the liberal sacred

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. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and the repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage.

But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is.

From "What Makes People Vote Republican?" by Jonathan Haidt

I read this essay and my first response was excitement. For the first time, I had encountered an attempt to understand the other side in a way that does not assume pathology.

Never mind that his question itself starts off assuming that liberal is somehow more normal and conservatism requires explanation. I've known a lot of psychologists, and two things I have learned from the ones I have met: (1) they always use the word "normal" when they really mean "ideal", and (2) they tend to shove their own wishes and preferences and projections into the very center of that which is ideal (and therefore normal).

I said that was my first response. Here's my second: maybe we shouldn't just say "never mind". Maybe, if there's a legitimate grievance there, it's time to take it seriously, even though it hurts "our side" - that is, feeds a conservative talking point (not that I'm at all sure I'm on anyone's "side" anymore....).

Maybe it's time to stop overlooking the innocent little conceits of professionals who presume too much. Maybe we should look at the question of bias in a field that purports to be "scientific" and therefore worthy of unquestioned authority and obedience.

My third response was to notice that, although I more or less agreed with most of his interpretations of what conservative beliefs are and why (and why it matters), I do not agree with the writer's comments interpreting liberal beliefs. I don't see liberals the way he sees himself.

Still, I think it's important that he wrote this. This particular essay seems to me a huge step in the right direction. Too many people on the left like to act as if everything important got decided in 1972 and now there's nothing left to talk about. If you are one of the few holdouts that doesn't "get" the new way things are, you're to be attacked, not reasoned with.

Politically, this approach isn't working anymore, and never was that more obvious than right now. The number of people who refuse to play along just keeps growing, as it becomes increasingly obvious that the humanistic ideology driving the Democratic party is overdue for an update.

It's been awhile since the last major overhaul.

I think those who can't understand why the nation is going conservative need to understand why humanism is under siege.

It isn't because Americans are too dumb to understand scientific concepts. It's because Americans have stopped trying to.

I would argue that science itself is what is fueling the growth of religion in America.

Those who don't like the way conservative religion is taking over should look not at what religions are doing right (or what is wrong with the people, that we seem to be getting dumber somehow). Look instead to what science is doing wrong. I believe that as soon as that is fixed, we can move forward - but right now, religion is the only thing providing checks and balances to a scientific community that is riding roughshod over peoples' wishes, feelings, and rights.

America likes being a democratic nation. It's one of our founding principles. The scientific community, however, does not like democracy. They do not want to submit themselves or their ideas to the people for judgment.

As Haidt notes, the standard liberal line is that people vote Republican because they are "cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death." A typical example of this characterization can be found in a famous 2003 paper published in the prestigious journal Psychological Bulletin by the New York University social psychologist John Jost and his colleagues, entitled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," in which they argue that conservatives suffer from "uncertainty avoidance," "need for order, structure, closure," and "dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity," all of which leads to "resistance to change" and "endorsement of inequality."

It is not the data of these scientists that I am challenging so much as it is the characterizations on which the data were collected. We could just as easily characterize Democrats and liberals as suffering from a host of equally malevolent mental states: a lack of moral compass that leads to an inability to make clear ethical choices, an inordinate lack of certainty about social issues, a pathological fear of clarity that leads to indecisiveness, a naïve belief that all people are equally talented, and a blind adherence in the teeth of contradictory evidence that culture and environment determine one's lot in society and therefore it is up to the government to remedy all social injustices.

- Michael Shermer,in a published response to Haidt's essay (above)

There needs to be a correction for hubris. Arrogance needs to be reigned in. A link needs to be re-established between the activity of doing science and the eventual goal as the well-being of mankind*. And science needs to stop acting as if simply standing next to Einstein means you're guaranteed to be right and to know the one true correct answer.

I know people don't want to hear that - it's something that cannot be said; you can't say that without being an evil dirty Republican and therefore the worst sort of enemy - but it's the fact that some things cannot be said** that is the problem. Taboos have overtaken the left wing and the more troubled we are by policies and plans that failed, the more we respond by demanding faith. (The alternative would be what? to admit the conservatives are right?)

We have made a religion of science but we are at a point where we cannot progress until we recognize that science has limits and that science cannot answer every problem.

