Full Version: Moral Politics
We've come across the question of morality quite frequently in these threads, whether it is the explicit topic of the debate in question or not. Most frequently, it seems to be the conservative side of the discussion claiming some sort of moral high ground - often without contradiction. We even get sentiments such as this one (in O'Reilly vs. Krugman):
I have tended not to address these points primarily because, to do so, would mean taking the debate in question off topic. Nevertheless, I find this sort of notion unconstructive - and just plain wrong.
First, allow me to define what I believe is meant by "morality" in politics: the experience of well-being. Other things being equal, it is better to be healthy than sick, rich than poor, happy than sad, free than imprisoned or enslaved, etc. This is the basis of our system of moral metaphors - that which contributes to well-being is moral; that which causes harm or a lack of well-being is immoral. In the political realm, morality should not be expanded further to incorporate personal belief systems or religious faiths - except in a theocracy.
I have always felt that both conservatives and liberals were equally "moral" - but with different moral perspectives. Political policies have everything to do with moral visions for both conservatives and liberals, but with two completely different worldviews. Traditionally, I have used an Old Testament/New Testament metaphor to define the different types of morality at work: conservatives, to me, worship a god of authority and retribution - a God of Law; liberals worship a god of grace and forgiveness - a God of Love.
Recently, though, I've been reading an excellent book by George Lakoff called Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think in which he approaches political thought from the point of view of a cognitive scientist, looking specifically at the language, symbols, and reasoning used by the two sides of the debate. He has come up with what I believe is an even more accurate metaphor than my Biblical one: the family metaphor.
Lakoff has identified and defined (in detail) two opposing models of the family. Both models see the community or nation as a family, with the government in the role of parent and the citizens in the role of children. From there, they depart - fairly radically. He describes the conservative model as Strict Father Morality and the liberal model as Nurturant Parent Morality.
The conservative or Strict Father model is based on a traditional nuclear family in which one parent (usually the male) has primary responsibility for supporting and protecting the family, as well as the authority to set overall policy and to set and enforce strict rules of behavior. By respecting and obeying their parents, children build character: self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority (itself an expression of "tough love"). While love and nurturance are vital components, they can never outweigh parental authority. Once children mature, they are on their own and must depend on their acquired self-discipline to survive, giving them authority over their own destinies in which the parents may no longer meddle.
In the liberal or Nurturant Parent model, love, empathy, and nurturance are primary and children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for and respected. Support and protection are part of nurturance, but obedience arises from the love and respect of parents rather than the fear of punishment. The principle goal is for children to become happy and fulfilled in their lives, committed to family and community responsibility. Children need to learn empathy for others, the capacity for nurturance, and the maintenance of community ties. When children are taught strength, respect, self-discipline and self-reliance through being cared for, they enter into a lifetime relationship of mutual respect, communication, and caring with their parents.
Lakoff applies these two models as metaphors for systems of political thought:
In terms of political views, the two models are difficult to summarize (it takes Lakoff nearly 200 pages just to define the models), but I'll try to do so semi-briefly - I can always expound on both should this discussion prove of interest. The main distinction I see is that Strict Father Morality is based on moral authority and moral strength while Nurturant Parent Morality is based on empathy and moral nurturance.
In the Strict Father model, the world is divided into good and evil. To remain good in the face of evil, one must be morally strong - through self-discipline and self-denial. Someone who is morally weak cannot stand up to evil and will inevitably enable or even commit evil. Therefore, weakness is a form of immorality - and self-indulgence and lack of self-control are forms of moral weakness. In the community, moral behavior by someone in authority is the setting and enforcing of standards; moral behavior by someone subject to authority is obedience. The legitimacy of authority is secured by the authority figure knowing what is best for the community, having the best interests of the community at heart, and acting on those best interests. A social hierarchy based on moral authority is to be protected for the good of all. Those are the most basic tenets and lead to moral order, the setting of moral boundaries, definitions of discipline, character, integrity, consequences, purity, self-interest, and self-defense.
The model Strict Father citizen has values based on moral strength and acts to uphold them; is self-disciplined and self-reliant; upholds the morality of reward and punishment; works to protect moral citizens; and acts in support of order.
In the Nurturant Parent model, morality is seen primarily as empathy, a stronger Golden Rule: doing unto others as they would have you do unto them. Nurturance presupposes empathy: to care for someone else, you must care about them. In the family model, the child has a right to nurturance and the parent has the responsibility to provide it; for a parent to fail to provide nurturance is immoral. This type of family-based morality can also be projected onto society in general: community members have a responsibility to see that people needing help in their community are helped; to act morally toward people needing help to survive, one must have absolute and regular empathy with them; moral action may require making sacrifices to help truly needy people. This model also assumes self-nurturance - you can't adequately care for others if you don't care for yourself but the community as a whole is to be protected for the good of all. Other aspects of the Nurturant Parent model would include diplomacy, self-development, fair distribution, moral growth, and the cultivation of one's own happiness.
The model Nurturant Parent citizen is empathetic; helps the disadvantaged; protects those who need protection; promotes and exemplifies fulfillment in life; and takes care of him/herself in order to do all this.
Obviously, there are considerable variations on both of these models - and a certain amount of overlap - but the chief distinction between these views is how all of the concerns outlined are prioritized. It's also worth noting that the models don't necessarily have much to do with how one actually behaves as a parent (or how one was reared as a child), but with how these metaphors are applied to society - and government - at large.
Overall (especially having read the entire work), I think that, as generalizations, these models hold. During the course of the book, Lakoff uses these metaphors to debunk a lot of assumptions made by each side about the other - "liberalism is all about defending special interests" - "conservatism is the ethos of selfishness" - "liberals love bureaucracy" - "conservatism is a conspiracy of the ultra-rich to protect their money and power" - "liberals advocate rights, but not responsibilities" - and, especially, "conservatives are 'more moral' than liberals". Since starting the book, I've seen evidence of both models in political discourse everywhere - and it has given me considerable insight into the other side. While it hasn't made me much more sympathetic to the opposing viewpoint per se, it has at least helped me to see "where people are coming from" - and has rendered me somewhat less judgmental (if not a lot more tolerant) of their views. It has also made me wary of what Lakoff describes as "pathological stereotyping" - assuming the worst, like those who disagree with my views are inherently immoral or evil themselves. I am hoping that this discussion can be an impetus for more constructive debate in the general political arena here.
To debate:
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
(Thanks to Paladin Elspeth and Hobbes for encouraging this thread - and helping me to better define it.)
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Aug 20 2004, 06:35 PM)
Now 'moral' means conservative.
I have tended not to address these points primarily because, to do so, would mean taking the debate in question off topic. Nevertheless, I find this sort of notion unconstructive - and just plain wrong.
First, allow me to define what I believe is meant by "morality" in politics: the experience of well-being. Other things being equal, it is better to be healthy than sick, rich than poor, happy than sad, free than imprisoned or enslaved, etc. This is the basis of our system of moral metaphors - that which contributes to well-being is moral; that which causes harm or a lack of well-being is immoral. In the political realm, morality should not be expanded further to incorporate personal belief systems or religious faiths - except in a theocracy.
I have always felt that both conservatives and liberals were equally "moral" - but with different moral perspectives. Political policies have everything to do with moral visions for both conservatives and liberals, but with two completely different worldviews. Traditionally, I have used an Old Testament/New Testament metaphor to define the different types of morality at work: conservatives, to me, worship a god of authority and retribution - a God of Law; liberals worship a god of grace and forgiveness - a God of Love.
