. The nation and militarism is the core of stability as they identify themselves as being strong patriots.
The story, concerning Left/Right characteristics is not quite so simplistic as the above mentioned details might suggest because people are more complex. One can be left in most cultural practices and be open to something like gay marriages while being very right wing in economic and fiscal practices such as debt reduction. Also, added to the mix is the fact that conservative and liberal values evolve over time, nothing is static.
The Party of Lincoln today would probably make Lincoln turn over in his grave were he actually aware of what was happening to his party. Definitions of what is liberal or conservative not only change over time but also over geography. A so called liberal democratic party so labelled in one country may actually express dictatorial views if expressed in another location. Context and temporal positioning is everything when defining left/right political ideologies and how they manifest themselves within society.
Knowing all this just makes the idea of communicating within and across a political spectrum more problematic. Will the left hand every know what the right hand is doing and understand why without wanting to cut it off?
Turning to science, which if you are a conservative with a large C will make you squirm, there are studies based on neuroanatomy which relate to thinking styles and in turn how you think can determine which political ideology, left or right, people are most comfortable.
According to scientific studies concerning political leanings of liberals and conservatives there are differences in the way they each perceive the world. They are different in their personalities and even in their reactions to the world around them. For example, in a study from the University of Nebraska, researchers discovered that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives’ eyes unconsciously lingered 15% longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement, which suggested to researchers that conservatives are more attuned, than liberals, to assessing potential environmental threats.
In another study comparing liberals and conservatives a sample of 76 college students’ bedrooms revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items such as ironing boards and calendars confirming their more orderly and self-disciplined life style. Liberals, on the other hand, owned more books and travel related memorabilia, which confirms they are more open and novelty-seeking.
Psychologist John Jost of New York University says of these and similar findings, “My hunch is that the capacity to organize the political world into left and right may be part of human nature.”
In his recent book entitled the Righteous Mind, psychologist Jonathan Haidt of the NYU Stern School of Business argues that liberals and conservatives have a need to revile one another as immoral on issues such as birth control, gay marriage, or health care reform. He states that, “Even if these two world views clash, they are equally grounded in ethics.” Jost and others suggest that political views reside along a continuum that is mediated in part by universal emotions such as fear. Under certain circumstances, everyone can migrate along the continuum either closer to the middle or drift further apart based on a crisis that has evoked fear or other strong emotions.
The Fear Factor
Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than are liberals, which explains their need for stability, structures and clear and simple answers to even the most complicated of questions. The fact of the matter is we do not live in a completely safe world, ask the students in Parkland, Florida. Things can and do go wrong. But when conservatives impose their worldview on chaos they can manage their anxiety. It may explain in part why so many American have a love affair with guns as it is a simplistic “solution” to security in a reckless world. However, anxiety, like fear can wax and wane and as it does so do political views. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal in their outlook, when threatened, they become more conservative. After a terrorist attack people in general become far more conservative. “There is some range within which people can be moved.”
Meeting in the Middle
Astute policy makers should be able to take advantage, for the sake of persuasion, of the different world views held by liberals and conservatives, and be able to phrase their own ideas in a more appealing manner. For example, on the topic of global warming, conservatives defend the status quo so they are reluctant to support environmental protection. In an ingenious experiment psychologists reframed climate change not as a challenge to government and business but as a threat to the American way of life. The issue was framed in terms of Patriotism and as a result those study participants with conservative tendencies were much more likely to embrace the cause of global warming and even sign petitions in support of the cause. In addition conservatives who are religious also have the mind set to be good stewards of the Earth which is compatible with green energy, yet typically a liberal cause.
On some topics, other than the environment, there may be no possible middle ground. The best that can be hoped for from opposing sides is to cultivate mutual respect, a characteristic seriously lacking on the current political landscape. Liberals value caring for people who are vulnerable and fairness, which for liberals tends to mean equitable resource sharing. Conservatives care about those things too but from a different perspective, fairness means proportionality, that is people should get what they deserve based on the amount of effort they put in. Conservatives also value loyalty and authority.
In a 2009 study of values 8000 subjects were presented with various hypothetical moral issues. For example: kick a dog, discard a box of ballots to help a candidate win, bet against your own sports team, curse your parents to their faces and receive a blood transfusion from a child molester. Participants had to say if they would do any of these deeds and if so for how much money? The conclusions showed that liberals were more reluctant to harm living creatures or to act unfairly, but they were more willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority, or do something disgusting, like eat dog meat. Conservatives were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories.
