How Can Liberals Understand Conservative Thinking?

The greatest imperative in understanding someone with political ideologies other than yours is to listen without interruption.

Right now, Republicans are having difficulty “understanding” each other. So, “the other party” is, for now, not so easy to characterize. However, the basic tenets of political ideologies in the U.S. answer just a few questions (that you can ask of Conservatives whom you know). For each question, understanding comes from asking the follow-up question, “What reasons do you have for believing your position?” Listen. Don’t even think about using a tone of voice that could be interpreted as accusatory.

• Is federal government or state government where the seat of governance and the provision of services best located? This is the argument of federalism vs. confederalism that has been part of U.S. history since states were trying to decide whether or not to sign the Declaration of Independence. This was the essential question of the U.S. Civil War. It is a war that is still being fought.
• How much of social welfare is the responsibility of the government (either federal or state)? Conservatives rightly point out that at the founding of the U.S., social services were not central to the U.S. Constitution and the responsibility of the government. However, the U.S. Constitution speaks to the rights and freedoms of individuals, starting with freedom of the press, of speech, and of religion. Major events over the past 240 years, such as economic disasters, have taught us that national security and national stability are strongly linked to economic stability— of institutions and individuals. Most social services came about as a result of economic disasters, like the Great Depression, or the impact of national and foreign wars.
• Do people in certain demographics of the United States have inherent obstacles to achieving economic well-being? If so, is there an obligation on the part of government to lessen these obstacles? There is the Horatio Alger portrayal of disadvantaged Americans as people who just need tenacity and hard work to achieve “success.” There is the cultural belief in the right to achieve “The American Dream” (owning a home, having food security, being able to take vacations away from home, etc.).
• Who is deserving of legal protection against biased treatment? This starts with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause. But most Conservatives believe the law has gone too far. Protecting people in the LGBTQ community? Muslims? Hmmm.
• How much should the government regulate? For national regulations pertaining to the financial industry, the same economic disasters have driven the addition of regulations. The most recent motivation for asking this question was the Great Recession of 2007–2010. Sub-prime mortgages and other forms of very loose lending— not just in the United States— are credited/blamed for this recession (from which some industries and individuals have not yet recovered). In 2017, there seems to be a difference in interpretation of what happened in 2007. Get past those interpretations and understand a Conservative’s belief about if and when the government (and the semi-independent Federal Reserve) should assert itself into the economy.
• Which alternative to free trade is best for the U.S. in the long-/short-term? For international agreements, all political ideologies talk about “free trade” and no party actually wants it. The question requires some understanding of the global economy and the ways that trade agreements and trade, itself, are tied to political foreign affairs. So, the question to a Conservative is to understand which alternative to free trade they think the U.S. should pursue (and why).
• What are the pros and cons of the separation of Church and State? It’s difficult to understand at least the majority of Conservatives without understanding their beliefs about how religion (especially, Christianity) should influence such things as Supreme Court decisions and Acts of Congress. Noting the preponderance of pros vs. cons will tell you a lot.

In my experience and as a fundamental belief, there is no better way to understand the thinking of “Conservatives” than to talk with then (not at them). “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” (Steven Covey, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People)

Political Tribes

I was asked why the U.S. can't have a "logical combination" of liberalism and conservatism rather than turning politics into only these two political ideology choices.

As in many countries where people have a say in their government, there’s a tendency for people in the U.S. to identify with a political “tribe.” To do that, they have to overlook some differences and focus more on commonalities. In fact, different people have different priorities; for example, they might seek out commonalities on fiscal policy and shut their eyes to social policies that don’t match their values.

I don’t think it matters whether there can be a logical combination because a lot of politics is driven by emotions. Perhaps we could think of that as “emotional logic.” Voters’ reasoning definitely doesn’t adhere to principles of analytic logic! At the very least, in analytic logic, self-contradiction is not allowed. In emotional logic, cognitive dissonance is common. You can actually hear or read people who say opposite things within the span of a few minutes or paragraphs. And there are other people who reason analytically after making some very emotional decisions, in other words, post-rationalization.

In countries where elections involve the formation of alliances among political parties, it can be pretty difficult to figure out what the “logical combination” is. There are behind-doors negotiations of the nature of I’ll-go-along-with-this-thing-that-you-want-if-you-go-along-with-this-other-thing-that-I-want. Negotiation used to be the way the U.S. Congress worked. I think you’re asking why it isn’t that way now.

In the U.S. I think it’s all about the tribe mentality. Humans are not bonobos. Tribes fight to keep their territory. Tribes work to distinguish their identity from that of other tribes, who can be seen as enemies. In 2010, it was tribal rhetoric that resulted in a fairly dramatic change in the way politics are conducted at the national level. There’s a tribe that has the power to give no quarter to the other tribes. In fact, there’s a splintering of tribes, with some tribal members now being “enemies.”