Recently, though, I've been reading an excellent book by George Lakoff called Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think in which he approaches political thought from the point of view of a cognitive scientist, looking specifically at the language, symbols, and reasoning used by the two sides of the debate. He has come up with what I believe is an even more accurate metaphor than my Biblical one: the family metaphor.
Lakoff has identified and defined (in detail) two opposing models of the family. Both models see the community or nation as a family, with the government in the role of parent and the citizens in the role of children. From there, they depart - fairly radically. He describes the conservative model as Strict Father Morality and the liberal model as Nurturant Parent Morality.
The conservative or Strict Father model is based on a traditional nuclear family in which one parent (usually the male) has primary responsibility for supporting and protecting the family, as well as the authority to set overall policy and to set and enforce strict rules of behavior. By respecting and obeying their parents, children build character: self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority (itself an expression of "tough love"). While love and nurturance are vital components, they can never outweigh parental authority. Once children mature, they are on their own and must depend on their acquired self-discipline to survive, giving them authority over their own destinies in which the parents may no longer meddle.
In the liberal or Nurturant Parent model, love, empathy, and nurturance are primary and children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for and respected. Support and protection are part of nurturance, but obedience arises from the love and respect of parents rather than the fear of punishment. The principle goal is for children to become happy and fulfilled in their lives, committed to family and community responsibility. Children need to learn empathy for others, the capacity for nurturance, and the maintenance of community ties. When children are taught strength, respect, self-discipline and self-reliance through being cared for, they enter into a lifetime relationship of mutual respect, communication, and caring with their parents.
Lakoff applies these two models as metaphors for systems of political thought:
QUOTE(Lakoff)
What we have here are major differences in moral worldview. They are not just differences of opinion about effective public administration. The differences are not about efficiency, or practicality, or economics, and they cannot be settled by rational argument about effective administration. They are ethical opinions about what makes a good people and a good nation.
In terms of political views, the two models are difficult to summarize (it takes Lakoff nearly 200 pages just to define the models), but I'll try to do so semi-briefly - I can always expound on both should this discussion prove of interest. The main distinction I see is that Strict Father Morality is based on moral authority and moral strength while Nurturant Parent Morality is based on empathy and moral nurturance.
In the Strict Father model, the world is divided into good and evil. To remain good in the face of evil, one must be morally strong - through self-discipline and self-denial. Someone who is morally weak cannot stand up to evil and will inevitably enable or even commit evil. Therefore, weakness is a form of immorality - and self-indulgence and lack of self-control are forms of moral weakness. In the community, moral behavior by someone in authority is the setting and enforcing of standards; moral behavior by someone subject to authority is obedience. The legitimacy of authority is secured by the authority figure knowing what is best for the community, having the best interests of the community at heart, and acting on those best interests. A social hierarchy based on moral authority is to be protected for the good of all. Those are the most basic tenets and lead to moral order, the setting of moral boundaries, definitions of discipline, character, integrity, consequences, purity, self-interest, and self-defense.
The model Strict Father citizen has values based on moral strength and acts to uphold them; is self-disciplined and self-reliant; upholds the morality of reward and punishment; works to protect moral citizens; and acts in support of order.
In the Nurturant Parent model, morality is seen primarily as empathy, a stronger Golden Rule: doing unto others as they would have you do unto them. Nurturance presupposes empathy: to care for someone else, you must care about them. In the family model, the child has a right to nurturance and the parent has the responsibility to provide it; for a parent to fail to provide nurturance is immoral. This type of family-based morality can also be projected onto society in general: community members have a responsibility to see that people needing help in their community are helped; to act morally toward people needing help to survive, one must have absolute and regular empathy with them; moral action may require making sacrifices to help truly needy people. This model also assumes self-nurturance - you can't adequately care for others if you don't care for yourself but the community as a whole is to be protected for the good of all. Other aspects of the Nurturant Parent model would include diplomacy, self-development, fair distribution, moral growth, and the cultivation of one's own happiness.
The model Nurturant Parent citizen is empathetic; helps the disadvantaged; protects those who need protection; promotes and exemplifies fulfillment in life; and takes care of him/herself in order to do all this.
Obviously, there are considerable variations on both of these models - and a certain amount of overlap - but the chief distinction between these views is how all of the concerns outlined are prioritized. It's also worth noting that the models don't necessarily have much to do with how one actually behaves as a parent (or how one was reared as a child), but with how these metaphors are applied to society - and government - at large.
Overall (especially having read the entire work), I think that, as generalizations, these models hold. During the course of the book, Lakoff uses these metaphors to debunk a lot of assumptions made by each side about the other - "liberalism is all about defending special interests" - "conservatism is the ethos of selfishness" - "liberals love bureaucracy" - "conservatism is a conspiracy of the ultra-rich to protect their money and power" - "liberals advocate rights, but not responsibilities" - and, especially, "conservatives are 'more moral' than liberals". Since starting the book, I've seen evidence of both models in political discourse everywhere - and it has given me considerable insight into the other side. While it hasn't made me much more sympathetic to the opposing viewpoint per se, it has at least helped me to see "where people are coming from" - and has rendered me somewhat less judgmental (if not a lot more tolerant) of their views. It has also made me wary of what Lakoff describes as "pathological stereotyping" - assuming the worst, like those who disagree with my views are inherently immoral or evil themselves. I am hoping that this discussion can be an impetus for more constructive debate in the general political arena here.
To debate:
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
(Thanks to Paladin Elspeth and Hobbes for encouraging this thread - and helping me to better define it.)
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
I am relieved that you asked this question first! As I read the descriptions of the two models I found myself dissecting each in terms of its ideology, nodding sometimes and cringing others. I began drawing, in my head of course, a Venn diagram in which I tried to picture the area of overlap. What I found is that, in the center of my Venn diagram I found mostly abstract notions:
Family (as it "should" be)
Love
Committment
Empowerment
and the basic idea that we must build upon the past in order to continue that which we have started (so...Dynasty may be the word..or perhaps Survival)
I realize that it could be argued that these aren't necessarily abstract, but I think they are if you consider that they are all defined completely different by various people and cultures. (I'm thinking Platonic Forms here..)
Plato argued that the things we experience in our lives are merely shadows of the True or "Formal" nature of things. In other words, we only see representations of things as we are able to see them. He admitted that there are various people who can learn to see beyond the shadows and learn the true nature of the things of the world (much like enlightenment).
This is how I see Lakoff's argument. He is presenting for the reader a view of two opposing positions and how they may move toward the center on some issues. But I might be inclined to think he would like us to see the middle ground as the Platonic ideals. Real morals unadulterated by the machinations of man and woman kind. I guess I tend to be a moral relativist in a sense because I feel that we are really only dealing with the shadows when it comes to morality (and most things). Our experiences jade our understanding of morality and, thus, we are left with various definitions of it.
Buddhists would now be refering us to "Childlike Mind" or the idea that, as we "learn about the world" we lose our understanding of the true nature of it. Only in innocence can we see the truth of things. Let me tell you, it takes only a few weeks on AD for one to become an idealogue!
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
Having lived in the South and the Northeast I can attest to the huge difference in the lives and outlooks of the people in those places. It seems that simple variations in life-style can lend people to a wildly varied understanding of morality. If we want to believe that ALL of these various moralities are somehow the prgeny of one REAL one then we have a lot of work to do in reconciling the polar-politicos in our country. This framework, for me, solidifies my belief that human frailty, and not abstract ideas of morality, is the cause of the present rift in our society. Philosopher-kings don't come in six-packs these days!
