![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anotheranonDamn, I'm just running into a lot of old, though provoking stuff on the interwebs these days:
Red Family, Blue Family: Making sense of the values issue uses a "Nation-as-Family" metaphor to explain why there is such a difference between liberals and conservatives on such "moral" issues as the environment, women's/gbltq rights, war, etc.
It's long, but I recommend scrolling down to the red and blue Strict Father and Nurturant Parent family descriptions if you have time for nothing else - I'm not saying this model explains everything, but it is eye opening. Much of it refers to the books of George Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant and Moral Politics, which attempt to apply cognitive psychology to political movements. A snippet from the link says more than I can:
Red Family, Blue Family: Making sense of the values issue uses a "Nation-as-Family" metaphor to explain why there is such a difference between liberals and conservatives on such "moral" issues as the environment, women's/gbltq rights, war, etc.
It's long, but I recommend scrolling down to the red and blue Strict Father and Nurturant Parent family descriptions if you have time for nothing else - I'm not saying this model explains everything, but it is eye opening. Much of it refers to the books of George Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant and Moral Politics, which attempt to apply cognitive psychology to political movements. A snippet from the link says more than I can:
For example, he [Lakoff] describes liberal common sense about social programs like this:It is natural for liberals to see the federal government as a strong, nurturant parent, responsible for making sure that the basic needs of its citizens are met: food, shelter, education, health care, and opportunities for self-development. A government that lets many of its citizens go hungry, homeless, uneducated, or sick while the majority of its citizens have more, often much more ... is an immoral, irresponsible government.
Conservative common sense is quite different:To them, social programs amount to coddling people – spoiling them. Instead of having to fend for themselves, people can depend on the public dole. This makes them morally weak, removing the need for self-discipline and will-power. ... A morally justifiable social program might be something like disaster relief to help self-disciplined and generally self-reliant people get back on their feet after a flood or fire or earthquake. ... If people were not rewarded for being self-disciplined and punished for being slothful, there would be no self-discipline, and society would break down. Therefore, any social or political system in which people get things they don’t earn, or are rewarded for lack of self-discipline or for immoral behavior, is simply an immoral system.
Good stuff. Luckily these books are in my public library.
Thoughts?