The message from this study is for both sides. The Left should acknowledge that the Right’s emphasis on laws, institutions, customs and religion is valuable. Conservatives should also recognize that democracy is a huge achievement and that maintaining the social order requires certain constraints on personal freedoms. Liberal values should be recognized for their role in ensuring rights for weaker members of society, limiting the harming aspects of pollution, that corporations so easily pass on to others in society, and fostering innovation, diverse ideas and life styles.
The important thing to realize from the research is that those people we most disagree with are not necessarily immoral but simply emphasize different moral principles. By accepting this premise there might be less antagonism and more understanding and communication between the two political sides. “It’s yin and yang. Both sides see different threats; both sides are wise to different virtues.”
Personally, I think that is the best possible spin that can be put on the divide and with that I may even be able to get along with my neighbour over the driveway issue.
Scientists can’t say with certainty whether liberals and conservatives are genetically set up to think differently or whether their upbringing has a greater influence on their belief systems and brain structure. According to research from the PEW Research Center, (pewresearch.org) adults who have received education beyond college level tend to slant more toward Democrats than Republicans. Some research also suggests a tentative and controversial link between being a social conservative and having a more limited range of cognitive skills such as remembering, learning and paying attention.
Liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC. This part of the brain is quite useful in detecting and judging conflict and error. Conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, the portion of the brain for the development and storage of emotional memories.
The data concerning regions of the brain does not determine whether or not these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, but the findings to reinforce previous studies which indicate a link between brain structure and certain psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.
The ACC is that part of the brain which examines in coming information and is instrumental in weeding out what is ambiguous or meaningless and what is a useful pattern of information. When there is a flow of ambiguous information the ACC helps to discern which are relevant or not and assigns them value. People with some forms of schizophrenia (Paranoid type) typically have a very poorly functioning ACC so they have great difficulty discerning relevant thought patterns from irrelevant ones giving equal weight to all input. If the brain assigns relevance to every detectable pattern it is problematic and is referred to as paranoid delusions. A well functioning person in the “normal” range depends on the ACC to filter thought. It seems a person who we consider to be liberal depends more on this part of the brain to filter information.
Liberals are more likely to respond to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty considering the role of the ACC in conflict monitoring. Liberals would be more likely to engage in more flexible thinking and working through alternative possibilities to problems. If alternative data was presented at a later date they would be better prepared to consider it and incorporate the new data into their decision making model. This in fact is how science works and may also explain the many correlations exist between liberal thought and science and negative correlations between liberal thought and religious dogma. Liberals can be very “religious” or spiritual but at the same time shy away from legalistic dogma.
The amygdala is part of the limbic system, the area of the brain associated with emotions and is responsible for emotional memories and learning including fear conditioning and memory consolidation. Emotions have a significant impact on how we process life events, when we have a strong emotional reaction either positive or negative that memory is strengthened. Those with a larger amygdala are also thought to experience stronger emotional reactions to objects and events and would be more likely swayed when touched on an emotional level.
Conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala and tend to respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals. So when conservatives are faced with ambiguous situations they are less likely to lean towards change and more likely to choose stability. Stability means more predictability which means more expected outcomes with less of a trigger for future anxiety
In practical terms these findings mean that liberals in general would be more flexible and reliant on data, proof and analytic reasoning while conservative, as a group, are more inflexible, as they prefer stability. They are emotion driven and often associate with “family values” and are often more religious in a traditional sense. Conservatives are church goers. Whereas liberals tend to the opposite camp include skeptics, agnostics and atheists, open to alternative explanations.
For Liberals to make a case for an idea or a cause come armed with data and research studies and an array of experts and relevant quotes. Their thinking style parallels the scientific method and emotion does not play a major role in the validation or acceptance of ideas. Liberals can be very emotional but those emotions do not come into play within the decision making process in quite the same way as it does with conservatives.
Conservatives are much less likely to embrace the tenets of the scientific method as they are led primarily by emotional response. In order for them to find meaning in an idea it must resonant with them on a personal level. There needs to be an emotional connection.
Cautions from Researchers
The researchers in this field of neural science suggest that one method of decision making, analytical or emotional, is not necessarily superior over another. They do suggest the need for longitudinal brain studies of people exposed to a certain ideology before and after the exposure to ascertain any difference to the brain. The brain is plastic and constantly forming new neural networks based on exposure and practice, this applies to any activity to any part of the brain.