This splintering is evidence that U.S. politics is not binary. People argue over ownership of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” Those to the left of what used to be the center of the U.S. political spectrum are now splintered into Moderate Liberals, Progressives, fiscal Liberals, social Liberals, etc. Those to the right of what used to be the center are now splintered into Moderate Conservatives, Tea Party Conservatives, the Freedom Caucus (very conservative representatives in the U.S. House), the Christian Right, White Nationalists, etc.

Therefore, the U.S. appears not to have reduced politics to a binary choice but rather to have created many splinter groups. Those further to the extremes of the political spectrum are more intransigent than those who are more moderate. And those groups, especially among more radical Conservatives, are very loud. If one only listens to them or their counterparts at the left end of the spectrum (beyond “Progressives”), you’d think that there is zero possibility of a “logical combination.” Practically speaking, that’s right. But not because there cannot be a balance between federalism and confederalism or between free college for all Americans vs. pay-or-don’t-go education “opportunities.”

Until the tribal leaders recognize that their war-at-all-costs is costing their tribe too much, they will not be amenable to negotiating a logical combination of political policies.

We Are the Leaders of the Social Media Data-sharing Conspiracy

There seem to be non-diabolical explanations for what goes on with social media profiles and how Russian operatives might obtain them. Those operatives don't need oligarchs or billionaire high-tech CEOs to give them a key to the social media data kingdom.

In fact, we are semi-unwitting accomplices in the sharing of our personal information.

Anyone with a social media account has made a Faustian bargain. It's now been explained to all of us (many times over) how all social media monetize their assets (which are us). Facebook is a good example.

If you haven't read the Facebook terms of service lately, here they are in non-technical English: https://www.facebook.com/terms. Facebook is quite up front about how users' privacy works and what users' rights and responsibilities are. Many Facebook (and other social media) users have not properly secured their profile information. They have left the permissions for viewing their friends list, for example, to "public," i.e., anyone with a Facebook account can see that list.

Creating a Facebook profile means that what you read and write can be used to characterize you. That is what is valuable for monetization. That's what we "pay" in order to have "free" use of Facebook. We "let" others-- even Russian hackers-- access our information with our own privacy choices.

Customers (not us, but rather people who pay Facebook actual money for services) can pay for Facebook to provide clickbait postings on the walls of those who have certain characteristics (things like "people who look at Breitbart News but not The Washington Post"). One monetization strategy goes a little like this: Paying customers don't get the account owners' profile or even the name on the account. Facebook uses its internal matching and distribution services to decide who gets which news feed articles and wall postings. When a user suddenly starts seeing posts on their wall from OccupyDemocrats without "following" that group, it's most likely because they have "liked" other liberal-leaning posts or they've been writing with liberal language. They're a good match for what OccupyDemocrats is “selling.”

Do you know people who log in to a site using their Facebook login credentials rather than by creating an account with a unique, hard-to-guess password? They're raising their hand to have their Facebook profile information shared.

Here's another gotcha that Facebook users tend not to think through: http://wfla.com/2016/02/24/hackers-using-facebook-quizzes-to-get-personal-info-from-users/ Those who take sponsored "quizzes" on Facebook are deciding that not only their privacy but also your privacy are worth less than finding out which animated character they are most like based on the first name used for their account.

Facebook could do better, but it can't totally protect us from ourselves.

The Impact on the U.S. of the Louisiana Purchase

It’s interesting to think that $15M in 1803 is only $305M today, in terms of inflation. That was the price of the Louisiana Purchase. (There were some very negative periods for the U.S. economy over many decades since that time.) $305M or much more will buy you a hillside residence in Silicon Valley— maybe 2 acres of land. The Louisiana Purchase included 530M acres.

While the U.S. did not become a recognized world power until WWII, the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and, in 1848, the acquisition of Western regions in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided unimagined exploitable natural resources and enabled the further near-annihilation of Native Americans. These two conditions are strongly interconnected, even today. As witnessed over the past year, the disregard for Native Americans and their ways of life is still widely accepted.

In the 1800s, the Native American stewards of Turtle Island, in many cases, strongly resisted their own annihilation and the rape of the land that came with the exploitation of natural resources. I am not trying to paint an overly romantic picture of the wide variety of Native American nations and tribes, but their footprint on the land was minuscule compared with what occurred with the arrival of railroads, oil wells, farming homesteads, canals, and dams. The Louisiana Purchase made much of this possible.

The callousness of “Americans” reached new depths over the ensuing decades. Native American children were taken from their families to attend boarding schools that forbid the use of Native American languages and cultural ways. The Carlisle Indian School (about 1880 to 1920) was the premiere example. (I graduated from Dickinson College and felt the impact of the Carlisle Indian School in the local culture, just as the history of the U.S. Army War College in the same town continues to be part of the culture. The impact of the Carlisle Indian School, fortunately, has become-- at Dickinson College, at least-- a heightened sensitivity to what Native Americans have endured.)

The segregation of Native Americans, forced onto reservations and rancherias, extended all the way to California: separate hospitals where nationally-available antibiotic treatments were not available, forcible removal of children, the expansion of the domain of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (which still decides which tribes get “recognized” and still does not honor treaties)— These are some of the profound changes that came from the Louisiana Purchase (and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).

