Reddit reviews Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think
We found 9 Reddit comments about Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
In my opinion, the most convincing explanation of why economically-disadvantaged whites vote for a political party contrary to their economic interests (and why rich, city-dwelling intellectuals vote Democratic) is in Moral Politics by cognitive linguist George Lakoff.
The argument is essentially that the two major ideologies in US politics are defined by deeply held worldviews about morality, not economic self-interest or sincere policy preferences. It was a lot more convincing to me than Frank's "they vote Republican because they're dupes" thesis. The argument is too complicated for me to break out in detail here, so I'd recommend the book, even though it was written during the 1990s, so its examples are a little out of date.
I think we should also be careful when analogizing past political parties to our own. The "Progressive movement" around the turn of the century is most definitely not the same as today's left-liberal "Progressives" in the Democratic party. Many pet causes of the Progressive Movement (e.g. temperance) would be considered very conservative today. Politics was sufficiently different 100 years ago that even drawing left-right analogies simplifies things way too much. The issues were far different in that time, as was the composition of the electorate.
EDIT: added a link
There are a number of books that I think you ought to read to get a better understanding of office politics and how to cope/deal with them. All offices have politicking going on, and any company that claims otherwise is lying to you. Any time more than 2 people get together, there will be some sort of jostling for power and attention. When that happens at work, we call it "office politics".
Your library may have these, and if you get them, read them at home. Don't ever bring them into the office.
Corporate Confidential. HR is your enemy, not your friend. Gives a number of examples of what will destroy your career with companies, many of which you (and I) probably do without realizing the consequences.
The Passionate Programmer. The first edition of this book was called "my job went to India". While aimed at programmers, the points are to keep your mind and skills up to date as technology and business move too rapidly to let things get rusty.
To Be or Not to Be Intimidated.
Looking out for number one.
Million Dollar Habits. I feel that these 3 by Robert Ringer are very important. If you think his first book was about to intimidate others, you only read the press coverage. If you think his books are about real estate, then you only skimmed them. There are a lot of people in the world who will try to intimidate you into giving up what is yours, and he shows you what some of them are like, and what countermeasures you can use.
The Art of Deception. Bad title - it is about arguments, how to make them, win them and tell if you're hearing a bad one. Used to be called "rhetoric" when Plato and Aristotle taught the subject.
Snakes in Suits. There are some evil people out there. You'll work for some of them. You will be stabbed in the back by some of them.
Bullies, Tyrants, and Impossible People. One book on office politics and dealing with some of the worse sort.
The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense at Work. Some folks are very good with verbal manipulation, this book and the others in the series, cover how to deal with such people.
Winning with People. Most of the books this author writes are about managers and leadership. This book is more about people skills. It will be focused more at managers, but I think it is a good one.
The 48 Laws of Power. They have it. You want some. Light read with anecdotes. I like his other books as well.
Games At Work. Office politics.
It's All Politics. Yes it is.
Moral Politics. Liberals and conservatives, why do they think that way? You'll work with some of the opposite persuasion some day, so understanding where they come from is a reasonable idea. Most books on this subject are insulting and degrading, but I think this one is pretty much judgement-free.
> When I walk by him going to the bathroom, he will stop talking until I walk by.
Do the same. When they come to your desk, always brush them aside with "I'm sorry, I can't talk now, I'm busy working".
Greenwald is right, this is definitely a conservative theme:
Those two books were attempts to intellectualize what Coulter sells in the media. They really get off on it; it's absurdly funny to see the little twerp Bill Kristol or David Frum get on this particular horse for all the irony that the image produces.
This also does fall in line with George Lakoff's division of political sympathies in the USA as being globally characterized by a difference between metaphors used to describe justice: the authoritarian vs the nurturing parent.
I think Lakoff's distinction is wrong in the end for the precise reason that he is right about this. He accurately describes surface stuff, like this tripe about manliness, but ignores deeper, more experientially grounded differences.
Moral Politics by George Lakoff, and The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Both are solid books on why conservatives and liberals think differently, though the first is a little dated with its references.
The fundamental question that we're really fighting over is "How can society best be organized?"
And believe it or not, it's REALLY REALLY GOOD that we're fighting over it. Well, maybe not fighting, but definitely that we're debating...well, maybe we aren't debating, but WE SHOULD BE.
I hate to perpetuate the political dichotomy that seems to permeate the public sphere, but the truth is that we really are pretty evenly split into two fundamental camps based on answers to that fundamental question:
1.) The "conservative" answer is "Society is best served by individuals taking care of themselves." From this ethic, you get memes like:
a.) "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps."
b.) "Greed is good/let the markets decide."
c.) "Small government/don't depend on government."
d.) "Freeloaders/welfare queens/etc."