When I see that we are unable, as a nation, to agree on basic issues due to our clouded moral positions I am disheartened to say the least. ("Road rage" would be a more honest depiction of my demeanor)
I don't think that it is very easy to regain one's "child-like mind" and so we are mostly doomed to go about with our ideaological goggles on. Myself included.
One read of Lakoff may very well put you in a more understanding mood when you debate others. I don't think the reverie will last. After all, it is easy to fall prey to the internet trap and assume the worst about a person (while conversely presenting the "best" about yourself)
If you are staunchly conservative it will take just a few "whiny, feel-good, petulant, everyone save me from myself" posts fro ma liberal to set you off to self-justification. Likewise, a liberal can only take so many "narrowly focused, repeat-it-til-it-sounds-true, moral highground, cowboy pulling up his bootstraps" posts from a hardcore conservative before they go all touchy feely on you!
I am relieved that you asked this question first! As I read the descriptions of the two models I found myself dissecting each in terms of its ideology, nodding sometimes and cringing others. I began drawing, in my head of course, a Venn diagram in which I tried to picture the area of overlap. What I found is that, in the center of my Venn diagram I found mostly abstract notions:
Family (as it "should" be)
Love
Committment
Empowerment
and the basic idea that we must build upon the past in order to continue that which we have started (so...Dynasty may be the word..or perhaps Survival)
I realize that it could be argued that these aren't necessarily abstract, but I think they are if you consider that they are all defined completely different by various people and cultures. (I'm thinking Platonic Forms here..)
Plato argued that the things we experience in our lives are merely shadows of the True or "Formal" nature of things. In other words, we only see representations of things as we are able to see them. He admitted that there are various people who can learn to see beyond the shadows and learn the true nature of the things of the world (much like enlightenment).
This is how I see Lakoff's argument. He is presenting for the reader a view of two opposing positions and how they may move toward the center on some issues. But I might be inclined to think he would like us to see the middle ground as the Platonic ideals. Real morals unadulterated by the machinations of man and woman kind. I guess I tend to be a moral relativist in a sense because I feel that we are really only dealing with the shadows when it comes to morality (and most things). Our experiences jade our understanding of morality and, thus, we are left with various definitions of it.
Buddhists would now be refering us to "Childlike Mind" or the idea that, as we "learn about the world" we lose our understanding of the true nature of it. Only in innocence can we see the truth of things. Let me tell you, it takes only a few weeks on AD for one to become an idealogue!
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
Having lived in the South and the Northeast I can attest to the huge difference in the lives and outlooks of the people in those places. It seems that simple variations in life-style can lend people to a wildly varied understanding of morality. If we want to believe that ALL of these various moralities are somehow the prgeny of one REAL one then we have a lot of work to do in reconciling the polar-politicos in our country. This framework, for me, solidifies my belief that human frailty, and not abstract ideas of morality, is the cause of the present rift in our society. Philosopher-kings don't come in six-packs these days!
When I see that we are unable, as a nation, to agree on basic issues due to our clouded moral positions I am disheartened to say the least. ("Road rage" would be a more honest depiction of my demeanor)
QUOTE
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate that the differences are irreconcilable?
I don't think that it is very easy to regain one's "child-like mind" and so we are mostly doomed to go about with our ideaological goggles on. Myself included.
One read of Lakoff may very well put you in a more understanding mood when you debate others. I don't think the reverie will last. After all, it is easy to fall prey to the internet trap and assume the worst about a person (while conversely presenting the "best" about yourself)
If you are staunchly conservative it will take just a few "whiny, feel-good, petulant, everyone save me from myself" posts fro ma liberal to set you off to self-justification. Likewise, a liberal can only take so many "narrowly focused, repeat-it-til-it-sounds-true, moral highground, cowboy pulling up his bootstraps" posts from a hardcore conservative before they go all touchy feely on you!
QUOTE(Wertz @ Sep 1 2004, 09:44 PM)
We've come across the question of morality quite frequently in these threads, whether it is the explicit topic of the debate in question or not. Most frequently, it seems to be the conservative side of the discussion claiming some sort of moral high ground - often without contradiction. We even get sentiments such as this one (in O'Reilly vs. Krugman):
I have tended not to address these points primarily because, to do so, would mean taking the debate in question off topic. Nevertheless, I find this sort of notion unconstructive - and just plain wrong.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Aug 20 2004, 06:35 PM)
Now 'moral' means conservative.
I have tended not to address these points primarily because, to do so, would mean taking the debate in question off topic. Nevertheless, I find this sort of notion unconstructive - and just plain wrong.
First, i just want to point out that you are kind of taking the quote out of context. I was pointing out that O'Reilly is categorized as a Traditionalist or an 'Old Democrat'. I was merely stating that once prayer was taken out of public schools and the country became more secular that liberal became a lot farther left and conservative became a lot farther right.
It is not my sentiment that conservatives have some moral high ground. It was just my assertion, my personal opinion, that people who use arguments from a moral perspective tend to be deemed conservative by most people. I have heard time and again in the debates concerning abortion, homosexual marriage, and prostitituion, that the government has no right to throw morality in their faces. So i saw that left-wingers tended to be a bit more subjective when it comes to morality, while conservatives were more objective due to obvious religious reasons. Now, i am not a religious man, but i do believe strongly in morals.
Anyway---back on topic--- I do think this is a good topic so i will respond to it as so.
QUOTE
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
1) I think these are fairly accurate models and that mine takes certain things from both. My father's side is Italian and conservative so they stick to the more traditional, close family model. My mother's side is both Spanish/Colombian and they definately had the Strict Father Model. But i feel that i live in a family that has elements from both models. i really cannot think of many women nowadays who would sit back and except the old and traditional way of doing things since women have become more and more independent. My father is a hard-worker and probably the wisest man i know. He has definately instilled in me the qualities of self-discipline and respect. But i do not think i have the "your on your own" situation. My mother is more of the Nurturing Parent but tries to get across the same ideals such as respect and self-reliance that the other model does. So basically both models are apparent to me, but that both of my parents are different in which model they use most often.
2) While neither of my parents are extremely political or can be categorized so easily, i would have to say that i am able to udnerstand many points of view. My dad i would say is a little more conservative, but he is just conservative by nature and in most things. My mother is a bit more liberal but not too much. I have discussions with her on many occasions, often diasgreeing on certain things.
3) I think that the family structure of a person is the absolute most important thing in a person's life. It very well can determine your success or failure in life. If you come from a close-knit loving and supportive home...you will be in a lot better shape than in a home that is not so great. Some ethnic backgrounds are better at it than others. This is not a racial comment, but i have observed that people of oriental descent usually have an excellent family structure where disciplined is applied well and they are very close. This contributes to their children's success in academics and in other ventures.
And really, you can see the difference in family models simply by looking at what class a person is in. Thats unfortunate but its the way it is. I do not know if the polarization can be reduced if it is based purely on economic and social class. It can be helped i guess...but never compeletly disappear.
Finally, as a New Yorker, one learns pretty quickly that people are out there to 'screw' you. Everyone wants to get ahead in life and they do not care who they have to step on to get it. I do not have a particular preference as to which model stated is better because both models when used to their utmost potential can work and be very beneficial. The problem is that most people do not fulfill them to their potential and do not live up to what either model can actually do.
QUOTE
It is not my sentiment that conservatives have some moral high ground. It was just my assertion, my personal opinion, that people who use arguments from a moral perspective tend to be deemed conservative by most people. I have heard time and again in the debates concerning abortion, homosexual marriage, and prostitituion, that the government has no right to throw morality in their faces. So i saw that left-wingers tended to be a bit more subjective when it comes to morality, while conservatives were more objective due to obvious religious reasons. Now, i am not a religious man, but i do believe strongly in morals.
