Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think

Kostya

Following program was on NPR today and I found it to be very interesting:

"Cognitive scientist George Lakoff argues that the red state/blue state division of America reflects different world-views and moral philosophies. We talk with Lakoff about the ways liberals and conservatives see the world."

This is an audio stream that is about 33 minutes long:

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=TOTN&showDate=12-Oct-2004&segNu m=1&mediaPref=WM

Lakoff has also published a book that talks about these issues: Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think by George Lakoff.

Dissident Heart

Here's one view from the Anarchist fold, Noam Chomsky, who has criticism enough for Liberals and Conservatives alike.

Quote:
Systems of Power and their Human Costs

In dealing with enemies (say, Pol Pot, or Maoist China), we properly attribute to them deaths caused by starvation, disease, overwork, etc., insofar as these result from institutional structures and political choices. That’s quite independent of intention.

Thus in the Black Book of Communism, compiled to demonstrate the evil of our enemies and very highly praised in the West (here too), they estimate 100 million deaths from 1917 to the end of the century, the largest component being the famine in China in the late 1950s, maybe 25 million. No one claims that it was intended or planned. The most serious studies do regard it as criminal, attributing it to the sociopolitical system that prevented information from reaching the center in time to do anything—studies by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, notably. The very same studies, in the same books, conclude that democratic capitalist India alone was responsible for 100 million deaths that were avoided in China from independence in 1947 to 1979, attributing the difference to sociopolitical structures. That half of the studies is ignored in the West. If we were to apply the standards we use for enemies, the toll would be colossal.

If we keep to killings, it’s a complicated calculation. How do we decide how many of the killings in our Latin American dependencies are the direct responsibility of the US—including not only the government but the institutions and culture that support or tolerate them?

Kostya

Dissident,

Lakoff is talking about differences between left and right thinking. Specifically, he is talking about his ideas of why people lean towards one or the other spectrum of political divide. He talks about differences of the moral systems behind conservatives and progressives and why representatives of each side hold to their internally consistent (on some level) but different philosophies of the world.

I don’t know how is any of the above having anything to do with what you've just posted? Does Chomsky help us understand why some people are conservatives and some are progressives?

And if your point is that there is no difference between the two then I think you are wrong. You might disagree with either side but there is no question in anyone's mind that there are people on the left and people on the right of political spectrum and that there is something fundamentally different about their approach to the world.

Thank you.

Kostya

Dissident Heart

Chomsky's point is that in most cases, the overwhelming number of cases, the vast majority of Left and Right agree on at least this key issue:

The crimes of our enemies arise out of crass self-interest, even evil intentions; whereas that abuses commited by the USA arise out of noble intentions gone awry...that is IF they are willing to admit to any abuses in the first place.

And that may be one meaningful difference between the Left and Right...most often, the Left is at least willing to admit to abuses committed over seas, but is quick to rationalize them away. Whereas the Right thinks we haven'e been brutal enough, and should kick even more ass, but is quick to add that if We do it, by definition it cannot be a crime.

Kostya

Yes, left and right agree on some thing and disagree on some other things. Chomsky has some valid points about exiting double standards in how people (not just Americans but EVERYONE) view politics and life.

Despite the fact that the quote from the NPR website that I posted talks about red and blue states and implies that this is somehow an American issue – it is certainly not. The same issue exists in every corner of the world. In every corner of the world some people favor conservative approaches to the world over progressive worldview and vise versa.

It is not about who is willing to admit the facts or accept responsibility for actions. Those questions are important but not necessarily what Lakoff is talking about.

What makes you to be on the left of the spectrum while someone who is seemingly as intelligent and reasonable is favoring all the conservative answers? Is it because you are somehow smarter, more learned, have “the real facts”, more honest? Most of the people believe so about themselves. But most of the people have been wrong before and I suspect that they are wrong again.

It seems as if Lakoff is attempting to answer those questions in more or less objective manner. From what I can tell, he is not pointing fingers and he is not looking for the guilty party. Since most of our thought is unconscious perhaps the reasons behind our political views are not as rational as we all tend to think. Perhaps it is not as much about issues as it is about our personal experiences, upbringing and philosophies we embrace…

Thank you.

Kostya

Tim Nonzero

IMO the left appears to be more affluent in the middle and working classes (in Britain anyway). I’d say that the working class embraces the left through the – sadly now defunct - trade unions, although the working class’ judicial opinions usually remain in the right wing (authoritarian and sweeping). The middle class approach from a different angle; coming from the more educated and atheist ranks, paying more attention to causality, especially in the legal spectrum. These are the studious and radical, more willing to accept change and debate. This is why we see so much argument and lack of organization in the left: its philosophy in constant flux.

The right is an altogether older and more simplistic way of looking at things, owing much of its tenets to the Judeo religions. This dogmatic, inflexible, but instinctive philosophy appeals to the legalists, the reactionary, the religious and the wealthy; although I think much of its creed is more cynically observed by some of those factions. It’s altogether old fashioned – being obsessed with accountability and the preservation of monetary hierarchy and its love affair with meritocracy.

Of course there are crossovers and charlatans on both sides and these summaries are generalizations, but it’s my opinion at the minute.

Tim


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT