Taking on a Big Question: Why Embrace Plutocracy over Working Class Heroes?
Posted: June 9, 2012 Filed under: religious extremists, right wing hate grouups, Voter Ignorance | Tags: fear, Reagan Democrats, the conservative brain, voting against your interests 66 Comments
The UK Guardian has always been one of my favorite papers. One of my high school social science teachers–Steve Wiitala–introduced me to the paper when I was taking an honors world history seminar class. I’ve been reading it ever since. Jonathan Haidt–a psychology prof–asks a question that I’ve been wondering for years. Why on earth would any working class person support some one like Ronald Reagan or Mitt Romney? Why would they even consider voting for reactionaries funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers? Why would they vote against their own interests?
I’ve always looked to the slave plantation model for answers. White overseers for rich masters were given just enough special favors and made to feel above the plantations’ slaves that they felt better thinking “well, at least I’m not one of them”. White working class people have a history of indentured servitude and sharecropping. Why go back to people that really would like to re-institute these things? Haidt says that fear of the collapse of society sends them look for order and anything national greatness. I wanted to explore his arguments here. (You can also watch this interview with Haidt by Bill Moyers. ht/ to EcoCatWoman.)
Many commentators on the left have embraced some version of the duping hypothesis: the Republican party dupes people into voting against their economic interests by triggering outrage on cultural issues. “Vote for us and we’ll protect the American flag!” say the Republicans. “We’ll make English the official language of the United States! And most importantly, we’ll prevent gay people from threatening your marriage when they … marry! Along the way we’ll cut taxes on the rich, cut benefits for the poor, and allow industries to dump their waste into your drinking water, but never mind that. Only we can protect you from gay, Spanish-speaking flag-burners!”
One of the most robust findings in socialpsychology is that people find ways to believe whatever they want to believe. And the left really want to believe the duping hypothesis. It absolves them from blame and protects them from the need to look in the mirror or figure out what they stand for in the 21st century.
Here’s a more painful but ultimately constructive diagnosis, from the point of view of moral psychology: politics at the national level is more like religion than it is like shopping. It’s more about a moral vision that unifies a nation and calls it to greatness than it is about self-interest or specific policies. In most countries, the right tends to see that more clearly than the left. In America the Republicans did the hard work of drafting their moral vision in the 1970s, and Ronald Reagan was their eloquent spokesman. Patriotism, social order, strong families, personal responsibility (not government safety nets) and free enterprise. Those are values, not government programs.
Brain research is beginning to find that folks that tend to call themselves “conservative” tend to be more fearful. Chris Mooney–Author of The Conservative Brain–explains it like this.
Looking at MRIs of a large sample of young adults last year, researchers at University College London discovered that “greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala” ($$). The amygdala is an ancient brain structure that’s activated during states of fear and anxiety. (The researchers also found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex” – a region in the brain that is believed to help people manage complexity.)
That has implications for our political world. In a recent interview, Chris Mooney, author of The Republican Brain, explained, “The amygdala plays the same role in every species that has an amygdala. It basically takes over to save your life. It does other things too, but in a situation of threat, you cease to process information rationally and you’re moving automatically to protect yourself.”
Haidt says that this kind of thinking has some disturbing impact on people that tend to obsess on fear. Group loyalty can drive people who want to feel safe. Does this explain the effectiveness of Willie Horton ads and all those Rovian tricks that seem paranoid and some what zombieland-like to us?
But on matters relating to group loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity (treating things as sacred and untouchable, not only in the context of religion), it sometimes seems that liberals lack the moral taste buds, or at least, their moral “cuisine” makes less use of them. For example, according to our data, if you want to hire someone to criticize your nation on a radio show in another nation (loyalty), give the finger to his boss (authority), or sign a piece of paper stating one’s willingness to sell his soul (sanctity), you can save a lot of money by posting a sign: “Conservatives need not apply.”
