
Portrait of the Marquess of Pombal, who led the reconstruction of Lisbon after the earthquake of 1755, and broke the power of the Inquisition
Last week I wrote that there is no common ground between me and the gun crowd, and by extension, with the entire conservative movement. There has been a lot of research into the different values of conservatives and liberals; Thomas Edsall has a good summary here. Edsall discusses the work of Jonathan Haidt, who claims that certain value structures are the result of evolution. These values helped people control their behavior and emotions so that self-interest would be subordinated to the interests of the group. As a result, the group had a better chance of survival, even when it meant death or suffering for the individual. Haidt thinks people don’t reach moral decisions through reason, but rather from instantaneous application of these structures to moral dilemmas. The role of reason is limited to finding explanations after the decision has been made. The six structures are as follows:
1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
2. Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions, giving them their “just desserts”. (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.)
3. Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
4. Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
5. Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.).
6. Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)
(Footnotes omitted.)
The point of the opposition in these categories is that responses to moral dilemmas fall on a sliding scale. According to Haidt, liberals emphasize care and equality to the near exclusion of other values, while conservatives have a more complex reaction to situations. Edsall offers a good description of what this means in practice. Here’s an excerpt:
WAR, PEACE, VIOLENCE, EMPATHY WITH THE WORLD:
On key questions and statements in this category, liberals scored high, conservatives low: “I believe peace is extremely important”; “Understanding, appreciation, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature”; “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal”; “How close do you feel to people all over the world?”On other key questions in this area, conservatives scored high, and liberals low: “War is sometimes the best way to solve a conflict”; “There is nothing wrong in getting back at someone who has hurt you.”
The outcomes of the application of these responses to social issues become hardened into rigid stances that brook no disagreement. Here is how Abraham Lincoln (H/T Digby) answered in his Coopers Union Address the question of the day: What would it take to satisfy Slave State politicians and their fire-eating partisans.
This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’ new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
Wayne LaPierre has made it clear that we all must completely arm and armor ourselves to persuade him and his members that Barack Obama doesn’t intend to seize all guns and lock up their owners in a penal farm in Nevada.
In the same way, the Republican Party has taken one idea, that rewards should be proportional to contributions, and pushed it to such insane limits that a minor increase in taxation on the richest 2% of the population is unimaginable. The anti-abortion crowd knows no limits to its demands, including death of the mother. The rich believe that any effort to help Americans, such as Social Security, is evil, because it is a drain on the almighty economy. The conservatives fetishize the Founding Fathers as ultimate authority figures.
It isn’t that liberals don’t see the value of rewarding people for effort. John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice recognizes the importance of this principle, which he states this way:
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
(a) they are to be of the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle (the difference principle).
It isn’t that liberals don’t see the moral ambiguities of abortion. It isn’t that liberals don’t see why hunters and skeet shooters want their guns. It isn’t that Liberals don’t read the Founding Fathers looking for guidance.
The problem is that the demands of conservatives are out of control. They utterly reject the power of the mind to reason to a plausible understanding of moral values and their application to complex circumstances. Conservatives only use reason to extend by remorseless logic the demands of their primal moral feelings. They do not see that their views, when pushed to their logical limits, are incoherent.
The Newtown murders are a perfect demonstration of that incoherence. LaPierre’s solution is to put armed guards in every school at a cost of billions, no matter the fiscal cliff or the loss of liberty that this would represent. Boehner’s failure to enact Plan B is another, deficits be damned, no taxes on the richest. I don’t have common ground with these ideologues and their slavish adherents. It is pointless to look for it.
Lincoln faced down the South. It was his only choice if he wanted to preserve the Union. I’d appreciate it if the spineless and ideologically ungrounded Democrats would consult the Coopers Union Address and their own sense of morality before caving into an incoherent and irrelevant minority who find inspiration in the Inquisition.



43 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Agreed, masaccio. If these leaders want to claim Lincoln as a guide, they better start reading.
Thanks, masaccio. This is really fascinating stuff.
More class-free analysis. In the old days you WANTED other poor people on your side, wanted to convince them that their interests coincided with yours. Nowadays it’s just idealistic hoohoo. . . destined to lead us to 53-47% elections in perpetuity. And the ruling class couldn’t be happier. We can sit here at firedoglake reading The Daily Outrage for the rest of our lives cursing other benighted white trash for being Southern or (better) stupid, never glimpsing that we’re about a half a degree away from them in all things, as naively opinionated as they but feeling VERY superior. Always. No, no, we’ve got nothing in common, and will never see eye to eye. Hell, why not have have a civil war?
