DUers, can you help me flesh this one out? Moyers: How Do Conservatives and Liberals See The World?

[BrendaBrick]

Basically: Do you think, feel, believe (or might suppose) that the belief or non-belief in *karma* could possibly be part of the very crux between the overall opposing thinking/ideologies separating Republicans and Democrats in general? And maybe everything else could quite possibly (and in large part), spring out of that?

The reason I ask is because I watched Bill Moyers' most recent show this morning:

Full Show: How Do Conservatives and Liberals See the World?
February 3, 2012

Bill talks with social psychologist Jonathan Haidt about the moral underpinnings of our contentious culture.

http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/#disqus_thread

I've watched it twice, actually and there are 3 points in particular that I'm trying to unpack and it is really bugging me:

The first is one of Haidt's statement that: "You have to have consequences following bad behavior." Really. Have to? Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a perfect world and all bad behavior always resulted in consequences 100% of the time...but is that realistic? This plays into the notion/idea of karma (in the sense as it has become universally accepted and understood), and that is (basically): "What goes around, comes around". And this also begs the question just what is considered *bad behavior* anyway? Is it only relegated to those acts which are strictly against criminal law or does it stretch beyond that into some kind of other fuzzy moral landscape, subject to individual interpretation?

(Personally, I used to believe in karma because well, it just made life easier to be honest with you. To tell myself that all of these injustices in life would somehow all sort of wash out in the end. That everything squares up in the end. That was until I watched Woody Allen's film: "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and just couldn't shake it off...and it made me wonder...Hey! What IF what goes around....doesn't... what - then???)

Secondly is this (around 26 minutes into the show):

Moyers: Does your research suggest it's preferable to have a greater moral range?

Haidt: Umm, When I began this work, I was very much a liberal umm and over time, in doing research for my book and in reading a lot of conservative writing, umm I've come to believe that, umm, that conservative intellectualism actually are more in touch with human nature, they have a more accurate view of human nature, we need structure, we need families, we need groups - its OK to have memberships and rivalries - all that stuff is OK unless it crosses the threshold into anarchism...

Seems to me that this more *accurate view* (as he describes) lends itself rather conveniently to this uncontested notion of immutable karma and of the Protestant Work Ethic...which kind of makes everything all nice & tidy from that standpoint - wouldn't you think?

Lastly, and much to his credit, I think Haidt does makes a very good point with regard to why the Republicans succeed in their unified agenda and talking points and the Dems wane and that has to do with the idea of *fairness* having different meanings between the two. I think this is a very poignant and interesting position to understand, ponder, explore and act on!!!
He mentioned something about making a good hard-line, clear moral case argument from a Democratic point of view regarding: Fairness, Capitalism & American History.

(Suggestions anyone?)

I think that maybe all of us can already recite in our heads the Republican's point of view with respect to those three categories (case in point)...and maybe it just might be the ticket (pun intended to really hone in and tweak these very same points with a decidedly Democratic flavor and viewpoint with an equal amount of fervor and virtuosity in an effort to really present a unified message. In other words, time to get downright unified & shrewd!

Of course, there are a few other points brought up in this interview that I also find compelling - but I think (for now) these three stood out the most for me and my sense is that there is something really important and insightful here which expand beyond the old worn-out, limited conversations we typically hear and ascribe ourselves to.

[Angry Dragon]

1. I think this is garbage

Haidt: Umm, When I began this work, I was very much a liberal umm and over time, in doing research for my book and in reading a lot of conservative writing, umm I've come to believe that, umm, that conservative intellectualism actually are more in touch with human nature, they have a more accurate view of human nature, we need structure, we need families, we need groups - its OK to have memberships and rivalries - all that stuff is OK unless it crosses the threshold into anarchism...


Human nature does not equate with propaganda and control

[BrendaBrick]

4. Yeah.

I really do have mixed feelings about this guy! I mean, on one hand - he makes a very compelling argument for both sides - on the other hand - something. just. doesn't. eventually. gel. in. my. guts...

Interesting to note (if you watched the video) how every once in awhile Bill Moyers kind of gives this naturally perplexed look at this guy more than once...and you better know and believe that Moyers is quite the accomplished and savvy professional all the way around and has surely been around the block more than once!

I mean - Moyers had countless interviews with Joseph Campbell (The Power of Myth) and followed his logic seamlessly without nary a glitch...and that was what 20, 30 years ago?

Haidt is small potatoes by comparison - really. I commend Mr. Moyers for inviting him on his show to begin with and in giving him an largely vast audience in which to promote his book.

[spooky3]

2. you might want to look into research on "belief in a just world"

[BrendaBrick]

5. Care to expand? n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I watched that show

with a fair amount of discomfort. On one level, what he said makes some kind of sense, but I find it hard to attribute these pure motives to the conservatives, all this karma and fairness. Personally, I think the rich ones are just greedy and the poor ones are stupid.

But that's just me.

[xxqqqzme]

6. I'm hoping to catch it again

on one of the PBS stations. There were parts that did not 'fit' and I had a thought but lost it in continuing to listen to him. Want to see if I can get it back. Noticed the shots of Moyers looking perplexed at the ramblings.

[BrendaBrick]

8. Yeah....

Moyers doesn't naturally looked perplexed at all...which, in a way is a testament to him for keeping such an open mind to begin with. Don't think that he is alone. More than likely was his subject that was perplexing more than likely....