There are people who, when measured on the Myers-Briggs personality inventory who function high on both emotionality and rationality, so it is possible to do both, they are not mutually exclusive. Research can not neatly place people into a category and say they are predisposed to a certain way of thinking . There is no gene for political affiliation. “A person chooses to join a political party; they are not forced into one straight from the womb. The tendency for a personality type to be likely to engage in a set of somewhat related behaviours is not a genetic cause for a behaviour.”
Studies to date dealing with liberal and conservative thinking styles talk more about group differences not individual differences. Opposing parties each have moderates, or those who cross party lines. They each have fringe radicals and those who hold core values sacred. Any ideology contains its own political spectrum. Complex people who may have both a large amygdala and a prominent ACC prefer novelty, ambiguity and are emotionally charged. They are logical and emotional. Studies so far show that one size does not fit all.
One thing is clear in politics, and Trump is an excellent example, there are definite differences in party thinking styles. Trump has a core of supporters and he knows how to communicate, often by tweets, to that core. When any party is trying to rally its base and speak to their own, they will use those communication styles and methods that best serve their needs. Liberals naturally will rally with data and strong rational arguments, like Rachael Maddow joining the dots on MSNBC. Conservatives, like Hannity will hammer away with emotional response, fear, family values and status quo. This always works well for strengthening the core and tightening the group but does very little to cross party lines. My argument about Rachael and Hannity not communicating. The other side simply just is not receptive to those arguments and communications styles. That explains why you listen to the news sources you tend to listen to and likely always will.
Can such information and research, as it progresses and develops lead to more effective communication across party lines? Can a new understanding of empathy, emotions, understanding of personality differences, without the baggage of judgements and stereotypes be instrumental in the productivity of political debates on climate change or evolution?
If we have different thinking styles is their any point in trying to communicate. Is it all just a moot point?
Liberals will rally their base with speaking points, logical arguments, reason and data. Conservatives will yammer on about stability and family values. This of course appeals to the converted but does nothing to cross party lines. It is still Fox News and BBC speaking to separate audiences.
Each side must recognize that not everyone thinks like them, or receives and processes information in similar ways or even values the same things in the same time and place as someone else.
To communicate across the abyss we must exchange learning styles. We must be purposefully dyslexic. Decide what we wish to communicate, determine how the receiver will process the information, what turns them on or off, and present ideas for change, improvement for the greater good in a meaningful non-threatening way. Until we can do something resembling a change in communication styles we will be left standing at the ruins of the Tower of Babel, confused and bewildered wondering what happened to our quality of life, our civilization and our own humanity. This means that each side is going to have to recognize that not everyone thinks like them, processes information like them, or even values the same types of things. Each groups must think what core idea are they trying to communicate, how the receiving group responds best to the presentation of ideas and finally how to present it to the other group in a meaningful non-threatening way. Presentation between groups should be totally different then a presentation to believers. To expand the gospel one can not only preach to the believers.
Historical Roots of Republican Thought
In order to understand the origins of conservative thought in America I turn to history, there is one theory that stands out which helps to explain, to some measure, why Americans are the way they are in terms of the left right divide and the core values of Republican thought. The Frontier Theory first presented by Frederick Jackson Turner especially explains the origins of the independent and Republican conservative values. From the conservative point of view one can easily perceive, if one is liberal, a very hard hearted, pragmatic, and uncaring attitude toward the plights of the poor, the elderly, the disabled, disenfranchised, in fact the entire “weak” spectrum of society who can not advocated for themselves as they are so buried in the culture of poverty.
Many Conservatives rationalize their attitudes in a legalistic way, “No where is it written in the constitution that people are entitled to home heating.” This statement can be applied to any “right” including healthcare, fire protection, public education, police protection, flood protection and many more.
I don’t think the constitution was written to address every contingency of crisis intervention. Yet, for some, if not specifically stated in the constitution it is not a right, it is something to be earned individually. As many conservatives hold the opinion that it is literally “ economic slavery to have to pay for another persons needs.”
Therefore, with attitudes like these it is easier to understand why a candidate like Bernie Sanders can be viewed as a threat to the "American order." Bernie advocates for rights not specifically addressed in the Constitution branding him as a socialist. After all how could the support for the greater good supersede the rights of the individual? The American creed seems to be either we are not deserving of rights enjoyed in other industrialized countries, or we feel threatened by the operational position of government in providing an array of rights as it will make them too powerful. As a result, it seems, many Americans would rather deprive themselves of rights.