Before you get too deep into shallow comparisons of Lincoln and Obama, read some of what Frederick Douglass had to say about Lincoln before 1863.
The idea of morals as a guide for politics leads inevitably to ideologues unless one is willing to admit that moral principles can conflict with each other, forcing choices of the better of two goods or the lesser of two evils.
Individual and social decisions are rarely clearcut applications of principles. Which is what has funneled the GOP into an ideological cul-de-sac in which the number of competing principles are reduced in order to become more purely moral.
“I’d appreciate it if the spineless and ideologically ungrounded Democrats …”
Republican intransigence opposed by Democrats with no ideological grounding has led to a thirty year slide to the right regardless of which party holds power in Washington. The republicans win the functional center even when they lose elections.
Obama’s easy betrayal of progressive principles led to the results of the 2010 midterm. Republicans win, not because the voters like their stand on issues but because they reject the agenda of the party in power.
Obama is leading us down the same road toward similar results in 2014.
Well, they do when it’s convenient, anyway.
(TarheelDem: Wimsey, Gaudy.)
What puzzles me about the so-called “conservatives” is their inability to understand that if they had exercised the sober and prudent fiscal policy that they claim to represent, they would actually enjoy lower taxes. Waging costly unfunded wars and handing out tax breaks to the economic elites are precisely what drove the national debt up to $16 trillion dollars, which imposes an enormous burden of interest payments on the taxpayer. Duh…
masaccio, thanks. Applause.
I won’t get my hopes up, but I’ll send a link of this to the Editorial Board at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
I sent this to the elites best friend on Milwaukee radio, Charlie Sykes.
Charlie, thanks to the First Amendment, the anti-choice crowd still gets to parade around bloody bottles filled with dead fetuses. How long before a First Amendment fight over the rights of the public to see the photographic evidence of a high velocity round on a first-grader?
Oh yes there is. There has to be, or you’re awfully lonely because it’s not a conservative/liberal divide between the masses and a gun crowd as you claim.
Gallup: Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. It’s 40% for Dems and Dem leaners.
don, I could be wrong, but I thought this was the position with which masaccio found no common ground.
I don’t see masaccio as making the case for Lincoln the abolitionist, which is what I think you had in mind in bringing up Douglass.
To the contrary, it is implicit in the Cooper Union quotation that Lincoln was inclined to try to find a modus provendi with slavery proponents, and was pointing out their unwillingness to settle for anything less than universal and complete submission to their agenda and worldview. That is highly relevant to today.
Well pups..The really great news is that President
LincolnI mean President Obama has the ammo all ordered up and we will get our feast.Gotta do what ya gotta do right??
I mean after all, the
republicer…Demockracy is at risk right pups?The Cooper Union speech was before Lincoln was elected. Lincoln spent the next two years still trying to find that modus provendi in the midst of war, and it drove Frederick Douglass as nuts as Obama’s first term has progressives. Obama has not yet publicly stated the analogy of what Lincoln said at Cooper Union. There are two upcoming opportunities, since he did not take the opportunity of his acceptance speech in September. Those are the inauguration and the State of the Union address.
The next three months are going to be very interesting as to what the next four years will look like. That depends on three things: the President; the Senate Democratic caucus; the House Republican caucus–and what they do over the next three months.
I suspect most folks will do the rational thing of keeping a positive mental outlook through negative expectations.
Would you ever expect Obama to come close to Lincoln here? If so, under what conditions?
Book Salon up with Anthony Arnove’s Howard Zinn Speaks: Collected Speeches 1963-2009 hosted by Mark Karlin
As always super analysis if not perfect enough for all the commenters. :-)
IMO it is the fact that the right have now moved to this so far position (as to demand complete monolithic compliance) that will be their undoing.
It is not likely it will in this day be undone by a stronger more rational and compassionate ideology offered by the Democrats nor by unaffiliated liberals. (in sufficient numbers to make a difference).
the spineless and ideologically ungrounded Democrats
There is no possible way to improve on that description of the world’s oldest–and currently, the most useless–political party.
blue, if someone would explain to Obama that he’s on the expressway to beating out Herbert Hoover on the list of worst Presidents, there might be more hope.
