An interesting article

[sleigh]

What makes people -- especially those who on the face of things would seem to be better served by a Democratic administration -- vote Republican?

According to psychologist Jonathan Haidt, it's first because "when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare," and secondly because "tthe less elite groups... were more likely to justify their judgments with talk about respect, duty, and family roles."

I found this to be a very interesting and thought-provoking article. Haidt identifies what he believes the "it" is when Republicans say that "Democrats just don't get it."

Comments

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I think it's a brilliant article, and some of it (the more obvious parts!) are what I have thought for a long time. But here:

But if Durkheim is right, then sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns. ... The Democrats could close much of the gap if they simply learned to see society not just as a collection of individuals—each with a panoply of rights--but as an entity in itself, an entity that needs some tending and caring. Our national motto is e pluribus unum ("from many, one"). Whenever Democrats support policies that weaken the integrity and identity of the collective (such as multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration), they show that they care more about pluribus than unum. They widen the sacredness gap.

I think he may miss something. There are those (I among them) who see such factors as multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration as strengthening the "integrity and identity of the collective." We see those factors as the things that have built this country, as an integral part of the collective.

I think it comes down to "Us" and "Them": liberals tend to have a more encompassing "Us" than conservatives do.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

And yet when Obama said exactly that, he was pilloried by the goppies and the press.

It's not that Democrats don't get it. It's that they can't sink as low as Republicans in their pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[scbutler.livejournal.com]

The frightnening aspect of this analysis is that it seems to suggest people prefer social systems that lend themselves to abuse - despotism, authoritarianism, slavery. If that's so, can any democratic society ever last long, especially as it expands to encompass more cultures, before reverting to the norm?

[spaceoperadiva.livejournal.com]

George Lakoff discusses the conservative versus liberal mindsets in depth in his book "Moral Politics". Haidt's article is indeed interesting, but one line of his turned the entire thing on its head for me: "Might we do better with an approach that defines moral systems by what they do rather than by what they value?"

If I look at what the current conservative Republican administration has done, (engaged in neocolonialist invasions, suspended habeus corpus, ratified torture, brought about a moral climate where 1 in 4 teens has an STD, limited access to health care, reversed environmental protections, awarded huge amounts of funds in no-bid government contracts to their cronies, the list goes on and on), I don't see a moral group working to uphold a conservative form of society that just happens to be based on a less individualistic model than mine. I see a group that cynically plays the right mindset and buzzwords, that preys on people's gut reactions and fears to bring about change that only benefits a certain cadre of wealthy elite.

The group-loyal, traditionalist, high scoring religiosity set are being played. I know they aren't all stupid, so my question is why don't they notice they're being played? Are Lakoff buzz words and Haidt's gut reactions really that much in control? This set votes with their hindbrain exclusively?

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

The Republicans are popular with what Jonathan calls "the no-information voters." The Republicans' lying ads work so well because they are the only thing a segment pays attention to. I wish I knew what could be done about that.

[greenmtnboy18.livejournal.com]

That line had the same effect on me. To look at the "what they do" measure, in this case, is a damning indictment that doesn't live up to its own press, imo. Because what they do (not just what they value) is pretty heinous, in many instances, and those actions grow out of those values.

[greenmtnboy18.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU. This was an extremely well-timed post for me. It was a very interesting read, and while I don't agree with all of his conclusions, I loved reading it and it really helped me out. I've been in an extreme funk that I was starting to lift out of today, and this boosted me even more. I'm in the process of trying to get this into a number of other hands as we speak.

And I want to go back and read the follow-up thoughts. Just haven't had time yet.

[ontology101.livejournal.com]

The interesting thing about this to me is that Republican strategists know this. They know that to be effective they must appeal to the "no-information voters" with quick spins and catch phrases. How do these people live with themselves?

A.