Political & Elections

This whole conversation reminds me of the unchallenged debated on “human rights” and “democracy”. While many folks seem to think of them as some kind of universal truth and somehow the West sees herself as the self-appointed guardian of this tradition, and thus have the privilege and responsibility to interpret what it is.

I think it is important to remember that “totalitarianism” also has a long and distinguished tradition in the West. A quick glance through Western philosophical thought would make this quite apparent. Plato’s philosopher-kings, Hobbes’s idea of a social contract, and of course Machiavelli’s realpolitiks immediately spring to mind.

After all that is said and done, I cannot help but think “human rights” and “democracy” are simply tools of statecraft, apply to our enemies but not to our friends or ourselves, and in all likelihood, taken as such.

Moral Foundations lead to principles

Part 4 of understanding the political divide is understanding that the two-foundation morality – the liberal elephant - leads to a set of core principles and a conception of the role of government that is different from the principles and conception that follow from the five-foundation morality of the conservative elephant.

Those conceptions and principles, in turn, lead to the position each side embraces on just about any issue. The discussion about taxes on this thread is a good example. Krugman’s piece points out a few others.

I think a good illustration of the difference between the core principles of each side can be found in the distinction between the principles of “freedom” and “liberty” as they are described in the quotes below. I think the two-foundation morality of the liberal elephant has a greater affinity for the principle of freedom, and the five-foundation morality of the conservative elephant feels more at home with the principle of liberty.

Before I go on I want to be clear about something: I believe that the rider/elephant description of the functioning of the human mind, and the moral foundations description of the differences between liberals and conservatives is the current “cutting edge” social science’s understanding of what makes us tick. That is to say, I believe that from an academic/scientific standpoint there’s no suggestion at all that one side is “better” than the other, or that one side is “right” and the other side is “wrong.” The only suggestion is that they're different. Moral foundations and rider/elephant attempt only to describe the nature of the difference and why we have such a tendencey to dig in our heels.

Freedom:

Freedom is understood as more expansive, and suggests a general lack of restraint, especially a lack of political restraint, as when we speak of the United States as a “free society.” It is often used to suggest a more open-ended sense of autonomy, meaning that we are free to do whatever we want.

Liberty:

Freedom must be understood within the context of constitutional and moral order, which means reasonable limits and cultural bounds. … Liberty means the rightful exercise of freedom, the balancing of rights and responsibilities. … Liberty was never understood to mean anything and everything, but came with duties and obligations appropriate for human self government.

Freedom is all encompassing, and tends to emphasize a lack of restraint, but liberty implies responsible freedom – men and women acting according to human nature.

Quotes are from Matthew Spalding's book "We Still Hold These Truths."

I would do my best to help my friends, and my parents friends....certainly if they didn't have enough food. Don't know if I'd want to house them, but feeding would be fine. They might prefer dogfood over my cooking, though.

"If you are self-sufficient, don't want the government in your back pocket, and don't mind your parents, or their friends, eating dog food in their old age, than removing the social safety net is a good thing."

If I am self-sufficient, then my parents and my friends will not be eating dog food in their old age. If your parents are eating dog food while you are doing fine, there is something seriously wrong with your priorities....unless you detest them. If my parents have done poorly enough or had disasters happen that cleaned out their bank accounts, I would take care of them. Now if they had to live with us, there would probably be all sorts of issues, because they enjoy arguing (we don't), but no way would they be out on the streets.

Let me just rephrase Winchester's five principles, and maybe you'll see why I'm unpersuaded that they are all good:

1) Kindness & gentleness

2) Fairness

3) Hating gay people and people who aren't the same color as me

4) Having a hierarchy of power (that I am on the top of!)

5) Not wanting women to have sex (unless they have it with me)

What color is your elephant (red or blue)?

Part 3 of understanding the political divide is understanding the roots of the “Two Moralities" Krugman mentions.

A study conducted in the U.S., the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, the East Asia and South Asia* discovered that each of us uses the same 5 basic building blocks to construct our moral systems. The differences among us can be attributed to the relative importance we attach to each of the 5.

The study found that liberal morality is based almost entirely on the first two foundations, and conservative morality is based on a balance of all five (with the understanding that seldom is anything purely black or white, and that where one lands on the political spectrum can vary by issue).

You can participate in the study and see where you fall on the political spectrum compared to the statistical averages at the first link provided at the bottom of this post.