[grasswire]

7. conservatives have a better understanding of human nature?

Did you "unpack" this statement?

Conservatives (presumably mostly Christian) are likely to believe that man's very nature is sinful -- that humans are born sinful.

So when a conservative has a "better understanding of human nature", it means that he/she grasps the dark side of human nature and accepts the possibility of cruelty/evil in human interactions better than a liberal who tries to embrace tolerance, love, social justices in others.

In this way, Haidt is right. Conservatives do see more darkness in the nature of humans and understand the potential for hatred, greed, all those other ills.

[BrendaBrick]

10. First off...

I have a real problem with the word 'sinful' to begin with. But beyond that, OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll try real hard to understand where you are coming from.

"Conservatives do see more darkness in the nature of humans and understand the potential for hatred, greed, all those other ills."

Well......If that's the case...and knowing all of that - then why do they support the darkness?

(It's one thing to like - fess up and own up to this darkness crap and all - quite another to be like a cheer-leader of sorts!) Right?

Should *potential* be the new word here to thus deconstruct?

Maybe we are crossing lines here. I'll admit - I can be dense sometimes. What's your point?

Do you not think that progressives are not equally aware of hatred and greed and other ills across the board? Sorry grasswire. I just don't follow you - no offense. I sure would like to - I'm just confused. Please elaborate.

[grasswire]

13. you may not understand the word "sinful"

I am just trying to enlighten you as to what "human nature" means to conservatives. It has a coded meaning. The "sinful nature" is inherent in Christian teachings. Man is born with a "sinful nature" in their world view. Doesn't matter what it means to YOU, we are trying to understand THEM, here.

They support the darkness when it is useful to them. I don't know how much experience you have with conservatives. It might be a good idea to go over to freerepublic.com and monitor the comments on the site every day for a couple of weeks.

Progressives are aware of hatred and greed and other ills in the world, but would usually be adverse to using those dynamics to impose their will on others.

[grasswire]

14. ...further.....

...Bill Moyers, as a Baptist seminary trained minister, certainly understands the conservative concept of "sinful nature" and knew the nuances of what Haidt was saying.

[napoleon_in_rags]

9. I've made one point over and over gain here in discussions in the old R&T

If you are going to take the red pill, TAKE THE RED PILL! In other words, if you want to throw thousands of years of religious tradition out the window, than don't go around celebrating the fact that you have done so, rather embrace a purely scientific viewpoint and go down that road. Study these primates called Homo Sapiens with cold impartiality, and ask why they do the things they do within the contexts of physical and ideological (memetic) evolution? It turns out that when you do so, you encounter memetically optimal social arrangements, and even false ideological structures which lead to optimal outcomes, (like myths) all kinds of things like that which basically shouldn't be messed with, they are there for a reason from the context of their ideological evolution.

But the thing about that 'red pill' is once you have done this, you have taken a supra-human perspective, a perspective which you may find is sub-optimal for survival. You can observe the Homo Sapiens have "replicator" behavior with ideas, each advocating their own, but you observe that since you have a sub-optimal perspective, there is actually no reason to convince other homo sapiens you are right, and your compulsion to do so is entirely a programmed compulsion, like your desire to reproduce genetically. So why tell anybody? Why evangelize?

This leads to the conception of two distinct groups: The blue pill crowd, evangelical family focused conservatives being honest trying to walk traditional ways, and the red pill crowd, with an analytical view of humanity kept secret, presenting themselves as whatever they feel would be optimal to be seen as. The latter is small and the former is large. Conservatives mostly fall into the blue pill crowd, liberals fall in the uncomfortable space in between, but many of the smallest but most powerful red pill crowd are republicans, the elite power brokers, perception managers, etc.

This play between these groups is leading to a distinct divergence between segments of the population. As resource issues become critical in coming decades, it is reasonable to assume that this divergence will continue, with those following traditional ways leading increasingly impoverished agrarian existences, and with a very small group controlling remaining energy resources and blossoming future technologies, a world of genetically engineered cybernetically enhanced wizards and simple commoners, two diverging species.

Is this sub-optimal? And where does the left fit in? It seems to me the place of the left should be in the advocacy of truth, as much truth as you can handle. (realizing compassionately that some people need more simplified versions.) We should represent the idea that the truth, in its full form, is a beneficial and healing force, and that this is indeed a spiritual principle. We should represent the idea that the deception is always damaging, and optimal outcomes come from the closest representations of reality as can fit in a persons mind. We should embrace methods which find optimal simplifications through observing outcomes, but we shouldn't abandon the idea that people can and should know the truth, that people can handle it.

I believe ultimately that revelations we can learn from approaching the world rationally and scientifically and those which come from our most inspired spiritual moments don't need to be separate. I believe that real enlightenment is worth reaching for.

Peace

[pansypoo53219]

11. black + white thinking is easier.

we use to much grey to the stupids.

[Capitalocracy]

12. I don't believe in karma, or in eternal reward or punishment

I believe we have to work together to make the best world we can for people to live in.

Actually, I think either just pure selfishness versus empathy has more to do with it for some people, and for others there's an issue of trust, they believe it's human nature to put your own interests first and they think if they give anyone else a hand up, they'll turn around and push them down.