In America, it is these three moral foundations that underlie most of the “cultural” issues that, according to duping theorists, are used to distract voters from their self-interest. But are voters really voting against their self-interest when they vote for candidates who share their values? Loyalty, respect for authority and some degree of sanctification create a more binding social order that places some limits on individualism and egoism. As marriage rates plummet, and globalization and rising diversity erodes the sense of common heritage within each nation, a lot of voters in many western nations find themselves hungering for conservative moral cuisine.
Does our place in Maslow’s hierarchy really determine our susceptibility, vulnerability, and motivation at the voting booth? Haidt says yes and sums his thesis up this way.
When working-class people vote conservative, as most do in the US, they are not voting against their self-interest; they are voting for their moral interest. They are voting for the party that serves to them a more satisfying moral cuisine.
So, these are the same motivators that drive people to guns, bibles, and tribal thinking that demonizes the ‘other’. Is the angry right just a bunch of folks that are scared shitless? It’s an interesting theses. Dr. Bostonboomer probably has more information on some of this than me. I am interested in hearing your thoughts. What is the appeal of voting for your own servitude?
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
grayslady
mablue2
JJ Lopez aka Minkoff Minx
NW Luna
peggysue22
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Haidt was on one of Bill Moyers’ first shows & was recently repeated: http://billmoyers.com/episode/encore-how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/ I read Haidt’s article on Alternet a couple of days ago. It’s interesting.
From a scientific point of view, fear is one of the first, most basic inherent instincts. Tinbergen, one of the founders of ethology, demonstrated that young gulls (nestlings) would duck down & try to hide when a cardboard cutout that simulated a predator was passed over the nest. Realistically, for humans what environment “preys” upon fear the most? IMHO, it’s church/religion – fire & brimstone, punishment for sins, being struck down by god and so on. Fear has been used throughout history to keep the masses in line.
Thanks for the post, kat. I think this is the big WHY for those of us who consider ourselves liberals, free-thinkers, even realists. I do object to the implication that liberals are less “moral” than conservatives. Personally I think the opposite is true. But then, compassion is at the top of my list of morals.
I think Haidt thinks liberals have a type of morality distinct from conservatives.
I think Haidt IS a conservative. I’ve read a number of his papers and articles and that’s my conclusion about him. Based on that Alternet article, he is extremely biased. Frankly, I’ve never been very enthusiastic about social psychology.
The problem I have with a lot of this research is that the descriptions of conservative and liberal beliefs strike me as simplistic–and really inaccurate.
Haidt’s definition of conservative values:
Now his conception of liberal values:
Neither of those definitions begins to be scientific or even accurate! To say that liberals aren’t patriotic and don’t value strong families and free enterprise is just plain ridiculous. It’s a lie.
Haidt gives himself away throughout that article. I could go on and on, but I don’t want to bore everyone.
Watch the Moyers interview that Connie listed. I don’t think he’s a conservative, although he sounds somewhat moderate.
Haidt defined liberal’s most defining values as compassion and caring in the interview.
Sorry, but I don’t want to watch it. I’ve read quite a bit of what this man has written and I’m not impressed. I’m in a pretty good mood today, and I don’t want to lose it. And I don’t want my blood pressure to go sky high either.
I should have just kept quiet….
Yes, or at least I’m glad you commented. When I watched the Moyers’ interview when it first aired, I physically felt myself getting pulled in by Haidt. It was akin to the feeling I got when I tried to read Atlas Shrugged 100 years ago. I put that down because it just made me feel icky, for lack of a better word. My final impression of Haidt was that he was/is a conservative. The fact that you feel that way just reinforces my feeling toward him. Another Murry, maybe?
No problem. I think it’s completely oversimplified but I also think that’s part of his point. I don’t value things like loyalty and I really don’t think things are sacred. When conservatives talk about stuff like this I think they are nuts. I find flag waving jingoistic and simple minded. I’d just like to see some framework where we can discuss that these differences ARE values and not good v. evil. Some of these folks need it boiled down to simple. Just wish it could be simple and correct.
