“The two parties which divide the state, the party of Conservatism and that of Innovation, are very old, and have disputed the possession of the world ever since it was made… The war rages not only in battlefields, in national councils, and ecclesiastical synods, but agitates every man’s bosom with opposing advantages every hour.

…….and still the fight renews itself as if for the first time, under new names and hot personalities.  Such an irreconcilable antagonism, of course, must have a correspondent depth of seat in the human constitution. It is the primal antagonism, the appearance in trifles of the two poles of nature.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Conservative

 

As a college student in the early 1970’s, I was puzzled by the consistency of political attitudes across different issues, in different spheres of life.  At that time, political leaders who espoused conservative positions on economic and social issues also tended to be hawkish on questions of foreign policy.  Liberal politicians, conversely, favored increased spending on social welfare programs and opposed increased military spending and the war in Vietnam.  This consistency of political opinions, with some exceptions, remains true today, perhaps to an even greater extent, and includes many more issues.  Liberals and conservatives differ in their opinions on health care, abortion, immigration, gun control, gay rights, and the threat of climate change.  On all these issues, liberals are (most often) liberal, and conservatives are (most often) conservative.

I wondered, then and now, why do these attitudes and opinions go together?  What is the logical (or, more likely, emotional) relationship of these different opinions?  What is the inner coherence of liberal and conservative ideas?   What is their “deep grammar”?  What is the theme that can be heard throughout many different variations?

My first question quickly led to a second question.  What is the origin of our conservative or liberal attitudes and opinions?  Why are some of us hawks and some of us doves?

These were interesting, but still somewhat academic, questions.   Over time, what began as a theoretical problem led to a third set of questions and more practical concerns:  How can we understand each other and talk together in a more constructive way?  Why do friends and family members discuss politics for decades, present arguments and evidence for their views, but remain adamant in their opinions and not change their minds?  (Except sometimes they do, and why?)

Temperament, Moral Values, and Visions of Human Nature

Many social scientists have proposed answers to these questions.  Over a century ago, William James described a fundamental divergence between “tough-minded” and “tender-minded” philosophical temperaments.  In the 1970s, Sylvan Tomkins proposed a similar theory of political ideologies, based on what he considered a basic polarity in human thought. Tomkins distinguished left-wing ideologies, based on the primacy of feelings (humanism) vs. right-wing ideologies, based on the primacy of behavioral norms and traditions (“normativism”). He noted that these opposing ideologies can be found throughout history, beginning in ancient Greece, in the philosophies of Protagoras and Plato.

More recently, economist and political scientist Thomas Sowell proposed that our political differences are derived from competing “visions” of human nature – a “constrained” (generally conservative) vs. an “unconstrained” (generally liberal) vision – that lead to different assumptions about the causes of social stability and social change.  George Lakoff argued that our political division is ultimately a moral division – a conflict between “nurturant” and “strict” moral values.    James Davison Hunter famously described politics as a “culture war” –  a conflict between “orthodox” vs. “progressive” moral visions, engaged in a struggle that cannot be compromised, only decisively won.

Are We Born This Way?

There is now extensive empirical research on the nature and origins of our political differences. Jonathan Haidt proposed that we are divided because we use different moral foundations – moralities of care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.  Haidt believes that each of these foundations has its origin in different human social needs and conferred some advantage to the survival of human groups. Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler argue that a person’s worldview – an attitude toward life characterized by either openness (a “fluid” worldview) or a feeling of threat (a “fixed” worldview) – provides a Rosetta stone for deciphering liberal and conservative political opinions.

Political psychologist Avi Tuschman also reviews research on political attitudes and their possible evolutionary origins.  Tuschman identifies three related dimensions of personality that influence political attitudes.  Conservatives in all countries obtain higher scores than liberals on measures of tribalism, tolerance for inequality, and a competitive view of human nature.

Research in political psychology has established a catalogue of personality differences between liberals and conservatives.   John Hibbing and colleagues report, for example, that, “across a range of topics …. liberals consistently favored the new experience, the abstract, and the nonconforming.  Conservatives just as consistently favored traditional experiences that were closer to reality and predictable patterns.  Conservatives, for example, preferred their poems to rhyme and fiction that ended with a clear resolution.”

The most surprising fact that has emerged from this research is the role of genetics in political beliefs.  Correlations in political attitudes of identical twins are significantly higher than for fraternal twins.  Identical twins raised apart, in different families, are very similar in their political beliefs; fraternal twins raised apart are not.

These facts are challenging to both sides.  When asked why we are liberal or conservative, we may cite our upbringing, our values, or our reasoned assessment of current social conditions.  Very few of us are likely to answer, “I was born this way.”

Political psychologists acknowledge, however, the limitations of biological and personality variables as explanations for why we disagree.  Correlations observed in research on political psychology, although reliable, are often modest.  And, of course, people change their minds.   Hibbing and colleagues therefore conclude that “biopolitics” has the equivalent of a pair of nines – in five-card stud poker, a winning hand about half the time.

In my next post, I will discuss other ways of understanding our political differences.  I will offer a synthesis that helps explain liberal and conservative opinions not only  in politics but also in other areas of life.  If we draw a few more cards, we may end up with a better hand.

 

References

Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon.

Hetherington, M. and Weiler, J. (2018). Prius or Pickup: How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B. and Alford, J. R. (2014). Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences. Routledge.

Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. Basic Books.

James, W. (1907/2000). Pragmatism and Other Writings. Penguin Classics.

Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press.

Robin, C. (2018). The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump. Oxford University Press.

Sowell, T. (2007). A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, Revised ed. Basic Books.

Tomkins, S. S. (1995). Exploring Affect: The Selected Writings of Sylvan S. Tomkins (Ed. E. Virginia Demos). Cambridge University Press.

Tuschman, A. (2013). Our Political Nature: Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us. Prometheus Books.