Paging darkblack.
I think his administration’s using stimulus as a carrot to get Dems to chain the CPI. An even more powerful carrot would be the federal legalization of marijuana, pulling back from foreign occupations and increased taxes/regulation on Wall Street. All of those appeal to both bases. It’s a sign of how comfortable Obama is that he doesn’t feel as though he needs them.
You should click through on the Edsall link: you are repeating the deeper argument that Haidt and his colleagues make. I think things are more complicated, but in ways that are hard to explain, and harder to put to use in persuading people about these issues.
I think for certain that ideologues from the right exploit the moral stances of a large group of conservatives irrespective of class. That is the actual point of this post.
That depends on what you think it is that Lincoln actually did. If it’s the Emancipation Proclamation, what is the current equivalent of that action today?
My judgement is that Lincoln, like JFK, has been lionized because of his assasination. Would Lincoln have been a part of the sellout of Reconstruction had he lived? Would Kennedy really had the political support to withdraw from Vietnam after defeating Barry Goldwater (or whoever the candidate was)?
But there are opportunities should President Obama choose to take them. Dealing with the issues raised by Occupy Wall Street is one. Normalizing relations with the rest of the world, that means Cuba, Iran, North Korea, is another. Reorganizing the national security infrastructure to restore civilian culture and civil liberties is another. But Lincoln put forward the Emancipation Proclamation in order to gain the military manpower of folks who were currently in slavery in order to shorten the war. What to do with all these people and the planters’ presumed property rights was not thought through; it was not the implementation of a principled vision, just a pragmatic response to a crisis. I don’t see the crisis that would cause that abrupt a change in President Obama.
Obama’s first term was the least productive of any four-year term going back at least to Calvin Coolidge.
We got a Rube Goldberg health care “reform” law that entrenches the broken private insurance-based system; the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which fixes an awful decision of the Supreme Court on a point of procedure; minor fixes to the financial markets; and a few crumbs worth of stimulus.
“Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home …”
I have a single shot bolt action Savage that was in my home as a child. I am not inclined to give it up but it doesn’t exactly put me in the Bushmaster crowd.
It is difficult to say which is worse. The people that look to politicians for moral and ethical guidance or the politicians who claim to be be the paragons and arbiters of them. They deserve each other.
This extends even to even your probable political heroes, perhaps FDR or Lincoln. Political decisions are political, moral ones are moral, and never the twain shall meet.
I’m not sure I get your point about the Coopers Union Address. Lincoln’s description of the pro-slavery ideologues fits the approach of today’s conservatives. Lincoln stood up to them in the end. The Republicans are imploding in the exact same way, by pushing general principles to extremes that make no sense. Obama has to see that at some point and act in the best interest of the country. He probably thinks he is, with his struggles towards a Grand Bargain. I think that compromising with a deeply flawed opponent is a terrible idea.
Indeed, and thanks.
That is my point, said better than I did @24.
Yes, well, comrade Massacio, according to the neoconservative Haidt your intellectual species is doomed. In case you missed it, Haidt is accusing comrade Massacio’s species of being a failed spandrel, mal-adapted, itself ideologically deaf. Conservative realpolitik grasps at tribal warfare and constructs the justifying reasons. This is a fight to the finish because magick American liberals were too foolish to realize that crapitalism would exacerbate not quench brutal greed and especially come the crapitalist end-game.
Comrade Detroit has it right. It is amazing the overlap between the “conservative” dream to end tyranny in their old-style liberal fantasy, the free market, and the anarcho-communist dream to end capitalist tyranny in mutual aid. As decadent Amerka, ex-capitalist paradise shudders on, those right-wing proles will shun the next capitalist huckster, Mr. “We never had a pure fwee market”. They’re not too stupid to remember the indictment of “fool me twice”.
So professor Haidt has cornered the unwitting comrade Massacio into brandishing his doomed moral superiority to fight the wrong battle.
BTW, the successful tyrant will of course claim moral authority.
Don’t forget, comrades. Capitalism is fraud.