The 5 moral foundations are:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulate the theory in 2010 based on new data, we are likely to include several forms of fairness, and to emphasize proportionality, which is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php

* from here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

The "retirement plan" in many east asian countries is your children supporting you in your old age. As this custom passes into history in favor of "dog eat dog" individual self-sufficiency, some more formal provisions may be adopted.

Which particular countries in east asia are "first world" and lack government involvment in retirement?

Why would we want to be like them?

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 17th of January 2011 06:29:08 AM

Abyss wrote:

---

 The concept of Social Security doesn't even exist in some first world countries (East Asian). You're responsible for your retirement. Period.

---

So what? 



And thank you Busdriver.

 

"You simply said the vast majority of taxation is wrong. You didn't say what type of taxation. Then you say very few countries have zero taxes, only communists or oil producers. But you can't give an example where a society has done well with very little taxation. You name countries with moderate taxation. Why am I the idiot?"

Good question, Jordcin. As you are most definitely not, an idiot.

Bogney wrote:

---

You could persuade me that productive wealth such as Ellison's should be taxed less than Wall St. wealth, but it would be absurd to tax Ellison's employees at a higher rate than Ellison is taxed.  While he created their jobs, they simply have far less money than he does.

---

Ellison's case is different because he is mega wealthy and he is a tycoon of industry. The relative difference, of course, changes once you are looking at the small business level.

Bogney wrote:

---

We agree about the merit of different types of wealth.  However, Ellison should still pay a boat load, yacht load, of taxes imo because he is able too and still be ultra rich.

---

See, this is where we disagree. I believe our tax structure should incentivize certain activities over others. Entrepreneurship that results in lots of US employment should be something which is highly incentivized. That's why tax rates should be different (or even lower than people with less income).

Certain economic activities do virtually nothing for employment or wealth generation (ie: trading secondary shares on financial markets). I'm highly skeptical that people should not be paying extremely high marginal tax rates. This is especially true because our best and brightest are going into a field which doesn't grow the US economy. That's the absolute worst part about it.

This is about the structure of the US economy. We are siphoning our best talent to non-value creating activities.

Bogney wrote:

---

 

I agree that government should not compel the rich how to use their money other than to tax them for the general welfare.  I am not a comunist.  However, it would be nice to see the rich do something more with their money than lavish themselves with absurd luxuries, and of course some do.  Surely, it is not socialist to encourage wiser spending?

 

---

Simply painting the "rich" with a broad brush stroke is wrong, imo.

I don't care if Larry Ellison is a massive profligate spender and has a harem of women that he hides from his wife. He made a company, made billions, and employs thousands of Americans. In fact, I wouldn't mind if he experienced a 0% tax rate. He's created so much wealth for the US economy it's absolutely mind boggling.

Someone like John Paulson who is a billionaire hedge funder does not carry the same level of respect. The US economy is not larger because of his activities. He made money off people who took the other side of his bets. And when they went under he likely made money off the US taxpayer when the Treasury backstopped certain institutions like AIG. I wouldn't mind if he got taxed at 90%. How he makes money isn't really increasing overall US wealth.

It's *how* you make the money.

Unfortunate that we can't just decide how much money one is allowed to have, and that we can't just confiscate everything beyond that and put it towards another more acceptable use, or give it to other people?

Dang, where are the communists when you need them? Oops, maybe not....they might just give it over to their corrupt government officials and party members, and towards building up their military.

Bogney,

Bear in mind that to the guy who mounts the radio antenna on the Learjet, the lady who runs the paint booth at the Mercedes plant, the fiberglass technician at the yatch factory, etc. these are not "excessive luxuries". They are next weeks grocery bill and mortgage payment.

But I agree society must stop Wall Street from just smearing wealth about and taking a few percent for no net gain in goods and services.

I noticed that "spin offs" are starting to be a hot financial item. What happened to mergers and acquisitions? It all looks like very expensive "smoke and mirrors".

"We pay movie stars and musicians and some professional athletes an huge sum of money to do things they would probably like to do and would do for far less money" is the reason PhD's are frequently underpaid.



-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 16th of January 2011 12:26:34 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 16th of January 2011 12:27:29 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 16th of January 2011 12:28:31 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Sunday 16th of January 2011 12:29:38 PM

I think that the two "gut" views of morality: the successful should share with the poor versus the poor should not rob the rich divide - do relate to life experience and education.  I needed financial help growing up due to unfortunte events completely out of my control, and was lucky enough to receive it.  Government assistance and then my mother's remarriage helped me reach my current state, which, while not august, is far beyond that of the other people who lived on my block.  Perhaps I had better genes, but that would not have mattered much without opportunity - and I am not sure that every other kid on the block could not have done the same thing I did, or more, if they had the same backing.

