Great article! I find it especially hard outlining the contradictions and round abouts of politics to folk. We are chronically righteous about it’s certainly and it’s false. It’s a fantasy that’s destroying the thing we claim we want to protect, whatever that may be. It’s chaotic and volatile
Thanks for your comment Natalia, I really appreciate it. Sometimes I wonder if this is, in a way, the only lesson worth taking from the rise of populism. Voters don’t reward the politician that points out the inconsistencies in our crooked timber. They reward the ones who hear what people are deeply saying, about their fears for their in-groups, about the vulnerability of their status in the world we’ve created.
I finally got to read your article and I have a few thoughts. Please let me know if I've misunderstood something.
Coming from a psychology background I definitely agree with all you've written about identity, in-group vs out-group, virtue signalling and boundary markers. It all plays into the way we talk about politics.
But I'm unclear what you are advocating for here. If the take-home is that the ways we talk about politics aren't based on fact and so we should all just cut one another a break and not be so tribal, I guess that works to a point, but it still doesn't get at what I see as a fundamental moral issue at the heart of Left and Right politics. Here a historical materialism can help us because that approach forces us to view the material and economic developments and circumstances that led to different political movements. If I believe that material and economic developments underpin social and political systems and ideas (and I do) then I can easily point to the development of liberal political ideas and ideologies of freedom and choice as a way to reinforce and justify capitalism (see my recent post).
A historical materialist reading focuses on these things because it assumes priority of material and economic systems. While I don't disagree with your psychological analysis (how could I, I'm a psychologist!) I think the underlying material conditions shape the way that these psychological factors play out. That's why I focused on the historical evolution of Left and Right parties as they related to economic and social concerns. For me, this is where the moralism lies. In a lot of ways, the psychology is used as a way to amplify the culture wars that keep people from focusing on the underlying class issues. This for me is why it's so important to trace the development and spread of the moralism of the free market (hence the name of my Substack), as I think that it influences all rightwing politics and has infused itself in harmful ways in all aspects of our social, cultural, and political lives.
Of course, perhaps the point is that none of this is immune to the factors you point out in which case I would say that we should try to be as objective in our historical and political analysis as possible and I try to focus on those who are disadvantaged by political decisions in my analyses.
Hi Ryan, thanks so much for your considered comment. I really appreciate it. I don't think you've misunderstood anything. Personally, I think Marxian historical materialism provides a plausible explanation of one factor influencing the genesis of our political intuitions. And it certainly provides a very neat explanation of how morality in capitalist societies so often gets reduced to freedom of choice. But I don't see how we can say at this point that the means of production are the only causal factor underpinning our political intuitions. So I think the answer to the question 'what factors influence our political intuitions and how?' is still very much open. Our best guesses seem to includes a mix of factors across biological, psychological, social and economic fields. So historical materialism is in the mix, so to speak. But I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows, what the recipe looks like and how it varies across persons and times.
As for what I'm advocating: peace of mind. I've seen too many people get lost in the trap of trying to reason their opponent's way out of a political position. I think this is folly, and it's ultimately harmful to your mental health. It's folly because, as per the above, our political positions aren't what they say they are. Thus, contrary to Kant, reason alone can't bridge political divides. That's why I focused my article on the claims of hypocrisy that are so common in political debate. Seeing your own hypocrisy should lead to an attitudinal shift for a Kantian, since neither pure nor practical reason can be inconsistent. But it really doesn't work in real life.
Interestingly, I would have thought Marx would say something similar (though as far as I'm aware he never actually did?) If what people take to be “rational” or “moral” positions are in fact rooted in their material interests, then it should follow that you can't just reason your way from bourgeois liberalism to proletarian ideals, since these two ideologies embody different relations to the means of production. Isn't that what he was getting at when he said "consciousness does not determine life, but life determines consciousness"?
I hope we can continue this conversation here and in future posts!
This is why it can be so frustrating for those of us who (either rightfully or wrongfully) think we've got a few things figured out vis a vis the evolution of various political beliefs. If only I can help someone see how this has all played out, they might change their mind. It doesn't work that way. As economists know, notwithstanding their models, humans are not rational actors. Unfortunately, politics seems to be particularly vulnerable to our irrationality.
