Do most US citizens really want what's best for others?

[OneGrassRoot]

Or is the selfishness we tend to label conservatives with a more prevalent human trait than we realize?

Two things prompted this:

Several 30-something white Democrats I know said they may not vote because they don't like the whole "free college" thing Democrats are advocating. "If I had to pay and have loans, everyone else should, too!!!" (These were males, btw; I don't know if that matters but demographics are important when evaluating behavior patterns, imho.)

Which made me think about the many "get off my lawn!!!" older people (often parents and grandparents), whining about how selfish and spoiled Millennials are and how easy they have it. (This does tend to be men more than women, but I definitely see women doing it, too.)

While I dispute the fact that Millennials have it easy and that they're apathetic and spoiled and selfish as a whole, the belittling by the older generation of the younger generation is not new. Older people have always complained about the younger generation having it much easier than they had.


That made me wonder if the people who fit the description above truly want their kids and grandkids to have it easier, let alone complete strangers? They say they want their kids to have it better than they had it, but do they really?

On the other hand, perhaps the anger we see erupting in various groups of white people now has another element rarely discussed. Maybe they're not only afraid of the changing world, but maybe they're just pissed that they feel they receive zero acknowledgment for their struggles.

Feeling that no one is acknowledging what they've gone through (or are going through) -- even though they may act with false bravado and say things like "No one said life is fair, get over yourself" -- may be why they seem to not want anyone else to have an easier go of life than they have had.

I know, I know, some are thinking (as I certainly have many times), "Oh poor them. Boofuckinhoo."



But here's the thing, when pain and suffering and struggle becomes a competition, it gets extra ugly. Of course there is no comparison to the suffering of middle-aged white men compared to all people of color, for example. When you put the general experiences and daily stress side by side, no rational person could deny that truth.

However, angry, fearful people aren't rational.

We white people in many ways live in a bubble and always have. Our images and experiences are the default against which the experience and image of non-white people have always been compared.

I am finding it absolutely impossible to break through to the growing number of Trump supporters who are angry white people disgusted because what they see through the lens of their anger and life experience and current struggles are black and brown people whining and "making a fuss" about how hard they have it. They also are taking it personally, feeling they are being blamed as individuals (which, granted, is their problem and their misperception...although I contend that a majority of them DO harbor racist, bigoted supremacist views).

What if we could make some progress in finding common ground if we were to simply ACKNOWLEDGE?

What if there were more sharings, blogs, social media posts acknowledging the fear and anger -- in a specific way, listing their grievances about no loyalty in the workplace any more and their fear of keeping themselves and their families fed and housed -- with no "but" at the end.

In turn, maybe they would start to open their minds a bit to recognize that people of color aren't asking for them to personally apologize for the gross systemic oppression and injustice, but want ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the daily life-and-death struggle they experience and have for centuries, and need them to get out of the way if they aren't going to help the movement toward justice and equity.

I have no expertise in cultivating respectful dialogue, but surely according to some theories and practices, acknowledging the others' pain and grievances is how it begins, yes?

Believe me, I write and speak of racism and racist behavior and views A LOT. There is a whole lot of fear of "the other" fueling what we're seeing. I am not denying or diminishing that. It has been there all along, Trump merely ripped the scab off of the wound and the pus is running out now. Which is good, because that wound can't begin to heal without air.

But because we're seeing a lot of young people at Trump rallies, young people who have been molded by the older people we see at Trump rallies, we can't ignore them. They're not going away. People FINALLY are seeing that we're not remotely a post-racial society.

How do we reach them to begin the process of triggering some humanity and empathy? Railing against them is obviously not working; it's like they're friggin multiplying every second.

Thoughts?

[Locrian]

1. "no free rider"

Several 30-something white Democrats I know said they may not vote because they don't like the whole "free college" thing Democrats are advocating. "If I had to pay and have loans, everyone else should, too!!!"

Game studies show that people will go against their net interest in order to "punish" behavior they see as unfair. It's a carry over from the group dynamic "morality" that weeds out "no free riders".


Fascinating book for those interested in morality, psychology, etc:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458145573&sr=1-1&keywords=the+righteous+mind+by+haidt

[OneGrassRoot]

2. Very interesting...

I am going to check out Jonathan Haidt's book and his online content.

Thanks!

[Locrian]

3. it was a great read

Very informative and gives me a new perspective on how people argue from emotional based morality.

His metaphor is a rider on an elephant: the elephant (your emotions) is the one deciding what way to go, and the rider just justifies the direction (like a lawyer).

Goes into different modes of morality and how they came about based on survival - and how they get interpreted / distorted into other behaviour

[oegthe]

10. What drives the author of The Righteous Mind

You might take a look at the Heterodox Academy, with which the author of The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt, is associated. The "Heterodox Academy" espouses "political diversity." Read some of the articles and see if you still think it's any real "diversity" this "Academy" is interested in. The Heterodox Academy was founded in September 2015, shortly before articles about "fragile" college students started to flood the internet (these days you're "fragile" if you object to racial epithets directed at you). It's of interest that the Heterodox Academy professes to hate the social sciences, even though the right wing depends heavily upon the social sciences for structuring its propaganda, and corporations depend on at least one social science, anthropology, to help them destroy other cultures. (N.B: Not all anthropologists are "lefties", e.g. Napoleon Chagnon, darling of the right,is employed at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri.)