I know it's off-topic, but this 'stuff' cannot be left unadressed. Two things. First, when someone says "government has no right to throw morality in their faces" they are not rejecting morality; they are simply saying that the moral viewpoint of government should not be applied to private citizens. That is a correct reading of the Constitution, and a correct understanding of the Founding Father's intentions.
Secondly, your understanding of the terms "subjective" and "objective" is alarming. In brief subjective means "dependent on the subject's position" whereas objective means "independent of the subject's position." Everyone has a subjective moral position because a person's morals come from within (even if they are informed by our family and our personal experiences.)
I should also add that most people believe strongly in morals, but the morality in particular can change from person. According to my "moral code" the racism you espouse later in your post when referring to oriental families is unacceptable.
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
I suppose I would be considered a humanist, and as such I would fit into the latter model, but I wonder about this system...
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
See, I always assumed I could understand both points of view because I was really really smart.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
What you are getting down to is our understanding of good/evil; All morality stems from this understanding. What these two models are describing are basically the Manichean understanding of absolute evil, and the Boethian understanding of 'the absence of good.' The fact that these philosophies are diametrically opposed to each other does not preclude a sort of mutual understanding however, as many writers and philosophers have dipped from both wells so to speak.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Sep 2 2004, 11:22 AM)
QUOTE
It is not my sentiment that conservatives have some moral high ground. It was just my assertion, my personal opinion, that people who use arguments from a moral perspective tend to be deemed conservative by most people. I have heard time and again in the debates concerning abortion, homosexual marriage, and prostitituion, that the government has no right to throw morality in their faces. So i saw that left-wingers tended to be a bit more subjective when it comes to morality, while conservatives were more objective due to obvious religious reasons. Now, i am not a religious man, but i do believe strongly in morals.
<cut>
Secondly, your understanding of the terms "subjective" and "objective" is alarming. In brief subjective means "dependent on the subject's position" whereas objective means "independent of the subject's position." Everyone has a subjective moral position because a person's morals come from within (even if they are informed by our family and our personal experiences.)
I should also add that most people believe strongly in morals, but the morality in particular can change from person. According to my "moral code" the racism you espouse later in your post when referring to oriental families is unacceptable.
I think I see what you meant, Leder when you used the terms "subjective" and "objective", although as Joe pointed out you could have used better terms. Did you mean that liberals tend to be a bit more "inclusive" in their definition of morality? Because on that note, I would be inclined to agree with you. As a liberal, I am very receptive to other's alternate lifestyles, and different familial arrangements. By declaring myself a liberal, I am stating that I believe in the notion that none of these different lifestyles, races, etc is a threat to my own.
I also do not believe you intended to be racist in your post. What you said sounds a lot like what I heard when I was attending once in a Catholic School: that different ethnicities are better at different ventures. I don't particularly agree with this sentiment, but I understand how one could put some faith in it. For instance, every Oriental family is different, as every Jewish family is different and every Anglo is as well. Thus, your statement is stereotyping, and could be construed as racist.
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
I definetly would classify myself as, uh 'nurturing mother'. For instance, in the so-called War on Terror, I cannot forsee us having any chance on winning in Iraq after we began by bombing them to smithereens.
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
I've always understood the conservative viewpoint. I don't agree with it, particularly the cultural/moralistic aspect, but I do understand and respect the movement.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
I think we have two radically different worldviews here. Understanding may help to bridge that gap, but essentially the affiliation we feel with a particular ideology blinds us to ever really agreeing with the other side. For instance, on this board, those of us "nurturing mothers" view Kerry as deliberative, while the "strict fathers" see him as wishy-washy. Thus we view politics through a lens that was instilled in us very early.
Ultra Conservative Evangelical Activist Judges: G.W. Bushe's "morality"? Dictates (Attempts ) to the whole country Ultra Right Wing Religious Based "Politics" . It is my contention that there is a fine-line between a dictatorship & any "religious" Beliefs being the main driving force behind ANY American President/Congressional Representative ect.. In My view I see the Right Wing Religious "Morality" Politician of today as having the potential of becoming Dictitoryal & passing absolulty Un-Constational Laws.... Laws that wold be the American equivent of what the Talaban was/is to the Afganistan People.... A Horrible, Monstrous, Intolerant, Persecutory, Gugernught.... That has the most powerful WOMD in the World! Whom ever told you/us that "Religion" of any kind is the "moral "representative" of the USA? Is One Country One Religion better than ANY/All others? It seems to me that the "Morality" folks don't really care at all about anyone elses "Morality" Example: Prohibition.... Written Into the Constitution..... Then... Omitted Out! & now When they (the "Morality folks") claim to "Respect" "State's Rights" to "Enforce" an Atheist (Raised) chield to say "Under God" when resiting the Pledge of the Ligon to the flag,... But Thwart the "States Rights" on issues that "they" don't like. Also: It is another contention of mine that "The Separation Between Church & State" as intended (In our Bill Of Rights) has ben breached in our history. That is the one thing that is (I belive) The most dangerous thing (Other than Terrorists/an enemy that just intends to kill All of us) Freedom is also the absolute right of everyone to belive any religion Or Not any at all. When Congress is "Loaded" with Any Religious (or non religious) represinitives that have an Agenda,: That on it's face is Un-Constitutional,... It Don't matter what the Constitution says in it to the Ultra Right "Religious" "Group" they will (& have in our history) Not Uphold Anything Constitutional when they belive it is against their "Religious" Beliefs. So my main point on "Morality" is If someone belives that Religion is more important than the US Constitution, Yet they Gave an Oath to "Uphold" the US Constitution: Q: 1- At what point (in a Proposed Law) could be considered to be a Breach Of Oath? ... & 2- at what point wold it become Treason? 3- Is it ever Immoral for a law maker to lie to the public?... or, is it "Morally" OK to lie if it gets what ones-own "Moral" beliefs dictate everyone must do or must not do. I truly belive that the division between church & state is our Best Guarantee against Tyranny. To defend our country from Enimy's Both Foreign & Domestic is the primary Responsibility that our Elected Officials were elected to do. It is another contention of mine that: To Intentionally Evade, Breach, Thwart,Deny, ignore, Leduslate to the contrary,or suspend anything in our constititutional Bill Of Rights is Felonious at best & Treason at worst. RE: The Principal of the US Constitutional Bill Of Rights is Intended to Require the elected officials to protect all of U.S. Citizens from Religious Dictates & also protect all U.S. Citizens from being forced one way or the other religious or not. The Most important "Morality" here is "Constitutional " :To Uphold the constititution IS "Moral". ....To ignore, Evade or otherwise Deny it IS" Immoral".
S.M. Health - please don't take this thread off-topic. It would also help if you used paragraphs in your posts.
TOPICS:
1. Where do your views fit within these models? (See first post for details)
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
TOPICS:
1. Where do your views fit within these models? (See first post for details)
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
I find it difficult to put a label on my views on life and politics, but if I had to make a black or white choice I would say I fit most completely in the Nurturant Parent model. However, I think that in reality, I am somewhere between the middle and the Nurturant Parent end of the spectrum.
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
It does, but I also think it is incomplete as well. Sticking to the parenting analogies, it would seem that the following things would be appropriate to add:
1. In the Strict Father model there is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. Black and white, up and down, left and right, there is no middle ground. In the Nurturant Parent model it would seem that there are many possible right ways of doing something and the intentions should be examined rather than the methods. This model lends itself to more than a black and white interpretation of the world, there are various shades of gray too.
