Difference between revisions of "2008-09-09 What Makes People Vote Republican/woozle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Haidt concludes: oop, wait, there's also Barone's comment to finish up with. This has to be done right.) |
m (→Haidt: introduction: put quote in blockquote instead of italics; tidying and rewriting) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
So Haidt is, presumably, going to give us some good advice for how to better market liberalism, which he has just stated is more honest than conservatism, right? Let's read on... | So Haidt is, presumably, going to give us some good advice for how to better market liberalism, which he has just stated is more honest than conservatism, right? Let's read on... | ||
| − | + | <blockquote>Diagnosis is a pleasure [...] but with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies...</blockquote> | |
Now hold on a minute, buckaroos. A core part of liberalism is the idea that ''other ways and traditions may have value''. Liberalism embraces the idea of diversity. You can't tell me, who has spent the past 6 months as a "rational liberal" [[En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism|debating political philosophy with a "progressive conservative"]], that I'm not trying to see the good in conservatism. | Now hold on a minute, buckaroos. A core part of liberalism is the idea that ''other ways and traditions may have value''. Liberalism embraces the idea of diversity. You can't tell me, who has spent the past 6 months as a "rational liberal" [[En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism|debating political philosophy with a "progressive conservative"]], that I'm not trying to see the good in conservatism. | ||
| − | If anyone is rejecting the idea of learning from other ideologies, it would be conservatives. If conservatism chooses to shoot itself in the foot by insisting on an [[2009-03-07 Limbaugh defines bipartisanship|all-or-nothing, dominate-or-be-dominated]] view of the political spectrum, that is a choice made by conservatives -- not liberals. | + | If anyone is rejecting the idea of learning from other ideologies, it would be conservatives. If conservatism chooses to shoot itself in the foot by insisting on an [[2009-03-07 Limbaugh defines bipartisanship|all-or-nothing, dominate-or-be-dominated]] view of the political spectrum, that is a choice made by conservatives -- not liberals. If political ideology must be a binary, all-or-nothing choice, the only sane choice is the ideology which respects and values other ideologies. This isn't a matter of liberalism "winning" on some "liberal talking point"; it's a matter of getting along peacefully. |
| − | Haidt loses 2 points: one for the [[straw man]] attack on liberalism, and one for | + | Haidt loses 2 points: one for the [[straw man]] attack on liberalism, and one for the [[appeal to guilt]] ("righteous pleasure ... seduction wearing a halo") based on that fallacy. |
Haidt concludes this thought by continuing: | Haidt concludes this thought by continuing: | ||
<blockquote>...and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is."</blockquote> | <blockquote>...and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is."</blockquote> | ||
| − | Aside from the "halo" swipe, he seems to be getting back on firmer ground: where have Democrats gone wrong in being persuasive to those more inclined to vote Republican? Republicans, says Haidt, want their argument [[interpretive framing|framed]] in terms of ''[[morality]]'' -- so we need to have a better understanding of what that is. | + | Aside from the repeated "halo" swipe, he seems to be getting back on firmer ground: where have Democrats gone wrong in being persuasive to those more inclined to vote Republican? Republicans, says Haidt, want their argument [[interpretive framing|framed]] in terms of ''[[morality]]'' -- so we need to have a better understanding of what that is. |
| + | |||
===Haidt: morality=== | ===Haidt: morality=== | ||
First, Haidt rejects the idea that morality is solely about "how we treat each other", citing as examples ancient "rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom". This makes some rather questionable assumptions: | First, Haidt rejects the idea that morality is solely about "how we treat each other", citing as examples ancient "rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom". This makes some rather questionable assumptions: | ||