[OneGrassRoot]

11. Interesting...

thanks for that info as well.

Welcome to DU, btw.

[pampango]

4. I think liberals have more of a "we're all in this together" mindset but it is complicated.

There is a whole lot of fear of "the other" fueling what we're seeing. I am not denying or diminishing that. It has been there all along, Trump merely ripped the scab off of the wound and the pus is running out now. Which is good, because that wound can't begin to heal without air.

Well said. All of us, as animals, are programmed to prioritized self-survival. So people who are struggling are more likely to not give a lot of thought to "what is best for others". That is obvious and, I'm sure, not the essence of your question.

Once we get beyond survival mode, most people seem to always want to make more and buy more tomorrow than they do today. If I make $20,000, next year I hope to make $25,000, then $30,000. For the really rich, I assume the same priority applies. If one of them makes $1,000,000, next year they want to make $1,500,000 and so on.

The real question is how much of that next $5,000 or $500,000 are we willing to give up to "do what is best for others". On one level most of us know that there are deserving folks that are much worse off than we are. I would contend that liberals, almost by definition, are willing to give up more to benefit others than are conservatives who care less about inequality and helping "others" as you accurately point out. As a matter of fact, I think many RW populists like to expand the definition of "others" to include more and more groups of people so that they can be excluded from the "US" that conservatives like to focus on.

Don't have time to go on now but thanks for a great OP.

[OneGrassRoot]

13. Great point, pampango...

"I think many RW populists like to expand the definition of "others" to include more and more groups of people so that they can be excluded from the "US" that conservatives like to focus on."

Trump seems to be doing that daily.

I swear, since the Fayetteville NC Trump rally (where that old white guy sucker punched that young black man), I've been obsessed with all of this. Ever since the Tea Party came onto the scene I would vacillate between trying to understand them and then saying, screw it, when their (my) generation dies off, it'll get better.

But over the last eight years the number of young people exhibiting racist, bigoted supremacist views has been hard to ignore. Now we see them...hate from people of all ages...in all its glory at Trump rallies.

The whole "struggle" topic is interesting, too. Actually, I read an article recently discussing the alarming trend of increased suicide specifically of white middle-aged people and why this might be happening. The question was raised about the stress people of color are under in our society and why the rate of suicide hasn't increased in those populations. The point was made about resilience. Not only are people of color as individuals (in general) more resilient because of the struggle of growing up in an environment of systemic racism, but they also have (in general) more of a sense of community and support.

I mention that because what struggle is to one person is a walk in the park to another. It's all relative, and a matter of perspective. I've always found that the people struggling the most -- the people who literally do not have a roof over their heads -- are the most generous.

I don't know. It seems like every hour there is a new aspect I want to explore further, to try to understand the intricacies of what we see manifesting now in various ways. It's fascinating.

But also terrifying and frustrating beyond words.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. No, they want something bad for their enemies.

They can tolerate a fair amount of additional and arbitrary personal discomfort, provided the unworthy people they hate are getting it worse.

But when the next election comes around, they forget where their personal discomfort came from and decide to try persecuting the unworthy some more.

[OneGrassRoot]

14. worthy vs unworthy

Yep, there's a whole lot to unpack there.

Thanks, lumberjack_jeff

[REP]

6. Most of these people have nothing

There is no middle class worth speaking of and there hasn't been for much of my life (I'm 50) so let's discard the notion of comfortable middle class white men. At the Kansas City spray-down, for example, the supporters interviewed were from poor communities miles away from the KCMO metro area; areas where years ago, there may have been manufacturing jobs, but not anymore.

These are largely working class or poor people. Yes, it's much harder to be working class or poor and black or another racial/ethnic minority, but it's still hard for anyone. The jobs that could support a family with only a high school diploma or vo-tech are gone. The ones that are left pay like shit and are usually demeaning. And the easiest emotion is anger.

It's not that these people hate blacks or Muslims or anyone else in particular - they're scared but it's safer to be angry but there's no real target for that anger. Now they're being provided one, and told it's okay and things will be better and they can be rich just like that vulgar showman who's been on TV so much they feel like they know him.

It's not so much auto-racism as it is desperation looking for an outlet, and being given bread and circuses.

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. No, they want Fairness

And we can't all agree on what is or is not fair. So you can never please everybody. But in general IMO people wnat what is Fair. How people treat them, how they are paid for work, how they are judged.

[FLPanhandle]

8. +1

Most of the right wing positions hit on the fairness concept. Why do you have to work while someone else gets to live on welfare? Why should Affirmative Action allow the hiring of a less qualified individual over someone who also had to work hard?

Somehow, Dems need to position the fairness argument better than they have been.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. It's a very old question: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Which I think is the basic question about being "liberal" or "progressive". And, the basic answer is "Yes".

[ohnoyoudidnt]

12. The opposition to free college doesn't make sense, even from an economic conservative view.

It will mean more college educated people who could not otherwise afford it. People with college degrees make more money and likely going to be paying a lot more in taxes than if the didn't get the education, as opposed to needing government assistance.

[OneGrassRoot]

15. I know...there's some personality issue in play.

You know, the whole me vs we worldview, to put it very simplistically.

Or maybe it's not always a selfish worldview, per se, but instead is a very, very narrow view and perspective, not taking the bigger picture into account. ''