How does a nation of people become so hardened against the needs of its own people. America has become a divided nation, mistrusting its own governmental institutions and ignoring the plight of the needy. America, from the conservative perspective is “user pay” nation based on a business model of profitability. There seems to be a reduced regard for compassion, another concept not found in the constitution.
“Obama Care” is on the line. It could be gone with nothing reasonable to replace it or to meet the needs of the most vulnerable in society. But, healthcare, as stated, is not enshrined in the constitution. People are often mistrustful of the powers of government and its involvement with providing social services such as health services. Such people would opt for trusting for profit insurance companies with their future welfare.
In order to understand these dynamics of self centeredness and exclusion I looked to a historian for answers.
In 1893, historian Frederick Jackson Turner presented his thesis stated in the Frontier theory. Turner believed that America was forged into the democracy it has become through the process of westward expansion and settlement. Westward expansion served to obliterate the European mindset and eroded the old norms and customs. The frontier, as an instrument of democratic evolution did not require government controls, standing armies, established churches, aristocrats, or landed gentry from the European Model. America forged a new model. This model may form some of America's core values today.
“The frontier is the line of most rapid and effective Americanization," Turner declared. “American social development has been continually beginning over again on the frontier. This perennial rebirth, this fluidity of American life, this expansion westward with its new opportunities, its continuous touch with the simplicity of primitive society, furnish the forces dominating American character.
Westward expansion served to ignite the American dream, create larger than life myths which served to propel America into its present day matrix of attitudes and beliefs concerning the importance of individuality, governmental mistrust, the lack of human rights, growth of violence and the love of guns and other core values of the new nation. No one theory can explain all of the bewildering American behaviours, but the Frontier theory is certainly a good starting point.
According to the Turner Frontier thesis each succeeding generation of American settlers pushing ever further West became more “American”, more democratic, and more intolerant of hierarchies in government and society. Americans became increasing more distrustful of governments, relied less on science and the arts and more dependent on their own wits and grass roots organizations.
After 1890, the frontier lands were more settled, the future development depended on new frontiers including imperialism, industry, resource development and space and technology. Turner explains the ideologic development, especially the development of Republicanism. Succeeding generations have added to the complexity of the American fabric.
Today, America is so incredibly divided against itself, a country that offers the world the best and the worst. A country seemly with a shallow humanistic foundation is now isolating itself from the world order while looking inward in such a way that there are new hierarchies of rich and poor. Chasms of social and political divide and a Republican disregard for the most vulnerable aspects of society. How does a government remove health care from its citizens? Turner's interpretation explains the tendency toward selfish insular thinking in which the individual represents the revered icon in society, but certainly greed, corruption, corporations, lobbyist, fear and poor leadership can be added to the mix.
According to liberal thought a society can be judged as to how well it serves the needs of those who are the weakest. If anything the Turner instinct is for self preservation of the individual and not for the common good. Frontier development has been interpreted as development for the spirit of the individual over the common good.
Puzzles for Liberal
Blue State, Red State. Big government, big business, gay rights, fetal rights. The United States as a glaring example is riven by the politics of the extremes. To paraphrase humour columnist Dave Barry (Miami Herald), Republicans think of Democrats as godless, unpatriotic, Volvo-driving, France-Loving, elitist latte guzzlers, whereas Democrats dismiss Republicans as ignorant, NASCAR-obsessed, gun-fondling, religious fanatics. Extremes, perhaps, but the reality is that Congress is in a perpetual stalemate because of the two parties’ inability to find middle ground on practically anything.
George Lakoff in his book entitled Moral Politics has fascinating insights on the thought processes of liberals and conservatives. He poses several scenarios from each point of view. For example: conservatives are largely against abortion saying they want to save the lives of unborn fetuses. Yet those same conservatives are not in favour of government programs providing prenatal care for low income families in order to reduce the high infant mortality rate.
Liberals find this totally illogical while conservatives find no contradiction. (Perhaps in the discussion portion of the evening we can return to these examples.)
Liberals find it equally baffling that conservatives are opposed to welfare and government funds for the needy but are in favour of government funds going to the victims of floods, fires, and earthquakes who are not in daily need. With reference to the Turner Theory and Conservative thought one can now understand that in the conservative mind welfare recipients are seen as people who make bad decisions and are there because of their life choices and free will while a flood victim is simply that a victim of an act of God, an external and greater force for which the government will intervene. Logical to a conservative, baffling to a liberal.
