I don’t think the left considers it a duty to hear criticism or even friendly dissection of their views.
We are gathered for a family reunion for a few days.
The family is divided into standard Protestant-derived left, and eco-con right (a conservatism based upon preservation, not drug use); always has been. But it is not clear that the left half of the family realizes this. They share their opinions freely, as a matter of course, in a manner suggesting they are stating truths and norms that we too adhere to, seeming not to notice they have never heard us do the same. Or if once long ago the divide was broached, it brought tears to their eyes and we certainly don’t want a repeat of that. This obliviousness on their part - that there could be two ideas, not one, or even possibly more as we see here on this blog - requires a certain presumption that conservatives whatever our sins and foibles, would never be guilty of.
So: our thoughts are unspoken while theirs are open and taken in their minds as given among all.
As per usual then, we do not disabuse them of this, nor speak in any but the vaguest terms.
In a way, though, this sort of imposture - both on our part, and possibly on theirs to the extent that decades of seeing one another, albeit at irregular intervals, has furnished some occasional suspicion that we may not be on quite the same page - goes to the heart of conservatism.
Politics should not be personal. Even if people’s thoughts are ill-reasoned (or unreasoned) or shallow or sheeplike, that does not matter in terms of their value as people and as members of the only family you’re ever going to get.
I think if Haidt has moved in left-liberal circles all this time and failed to grok this, that their pieties are received and not open to examination - he has been curiously obtuse.
I was in a book group with liberals that read A Righteous Mind. Most of them didn't get it. It didn't make sense to them. It in no way changed their view of conservatives or people generally. Even the ones who indicated they understood conservatives better weren't able to state the main points. I don't think they understood the moral foundations even after reading about them. It was a bridge too far. I suspect the coddling is also a bridge too far.
Interesting that Haidt thinks that it is rejection on the "purity" axis leads to his lack of influence on the Left, when the Left is supposedly harm/fairness focused. [I have never liked the five factor explanation of Left/Right differences, feeling that its a matter of framing.]
I don’t think the left considers it a duty to hear criticism or even friendly dissection of their views.
We are gathered for a family reunion for a few days.
The family is divided into standard Protestant-derived left, and eco-con right (a conservatism based upon preservation, not drug use); always has been. But it is not clear that the left half of the family realizes this. They share their opinions freely, as a matter of course, in a manner suggesting they are stating truths and norms that we too adhere to, seeming not to notice they have never heard us do the same. Or if once long ago the divide was broached, it brought tears to their eyes and we certainly don’t want a repeat of that. This obliviousness on their part - that there could be two ideas, not one, or even possibly more as we see here on this blog - requires a certain presumption that conservatives whatever our sins and foibles, would never be guilty of.
So: our thoughts are unspoken while theirs are open and taken in their minds as given among all.
As per usual then, we do not disabuse them of this, nor speak in any but the vaguest terms.
In a way, though, this sort of imposture - both on our part, and possibly on theirs to the extent that decades of seeing one another, albeit at irregular intervals, has furnished some occasional suspicion that we may not be on quite the same page - goes to the heart of conservatism.
Politics should not be personal. Even if people’s thoughts are ill-reasoned (or unreasoned) or shallow or sheeplike, that does not matter in terms of their value as people and as members of the only family you’re ever going to get.
I think if Haidt has moved in left-liberal circles all this time and failed to grok this, that their pieties are received and not open to examination - he has been curiously obtuse.
I was in a book group with liberals that read A Righteous Mind. Most of them didn't get it. It didn't make sense to them. It in no way changed their view of conservatives or people generally. Even the ones who indicated they understood conservatives better weren't able to state the main points. I don't think they understood the moral foundations even after reading about them. It was a bridge too far. I suspect the coddling is also a bridge too far.
Interesting that Haidt thinks that it is rejection on the "purity" axis leads to his lack of influence on the Left, when the Left is supposedly harm/fairness focused. [I have never liked the five factor explanation of Left/Right differences, feeling that its a matter of framing.]
The "Conservatives" I hear (it has been years since I heard any conservatives) say those "dark passions" are just what being a Real American is about.
Exactly, that quote was such a stark reminder that we have no conservative party.
I have two links to share:
1 Asking red state Govs. to divest in the state of NY https://shorturl.at/TFd66
2 On this Minor Attracted Persons idiocy https://shorturl.at/iw38q
The Glaston link appears to go to the Gray article. Thanks for the pointers!
The Haidt discussion of purity seems ironic to me. Wasn't it the right that was supposed to be obsessed with purity according to The Righteous Mind?