2. In the Stirct Father model one doesn't care why a child is misbehaving, the only thing that matters is the child is misbehaving and that must be corrected, usually with swift punishment. In the Nurturant Parent model, the reasons for the misbehavior are important because it is not so much about stopping the current behavior but understanding it and correcting it for the future as well.
Now if you translate these two things to some real world examples and substitute "conservative" for Strict Father and "liberal" for Nurturant Parent I think you can make some interesting conclusions in today's political world.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
I don't think that understanding the other side is necessarily the problem. The problem is that the worldviews here are so drastically different, that the differences are irreconcilable.
If we were talking about small differences then maybe it would be possible to come to a compromise on many things, but when the difference is so great you really can't compromise too much in my opinion without violating the principles you hold dear.
I think that the polarization we are experiencing is the result of an ideological battle being fought in America right now, both sides are in the trenches and neither is willing to give an inch. In the end there may be a clear winner, but maybe the battle will just rage on forever too.
I find it difficult to put a label on my views on life and politics, but if I had to make a black or white choice I would say I fit most completely in the Nurturant Parent model. However, I think that in reality, I am somewhere between the middle and the Nurturant Parent end of the spectrum.
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
It does, but I also think it is incomplete as well. Sticking to the parenting analogies, it would seem that the following things would be appropriate to add:
1. In the Strict Father model there is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. Black and white, up and down, left and right, there is no middle ground. In the Nurturant Parent model it would seem that there are many possible right ways of doing something and the intentions should be examined rather than the methods. This model lends itself to more than a black and white interpretation of the world, there are various shades of gray too.
2. In the Stirct Father model one doesn't care why a child is misbehaving, the only thing that matters is the child is misbehaving and that must be corrected, usually with swift punishment. In the Nurturant Parent model, the reasons for the misbehavior are important because it is not so much about stopping the current behavior but understanding it and correcting it for the future as well.
Now if you translate these two things to some real world examples and substitute "conservative" for Strict Father and "liberal" for Nurturant Parent I think you can make some interesting conclusions in today's political world.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
I don't think that understanding the other side is necessarily the problem. The problem is that the worldviews here are so drastically different, that the differences are irreconcilable.
If we were talking about small differences then maybe it would be possible to come to a compromise on many things, but when the difference is so great you really can't compromise too much in my opinion without violating the principles you hold dear.
I think that the polarization we are experiencing is the result of an ideological battle being fought in America right now, both sides are in the trenches and neither is willing to give an inch. In the end there may be a clear winner, but maybe the battle will just rage on forever too.
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
I have been exposed to both concepts of God/morality. Early on it was the strict Father figure, and then in my twenties and thirties, I spent much time with those who see God as a nurturing Mother.
The result is that while I believe that there is punishment for violating the rules, I also believe that we are still loved as children and have available to us that same Parent who is willing to provide affection and assistance, mercy and compassion.
It is possible that this influence encompasses both sides in the way that a parent will correct a child for wrongdoing, but the child knows s/he is still loved and will be welcomed back into the arms of that parent.
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
As a matter of fact, it does. When my first husband and I attended Bob Jones University chapel services, the strict father figure was pretty much the only image we encountered. Jonathan Edward's sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is representative of the way they view divine authority in this world.
I rebelled against that concept for many years after going through some major personal upheavals, and it has been only in the past eleven years or so that I was able to meld the two concepts of the God nature to a parent who has some strict standards but who also has unconditional love and mercy.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate that the differences are irreconcilable?
Yes, it does help to some degree, but I don't believe that most people are interested enough in the psychology to make an effort to understand the other side. It does leave me feeling torn at times in my own understanding, for while I still feel personally subject to the strict Father tenets, that stance is softened by the compassion of the nurturing Mother figure, and I tend to be more acceptant of those who do not feel compelled to be guided by strict Father morality.
For some, the differences are irreconcilable. Regardless of overtures from those with a different understanding, these people will stick to their beliefs and will have no interest in a meeting of the minds. To them, a willingness to see the "other side" constitutes a betrayal of their beliefs. Compromise is to be avoided, for it is seen as a dilution of their beliefs, a blurred reading of their moral compass.
I have been exposed to both concepts of God/morality. Early on it was the strict Father figure, and then in my twenties and thirties, I spent much time with those who see God as a nurturing Mother.
The result is that while I believe that there is punishment for violating the rules, I also believe that we are still loved as children and have available to us that same Parent who is willing to provide affection and assistance, mercy and compassion.
It is possible that this influence encompasses both sides in the way that a parent will correct a child for wrongdoing, but the child knows s/he is still loved and will be welcomed back into the arms of that parent.
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
As a matter of fact, it does. When my first husband and I attended Bob Jones University chapel services, the strict father figure was pretty much the only image we encountered. Jonathan Edward's sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is representative of the way they view divine authority in this world.
I rebelled against that concept for many years after going through some major personal upheavals, and it has been only in the past eleven years or so that I was able to meld the two concepts of the God nature to a parent who has some strict standards but who also has unconditional love and mercy.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate that the differences are irreconcilable?
Yes, it does help to some degree, but I don't believe that most people are interested enough in the psychology to make an effort to understand the other side. It does leave me feeling torn at times in my own understanding, for while I still feel personally subject to the strict Father tenets, that stance is softened by the compassion of the nurturing Mother figure, and I tend to be more acceptant of those who do not feel compelled to be guided by strict Father morality.
For some, the differences are irreconcilable. Regardless of overtures from those with a different understanding, these people will stick to their beliefs and will have no interest in a meeting of the minds. To them, a willingness to see the "other side" constitutes a betrayal of their beliefs. Compromise is to be avoided, for it is seen as a dilution of their beliefs, a blurred reading of their moral compass.
Wow, Fantastic topic Wertz, thanks for taking the time to put it together for us
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
Sure start with the tough one.
I see myself in both. I guess in the end I am more of the Strict Father than the Nurturing parent when it comes to public policy.
As I see it, Society MUST hold it's members responsible not just for their actions, but for the consequences of those actions as well if it is to survive as a civilized society. For example, A man breaks into an elderly woman's house and steals from her. When he is caught he deserves a prison sentence (some would say a particularly longer one since his victim was elderly). However, the woman also deserves to be compensated. He should be held accountable for any costs causes by his crime. Replacement of the stolen belongings, repair of her door, therapy she might have needed, etc.
But the key here is that the crime harmed another. If instead the man was caught cultivating a small crop of Marijuana in his backyard who has he harmed? Why go to prison? Why even be a crime?
I believe we need a public safety net for those that are not responsible for their circumstances. For example. A man gambles away all of his wages every week until his family is destitute. The family needs the safety net to get back on their feet and I am happy to have one for them. The man however, should be on his own left to the mess he choose to create.
I believe in individual freedom balanced by personal responsiblity. All actions that harm no one other then the actor should be allowed. All activities that harm others should be severely dealt with and any debts caused to the victim(s) should be repaid.
On the nurturing side I feel it it INCREDIBLY important to give children the right tools and knowledge to succeed and be good societal members and individuals. We need access to good schools for all children (what constitutes a good school, how to make school a good school and what options parents should have are where the left and the right differ). No option to give children the best chance should be ignored.
What if the US Government put $5000.00 in a trust at the birth of every child? Not to accessed until it's time to pay for college and then not accessible again until the child reaches the age of 30? How much money would be there from compound interest? How much cheaper would it be for the government and society in the long run vs. the current programs? What if and additional $5000.00 was put in a trust for that childs retirement?
I spend alot of time reading "Radical Centrist" ideas lately. A Radical Centrist is I guess is best described as someone who wants to achieve classically liberals ideals through capitalist mechanisms. Theres a monkey wrench for the above classifications.
In the end, public policy wise I am a Strict Father, personal life wise I am a nurturing parent. I see it as societies duty to care for those in need, but not the governments. (sorry about getting off on a tangent, in the end I am not that sure what I am either
)
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
I think I always understood the views of those on the extreme left and the extreme right. I just never thought they were good for the country or society as a whole. However, in our government today neither of these views prevail anymore, when it comes to action instead of rhetoric. The focus of both sides these days is election, re-election, not giving an inch to the other guy. It is terrible, but it is the way it is.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate that the differences are irreconcilable?
Individually, as in on AD? maybe. In the congress? No way. The motivation in congress is not who is right or wrong, it is who gets the credit, who then gets the most votes and who stays in power.
On AD, I never really thought that those opposite my views (on both sides) were morally bankrupt, I just don't always get their reasoning or lack there of.
In the end, Polarization is the fault of the Internet, Fox News, CNN, Talk Radio, etc. People who have decided to get marginally involved in politics seem to stick to media outlets that echo their beliefs. They rarely challenge them.
A great example is the book BIAS by Goldberg. In the book, he tells of things that happened to him, he tells of how he tried to address it at times and he tells of the curious reactions of those around him at CBS news. The consistent theme is that there is no grand conspiracy, the DNC is not involved, the Bias of the New York TV News on all three channels is caused simply because all of the media leaders live in the same area. They never talk to people of different political beliefs, they never consider different beliefs, etc. It is not a conspiracy but rather an error of omission in most cases.
Now, the right wave this book around and say look at the truth, CBS is out to destroy us.
The left wave this book around and say lies, lies, and darnable lies.
Neither is correct. Both are reading the same book through their own ideologically bigoted eyes and gleaming what fits their views from it and ignoring the rest.
You can't fix polarization when people do this. You can only identify it, mark it off with caution tape and move around it to more reasonable areas.
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
Sure start with the tough one.
I see myself in both. I guess in the end I am more of the Strict Father than the Nurturing parent when it comes to public policy.As I see it, Society MUST hold it's members responsible not just for their actions, but for the consequences of those actions as well if it is to survive as a civilized society. For example, A man breaks into an elderly woman's house and steals from her. When he is caught he deserves a prison sentence (some would say a particularly longer one since his victim was elderly). However, the woman also deserves to be compensated. He should be held accountable for any costs causes by his crime. Replacement of the stolen belongings, repair of her door, therapy she might have needed, etc.
But the key here is that the crime harmed another. If instead the man was caught cultivating a small crop of Marijuana in his backyard who has he harmed? Why go to prison? Why even be a crime?
I believe we need a public safety net for those that are not responsible for their circumstances. For example. A man gambles away all of his wages every week until his family is destitute. The family needs the safety net to get back on their feet and I am happy to have one for them. The man however, should be on his own left to the mess he choose to create.
I believe in individual freedom balanced by personal responsiblity. All actions that harm no one other then the actor should be allowed. All activities that harm others should be severely dealt with and any debts caused to the victim(s) should be repaid.
On the nurturing side I feel it it INCREDIBLY important to give children the right tools and knowledge to succeed and be good societal members and individuals. We need access to good schools for all children (what constitutes a good school, how to make school a good school and what options parents should have are where the left and the right differ). No option to give children the best chance should be ignored.
What if the US Government put $5000.00 in a trust at the birth of every child? Not to accessed until it's time to pay for college and then not accessible again until the child reaches the age of 30? How much money would be there from compound interest? How much cheaper would it be for the government and society in the long run vs. the current programs? What if and additional $5000.00 was put in a trust for that childs retirement?
I spend alot of time reading "Radical Centrist" ideas lately. A Radical Centrist is I guess is best described as someone who wants to achieve classically liberals ideals through capitalist mechanisms. Theres a monkey wrench for the above classifications.
In the end, public policy wise I am a Strict Father, personal life wise I am a nurturing parent. I see it as societies duty to care for those in need, but not the governments. (sorry about getting off on a tangent, in the end I am not that sure what I am either
)2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
I think I always understood the views of those on the extreme left and the extreme right. I just never thought they were good for the country or society as a whole. However, in our government today neither of these views prevail anymore, when it comes to action instead of rhetoric. The focus of both sides these days is election, re-election, not giving an inch to the other guy. It is terrible, but it is the way it is.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate that the differences are irreconcilable?
Individually, as in on AD? maybe. In the congress? No way. The motivation in congress is not who is right or wrong, it is who gets the credit, who then gets the most votes and who stays in power.
On AD, I never really thought that those opposite my views (on both sides) were morally bankrupt, I just don't always get their reasoning or lack there of.
In the end, Polarization is the fault of the Internet, Fox News, CNN, Talk Radio, etc. People who have decided to get marginally involved in politics seem to stick to media outlets that echo their beliefs. They rarely challenge them.
A great example is the book BIAS by Goldberg. In the book, he tells of things that happened to him, he tells of how he tried to address it at times and he tells of the curious reactions of those around him at CBS news. The consistent theme is that there is no grand conspiracy, the DNC is not involved, the Bias of the New York TV News on all three channels is caused simply because all of the media leaders live in the same area. They never talk to people of different political beliefs, they never consider different beliefs, etc. It is not a conspiracy but rather an error of omission in most cases.
Now, the right wave this book around and say look at the truth, CBS is out to destroy us.
The left wave this book around and say lies, lies, and darnable lies.
Neither is correct. Both are reading the same book through their own ideologically bigoted eyes and gleaming what fits their views from it and ignoring the rest.
You can't fix polarization when people do this. You can only identify it, mark it off with caution tape and move around it to more reasonable areas.
Carl Jung would LOVE this debate! Archetypal symbols are now being chosen to run our lives. Attempts to turn politics into a two party, you vs. them, black and white, two group dichotomy are inherently flawed. As such, I believe (paradoxically) that the realm of ethics, politics, morals, power, public policy, law or whatever you want to call it is divided into two groups – the psychological self identifiers (as are all of those who believe in Lakoff) and the issue-ists.
The psychological self-identifiers have a preset idea of who they want to be in charge, and how they want things done, and the details often get washed away in ideological floods. These folks can tell just by looking at the candidates who they’ll vote for, and often inflate politics into religion (my candidate has the blessing of the Supreme Forces of the universe). While they frequently profess to love democracy, in actuality they would be just as happy under any form of government. This applies to both Strict Father-ites and Nurturing Mother-ites.
While issue-ists often have ethical frameworks by which they live and make choices, these frameworks are flexible and are reformed and adapted to each new moral/ethical issue that arises. These are the people who carry the laundry lists of issues to the poles, and LOVE referendums. Frequently, issue-ists spend days before elections researching the most ridiculous referendums that have no bearing what-so-ever on their lives.
The resolution to my belief paradox is this – these systems are not absolute, and the issue-ists are not really one group, but a multiverse of independent groups and individuals. That’s why politicians in the United States spend about 0% of their time discussing actual issues or proposing solutions to them.
