Why the Divide Between Liberals and Conservatives?

Jonathan Haidt has written a book titled The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are divided by Politics and Religion. In his book, he notes that in the 1980’s, Lawrence Kohlberg theorized that children go through stages of moral development, culminating in a “post-conventional” attitude that questions social norms and revises them to accord with higher principles of justice. In other words, the mature, morally developed person is a liberal.

 Haidt, a psychologist, has become more and more convinced that our morality flows from our emotional reactions rather than from reasoned responses. 

The author designed an experiment, which determined that our innate moral intuitions fall into six categories: care, freedom, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Care, freedom, and fairness focus on individuals. We see someone suffering, and our care sensibility is aroused; we try to help that person. Loyalty, authority, and sanctity focus on social realities. An example of this latter sensibility is our attitude toward desecration of the American flag. That does not harm any individual; but it does damage our moral sense of patriotic loyalty.

Both those who self-identify with liberalism and conservatism participate in the three sensibilities of care, freedom, and fairness; but only the ones who self-identify as conservatives consistently participated in the sensibilities of loyalty, authority, and sanctity on the test administered by Mr. Haidt.

To see how well liberals and conservatives understand one another, Haidt devised a special test. He constructed a list of questions with liberal and conservative bias points. Then, he administered the questionnaire to both liberals and conservatives, asking the liberals to answer the questions as they thought conservatives would answer; and he asked the conservatives to answer as they thought the liberals would answer.

He found that the conservatives understood well the attitudes of the liberals; but the liberals could not answer the questions the way conservatives would answer. Apparently, the liberals could not conceive that anyone with good sense would think like a conservative.

Due to the apparent lack of understanding on the part of liberals, Haidt concluded that the ill-tempered rancor between liberals and conservatives is due to the difficulty liberals have in mentally grasping the moral concerns of conservatives, especially those concerns that are heightened and given shape by religion.

Liberals in general seem to summarily dismiss the thoughts of those who have concerns about loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Liberals would dismiss conservatives to rhetorical extermination and denounce them as “not mainstream.”

I believe that this above attitude may be the root of the difficulties we have in America between liberals and conservatives.

Human Life Takes Another Hit!

In 1976, the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court took place; and Nancy and I began our campaign to try to stamp out the heinous practice of abortion on demand in the United States. Legal abortion was established in the U.S.; and now we have seen a total of 54 million lives lost through that procedure (3700 are done daily in this country)—by far the most common reason for those abortions is the convenience of the parents.

 One argument we used against abortion in those early days was that if the U.S. allowed abortion, euthanasia was bound to follow. The disrespect for human life would escalate; and other forms of killing would legally follow. We were derided out of the house for presenting that argument. Nobody thought that Americans would ever stand still for such an egregiously immoral act as euthanasia. Well…now we can see the truth of those fears: assisted suicide is now legal in Oregon, Washington state, and Montana.

Now the slide toward human killing continues to progress: Peter Singer, from the Department of Bioethics at Princeton University, has been saying for years that it is ethical to kill newborn babies for reasons of birth defects and for convenience of the parents. He has advocated killing them up to about 28 days of age, because he believes that fully human life does not exist until that time.

Now, two more prominent voices in the field of “bioethics” have arisen: Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva associated with Monash University in Australia and Oxford University in the U.K. have published in the Journal of Medical Ethics an article titled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” In that article they say “…after-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” These two are advocating the killing of newborn babies for any reason even if it’s simply because the newborn baby will be too stressful, or the baby is going to cause a financial hardship—or even if the baby isn’t the right gender.

This scenario is scary! Before you know it if this kind of thinking is incorporated into our laws, the right life will really be determined by some committee or some doctor who knows better than the patient whether his/her life is worth continuing.

If any of my readers are touched by this development in our American society, as I am, you might look at the following link: www.lifeissues.org/sbc (copy and paste this into your browser).

Sinful—yes. But…by nature??

All Christians would agree that mankind is sinful—this is a basic doctrine of our faith. We recognize sin in actions and attitudes—in the position of our hearts and in our values. But…what does it mean to be sinful in our natures? Eph 2:3 says, in part, “…(we) were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” Yes, Christians recognize sinful behavior, but what about this business of being sinful by nature? King David was so convinced of his own sin that he proclaimed that when he was born he was a sinner. He wrote that when he was “brought forth” from his mother’s womb, he had been “brought forth in iniquity.” (Ps 51:5) A similar idea is affirmed in Ps 58:3, “The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.”

Sin is not, I believe, an entity in and of itself. It is, rather, the absence of something—God. Sin is the natural condition of things when God is not manifest. Sin is like darkness. Darkness is not something in itself; it is the absence of light. Likewise, sin is simply raw existence in the absence of God.

The natural character of man manifests sinful quality. Sin is more than doing or thinking evil. Sin is a deeper thing than that. It indwells our very character. I can illustrate “sin by nature” from an animal model.