The difference between conservative and zealot cannot be missed in this. We are not dealing with the former, we are unfortunately, dealing with the latter. We are dealing with religious fanatics who happen to call themselves conservative because it fits their meme and is more acceptable. David Koresh was defended by zealots through a conservative media. That he was a serial sex offender, among other things, did not deter Timothy McVeigh from using this incident as a jumping off point. Mormons are another bunch who are zealots, not conservatives. There are other wealthy zealots, among all Judeo-Christian religions, who follow this precept. The reason they detest science is that they cannot bridge the gap between one’s personal utopia and the concept of ” the good of the whole “, in our pluralistic society. While acknowledging one’s conflict with the facts ( global warming ) it should not retard the whole of society’s progress. Plausible deniability has allowed the worst of us, historically, to deny the best of us a chance at mitigating a bad circumstance or condition ( as the whole of society ). I brook no ground to idiots and zealots. They are hypocrites and worse. And, they have nothing to do with conservative values. Just sayin.
The NRA’s real plan for schools:
First period: Target Shooting
Second period: Defending against mass murderers, shoot first and ask questions later.
Third period: Duck and Cover behind kevlar back packs and lunch pails.
Fourth period: Triage
Fifth period: Taking care of your assault weapon, stripping it down, oiling it, reassembling it, students will be timed and graded accordingly.
Sixth period: choosing someone to be the point child as your class is leaving school.
Nice to hear from you. Your comments are so good I gotta read ‘em twice. Another civil war? First, I’d like to have another civil argument, thank you very much. Not that it would end that way, of course.
Productivity doesn’t seem to be a requirement for government employment any longer (as it is for the rest of us). It’s not only Obama but Hillary Clinton and others, who have nothing to show except the fact that they look good in public and can put words together. Accomplishments? Not required — appearance is everything. They’ve dumbed down the news and made it entertainment, and so with government.
Well, Ludwig, you keep pushing that 60s Trotksyite crap. I’ll stick with reason. It’s more fun and doesn’t hurt anyone if I can help it.
I agree with Matthew Detroit@3 ,By these criteria all drugs ,or at least user-ralated offenses , should , be decriminalized yesterday .Everyone knows these proscriptions are egregious Jim Crow laws that have zero utility for the public weal .
Mas was careful to frame the issue as one of dems and liberals ,and I have liberated myself from both over the years ,but I will proffer that the left sees gun confiscation as the last necessary step to congealing the recent liberticidal policies into hard state fascism .A dictatorship must confiscate the citizenry’s firearms .
I hope the elites and liberals get their legal wins ,because liberals really need the illusion of victory ,and they surely know some meaningless legislative pablum for therapy and guns is all the dems will be giving the believers .
This is still a suburbans’ issue that is driven by the futility of devoting their lives to be ensconced from “”the others of a lesser God ” Where was the outrage when other precious innocents were blown up in a Negro church in Alabama ? When little black kids were serial murdered in Atlanta ? When a couple of dozen sexual workers were tortured to death in the NW region ?
Bringing it all back home ,over 100 million firearms are required to sustain illegal drug trafficking in the US . It would be impossible for illegal drug capitalism to function without firearms .So I would query as to why you guys don’t advocate for sweeping gun abolition via drug legalization as opposed to some long-term scheme for general confiscation ?
I hate the NRA and have no problem with the modest proposals being considered ,but I believe hardly any of you would advocate policy with the five criteria as guidance ,largely because you are are far more prone to take freedom than to give it for meliorative policy .Maybe you are more diseased with that teabagger puritanism than you realize .
Hey Ludwig ,great to see you here .It’s just too damn easy without you .
Yes mas ,I think all serious comments are grounded in reason ,yet some of us have different beliefs and invective to express our reasoned extrapolations .
Ah, comrade Massacio, more delusion. The liberal conceit that we only have a conflict between rationality and irrationality is a comfortable refuge, no? Unfortunately, the liberal reason does not illuminate the world, it baths the ego of it’s elect in ignorant self-satisfaction.
I am amused that you’ve applied Haidt’s condemnation of “reason” as if it doesn’t apply to yours. Haidt thinks it does. Perhaps you’d take the time to address that contradiction?
Hola, Comrade skunk. A civil war among the defrauded? I don’t think that’s the denouement of the naked emperor exposed.
Engarde, comrade foggy. What do you make of Robert Parry’s recent analysis of the second amendment?