Approximately 98.6% of Democrats and 98.6% of Republicans are psychological self-identifiers (margin of error = 3%). While my guess is that about 50% of politicians are actually issue-ists, when on TV they learned long ago to keep this dark secret to themselves. Rather, politicians are actors, pretending to be wine-and cheese intellectual liberals or ruthless gun toting redneck sons-of-guns. They dress in costume, hang out with other “just folks” types, and NEVER say anything that could ‘alienate’ anyone.
The is undoubtedly a dark cordon of politicians who are truly evil, and don’t care about issues at all and merely want the power/wealth they gain from holding office. These people ruthlessly manipulate both the issue-ists and the psychological self identifiers, and pose a clear and present danger to us and our free way of life.
That being said:
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
I think the dual frame work is a dark conspiracy concocted by the Harvard Club in Washington in the 1840s.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate that the differences are irreconcilable?
I think the very polarization is the problem. At the same time, I confess that the first words in my mind when I hear a politician use the word ‘bipartisan’ are not usable in this forum. There is no such thing as irreconcilable difference. The polarization in our political arena is a sham.
The psychological self-identifiers have a preset idea of who they want to be in charge, and how they want things done, and the details often get washed away in ideological floods. These folks can tell just by looking at the candidates who they’ll vote for, and often inflate politics into religion (my candidate has the blessing of the Supreme Forces of the universe). While they frequently profess to love democracy, in actuality they would be just as happy under any form of government. This applies to both Strict Father-ites and Nurturing Mother-ites.
While issue-ists often have ethical frameworks by which they live and make choices, these frameworks are flexible and are reformed and adapted to each new moral/ethical issue that arises. These are the people who carry the laundry lists of issues to the poles, and LOVE referendums. Frequently, issue-ists spend days before elections researching the most ridiculous referendums that have no bearing what-so-ever on their lives.
The resolution to my belief paradox is this – these systems are not absolute, and the issue-ists are not really one group, but a multiverse of independent groups and individuals. That’s why politicians in the United States spend about 0% of their time discussing actual issues or proposing solutions to them.
Approximately 98.6% of Democrats and 98.6% of Republicans are psychological self-identifiers (margin of error = 3%). While my guess is that about 50% of politicians are actually issue-ists, when on TV they learned long ago to keep this dark secret to themselves. Rather, politicians are actors, pretending to be wine-and cheese intellectual liberals or ruthless gun toting redneck sons-of-guns. They dress in costume, hang out with other “just folks” types, and NEVER say anything that could ‘alienate’ anyone.
The is undoubtedly a dark cordon of politicians who are truly evil, and don’t care about issues at all and merely want the power/wealth they gain from holding office. These people ruthlessly manipulate both the issue-ists and the psychological self identifiers, and pose a clear and present danger to us and our free way of life.
That being said:
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
I think the dual frame work is a dark conspiracy concocted by the Harvard Club in Washington in the 1840s.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate that the differences are irreconcilable?
I think the very polarization is the problem. At the same time, I confess that the first words in my mind when I hear a politician use the word ‘bipartisan’ are not usable in this forum. There is no such thing as irreconcilable difference. The polarization in our political arena is a sham.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Sep 1 2004, 08:44 PM)
To debate:
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
1.)My wife and I definitely fall into the nurturant model than anything else, though I believe some aspects of the authoritarian model are in our parenting style as well. Should junior try and cross the street without looking, I will hardly be "nurturing" as say....Stuart Smalley.
2.)The second question is something that just hasn't been covered in the media and by the punitocracy. We hear how we are divided as a nation, it's nice to have someone put forward an idea as to why that is. It's hard to be one side and be left to wonder why the other half just doesn't see how something is from your perspective. Yes, it does provide a good model for me to try and look through the lens that others here see on issues.
3.)I honestly don't think so. People fight just as much about how to parent as much as they argue about how given social problems should be solved.
Like in real life, the best model for my style of "political parenting" would be Child-Free.
I don't like children. I don't like politics. Both are important, of course, and need to be dealt with seriously. That doesn't mean I'm the best person to deal with them.
So which type of parent am I least like? No question; the Strict Parent model (I see no reason why this has to be the "Father," by the way) turns me off completely. To me, this model is best represented politically by social conservatives, who are the antithesis of my own political positions. So, the Nurturing Parent wins by default. In reality, my style of parenting, real or political, would probably be an awkward combination of encouragement and benign neglect.
Does this model help me understand "the other side?" Maybe a little bit.
It's interesting, anyway.
I doubt much of anything can be done to reduce the current political polarization of the United States. It never hurts to think about models like this one, though.
I don't like children. I don't like politics. Both are important, of course, and need to be dealt with seriously. That doesn't mean I'm the best person to deal with them.
So which type of parent am I least like? No question; the Strict Parent model (I see no reason why this has to be the "Father," by the way) turns me off completely. To me, this model is best represented politically by social conservatives, who are the antithesis of my own political positions. So, the Nurturing Parent wins by default. In reality, my style of parenting, real or political, would probably be an awkward combination of encouragement and benign neglect.
Does this model help me understand "the other side?" Maybe a little bit.
It's interesting, anyway.
I doubt much of anything can be done to reduce the current political polarization of the United States. It never hurts to think about models like this one, though.
Just a note on Vicki's query: Lakoff himself does make the point that there are, indeed, Strict Mothers and households where the roles of the archetype are reversed (where the matriarch sets and enforces the rules), but claims he uses the term "Strict Father" because it is more recognizable - and probably more frequently occurring - as a symbol. In the "nurturant household", both parents necessarily adhere to the empathetic model or it starts to become "strict".
I suspect he is also implying that the gender stereotype also works within his paradigm: conservatives are more likely to adhere to "traditional" gender roles, where the male is the dominant member of the household, while liberals are more likely to refer, with all due political correctness, to genderless "parenting", recognizing that gender stereotypes are artificial social constructs.
All that said, Lakoff's models as symbols of political philosophy do not necessarily reflect how one actually behaves as a parent. It is quite possible that there are "strict father" households in which the political philosophies of its members are more in the Nurturant Parent mode - and nurturant families in which the politics of its members are distinctly conservative. I imagine that people with Strict Father political beliefs would lean toward a "strict father household" and vice versa, but I would expect that there are many exceptions to this as well.
I would have to disagree with radiofreenola that the polarization in our political arena is a sham. I think there are very clear distinctions between two overriding sets of political philosophies, generally identified as "liberal" and "conservative" (and even radio admits that, within "psychological self-identifiers", there is a division between Strict Father and Nurturant Parent types - and that is what I'm looking at here). Conceptual metaphor is central to moral understanding and moral reason - and I feel that the distinctions which are made in Moral Politics, based on the two family models, are very serviceable.
What Lakoff's metaphor provides is a decent working model for explaining the sets of beliefs held by the two sides - as a generalization. It also accounts for some of the seeming contradictions which puzzle members of the two types.
Some of the examples which Lakoff himself uses are:
Once you know where they're coming from - and the moral foundation for their beliefs, it also makes it a bit more difficult for liberals to dismiss conservatives as irrational, corrupt, or downright evil and for conservatives to dismiss liberals as immoral, misguided, or just plain stupid. This is especially the case when one is aware of what Lakoff calls the "pathological stereotypes" (taking the most extreme exaggeration of each type): strict parents are abusive parents and nurturant parents spoil and appease their children. I think that recognizing the fact that both sides have a genuine interest in the well-being of their children - the nation - may not lead to any major compromises (it is, after all, a worldview problem), but it could at least tone down some of the rhetoric. Maybe.