Puzzles to Conservatives
To conservatives liberal positions are viewed as outrageously immoral or just ill conceived. Liberals, for example, do support welfare along with educational proposals to aid children, yet they sanction “murder” by supporting the practice of abortion.
Other examples to puzzle conservatives include: How can liberals support funding for AIDS research while promoting the spread of AIDS by sanctioning sexual behaviour that leads to AIDS?
How can liberals support labour when they also support environmental restrictions that limit development and eliminate jobs?
How can liberals say they support the American Dream while punishing financial success through a punitive progressive income tax system?
How can liberals claim to help people in need when they support social welfare programs that rob people of their independence and limit their initiative?
For effective communication to take place each must be able to adequately explain why, using any of the above examples, these world views actually make sense, i.e. the liberal can understand the values that go to make up the conservative world view and the conservative can do the same of the liberal, even when they disagree.
The other thing that must hold true for effective communication is the use of the same language, as often people from different sides of the political spectrum mis-communicate due to semantical differences. Often what a word, frequently a political charged word, means to a liberal may have an entirely different meaning to a conservative and vice versa.
“Words have meanings. But they don’t always have the same meanings to liberals and conservatives, and where their meanings differ, those differences should be accounted for by differences in worldview.”
The Language of Conservatives
When a conservative uses the phrase “Big Government” this does not just mean the physical size of government or the amount spent by government programs. To conservatives the idea of Big government has more about their concept of the intrusiveness of government in the daily lives of people. According to the Turner Philosophy (Frontier Theory) Americans have been programmed to be independent thinkers and doers and resent the unwanted burden of too much government intervention, which they feel stifles entrepreneurship and creativity.
Words and phrases don’t have meaning in isolation. Words, such as freedom, or big government, take on meaning within the context of their political conceptual system. Conservatives have a certain locus of themes and inventory of vocabulary that they use over and over in their political discourse which include: character, virtue, discipline, “tough it out”, strong, self reliant, individual, independent, backbone, authority, competition, hard work, freedom, interference, punishment, human nature, dependency, decay, rot, “swamp”, deviant life style. words such as these reinforce the core values of the conservative world view.
Liberals have their own vocabulary which, in its own context, have particular meaning to liberals which may confuse conservatives. Liberals talk frequently about: social forces, social responsibility, free expression, human rights, equal rights, care, help, health, safety, human dignity, oppression, deprivation, alienation, big corporations, ecosystems, pollution, and so on.
Always keep in mind that the concept of liberal and conservative is in flux over time and space. That groups or individuals can change views or move along the political spectrum according to life experiences, crisis situation, education, fear or a change in status.
Communication Bias
The end goal for both Liberals and Conservatives is often the same thing and that is what’s best for the country. The big difference is how each goes about achieving that goal. Most political conversations between people with opposing views are usually unsuccessful conversations, because there is no progress. Each side is caught in their own logic loops.
Science has also shown that there is, spoiler alert, biases on both sides. Test subjects on both sides of the political spectrum reached totally biased conclusions, under test conditions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted.
Going into a debate or conversation with your mind made up causes brain activity to cease in areas that deal with negative emotions, and neuron circuits buzzed in circuits involving reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix. The study concluded that in political discussion and decision making there is a total lack of reason in cases in which people have a predetermined outcome in mind. “None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged, essentially, it appears as if participants (in the study) twirled the cognitive kaleidoscope until they got the conclusion they wanted, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and the activation of positive ones.”
Further in test conditions Republican and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidates but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate. The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data. “Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgements when they have a vested interest in how to interpret the facts.”
Is it any wonder then that there is no effective communication if our brain chemistry rewards a lack of reason.
Political Conversions
Chris Mooney is the author of The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality (and three other books on the topic) writes about conversions from liberal to conservative. Apparently the reverse movement from conservative to liberal is much more rare a phenomena. He reports that the changes have nothing to do with political differences. This is the Reader’s Digest version of his findings:
When people are distracted, extremely busy and under stress, in the real world this could be job related, or based on relational issues, and while under these stressful times people tend to become more conservative as they fail to focus on their core values and beliefs, simply because they are distracted. The default system of thought processing is conservatism, as we know it to be is simple, and stable.
A second factor, and a temporary one is drunkenness. People who drink are similar to those people who are distracted, their ability for in depth cognitive nuance thinking is impaired and again the default goes to conservatism.
Third, is time pressure, under study conditions people under strict time constraints when asked to make choices and value judgements on key political topics reverted to a more conservative model, likely because of the simplicity required.
