For anyone that missed it the first time around, please read LithiumCola’s The Deeper Issue At Hand. It was written 3 weeks ago and it has stayed in my mind as I watch countless Palin and "I can’t talk to republican" diaries scroll past. In the diary, LithiumCola makes the argument that Democrats are pluralists, and republicans are fundamentalists. Analogy: "we tolerate differences, they do not". I think I’ve read it 4 times, if not more, and over the past week I came to an epiphany-
Democrats are fundamentalists too.
Like I’ve said, I’ve read this a few times, and even the comments, some of which I’d like you to look over real quick as well before we get into this:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
http://www.dailykos.com/... (great thread!)
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Let’s back up real quick so everyone is on the same page. As LithiumCola uses the terms, fundamentalism is lower-case "f" fundamentalism. Strip out the godliness and the essence of the idea is simple: only one way is the right way. Fundamental is not about a group that a person belongs to, it’s about a way of thought. And that thought is this: "my way of thinking is unbreakable, this is the base of my existence and I won’t let people change it." It’s easy to label conservatives this way because of their affiliation with Christian fundamentalism, but let’s take a deeper look. Not at them, but at "us."
Why do you believe what you believe? Ever given the question much thought? Lets do a little exercise. Fill in the blank:
killing a person is wrong because ______________.
Here’s another:
Cheating on my spouse is wrong because__________________.
What were your answers? Most likely they were based on a higher order of thought. But neither of them are related. For example (don’t agree- just watch):
"killing a person is wrong because violence is bad" and
"cheating on my spouse is wrong because it is a form of lying."
OK 2 higher orders of thought that serves as a guide for these situations and probably countless others. So what happens if the individual is then presented with this question:
Would you use violence to avoid lying, or would you use lying to avoid violence?
So what would your answer be if you were the individual that used the previous 2 answers for killing and cheating?
What would your fundamental be?
I think you are following along with me, so let me show you how it relates to you. Are you a progressive or a liberal? (apologies to those that are neither, but, please, come along for the ride)
The little "l"s and little "p"s
If anyone forgot what lower-case liberalism and lower-case progressivism is, I recommend wikipedia for the quick read. Keep in mind the word "liberal" has been tarnished, abused, misused, and obfuscated to make any blanket statements about open to much challenge. Never the less here it is. The fundamental of progressivism is finding a solution. Progressives have a fundamental belief that problems can and should be fixed. The fundamental of liberalism is the rights of the individual. Liberals believe the freedom and dignity of the individual is tantamount. (sorry, but distinguishing liberals from libertarians will have to come at another time). If you think about these 2 fundamental motivations, you can see how they translate into a tolerant view that would mislead you into thinking they were actually "pluralists." For progressives, no solution can be implemented without agreement (particularly in democracy), so some room must be allowed for compromise and negotiation, especially if it can speed up the result of improving society. For liberals, if one person is entitled to their own rights, then other people are entitled to their own rights, and you can see how integrity of belief leads a person to respect others as they would respect themselves, allowing for a plurality of individuals.
Which are you?
Lets do a quick quiz so you can identify yourself, or at the very least, think critically about why it is you think the things you do. Pick the answer that most closely aligns with your thought. For shits and giggles, I’m going to throw in some lower-case ‘s’ socialist answers too (you’ll see why when we start talking about republicans...).
Abortion:
I believe in the pro choice platform because:
(p) giving the freedom to mothers to decide when to plan their families is the best hope for a better society
(l) an individual is entitled to their own morality
(s) everyone is allowed the same number of kids, and abortion will be utilized to enforce that
Gun Control:
(p) restricting the distribution of guns will help make a safer society
(l) an individual is entitled to live in a safe society
(l) i’m against gun control because an individual should have the right to his own paraphernalia
(s) if guns can be made available to all, then everyone will be given a gun.
Environmental protection:
(p) protecting the environment ensures a future habitable space for society
(p) sacrificing some environmental protections for the growth of the economy is important to make society better.