Haidt is a social psychologist. Social psychology ignores the importance of personality in influencing behavior. Human behavior is much more complex than Haidt wants to acknowledge.
There is a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that there are strong relationships between personality traits and ideology. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg as far as Haidt’s oversimplification and outright observer bias.
I’d imagine Dak feels like I do now when she sees simple-minded articles about economics. Reading Haidt to me is analogous to reading Yglesias or Stoller on economics.
Ah, I get that ..
If the definitions are oversimplified then they are inaccurate. That means the research that is based on those definitions is problematic.
I value loyalty to my family and friends. Does that mean I’m not a liberal?
No, his findings say that those values would come up with less strength for you than your values of caring and compassionate and that would not fit the conservative profile where all those things are equally weighted.
He was comparing the values on a continuum and not a yes or no thing.
I also caught a few things like this in his interview which made me thing he was probably a moderate but not a conservative.
This one about capitalism too.
Well said, BB.
From the Moyers show quotes:
Democrats need to regain “the trust?” Why did Democrats win after Bush then? Americans rejects the Bush/Cheney method of lying the country into war.
I call bullshit!
Haight is obviously a conservative.
strong families = father knows best. personal responsibility = it’s your fault you’re poor, sick, or live next to a polluting free-enterprise manufacturer. free enterprise = Goldman Sachs and no gov’t oversight.
“What is the appeal of voting for your own servitude?”
I’ve long wondered. Growing up in South Louisiana, I always wondered what would entice young poor men to give their limbs and lives to protect rich mens’ properties.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
You know, I’ve wondered about that too.
It makes me think of the way Hannah Arendt described how the Jews voluntarily lined up to be killed, even coming to the train stations at the appointed time. That there were thousands of Jews in a camp, compared with only a hundred guards…why did they not rise up? Why not go down fighting? Arendt argued that the complacent nature was due to making a choice between a long torturous death and a relatively quick one. I don’t know, but there are so many examples in history that the question of “voting for your own servitude” could be asked.
I’ve read a few pieces with a similar theme today. You’re getting into the “What’s the matter with Kansas?” argument.
I think the situation is simpler than the Guardian writer suggests. Propaganda works. Propaganda constricts our perception of acceptable solutions. Propaganda tells people to concentrate their fury on THIS issue instead of THAT issue.
Example: About nine years ago, there was an effort to separate the San Fernando Valley from Los Angeles. This people spearheading this effort were property owners who wanted to escape L.A.’s rent control law. That very insufficient law applied only to apartments in older buildings continuously inhabited by the same tenant; if a tenant moved, the rent for that unit could zoom up. Some tenants — seniors, mostly — stayed put for decades. The landlords wanted to jack up rents on those old people.
At the time, rents in southern California were skyrocketing, due to the housing boom. Landlords were getting $900 a month for a single that would have cost $400 just a few years previously.
I talked about this situation with a social services worker who despaired at the growing number of homeless families. She actually told me: “I’m sure things will improve if the Valley secedes.”
“What the hell makes you say that?” I asked. “It’ll make things much worse. Old people will suddenly see their rents double. How can you say things will get better?”
She seemed uncomfortable. “I dunno. It’s what they say on TV.”
Turns out she had been watching some propagandistic crap in which libertarians argued, with their usual casuistry, that an absolute lack of regulation would magically create the lowest possible rents for everyone.
She was not a conservative by nature, or she would not have had the job she had. Nevertheless, propaganda had worked its magic on her mind.
Propaganda works. Simple as that.
There is no reason to theorize about the amygdala or appeals to moral authority or anything of that sort. Average citizens presume that those smart-looking people on the teevee must be “geniuses or something” — otherwise, they wouldn’t be on teevee.
Rove and Lundt sure have found ways to sucker people. That’s for sure.
Was that old Unruh, Superior California and Inferior California?
I agree about propaganda being a powerful force, and I’m guessing it works better on people who are not particularly intelligent or skilled in logic.