Several years ago, I was walking through the Sahel in northern Senegal. The Sahel is the grassy strip of land south of the Sahara Desert. For a few weeks in early spring, it’s rolling country is covered with green, waving, grass dotted by small groups of trees. It is very beautiful. As I walked along, I came upon the carcass of a dead cow. Overhead circled several vultures. As I watched, the vultures descended to feed on the cow. As they landed, I saw that they were huge animals and very beautiful. There were two different species—one stood six feet tall; and the other stood five feet. As the vultures converged on the dead body, they began to fight viciously among themselves. They pecked, kicked, flapped, bumped, pushed, and shoved one another. They fought violently over the carcass. There was not one single evidence of charity, generosity, or mutual respect among the group of vultures.

I thought to myself, “This is sin, personified!!” This was sin by nature. Those giant birds did not evidence any kindness or cooperation, at all! They were acting “by nature.” I believe that this bird-behavior is just the kind of effect we see in human beings who have not been touched by Christ’s Spirit—sinful “by nature.”

Still, there are those who would deny that young children are sinful. After all, they have not had the opportunity to sin. Really?? I would ask you to look carefully at the behavior of young children. They are just as selfish and belligerent as they can possibly be. Yes, they manifest sin “by nature.” God has not touched their little hearts, yet! They need to be taught and socialized before they can be tolerated by others. Later, hopefully, they will be indwelt by Christ’s Spirit and redeemed of their natural tendency toward sin.

You might think that my comparison of vultures and men is far-fetched. Well…I’m not so sure that my comparison is very far from the unvarnished truth. We, all, like vultures have gone astray!

Freedom of Religion in America?

The following was copied from the “Washington Update” of the Family Research Council dated 5/22/12.

Nothing seems to stand in the way of President Obama's political agenda--not Congress, not the Constitution, and certainly not the church. When he ordered faith-based groups to turn their backs on church teachings and fund life-destroying drugs, the White House was asking for a fight. And yesterday, they got it. After months of trying to negotiate, the Catholic Church bombarded the Department of Health and Human Services with 12 lawsuits, representing an army of dioceses, hospitals, schools, and charities across eight states and the District of Columbia. A total of 43 entities--including Catholic powerhouses like Notre Dame, Catholic University, Catholic Charities, the entire Archdiocese of New York and Washington, D.C.--will fight to end the strangling of religious freedom in America.

With the first wave of mandate rules scheduled to take effect on August 1, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said:

 "Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance. We have to resort to the courts now." Even the Fighting Irish, who once invited President Obama to speak at their university recognize what is at stake.

"[I]f one presidential administration... can use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of religious organizations..."

Never in the history of our nation has the federal government reached into the church and imposed its will over the protest of the faithful. "When did the government get into the business of defining for us the extent of our ministry?" Cardinal Dolan wanted to know. This isn't about birth control. It's about government control. And every time religious freedom conflicts with this administration's agenda, freedom seems to lose. Together, America's faith community is rising up to say "enough!" If this President wants to drive religion out of the public square, then his administration will have to go through thousands of priests, pastors, and rabbis first. They understand, as we do, that this war has implications--not just for religious liberty--but for every liberty. If the church can be conscripted to advance a liberal political agenda, then anyone can. "At the deepest level, we are witnessing an attack on the institutions of civil society that are essential to limited government."

Is Austerity the Answer to the Economic Woes of the World?

We hear a lot lately about what is wrong with the Euro. The two following excerpts seem to capsulize the problem for me. I hope they clear up some of the problem for you, too.

Paul Krugman wrote in the N.Y. Times on 27 April, “All around Europe’s periphery, from Spain to Latvia, austerity policies have produced Depression-level slumps and Depression-level unemployment; the confidence fairy is nowhere to be seen, not even in Britain, whose turn to austerity two years ago was greeted with loud hosannas by policy elites on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Writing in the Brooklings Papers On Economic Activity, Spring 2012, Jay Shambaugh says,“The euro area faces three interlocking crises that together challenge the viability of the currency union. There is a banking crisis – where banks are undercapitalized and have faced liquidity problems. There is a sovereign debt crisis – where a number of countries have faced rising bond yields and challenges funding themselves. Lastly, there is a growth crisis – with both a low overall level of growth in the euro area and an unequal distribution across countries. Crucially, these crises connect to one another. Bailouts of banks have contributed to the sovereign debt problems, but banks are also at risk due to their holdings of sovereign bonds that may face default. Weak growth contributes to the potential insolvency of the sovereigns, but also, the austerity inspired by the debt crisis is constraining growth. Finally, a weakened banking sector holds back growth while a weak economy undermines the banks. This paper details the three crises, their interconnections, and possible policy solutions. Unless policy responses take into account the interdependent nature of the problems, partial solutions will likely be incomplete or even counterproductive.” (I highly recommend this link; but if it will not open, copy it into your internet browser to read it. http://bit.ly/JifIQK )

From my own viewpoint, I can see that growth of economies is the problem; but the difficulty is the solution. Conservatives believe that the answer to the problem is belt-tightening and quitting the cycle of tax, borrow, and spend. Liberals still cling to the idea that tax, borrow, and spend is still the answer. Those ideas have long since been proven wrong. It is absolutely impossible to spend ourselves out of debt. That is a STUPID idea.  

