Why the Democrats don't get it ...

Good article, thanks. Definitley valuable reading.

Hrm. Hrm. Hrm.

Two quick things I feel compelled to say: at least within philosophical circles, we've long since gotten past the illusion that liberalism is anything but a comprehensive, ordering conception of the good. Or, hadn't he noticed the role that liberal values play in uniting communities like academia? When I ran into my colleague at the train (hippie mass transit!) I could predict accurately that, since he had headphones in, he was listening to NPR.

Second, I can't get behind the idea that some folks seem to have that these are all sincere, but different visions of the good. Hierarchical systems always have someone at the top, profiting. Fuck that. Ideas like "the family is the basic moral unit" and "it's a virtue to play your role" reinforce that. I'm not going to see it as a valid alternative moral perspective.

I can't get behind the idea that some folks seem to have that these are all sincere, but different visions of the good... I'm not going to see it as a valid alternative moral perspective.

There's two different issues in play here, and it's important to understand the difference:
1) Whether the people involve believe that their vision of the good is valid.
2) Whether the particular moral perspective actually is good. (More specifically: whether the consequences of the perspective lead to better results).

Haidt doesn't actually try to defend the hierarchical/ collectivist point of view; he just tries to show examples of the thinking that leads to its existence. Thus, his post deals with point #1 and not point #2. His overall premise is that the left-leaning/ elite/ college-educated crowd tends to not see the difference, picks the wrong strategy to combat it, and thus loses the battle.

One important thing to realize is that most people aren't strictly rational much of the time; rather than change their beliefs they'll instead rationalize them and reject any challenges to them. Thus, people frequently believe that the system they're in is really in their best interests, even if it's objectively not. This is how oppression of all magnitudes (from head scarves to police states) continues to exist; people accept and rationalize it to some degree and thus don't work harder to throw off the shackles. Making a rational argument against this often won't work -- it's not that people aren't aware of the rational points, it's that they ignore them.

Thinking that "people" are irrational but "we" are not is where the elitist label comes from. Check the polls to see how well that's doin'.

-Marco

That's another multi-day conversation right there, and I won't get into it in a 4-level-deep blog post comment. :-P

:)

I do believe there is right and wrong--and that some things are wrong--but I do not just assume I am "more rational" than those who disagree. I think that's a dangerous preconception to have :)

We can get into it!

-Marco

It is toxic. And it will hurt your own political cause. Keep in mind the opposing side is not a monolithic carnival of loons. There is a spectrum of beliefs and values, many of which overlap with yours, many that do not. If you treat every disagreement as if it could only come from STARK INSANITY, you will find that even the most moderate become disgusted by you.

Michael Moore did a great deal to get GW Bush elected.

I've followed up on my blog:

Irrationality, Values, and Behavior