The Louisiana Purchase was the follow-on to the beginning Western European colonization of Africa, Indonesia, India, and many other regions. It established the United States as a conquering empire.

What is the advantage of a multicultural society?

Diversity of cultural origins means diversity of ideas and perspectives.

Synergy is the outcome of diverse contributions, where the combination is far better than the sum of the potential for separate contributions. There is something amazing that happens when people listen to each other and integrate what they learn from those who don’t think like them, who come from another point of view. One is the tinder; another is the kindling; another is the fuel; and yet another is the flint. Not one of these can create a fire alone. Neither can a subset create a fire that can be sustained. It takes all of these elements to sustain the warmth. What of the fundamental human element that strikes the fire with the flint and all the other elements that become the warmth? It is the synergy.

Cultures, as they morph, as they come together in a new place with new ideas, are part of the richness that is inherent in any culture. Cultures adapt to changes in environment, changes in circumstances— but always they remain true to their origins, to their past. Values, mores, language, cuisine, traditions, spiritual beliefs, the arts, and notions of society and government. Change is not abandonment. It is what a culture needs in order to stay alive.

Think of a forest made of only one species of tree. The weather gradually changes, permanently changes. The animals in the forest change. What becomes of the trees in that forest? In all probability, the single-species forest first becomes sick and, eventually, dies.

But a forest of redwoods and oaks and cypress and pines, subjected to the same changes in weather and animals would not only survive but would thrive. The balance would shift. Probably, new species of trees and shrubs would arrive to make the forest vibrant again. That is the sign of a natural culture where diversity is what makes the place healthy and the region thrives. That is how multicultural societies surpass any society based on a single dominant culture.

Doves' Devotion

Doves cooing in early February,

Calling to each other with an affirmation of their bond.

They comfort me

With the beauty of their commitment song.

The State of a U.S. Democratic Republic as We Enter 2017

The official form of government in the United States is still a democratic republic. Over the past two decades, our form of government has been shifting away from this. As we see with the growing gap in wealth between working-class people and the wealthiest people, where the influence of the working class and middle class has dwindled and the voice of the poor is even less influential, we also see the increased power and influence in governance that has occurred. Wall Street (and similar financial institutions worldwide) caused the Great Recession, and yet, they are being given additional abilities to run the same bad-debt practices that caused the recession, especially in the U.S. That requires tremendous influence. This form of government is a plutocracy.

U.S. governance has been moving closer and closer to a plutocracy, capping that achievement with the recent federal elections. We now have “a society ruled by a few of the wealthiest citizens.” This is not debatable: We now have a White House with cabinet and staff members with the highest level of wealth in the history of the country— by far. It’s a matter of definition, not debate. Whether this is good or bad is up to each of us to decide.

The tattered remnants of our democratic republic form of government include that the majority of Electoral College electors got to vote for who our president and vice president would be. The democratic republic, in this case, breaks down at the state level, where there is not “one person, one vote.” Most states have a winner-takes-all model for selecting electors. States with large populations have a proportionately lower number of electors than states smaller populations. If California had the same proportion of electors as Wyoming, it would have 199 electors. It had 55. Is this what citizens want as a way to elect a president and vice president? Perhaps. After all, in the Senate, every state has the same number of senators. But in the House, the number of representatives per state is loosely proportional to the size of the state's population.

Another way in which the democratic republic remains is that we elect members of Congress to act on our behalf, and we can contact them with our position on issues. To the extent that they don’t represent our positions, we can work toward electing someone who better represents our positions.

The current state of the U.S. democratic republic form of government can easily be summarized in terms of whether ordinary Americans are willing to do their job as citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, "If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."

Too many Americans are poorly informed. Many are quite ignorant about the rest of the world-- even in their own Western Hemisphere. With the amount of misinformation and ill-logic that is readily available, few take the time to check the facts. The sheer magnitude of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that have been believed without question is staggering. Finding the facts means going to primary sources. What did this politician say? Read the transcript; don’t believe someone’s paraphrase that is likely to be slanted. Read Reuters and Associated Press factual reports rather than news sources that have their own obvious agenda. Never believe a politician. The adage is this: How do you know if a politician is lying? His mouth is open.

Someone said that the House of Representatives has a bill that’s going to do X, Y, or Z? Look up the bill. They are all available at congress.gov. Do not trust your friend to summarize for you; don’t trust social media; definitely don’t trust a Super PAC “newsflash,” no matter how much they represent your political ideologies.

When Americans are unable or unwilling to search for facts, we cannot have an effective democracy. Perhaps we’ve never had a perfect democracy, but when the Oxford Dictionary chooses “post-truth” as the 2016 international word of the year, we are definitely headed in the wrong direction. When we have verified facts and someone in the White House comes up with the term “alternative facts,” as if that were a thing, we are definitely headed in the wrong direction.

This is the state of our U.S. democracy: Citizens leaping away from informed participation in their government.