(l) an individual is entitled to enjoy an earth that is not spoiled by others
(s) everyone will be allowed to do only an equal amount of damage to the environment
Of course this list is not conclusive- the goal here is to show you that you can think different reasons for coming to the same conclusion, or that people can have similar fundamentals and still come to different conclusions (in which case- there may be a different fundamental at play... I’ll leave that an open thought that others can expound upon). The point is that yes, on the democratic side of things, views about the election can be reduced to fundamentals.
So I know what you are thinking, why can’t we be both? (especially after this primary season, do we really need to cleave ourselves again?). The answer: because they are fundamentally different. Did you have an answer to the question "Would you use violence to avoid lying, or would you use lying to avoid violence?" Do you have the answer to: "would you sacrifice the rights of an individual for the sake of solving a problem, or would you refuse to solve a problem for the sake of preserving the rights of an individual"?
As you can see, if you tried to be both you would have a conflicted personality and when faced with an impasse, you would either resolve your personality or simply refuse to act. Refusing to act would make you a pluralist, but you can see how that might make you weak when forced to answer a particularly nuanced question (fisa anyone?).
How can I use this?
Understanding the difference between progressives and liberals provides an enlightening prism to view the diaries that have appeared since Palin’s nomination. Liberals are (understandably) terrified by the prospect of Palin being involved in their lives. Reacting out of fear they are sounding the alarm and trying to alert as many people as possible to the threat. This is understandable as human nature, afterall, what would you do if there was a fire in your neighborhood. Progressives, on the other hand, are still focused on what they can do to make society better. So when this "fire" that is palin shows up, they think that she is isolated to one bush and will burn herself out, so the water would be put to better use growing food.
A lot of this may seem moot because of the distraction/development that was the American economy this past week, but depending on whether that settles down, we will be back in this dynamic of progressives and liberals working on separate agendas and possibly being weakened by it.
Enough about us- what about "them"
AH yes, the good stuff. So here we find that the democratic side of things has 2 types of fundamentalists, what about conservatives, are they fundamentalists? Do they have more than one type? Will this help me to somehow talk to them?
Yes
They have 3 (maybe more- feel free to nominate in comments)
What is striking is how similar 2 of them are. So here we go.
Autocratic fundamentalists
Conservative fundamentalist
Financial fundamentalist.
Forgive me on the names, you might know of better ones that are already established. Let me know if you do. Let’s start with the easy one (particularly after this last week)
Financial fundamentalists care about business, low taxes and low regulation. The difference between a financial and a progressive is that progressives believe if the market is "improved," then more people will get rich, including themselves on a personal level.
Financial fundies don’t care how well the market does and only focus on the bottom line of themselves as individuals (or perhaps businesses). As a liberal or a progressive DO NOT claim that this is a bad way to live a life. Do not claim this person is selfish (we all are according to our fundamentals). Talking with a finance fundie is simple, ask them if they would rather pay 39% taxes on 4.5% returns, or 15% taxes on 0.3% returns? Make the case that a society with properly run government makes it possible for people to make more money despite the high taxes. It’s not in their interest to have high taxes obviously, it’s in their interest to have a robust market. Events of the past week making this a slam dunk, as well as the track record of financials when Clinton was in office.
Conservative fundies are a hard sell because they are the antithesis of progressives. They like the status quo, they don’t want to change it, and anyone offering change is perceived as a threat. In a different year, recommendations for talking with these types of people would be to reinforce what wouldn’t be changed (keep America on top of the global marketplace, redistributing income but not class position, not changing any major law...). This year however, the best bet would be reinforcing how much Bush has changed things particularly in regards to executive power. If anything, talk them into supporting Ron Paul. :-P
Definitive "conservatives" are hard to find in this climate though (only 29% of country say it’s on right track, was it?). Most that would have been in this group in 2004 have slid over into the big one.