On the other hand, if you are a "self-made man or woman," you probably tend to think that if I could do it, why can't everyone else?  The only reason other people don't is that they are either lazy or incompetent of both.  I think that tends to ignore the "mentor" or stroke of good fortune (market forces breaking their way) that inevitably accompanies the Horatio Alger success stories, that are not there for everyone.

If you grow up rich, you have no conception of what it is like to be poor, and have little expereince in dealing with poor people.  Most have no experience that might give rise to empathy, and some may have a sense of entitlement to justify a lavish lifestyle while others are starving.  "My family (or I) earned everything I have because they worked so hard; so, I'll spend it as a please, thank you very much!"  Greed is a significant contributing factor to the wealth of a lot of people - cheating, lying, stealing in blue collar and white collar crime has lead to extraordinary wealth, and I suspect that much of it goes undetected (true, this is gross speculation on my part showing my personal bias, but it is my world view). 

To me, the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" are shameful.  There is so much waste, ostentation, and greed displayed by the rich (some of them anyway) that it boggles the mind.  At least Buffet has the good taste to live reasonably modestly.  I realize that it is all a matter of degree, that my upper middle class house and life style would seem excessive and wasteful to those starving in third world nations.  However, ownership of vast estates (multiple), lear jets, yachts, fleets of expensive vehicles, etc. seems like the worship of self-indulgence and a delusion of personal grandeur.  The Wall Street crowd works hard but they did not earn such wealth, they stole it.  At least the Silicon Vally crowd made something of value, but their excesses are just as off-putting.

The philanthropy of the billionaires like Gates is an excellent response to the extraordinary combination of ability, hard work, good luck, and social freedom that resulted in their wealth.  However, when they start talking about how absurd the tax laws are in their favor (at least Buffet has), it seems that the rest of society should listen. 

Almost everyone agrees that taxes are necessary for a competent government to run a civil society.  For the top to quibble over how much, when they will remain far on top of everyone else regardless of whether the democratic or republican proposal is accepted, seems like shameless greed to me.  No one is proposing confiscatory taxes at un precedented levels to spread the wealth communist style.  The howling of the rich at minor relatively minor proposed increases is unseemly.

4)  Now, the teaparty has disovered that we shoud be led by Palin, or her chosen emissaries!  It just keeps getting wose.    

I think that we need to start thinking about amending the Constititution.  An amendment to prohibit campaign contributions from lobbyist, corporations, and unions might be a start.  Prohibiting a politicians from ever receiving any sort of income from a corporation benefitted by legislation he or she proposed, spoke in favor of, or voted for might help.  Maybe an amendment moving more toward oligarchy - adding some educational standards for public service in Congress - and prohibiting witches.    Providing candidates limited government money for campaigns, and campaigns conducted with numerous debates with limited time for discusson thereafter - spin reduction - might be useful in reducing the b.s. too.

Our policians need to start trying to do what is best for society, not what is best for their campaign donors.  We all disagree what that is, but if they were less interested in lining their own pocket books they might be more useful to "the People."

The “Two Moralities” is only Part One of a better understanding of the political divide.

Part Two provides a deeper understanding of our intransigence toward each other, and why it is almost impossible to win an argument about politics (i.e., morality.) This understanding can be found in chapter one of a book called “The Happiness Hypothesis,” which is available online here:
http://www.happinesshypothesis.com/happiness-hypothesis-ch1.pdf

What follows is my summarization of some of the author’s key ideas, but to do proper justice to the ideas and to the author I highly recommend that you click the link and read the entire chapter (well, the whole book really.)

In a nutshell; we don’t think the way we think we think.

We humans like to think we’re rational, objective beings whose opinions are firmly based in “reason.” But that’s mostly an illusion. The more accurate description of how we think is that we use reason to rationalize our beliefs, desires, and likes after the fact.

The human mind is like a rider on the back of an elephant, where the rider is the conscious, rational, language processing, “thinking,” part of the brain, and the elephant is our subconscious instinct, emotion, and “gut feel.” The rider likes to think he’s in charge, but mostly he’s just along for the ride and the elephant goes wherever the heck it wants to go. A more accurate descriptin of the function of the rider is that he is a lawyer who argues on behalf of the elephant by creating post hoc rationalizations for what the elephant already thought or said or did.