2.) The "progressive/liberal" answer is "Society is best served by individuals taking care of each other." From this ethic, you get memes like:
a.) "From each according to his own effort, to each according to his need."
b.) "Income inequality is bad for everyone."
c.) "Government is good/government protects us from corporations."
d.) "Affirmative Action/Hate Crime Legislation/ect."
For more information, I highly recommend George Lackoff's tome on the subject. You can get it used on Amazon for ~$7 including shipping.
> Christian world view
For most of the history of America, Christianity was intimately tied with expanded social programs to help the needy, and moral issues were mostly left out of politics.
Knowing that they could not compete with Christianity and its support of the New Deal, big business leaders who did not benefit from it began to form think tanks to work up a strategy to counteract it. To clarify, a think tank is an institute that performs research intended to promote a specific world view. Essentially, these business leaders and millionaires paid scientists to figure out the best way to "sell" conservativism to the vast majority of Christian liberals and convince them to vote against their own self-interest (and, I would argue, the teachings of Jesus Christ).
One of the most famous players in this production was Paul Weyrich. His big breakthrough in think tank research was that by tying conservative economic policy with (manufactured) moral imperatives, he could convince people that liberal policy was immoral, which has a much stronger cognitive effect than convincing people that a certain policy is illogical or against their best interest. For example, you might avoid calling your mother a bad word, even if she deserves it, because you find it immoral to disrespect your parents - even though doing so may be very logical and may make you feel very good.
So they set to work on testing and developing moral arguments against liberal economic policy. If you do some reading into the output of those think tanks, I think you may find that many of your viewpoints align very closely with the talking points they spent very good money to scientifically develop and hone to be the most convincing.
They also did another very successful trick, which is to tie social issues that many Christians had strong feelings about - abortion, gay rights, interracial marriage - to their economic policy, despite the fact that they had little to no connection. (Quick - what's the connection between lower taxes and not allowing gay people to marry?)
If you, or anyone else, is interested in reading more, here are some good resources:
If you are so inclined, it might be helpful to read Moral Politics by George Lakoff. He's a linguist and a progressive/democrat activist person, and some of his books are straightford political advocacy books. That one however, is more of a linguistics/ psychology book. In it he advances his theory that political positions (including on gay marriage) tend to stem from our tendency to consider political/societal level issues from the vantage point of our unconscious/ received assumptions about how families ought to work on an authoritarian-nurturing spectrum. Basically, on an unconscious level, we analogize. I found the book repetitive and boring at times, but his basic premise has been pretty useful way to think about these things for me.
Anyway, maybe thinking about this issue from some other perspectives-- sociology, gender politics, civil liberties, etc. could help you gain perspective on the ultimate source of your discomfort (as in, why is this a key religious belief for so many people? What does the status quo actually do-- who does it benefit, and why?). Once you understand your motivations a little better, maybe things won't feel the same anymore.
This does a pretty good job of it: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716
Strict father vs nurturing parents mentality.
"Do you have any data to back up your claim that "While not all conservatives raise their children in this way, the vast majority do, and it is what I have experienced"."
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716/
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism"
Those just from top of my head, but the study of conservative/authoritarian model vs empathetic model of parenting is deep and long. They even developed a pretty well establish and commonly applied measurement; the F-scale.
People, in the USA, who score high on it trend GREATLY towards conservative politics and the GOP and apply strict authoritarian models of parenting.
That all said, in reply to the OP "question" the reason Libertarians tend to shy away from liberal politics and positions, despite sharing far more of their political positions with them, is the Libertarian view empathy as a weakness and share the conservative fear of the their fellow man as something inherently evil. Liberal models involve a focus on empathy, nurturant parent modeling, and a belief the true nature of man is decent.
Or, Liberals tend to think we do better when we come together for our mutual benefit and Libertarians AND conservatives believe their fellow man is dangerous and destructive.
Ironically, at least conservatives understand we all must work together and accept the limitations on our freedoms that all societies bring. Libertarians seem to have either not read or understand basic foundational concepts like Hobbes Social Contract or just rather want the protection of the social contract but are unwilling to share the burden.
Really, a Libertarian is just a narcissistic (or extremely ignorant) conservative. The authoritative model is the "answer' to a conservatives basic mistrust of his fellow man. The Libertarian still fears/distrusts his fellow man but seeks some impossible worldview where he is "self-reliant" YET still benefits from all the positive features of a structured (authoritative or not) society.
In my experience the young Libertarian is just generally ignorant of basic social contract (and will often "grow out of it" as he learns and understands the world better) and the older Libertarian is just a ragging narcissist who believes the world has done wrong by him or else he would be fabulously wealthy and appreciated as he was clearly meant to be.