Let’s not forget about the research that shows that conservatives tend to have lower IQ’s and poorer reasoning ability than liberals.
That Kanai, Feilden, Firth & Rees (2011) article on MRI findings of brain anatomical differences among liberal and conservative subjects (n = 90) found larger volumes in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with processing of complexity and uncertainty, in their more liberal subjects.
I would also note that conservatives seldom characterize the populace-at-large as stupid, at least not publicly. Insulting your audience is a pretty poor first step towards persuasion.
You are correct. Instead the conservatives call liberals lazy, devil worshiping socialists who hate America..
Yes, they’re very good at demonizing their opposition – but they never insult their audience.
@ propertius 8:36pm
They always seem to insult women. The right is very good at demonizing women in their pursuit of dominating and controlling half of the voting population, but then again women are not the target audience.
If their audience isn’t insulted by birtherism and anti-science nonsense, then they ARE stupid. But I actually haven’t heard Obama calling any of his audiences stupid. If he has, cite the links/videos.
And did I mention Obama by name?
Of course I didn’t.
So, putting that particular straw man aside I would say that the mere existence of a book entitled “What’s the Matter With Kansas” – to say nothing of the existence of blog posts lamenting the silliness of those poor provincials in voting against their own interests – indicates an overall level of contempt for people who reside in large portions of the US.
A better question is “How did the left lose Kansas” – particularly since the prairie states were once a hotbed of radicalism with numerous Socialist, Populist, and Progressive public officials.
Okay…I am taking offense here as some one who has spent their entire life in the middle of the country in red states. The left didn’t lose people. The reasonable leave that part of the country or hole up in cities that are liberal. The biggest issue is the religious pathology that I can see. I’ve lost tons of friends who went through bad experiences and were preyed on by fundamentalists.
How did the left in MA in large part lose Italian-Americans? Let’s go back to World War I, let’s go back to 1920. Political oppression and red baiting might be almost as significant as the left being mean and elitist.
I think that some people base their self-worth on overestimating their agency. It’s terrifying to conceptualize themselves as cogs in the machine, acted on by forces outside of their control, and American mythology plays into that. Countless American success stories escaped from lives of crushing poverty and abuse, if you just work hard and play by the rules, you will prosper. If you don’t, then you must simply be inferior. Or, maybe not. Maybe you should blame people who don’t accept American values, who are trying to destroy this system of automatic virtue and reward with their flag-burning etc. The system is not the problem, you are not the problem, plutocrats are not the problem, you’d be one if only everything were functioning the way it’s supposed to and they way we know it can, the fuzzily defined, ever-shifting they are the problem.
That’s a very good point. But an even more important point to me is who gets to decide what are “American values?” I would argue they are the values defined in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as well as those we learn in our families growing up.
Anyone who wants to claim that liberals don’t value family and community and work is a liar. Anyone who claims that liberals want the government to take care of everyone is a liar. And saying that in a journal article doesn’t make the definition scientific.
Psychology is a science, and good psychological research depends on accurate operational definitions.
I’ll just add that Haidt’s conception of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is completely wrongheaded.
I think it’s a huge mistake for us liberals to allow ourselves to be defined by people who have obvious disdain for liberals.
I totally disagree that caring and compassion are the main defining characteristics of liberal philosophy. Liberals believe in equal opportunity. That doesn’t translate to the government doing everything for you. It translates to using the government to impose some civility on uncontrolled greed and self-interest.
Preemptively defining “American values” as everything they believe seems to be sort of the defining conservative gambit of the media age.
They’re exploring what they call moral foundations. There’s a link where you can take the test and there are a lot of words there. There are six like “fairness, caring, loyalty, liberty,…” that come up in the tests that are the basis of this. I don’t know that I’d call it preemptively defining American values but I’d have to read his methodology to figure out how they sorted the terms, etc.