And more than that: science, while pretending to be objective, in fact grants too much influence and too much latitude to its (male) elders*** and to its (often unprovable) assumptions***. Science is also accepting too much credit for its successes*** (as if it had the monopoly on both truth and wisdom) while failing utterly to take any responsibility for its failures***, even though some of those failures have been destructive, even evil***.

And, related to this, atheism isn't going to be an accepted choice in the USA until liberals start asking, open-minded and serious, what it is that Christianity provides, that atheism doesn't - what is it that people are afraid of losing?****

Because, quite frankly, we've already had the modernists and they've already written their great plays, so most of us have little use for people who want to teach that the universe is random and meaningless, as if that were some proven fact. We got it. We don't care. Offer us better or I'll pick the mythology I like best and go with that one. Which one makes people happier? Not science.

The reality is that people accept or reject the whole package - if religion offers someone a great deal while science doesn't, why would that person care if the story about the Virgin is silly? At least the religion story has a happy ending - their God doesn't want to replace the human race with robots and call that Paradise*.

And screaming "your religion is dumb and your claims aren't true" doesn't work on conservatives when liberals do it any more than it works on liberals when conservatives do it. It's like screaming at smokers to stop being singlehandedly responsible for all the pollution in the world (which, incidentally, is another thing I wish liberals would stop doing....)
______________________________________
* as opposed to the well-being of scientists. We also don't care about the well-being of robots or computers, either. To large numbers of people, robots, computers, and technology in general is interesting only insofar as their existence makes our life better somehow.

I understand that it's a human urge to want to procreate. I understand that to someone with Asperger's, reproducing yourself as a computer is more exciting than making a mere flesh-and-blood child. But the scientific community presumes that because they are excited by an idea, it must therefore be a good idea. It gets out of hand when scientists assume that because it therefore must be a good idea, anyone who opposes or even criticizes it must be a lesser being.

That's dehumanization in action. That is the source of evil that leads to crimes against humanity.

It's also an abuse of authority. Scientists have to obey the same laws as all other humans, and rule number one is the welfare of the race. We are social creatures, and scientists - who expect our support and who wish to co-exist among us - can bloody well be social enough to obey the rule "don't gamble with the welfare of the tribe".

If Joe Scientist really believes his computers, or robots, or genetically created supercreature, is going to supercede the human race, as he says, then he is making a decision on behalf of the entire race that it's okay to introduce something that is going to replace us all. The rest of us actually feel we have a right to participate in that decision. So don't be surprised when we treat Joe Scientist like a mad scientist who ought to be locked away. Or when we listen to his story of how it came to me in a vision that humanity is but a fleeting thing - and we then conclude that science has become a little too faith-based for the rest of us.

The first novel warning of the dangers of scientists getting carried away by their own arrogant urge to act irresponsibly was Frankenstein. It is not typically classed as science fiction because (a) it is critical of science (and scientists are still obviously determined to ignore its concerns) and (b) it was written by a woman. But it warns of intellectual pride - and the supposed sin of intellectual pride has always been misunderstood by those who revel in their intellect. Well, understand this: we don't care if you're smart. We do care if you use your intelligence to justify taking liberties and behaving in a way that is destructive of the larger society.

That has been a recurring theme in human society ever since Plato first complained that philosophy shouldn't be used in ways that destroy society. We advance - but then those who make new discoveries get so caught up in their intellect that they don't care when people start getting hurt. And then comes the backlash. Scientists being so smart, they should be able to recognize societies acting in self-preservation when they see it. But they don't, because they don't want to - because they, too, are participating in the ongoing conflict, as well as observing it.

** like Jesse Jackson attacking a film for daring to joke about Rosa Parks. Notice the use of the word "sacred".

*** could probably get a year's worth of posts out of proving these claims - not a single person would read the blog, of course, but it would be fun. But don't wait for me to prove anything. Ask, "is this true?" C'mon - challenge orthodoxy. It's fun and your school gets free box tops.

****Here is what I am afraid of losing: do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Science thinks it is the natural successor to every major world religion. People will give up their irrational beliefs and follow the truth of the Enlightenment. But every major religion in the world - except science - recognizes some variation on the golden rule. It is the principle that keeps us all equal, and the basis upon which religions correct authority figures who get out of hand.

Science has no mechanism to correct authority figures who get out of hand. It needs one.