Autocratic fundamentalism. The autocratics are the ones that kossacks (example) bitch about. It’s an umbrella term that embraces religious fundies, socially-conservative, militaristic, capital-punishment fundies. For them, appeal is simple. Strength. Their fundamental belief is to believe that the strong leader is right. Who the strong leader is and what the leader says can be different at times, but the fundamental motivation stays the same, believe the leader. Conservative fundies also think along these lines, but only because if they trust the status quo, they believe whatever person in power should be kept in power.
This is why you feel like you can’t break through to them. You try hitting them on the issues, but that isn’t what will change their mind. If a strong leader that they respected gave a half-assed explanation of an issue that you just spent 2 days arguing for, then they would support it. But you, you are a threat. And judging by the way you’ve approached them, they can tell you are not a leader, they won’t listen to you.
A spectacle of a comedy is to watch supporters of both sides of this divide complain about the other. Not only do the auto-fundies believe that a strong leader is the most important thing, they believe that’s the way progressives and liberals think. Go back to the liberal/progressive quiz and look at the socialism options. As much as right-wing talk radio hosts complain about the left-wing being socialist, I’m going to guess that very few kossacks actually took the "s" answers to the questions. Righties think everyone follows a strong leader. So when progressives and liberals push for government to implement a solution, auto-fundies are quick to blame a leader (socialist government) for being wrong and stand puzzled as progressives and liberals remain unconvinced. This is why the right-wing makes such a big deal about Obama as a cult-figure. Messiah. They attach him to "evil" people at the personal level. They accuse him of accepting more money from lobbyists than McCain does. And yet the liberal/progressives don’t budge. What the right-wing fails to realize is that progressives and liberals would gladly nominate an incompetent figure that parroted issues they agree with, than to nominate anyone of competence that would not be in agreement with liberal/progressive fundamentals.
This is also why you hear democrats and republicans talk about the way Obama talks in such different tones. For those on the left, Obama seems thoughtful, like he might change his mind if it might be necessary to improve the country, and for those on the right, he sounds weak (did I really have to repeat that? I think everyone here knows that one...). The thing to realize here is that people on both sides are projecting. People on the left complain about McCain followers not voting the issues because for themselves, that is what would change them from voting for Obama (remember everyone freaking out about fisa?). People on the right complain that people on the left are voting for such a weak candidate, because that is what it would take for them to change their mind about McCain. (notice his dip when he very clearly wasn’t going to be able to stick to his guns about no bail-outs for the private sector this past week).
And this is the way it is with the auto-fundies. If they get a hint of weakness in their leader, or worse, feel like their leader will betray them, then that’s it, they are staying home, voting third party, waiting till 2012. The trick though isn’t to attack McCain because he’s anti-choice. The trick is to claim that McCain would not overturn roe v wade (that would be difficult and tenuous of course). McCain has weaknesses with the rightwing base on illegal immigration, god (claiming he didn’t believe would be slanderous... but- he doesn’t seem to find the time to go to church like so many good people do- maybe someone should look up how much he's given to churches), manufacturing workers, foreign policy and even the environment. Trumping up McCain’s environmental record might actually be one of the best ways to hurt him. It’s also important to note that explaining Obama’s positions on these issues isn’t even necessary. All that is necessary is to introduce a kernel of doubt.
So this is the trick, where Rove used wedge politics that divided an electorate by identification (and, ironically, issues), the democrats need a horizontal wedge that doesn’t divide electorates, but divides voters from their leaders. At least just long enough for the voter to take a moment to think about their own self interest.
I will admit one caveat, this is all theoretical, but feel free to post the personal experiences you have that support or refute this. (and admittedly, we might have already crossed into a threshold where it’s just a numbers game with the base, and people want to wait for the debates to tell them who to vote for, not some far away voice on a telephone).
Lastly- INDEPENDENTS
Anyone that is still independent at this stage is either not paying attention or is a classic case of a pluralistic fundamentalist that has issues deciding and may even refuse to decide. The trick is to identify the competing fundamentals at play.
One last point: hat-tip to whereisboblafollette who turned me on to this piece, some of which reinforces what is said here:
George Lakoff will tell you why this is and what to do about it.