I suspect he is also implying that the gender stereotype also works within his paradigm: conservatives are more likely to adhere to "traditional" gender roles, where the male is the dominant member of the household, while liberals are more likely to refer, with all due political correctness, to genderless "parenting", recognizing that gender stereotypes are artificial social constructs.
All that said, Lakoff's models as symbols of political philosophy do not necessarily reflect how one actually behaves as a parent. It is quite possible that there are "strict father" households in which the political philosophies of its members are more in the Nurturant Parent mode - and nurturant families in which the politics of its members are distinctly conservative. I imagine that people with Strict Father political beliefs would lean toward a "strict father household" and vice versa, but I would expect that there are many exceptions to this as well.
I would have to disagree with radiofreenola that the polarization in our political arena is a sham. I think there are very clear distinctions between two overriding sets of political philosophies, generally identified as "liberal" and "conservative" (and even radio admits that, within "psychological self-identifiers", there is a division between Strict Father and Nurturant Parent types - and that is what I'm looking at here). Conceptual metaphor is central to moral understanding and moral reason - and I feel that the distinctions which are made in Moral Politics, based on the two family models, are very serviceable.
What Lakoff's metaphor provides is a decent working model for explaining the sets of beliefs held by the two sides - as a generalization. It also accounts for some of the seeming contradictions which puzzle members of the two types.
Some of the examples which Lakoff himself uses are:
- Liberals find it illogical that right-to-life advocates are mostly in favor of capital punishment.
Liberals find it illogical that conservatives see increased budgets for the military and the building of prisons as essential for protection, but don't conceptualize regulatory agencies which protect consumers, workers, and the environment as protection.
Liberals find it illogical that conservatives who endorse states' rights favor federal intervention in issues as varied as gay marriage and tort reform - which should be up to individual states.
Conservatives find it illogical that those who claim to be for equal opportunity support affirmative action which promotes racial, ethnic, and sexual favoritism.
Conservatives find it illogical that liberals support helping people in need while supporting social welfare programs that make people dependent on the government and remove their initiative.
Conservatives find it illogical that liberals support federal funding for the research and treatment of AIDS, but sanction sexual behavior which leads to AIDS.
And so on.
Once you know where they're coming from - and the moral foundation for their beliefs, it also makes it a bit more difficult for liberals to dismiss conservatives as irrational, corrupt, or downright evil and for conservatives to dismiss liberals as immoral, misguided, or just plain stupid. This is especially the case when one is aware of what Lakoff calls the "pathological stereotypes" (taking the most extreme exaggeration of each type): strict parents are abusive parents and nurturant parents spoil and appease their children. I think that recognizing the fact that both sides have a genuine interest in the well-being of their children - the nation - may not lead to any major compromises (it is, after all, a worldview problem), but it could at least tone down some of the rhetoric. Maybe.
1. Where do your views fit within these models?
Politically, I am pretty close to the Strict Parent. As with others here, I tend to be more the obverse on my own parenting--I fall fairly strongly into the nurturing role there. Where I tend to merge the two is on personal responsibility--I follow that in both roles.
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
Yes. I have had enough personal interaction with staunch members of the opposite party to understand that they weren't as evil as I might have otherwise imagined
, and this model tends to provide a framework which fits into things I had noticed during those interactions.
3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
I would hope so. Our system is built on progress through compromise---polarization leads to nonproductivity. I do think understanding where the other side is coming from, and that they might actually have good intentions and reasoning behind their views, should help to reduce polarization.
Politically, I am pretty close to the Strict Parent. As with others here, I tend to be more the obverse on my own parenting--I fall fairly strongly into the nurturing role there. Where I tend to merge the two is on personal responsibility--I follow that in both roles.
2. Does this framework help you understand/appreciate the views of those opposite you on the political spectrum?
Yes. I have had enough personal interaction with staunch members of the opposite party to understand that they weren't as evil as I might have otherwise imagined
, and this model tends to provide a framework which fits into things I had noticed during those interactions.3. Do you think better understanding/appreciation of the other side's morality and what motivates them, such as these models try to provide, could help reduce the polarization currently seen in our political arena? Or do they merely indicate theat the differences are irreconcilable?
I would hope so. Our system is built on progress through compromise---polarization leads to nonproductivity. I do think understanding where the other side is coming from, and that they might actually have good intentions and reasoning behind their views, should help to reduce polarization.
How weird. I find this site about a week after starting to read Lakoff's book.
I am finding the book (only about 150 pages into it - don't tell me how it ends!) fascinating. As a student of linguistics, I've read countless papers by Lakoff regarding his day job of Professor of Linguistics. His schtick is (or was back when I was reading him) 'semantic frames' where a set of common semantic concepts can be combined and tweaked to create all the vast subtlties of language.
He's taken this theory to the realm of morality and politics (although I haven't gotten that far yet). He describes about a dozen different moral metaphors, all of which most people would agree exist. Then, by combining them in one order, you get Strict Father, while combining the same set of metaphors and prioritizing them differently you get Nurturing Parent. By tweaking the parameters slightly, you can also move around the different manifestations of each group (NASCAR Dad to Skinhead to CEO)
The part I like the best is that its predictive in some sense. The apparent contradictions Wertz describes easily falls out of the theory.
Great book. Great site here. Both should keep me busy for the next year or two.
Chris
I am finding the book (only about 150 pages into it - don't tell me how it ends!) fascinating. As a student of linguistics, I've read countless papers by Lakoff regarding his day job of Professor of Linguistics. His schtick is (or was back when I was reading him) 'semantic frames' where a set of common semantic concepts can be combined and tweaked to create all the vast subtlties of language.
He's taken this theory to the realm of morality and politics (although I haven't gotten that far yet). He describes about a dozen different moral metaphors, all of which most people would agree exist. Then, by combining them in one order, you get Strict Father, while combining the same set of metaphors and prioritizing them differently you get Nurturing Parent. By tweaking the parameters slightly, you can also move around the different manifestations of each group (NASCAR Dad to Skinhead to CEO)
The part I like the best is that its predictive in some sense. The apparent contradictions Wertz describes easily falls out of the theory.
Great book. Great site here. Both should keep me busy for the next year or two.
Chris
First of all to respond to this in context of myself i would have to spill my guts on how i view things. I look at life from a liberal/natural law perspective, to add to that, i feel the nature and nurture of any particular life form is a abstraction of that life forms biology. An example would be the reality and life of a handicapped life form v.s a like one that is not and so on, or what a dog can do v.s a whale and so on. To add my next point, the relation via morphology that can be found in evolutionary pathology in terms of the multi cellular life forms it represents can be found in human society and all its various cultures. Within the history of human society and cultures and in relation to modern day and past America, i find relativity of not just a "worldview" but how ever you would like to break that down, and to this topic, that would be the concept of morality in politics. I feel strongly that with the more factual basis for relativity in thought and or feeling the idea of a certain shade of human morality being enforced on all others in itself could be morally wrong and if not anti-American in origin. One could say its morally absolute that a majority of forms of life do not want to die, but how can that then be interpreted and acted upon. I dont care really for most of it myself, being i view that humanity for the most part lives in a great deal of ignorance of a factual reality, and this impacts greatly on the things we do and create, and is why relativity in morality for example exists most likely. I am also sure various moral systems may touch on some baseline human morality one could try to say is absolute, but then again the simple fact of stagnant ignorance and the want to conserve that/those reality's' does not help progress to "brighter" day for humanity in general. To just end on it again, i overall feel that morality in America, as to be used in political decisions, should try to reflect Americans, not just some of them, and that would be one of my chief complaints against the use of morality in the realm of politics, save the ignorance i view in human society regardless of form. 
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.