Have you read Religion as Make Believe? I think it speaks to a lot of these issues about the resistance to facts that a lot of political beliefs have.
The followers are no different than the addict no matter if it’s addiction like alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, etc. What I like to do is look underneath the problem and the alcoholic has to wake up and seek help. Otherwise you’re wasting your time and that’s why I have referred to them as throwaways, but in the AA program they’re much nicer because they referred to them as pickles. They started out as cucumbers and guess what they can never go back to being a pickle. They say they are constitutionally incapable of getting well. This is a wonderful model of looking at addiction and it fits Trump supporters to a T. If you ever dealt with an addict oror alcoholic, you’ll waste your life trying to do for them what they have to do for themselves. Your post is wonderful, but in my opinion, it is more of the same and it’s coming from really pathetic sources. These individuals are emotionally retarded and have never been given any responsibility for what they received in life. This made them very entitled and that’s why they don’t have a clue as to what freedom actually means and democracy actually means. We have had world, wars, fighting people and countries that tried to take it away. Hard to believe we turned on ourselves, but ignorance is not always bliss. You take Japan, for instance and as soon as kids go into the classroom, one of their subjects is empathy. I won’t go into that either, but we are a very sick Country headed in completely the wrong direction and I will be leaving when it’s convenient for me. Should a miracle happen and suddenly people want to take responsibility for their lives and realize they’ve been caught up in a level of stupidity that has never existed in this country.
Thanks for your comment, Ed. You make a really interesting comparison. There is emerging research looking at how ideology affects the brain. And there's already been a fair bit on the comparison between cults and extreme political movements. I wonder if anyone's looked at the comparison to addiction? It certainly is a clear way of showing how deep-rooted some of these things are. Also, I'd love to know more about the empathy classes you mentioned in Japan. Do you know what they teach? Is there any evidence of how they impact the behavior of the students? Or even their life outcomes? I'd love to know more. Let me know if you've got any links or resources on this stuff. I'd love to see it. Cheers!
Great article! I find it especially hard outlining the contradictions and round abouts of politics to folk. We are chronically righteous about it’s certainly and it’s false. It’s a fantasy that’s destroying the thing we claim we want to protect, whatever that may be. It’s chaotic and volatile
Thanks for your comment Natalia, I really appreciate it. Sometimes I wonder if this is, in a way, the only lesson worth taking from the rise of populism. Voters don’t reward the politician that points out the inconsistencies in our crooked timber. They reward the ones who hear what people are deeply saying, about their fears for their in-groups, about the vulnerability of their status in the world we’ve created.
I finally got to read your article and I have a few thoughts. Please let me know if I've misunderstood something.
Coming from a psychology background I definitely agree with all you've written about identity, in-group vs out-group, virtue signalling and boundary markers. It all plays into the way we talk about politics.
But I'm unclear what you are advocating for here. If the take-home is that the ways we talk about politics aren't based on fact and so we should all just cut one another a break and not be so tribal, I guess that works to a point, but it still doesn't get at what I see as a fundamental moral issue at the heart of Left and Right politics. Here a historical materialism can help us because that approach forces us to view the material and economic developments and circumstances that led to different political movements. If I believe that material and economic developments underpin social and political systems and ideas (and I do) then I can easily point to the development of liberal political ideas and ideologies of freedom and choice as a way to reinforce and justify capitalism (see my recent post).
A historical materialist reading focuses on these things because it assumes priority of material and economic systems. While I don't disagree with your psychological analysis (how could I, I'm a psychologist!) I think the underlying material conditions shape the way that these psychological factors play out. That's why I focused on the historical evolution of Left and Right parties as they related to economic and social concerns. For me, this is where the moralism lies. In a lot of ways, the psychology is used as a way to amplify the culture wars that keep people from focusing on the underlying class issues. This for me is why it's so important to trace the development and spread of the moralism of the free market (hence the name of my Substack), as I think that it influences all rightwing politics and has infused itself in harmful ways in all aspects of our social, cultural, and political lives.