New French Prime Minister and His Live-in Girlfriend

For the first time in history, France has elected a Prime Minister who will take his live-in girlfriend with him into the political circles of Paris. Mr. Francois Hollande, newly elected Premier of France, has been living with a political associate, Valerie Trierweiler , a 47 year old journalist, since 2005.  

Ms. Trierweiler is touted as a perfect match for the new leader of France, because she is the true prototypical French woman. She has been divorced twice, has three children, is a working professional, and now has an ongoing affair with a prominent man.

This scenario certainly illustrates where the Western Democracies are going morally! We, in America, have our own version of high ranking political decadence—Bill Clinton will always be remembered for his affair with Monica Lewinsky and his lying to a federal grand jury. To his credit, he may also be remembered for the fact that during his administration, the national debt was actually decreased due to pressure from a Republican House and Senate.

Immorality in high places is particularly dangerous to the moral fiber of a nation. Other people, young and old, will inevitably mimic the behavior of their leader. In the case of sexual immorality, they will do this despite the biblical admonition that such behavior will be eternally punished. They will do it in the face of gobs of sociological studies that clearly show the close correlation between sex outside of marriage and divorce.

We, the voters are partly to blame for such behavior. We frequently think that an official’s private life is not important if he does a good job in his public position. I think that if a person cannot be faithful in his personal obligations, to his wife and to his own moral respectability, he cannot be faithful to his public duties.

Manual of Dirty Political Tricks

(From the Wall Street Journal 17 March 2012 page C2 by Peter Stothard)

It was a bitter and volatile campaign, with accusations of inconsistency, incompetence, and scandal filling the air. Candidates competed to portray themselves as the true conservative choice, while voters fretted about the economy and war threated the Middle East. The year was 64 B.C., AND Marcus Tullius Cicero was running for Roman consul.

Cicero was a political outsider from a small town near Rome, but he was a brilliant man and gifted speaker, with a burning desire to gain the highest office in the ancient republic. As the campaign approached, his brother, Quintus—a practical and sometimes violent man who would later help Julius Caesar conquer Gaul—decided that his older sibling needed to learn a few things about how to win an election.

“My dear Marcus,” he wrote, “you have many wonderful qualities, but those you lack you must acquire, and it must appear as if you were born with them.” Quintus knew that the odds were against his brother. “To speak bluntly, since you are seeking the most important position in Rome and since you have so many potential enemies, you can’t afford to make any mistakes. You must conduct a flawless campaign with the greatest thoughtfulness, industry, and care.”

And so he laid out an election plan for Marcus in a short pamphlet in Latin that remains almost unknown to modern readers. The candid advice that Quintus gives would make Machiavelli blush, but it rings as true today as it did 2,000 years ago. Here is a sampling of his political wisdom:

1)   Promise everything to everyone. Quintus says that the best way to win voters is to tell them what they want to hear. “Remember Cotta, that master of campaigning, who said he would promise anything, unless some clear obligation prevented him, but only lived up to those promises that benefited him.”

2)   Call in all favors. If you have helped friends or associates in the past, let them know that it’s payback time: “Make it clear to each one under obligation to you exactly what you expect from him. Remind them all that you have never asked anything of them before, but now is the time to make good on what they owe you. “If someone isn’t in your debt, remind him that if elected, you can reward him later, but only if he backs you now.

3)   Know your opponent’s weaknesses—and exploit them. Quintus practically invented opposition research: “Consider Antonius, who once had his property confiscated for debt…then, after he was elected as praetor, he disgraced himself by going down to the market and buying a girl to be his sex slave.” A winning candidate calmly assesses his opponent and then focuses relentlessly on his weaknesses, all the while trying to distract voters from his strengths.

4)   Flatter voter shamelessly. Quintus warns his brother: “You can be rather stiff at times. You desperately need to learn the art of flattery—a disgraceful thing in normal life but essential when you are running for office.” A candidate must make voters believe that he thinks they are important. Shake their hands, look them in the eye, listen to their problems.

5)   Give people hope. Even the most cynical voter wants to believe in someone: “The most important part of your campaign is to bring hope to people and a feeling of goodwill toward you.” Voters who are persuaded that you can make their world better will be your most devoted followers—at least until after the election, when you will inevitably let them down.

So…did the brotherly advice work? Marcus won with more votes than any other candidate, went on to save the republic from a conspiracy, and was eventually given the honorific title “father of his country.” Unfortunately, he fell afoul of Mark Anthony and was murdered in 43 B.C.