Here’s an example: You turn a corner in a museum, come upon a painting, and say almost instantly “Oh, I like that.” That’s your elephant talking. You have not gathered the facts about the painting, analyzed them, and drawn the logical conclusion that you like the painting. Only after your friend asks why you like it do you come up with a rationale. That’s your rider talking; finding reasons, after the fact, for what you already “feel,” or “like,” or “know.” The same process applies to most of our opinions, including - or especially - our political views.

The second function of the lawyer/rider is to try to persuade other elephants to adopt his point of view.

But the elephant doesn’t work that way. It can’t be convinced or persuaded by logical argument. Remember, the elephant is instinct and emotion and gut feeling. These things have been entrenched into our psyche by millions of years of evolution. The elephant feels what it feels, believes what it believes, knows what it knows regardless of logical argument; often in spite of it.

Did you ever hear anyone say, or say yourself, “I can’t explain it but I just know that’s wrong (or right)?” That’s your elephant talking. When it comes to moral issues your elephant won’t be persuaded by argument. Facts and logic and reason are no match for millions of years of evolution and instinct and gut feel. Even when every “logical” reason for a particular belief or position is taken away, our inner elephants stick to their guns. That’s why our political arguments are the way they are; intransigence is hardwired into the way our brains work.

And there are different kinds of elephants. Some see the glass as half full, some half empty; some are naturally happy, some are naturally cynical; and yes, some are conservative, and some liberal.

But all of this does not mean that moral or political argument is futile, because even though the elephant can’t be persuaded, it can be retrained. Elephants can change, and do, but it’s rare, and it takes a long, long time.

The training usually happens through the combination of education and experience. These can happen naturally as a result of just living our lives, or they can happen deliberately through determined study and practice. (And being born with a natural talent doesn’t hurt either.) Have you ever marveled at somebody who just “gets it?” The book “Blink” by Malcom Gladwell offers a great description of how this happens. The greatest athletes, artists, musicians, doctors, business persons, politicians, etc., among us are usually people who have successfully combined the happy accident of natural talent with being a deliberate student of their chosen (or discovered) field. They’ve trained their inner elephant. Maybe even you are good at what you do; a recognized expert in your field. Maybe sometimes you just know something is right or wrong without being able to really explain it at first, or even at all. You've trained, cultivated, your inner elephant and you trust it.

So the key to getting more people over to your side is to dedicate your powers of logic and reason not to persuade or convince, but instead to train, and to do so patiently and persistently over a long period of time.

Politics is the large scale tug of war, taking place across generations, to train the elephant of the American people and culture as a whole to embrace either the principles - the morality - of liberalism or those of conservatism.





-- Edited by winchester on Saturday 15th of January 2011 10:51:54 AM

So, wait, I'm confused. You give three examples of countries that don't use taxes and do well: Singapore, Japan and Taiwan. Then with thirty seconds of Googling, I discover that all three countries do have taxes. So in what sense are they countries that don't have taxes?

Did you mean, those are three countries with relatively low government spending as a percentage of GDP? They are.

But sadly, the US needs to decide whether it is going to be a low tax, low services country or medium tax, medium services country. (Actually, we're rich, so it's more like low tax, medium services or medium tax, high services.) The Republicans are strong on the low taxes part, but haven't shown us much on the low services part. For example, do we really need to be the world's policeman, at great expense in blood and treasure?

BigG wrote:

---

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

US is about 39%.

The data is pre-crash.

---

One of my favorite sites. Has some other good stuff on there.

 

BigG wrote:

---

Interesting link;

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p148855.asp

---

Income tax burden is relevant, but it's not the whole story.

The truer picture is shown with government spending as a percentage of GDP.

Interesting link;

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p148855.asp

We actually have some of the lowest taxes on Earth.
We have one of the highest deficits on Earth.
Strange coincidence?




-- Edited by BigG on Friday 14th of January 2011 08:37:02 PM

Jordcin wrote:

---

 

Abyss wrote:

---

I will never see level with liberals because I simply think that the vast majority of taxation is wrong.

---

What do you think is a good example of a country that doesn't use taxation and does well?

 

 

---

Singapore/Japan/Taiwan.

 

It's a good post. And true.

I will never see level with liberals because I simply think that the vast majority of taxation is wrong.