Fourth, cleanliness and purity, in one fascinating study subjects were asked political questions near a hand sanitizer, or asked to use a wipe before answering, showed right wing tendencies in their responses. Conservatism here was tied to disgust sensitivity, an emotional response to preserve bodily purity.
Finally, fear can make anyone more conservative. Case in point 911.
Nurture and Family
According to George Lakoff, (Moral Politics) he is of the opinion that conservatives talk constantly about family values and the morality of the family.
A look at family life and the role of nurture in creating a political identity is in order, as there seems to be a major link between how people view family and how they view government and also home life goes a long way in determining liberal versus conservative values. Conservatives tend to prefer nature over nurture and liberals just the opposite, nurture over nature in terms of family models and child rearing practices.
At the centre of the conservative world view is that of a strict father figure within a traditional nuclear family. The father is the central figure and leader. He is the protector and family supporter the one who sets and enforces the rules for the behaviour of children. The mother, is more passive and submissive. She is responsible for the day to day care of the house, raising the children and upholding the father’s authority. Children build character through the respect they hold for their parents and by following the rules. Through this process they also develop self-discipline and self reliance. Love and nurturing while still essential, play a secondary role to authority and tough love. Once the children mature they must then depend on their acquired self discipline, individualism to govern their own destinies.
The liberal world view as it relates to child rearing is based on love, empathy, nurturance and children becoming responsible, self-disciplined and self reliant through being cared for respected and caring for others. There is less fear of punishment as children have ideas and are listened to and taken seriously. Children are to be fulfilled and happy, committed to family and community. Children need to learn empathy for family members and for those in the larger community. When children are respected, nurtured and communicated with from birth, they gradually enter into a lifetime relationship of mutual respect, communication and caring with their parents and community.
Each system has the goal to raise self reliant, disciplined children but from two different approaches. In conservatism the model is more self-centered and based on individualism where authority and strength are seen as expressions of nurturance. Within the liberal approach, it involves empathy and reaching out beyond the immediate family, with less emphasize on rules, fear and enforcement. It is less insular.
The two family models are two unique forms of family based morality. The models are linked to politics as to how they each relate to thinking or relating to the government as a parent. Therefore, it is more natural for a liberal to view the function of government to help people in need and support social programs. Conservatives see the function of government as requiring citizens to be more self disciplined and self reliant and therefore not depend on government for help. People should do for themselves and therefore the need for “small government.”
Conclusion
Research has found that conservatives were less interested in viewing empirical data than liberals. Moreover, conservatives were more skeptical about the value of science compared with liberals. These finding form the foundation of the liberal conservative divide. The reasons for this are many and complex. Some have to do with recent discoveries in neuro-science and how the brain functions. Part of the puzzle can be explained through the nature and nurture debate and genetics, while another part is illuminated through historical development as described in the Frontier Theory proposed by Frederick Turner at the turn of the last century.
People can have conversions and move their position along the political spectrum because of alcohol, stress, distraction, fear and crisis, but often not due to reasoning, debate, communication or rational discussions. We as people tend to have pre-set biases that ordain us to certain frequencies of political thought and, like dogs, we are better at hearing some frequencies clearer than others.
The level of complexity of the great divide increases as we consider that language is also a factor and often people of different factions although using the same words, attach radically different meanings to those words resulting in the Tower of Babel political affect.
Over time liberal ideas become dogma and are eventually adopted by conservatives and they in turn seem to be liberal until the actual liberals are on to the next major change and the conservatives do what they do best and conserve or fight for stability, simplicity and the status quo.
Researchers have pointed out that both perspective of Left and Right do come from valid pools of both values and norms and are often two different means to an end. The trick is to understand the language of the other side, what motivates them and how to express ideas with the recognizable symbols of their creed.
What I think is needed in, at least American discourse, is more points of view, perhaps through more political parties, or the involvement of more young people in the mix. One day the black hole of politics may shrink to an abyss, a sink hole and eventually a pothole if we learn to understand, accommodate and at least try to listen to the other side. Political communication is a miss match of emotions and reason that we need to untangle, so society can truly free deadlocks and get on with the business of the day.
truth
if truth resembles an eagle
and i see a sea gull
and you see a dove
who is the lier?
or...
If I see a wall
and you see open space
is there a reason that we can’t cross a line
in the sand, or make sketches below tide level
that the water washes away
do we walk parallel lines that diverge in a wood
where neighbours build fences
where you stay on your side
and i on mine
m.r.