Why did the democratic party forsake a Bill Clinton economic policy candidate (Bill Clinton actually lowered his annual budget deficit each and every year he was in office and whatever Hillary Clinton did would have been as if not more effective) in favor of a dope like Barack Obama who thinks putting people in debt with more loans is how to fix the economy?
Okay, I bite … how is Barack Obama in favor of putting people in debt with more loans to fix the economy? Bill Clinton was in a completely different situation when he took over the economy. It was in a slight war down turn and Bush Senior had just increased taxes. I really think you’re not looking clearly at Obama or your understanding of economics and finance is decidedly lacking. Please, don’t tell me it’s simple math because it’s not. It’s physics level math. Economic growth is like a projectile and it compounds. Economic growth takes care of debts. Shrinking an economy just creates more problems. Plus, leverage is useful in the right circumstances.
Economic growth is in diametric opposition to conserving resources. Ideally, efficient use of all resources can lead to less wars and result in less destructive consumption of precious resources. Interest rate charges are no longer necessary for most collateral backed loans and instead contribute to the economic madness, and wars to keep the flow of precious resources flowing.
Interest rate charges just contribute to more and more consumption of the earth’s resources in less and less time as people have to keep busy trying to find some type of work to pay pointless interest rate charges.
The jobless rate SHOULD GO UP, it’s the best sign that the world is going to a satellite economy which requires less brick and mortar services. The only reason the jobless rate going up is a bad thing is the super rich elite can’t make endless trillions of dollars doing nothing but shoving their money down people’s throats so they can collect interest on the money.
Enter Obama, the king of trying to put the middle class further in debt rather than incentivizing the REDUCTION of their present consumer debt through severely reduced interest rate charges on existing unsecured debt that is lowered every month by the debtor in exchange for the lower interest rate charge.
College investment knowledge is for behind reality they may never catch up.
Barack Obama “thinks putting people in debt with more loans is how the fix the economy?”
What does that even mean?
Confusion between Federal Debt and family debt???
Perhaps the media adds to the confusion when they report federal debt $ — by dividing the national debt by the number of people in the US — and then saying that we as individuals own $30,000 or some mythical number.
The media keeps up with their mantra — and informing the public that family debt is like the Federal debt or whatever.
Going back to the Krugman clip debating two Brits on an austerity kick.
http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan/paul-krugman-demolishes-couple-pro-aust
I suspect it’s a reference to the ill-conceived and poorly-implemented loan modification program.
I have heard several speeches by Obama in which he offers up small business loan plans but congress won’t approve them. What small business needs is less debt among their customers.
Here’s a very simple question: If conservatives have such strong respect for authority, then why do Republicans in Congress constantly treat Democratic presidents with utter lack of respect and decency? The POTUS is THE authority figure in the US.
So why did a group of Congressional Republicans meet on the day of the inauguration and agree to undermine everything Obama tried to do in order to make him a one-term president? Was that because of their innate respect for tradition, authority, and moral values?
Look at this example that Haidt uses to show that conservatives have a wider moral “palate” than liberals:
Why does willingness to accept smaller amounts of money to hurt an animal translate to a moral value for Haidt? Why is the reinforcement used in these studies money? There are all kinds of problems–demonstrated by actual experiments, not surveys–with using money as reinforcement.
Yes. That methodology has always been problematic. It always puts social scientists on a slippery slope.
Cognitive Dissonance doesn’t seem to work with hard core Conservatives.
Jon Stewart did a skit on this — showing videos of conservatives making statements which made no sense.
Like the nitwit conservatives — women + any form of birth control is a NO NO. Yet conservatives want their Viragra free. Or the guy who claimed that he got no help from “anyone” — and then said he got unemployment and food stamps.
Propaganda and mob psychology may explain the conservative mind set.
Also — don’t forget the women who vote against their own best interest. Lots of examples of that.
You should make this question its own topic. I wonder if it goes back to the Nixon impeachment. Since then, the republicans have disrespected every democrat president.
Although in Bill Clinton’s case I think they were upset because Bill was getting credit for implementing ideas on both sides of the political spectrum, and they may have felt marginalized.