Of course, perhaps the point is that none of this is immune to the factors you point out in which case I would say that we should try to be as objective in our historical and political analysis as possible and I try to focus on those who are disadvantaged by political decisions in my analyses.
Hi Ryan, thanks so much for your considered comment. I really appreciate it. I don't think you've misunderstood anything. Personally, I think Marxian historical materialism provides a plausible explanation of one factor influencing the genesis of our political intuitions. And it certainly provides a very neat explanation of how morality in capitalist societies so often gets reduced to freedom of choice. But I don't see how we can say at this point that the means of production are the only causal factor underpinning our political intuitions. So I think the answer to the question 'what factors influence our political intuitions and how?' is still very much open. Our best guesses seem to includes a mix of factors across biological, psychological, social and economic fields. So historical materialism is in the mix, so to speak. But I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows, what the recipe looks like and how it varies across persons and times.
As for what I'm advocating: peace of mind. I've seen too many people get lost in the trap of trying to reason their opponent's way out of a political position. I think this is folly, and it's ultimately harmful to your mental health. It's folly because, as per the above, our political positions aren't what they say they are. Thus, contrary to Kant, reason alone can't bridge political divides. That's why I focused my article on the claims of hypocrisy that are so common in political debate. Seeing your own hypocrisy should lead to an attitudinal shift for a Kantian, since neither pure nor practical reason can be inconsistent. But it really doesn't work in real life.
Interestingly, I would have thought Marx would say something similar (though as far as I'm aware he never actually did?) If what people take to be “rational” or “moral” positions are in fact rooted in their material interests, then it should follow that you can't just reason your way from bourgeois liberalism to proletarian ideals, since these two ideologies embody different relations to the means of production. Isn't that what he was getting at when he said "consciousness does not determine life, but life determines consciousness"?
I hope we can continue this conversation here and in future posts!
This is why it can be so frustrating for those of us who (either rightfully or wrongfully) think we've got a few things figured out vis a vis the evolution of various political beliefs. If only I can help someone see how this has all played out, they might change their mind. It doesn't work that way. As economists know, notwithstanding their models, humans are not rational actors. Unfortunately, politics seems to be particularly vulnerable to our irrationality.
Have you read Religion as Make Believe? I think it speaks to a lot of these issues about the resistance to facts that a lot of political beliefs have.
The followers are no different than the addict no matter if it’s addiction like alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, etc. What I like to do is look underneath the problem and the alcoholic has to wake up and seek help. Otherwise you’re wasting your time and that’s why I have referred to them as throwaways, but in the AA program they’re much nicer because they referred to them as pickles. They started out as cucumbers and guess what they can never go back to being a pickle. They say they are constitutionally incapable of getting well. This is a wonderful model of looking at addiction and it fits Trump supporters to a T. If you ever dealt with an addict oror alcoholic, you’ll waste your life trying to do for them what they have to do for themselves. Your post is wonderful, but in my opinion, it is more of the same and it’s coming from really pathetic sources. These individuals are emotionally retarded and have never been given any responsibility for what they received in life. This made them very entitled and that’s why they don’t have a clue as to what freedom actually means and democracy actually means. We have had world, wars, fighting people and countries that tried to take it away. Hard to believe we turned on ourselves, but ignorance is not always bliss. You take Japan, for instance and as soon as kids go into the classroom, one of their subjects is empathy. I won’t go into that either, but we are a very sick Country headed in completely the wrong direction and I will be leaving when it’s convenient for me. Should a miracle happen and suddenly people want to take responsibility for their lives and realize they’ve been caught up in a level of stupidity that has never existed in this country.
Thanks for your comment, Ed. You make a really interesting comparison. There is emerging research looking at how ideology affects the brain. And there's already been a fair bit on the comparison between cults and extreme political movements. I wonder if anyone's looked at the comparison to addiction? It certainly is a clear way of showing how deep-rooted some of these things are. Also, I'd love to know more about the empathy classes you mentioned in Japan. Do you know what they teach? Is there any evidence of how they impact the behavior of the students? Or even their life outcomes? I'd love to know more. Let me know if you've got any links or resources on this stuff. I'd love to see it. Cheers!