Isn’t any collective agreement an imposition on a cowboy’s freedom?
Political decisions about important issues always have moral consequences.
THAT is where these twain meet.
Hey Lud .comrade Parry cleverly inserted a straw man into the militia rationale . Jefferson and other founding fathers admonished us that government would turn on the citizenry,and spoke regularly about the tree of liberty being sustained by the blood of revolutionary patriots when government becomes treasonous to the general weal .
Parry implies ”armed rebellions” are volitional exercises of malcontents whose interests didn’t portend the future of the republic .My best evidence of the distaste and mistrust of centralized government is the Civil War ,which ,as we know ,really wasn’t about freeing slaves ,as averred in the 14th ,in which prison slavery was sanctioned .Lincoln pitched the deliciousness of externalizing the costs of plantation slavery onto taxpayers .
Obviously we are living in Jefferson’s portent of a gangster government that has turned on its people with a treasonous international monopoly agenda .Never in our lives have people hated government more than now , and how this plays into the need for firearms is of no interest to me .It would make sense in a country that had some unifying fabric ,but we are a tribal polyglot of alienation.Nevertheless ,I know people who would readily die in a shoot-out before giving up their guns,i.e. ,my socialist friends and my redneck relatives .
With full candor ,I would also opt for a shoot-out ,if only because there are many horrors that would frighten me more than death on my terms .I find it peculiar that shooting harmless animals for sport more acceptable than having a gun for a getaway or some ephemeral self-defense in this government imposed class warfare .
Pater Jefferson always requires a second look, comrade defogger. Thom’s trying to exculpate Amerka for it’s suppression of Shay’s rebellion:
And so we review Jefferson’s deft ambiguity, again. The English aristocracy deserved a successful rebuke; the American were obligated to pacify (as always, the terror abroad demands sacrifice in New Israel). Seen in context, Jefferson’s brazen quote becomes abstract and condescending – the urge to rebel must be tolerated but controlled. This is hardly the image of permanent revolution bruited by those with a “liberty” fetish.
The short of it being that Parry’s “straw man” has embarrassing vitality. Rebellions need to be put down more regularly than encouraged.
Paragraph two is a masterpiece of confusion, comrade foggy. Parry’s not unique in attributing rebellions to unsuccessful malcontents; it’s the definition of the word. Twasn’t the 14th amendment which sanctioned slavery: “The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed all forms of slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” What do you suppose was the object of the “centralized government” which engendered redneck distaste and mistrust, a holier than thou attitude? And your coup de grace of flummoxery, oh, so delicious. An intoxicating blend of ye capitalist preference for wage slaves, socialist critique of public exploitation, and capitalist critique of socialist gooberment. Oh, the aroma!
But last, I see a glimmer of coherence. I expect it’s not a mirage. Alienation, comrade, yes. You are on the right path. But a fabric to enable successful application of firearms? No. A fabric to enable a successful avoidance of firearms. The people hating the abstract category of “government” are alienated from their own history and turned to ridiculous fantasies of self-liberation.
A gun fetish is not citizenship.
Hey Lud ,I’m getting pretty sleepy ,but for the sake of clarity ,what are you defending? Are you for status-quo statism ? Do you disagree with my contention that government has turned on its citizenry ? Do you disagree with drug legalization to really make a dent in firearms availability ?I’m filthy with fetishes but positions in general conformance with the ACLU are not usually held to such contempt . Do you believe in the msm view of change from within ,sans guns ?
I f you have a real left position ,not some neoliberal left shit ,why would you feel so comfortable with this inverted totalitarian kleptocracy having a monopoly on guns? Do you believe this is class warfare?
You know I’m way too smart to debate a ghost .Fuck Jefferson ,I contend the primacy of militias was fear of centralized government ,and that belief is so engrained in the heartland ,nothing short of the bloodiest domestic strife since the Civil war will ensue with confiscatory intervention . My beliefs are very similar to those of Chris Hedges and OWS ,so feel free to attack them with that assumption in conjunction with your beliefs .
I know you are smart Lud ,so buck up and stand for something ,and then we can elicit the best from both of us rather than engaging in mental gymnastics ,cyber -wins ,or vague and coy jabs that tend to be hurtful .
I’m really glad to see you here ,and I’m trying to be nicer than I previously was .
I will check back tomorrow . good night