Haidt needs to cite his sources.
Anyone who would kick a dog (unless to save another creature) IS a conservative.
I’m with you on that; kick or tie a dog to the top of the car.
Because they have come to view their opponents as weak, ineffectual, and incompetent?
Because they now associate Democrats with “creative class” BS artists like David Carr, who gratuitously insult them on cable TV?
Because Democrats blame their ineffective messaging on their audience, asking questions like “what’s the matter with Kansas?” rather than “why aren’t we making our case in Kansas?”
“ut ameris, amabilis esto,” as Ovid put it (in a very different context) a couple of thousand years ago.
Those are excellent points, but at the same time, this phenomenon isn’t unique to this time period or this country. Is it always the lack of a genuine alternative, or are there other factors in play as well?
I think they certainly apply in those two specific cases. I think if Obama loses this time around it will mainly be because he isn’t a very good President – not because people have any great love for Mitt Romney. God knows I don’t plan to vote for either one of them.
Which other cases did you have in mind?
How about Attlee? He certainly presented a alternative and he was out of power in 6 years. Granted, Labour may have received more total votes, but not by much, and if we assume the UK population isn’t 50% plutocrats, it’s probably pretty safe to assume that a fair number working class people were included in the Conservatives’ totals, despite full employment and impressive reforms.
I think it’s very difficult to make direct comparisons between Westminster systems and the US. If the US had a Westminster system, Obama might well have been swept from office in 2010, for example (and Bush in 2006).
As for Attlee’s defeat, he did preside over the dismantling of a large chunk of the Empire – with an associated loss of both power and national prestige. The rise of the Soviet Union certainly didn’t help him much, either. He was also, I believe, quite ill in 1951.
A certain amount of nostalgia for Churchill might have entered into the equation as well.
In spite of this, Labour actually outpolled the Tories nationwide.
Even though Attlee was defeated in ’51, his programs were wildly popular, especially the flagship NHS.
Churchill was sicker than Attlee, Attlee had stomach problems, Churchill had already had at least one stroke if not more, and of course once in office he had the very severe stroke and stepped down as PM due to the precarious state of his health. Frankly, the fact that Attlee’s reforms were wildly popular doesn’t really give a lot of support to the argument of voter rationality. After a series of stunningly courageous and yes, popular reforms they turn their great domestic leader out of office, potentially putting all of the society-wide gains he’d made at risk? And yes, Labour did receive more total votes, but even adding the Liberal and Labour votes, the Conservatives were not all that far behind, which means that many, many voters were voting against their own economic interests. I’m not arguing that people are stupid, but I also don’t think it’s axiomatically true that if an alternative is provided, it will always be taken.
Who is David Carr?
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/bio-carr.html
David Carr is the NYT media columnist. He referred to the middle of the US (Kansas and Missouri, in particular) as “the dance of the low-sloping foreheads” on Bill Maher just about a year ago. It caused quite a stir at the time – in fact the right-wingers are still milking it.
Thanks.
He’s also the media critic who has condemned the media for “hyperpartisanship” and “reflexive vigilantism” in the case of poor persecuted George Zimmerman.
He sounds charming.
I was fooled by Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, then he tripled the troops, and now he is saying the war is receding, is just about over, what kind of bullshit is that, when it’s obviously that the drones are here, and there. Trying to say there has been improvements on jobs, and our economy is bullshit, too. There ain’t nobody in the middle class or working class living a normal fucking life.
Come on, you weren’t fooled by the Nobel.
Let’s just say I was tired of hearing about it.
Well, he has (as Sarah Palin pointed out) launched more drone attacks than any Nobel Peace Prize winner in history. He’s also probably the best golfer of the lot.
That wouldn’t be too hard to do given that drones are new technology. That seems like an obtuse observation.
In short, middle and upper class voters also often prioritize their moral interests over their economic interests. Such political behaviour is not a “working class thing”. It’s a human thing.