神马文学网Psychology and politics: Karmic conservatives | The Economist
来源：百度文库 编辑：神马文学网 时间：2024/07/05 17:08:44
Karmic conservatives
Oct 19th 2010, 13:14 by W.W. | IOWA CITY
WHATmakes tea partiers tick? Jonathan Haidt, a trailblazer in thescientific study of the psychology of moral sensibility and judgement, says it's conservative conviction in "karma". Perhaps this is not what you were expecting? Mr Haidt elaborates:
Karmais not an exclusively Hindu idea. It combines the universal humandesire that moral accounts should be balanced with a belief that,somehow or other, they will be balanced. In 1932, the greatdevelopmental psychologist Jean Piaget found that by the age of 6,children begin to believe that bad things that happen to them arepunishments for bad things they have done.
Mr Haidtgoes on to argue that, as conservatives see it, since the New Deal,liberals in power have been trying to suspend the karmic laws of causeand effect, insulating individuals from the injurious effects of viceand poor judgement. Birth control and abortion detached sex from it'snatural consequences, welfare rewarded indolence and illegitimacy, andso on. "Now jump ahead to today's ongoing financial and economiccrisis," Mr Haidt says.
Again, those guilty ofcorruption and irresponsibility have escaped the consequences of theirwrongdoing, rescued first by President Bush and then by President Obama.Bailouts and bonuses sent unimaginable sums of the taxpayers' money tothe very people who brought calamity upon the rest of us. Where ispunishment for the wicked?
Not only are sinners savedfrom their just desserts, in the karmic conservative's scheme, thevirtuous and true are punished for their industry through unjustlyburdensome levels of taxation and bureaucratic interference. Studiesshow liberals are more likely to treat equality as a moral baseline, andto see wealth and poverty as lucky or unlucky draws in the cosmiclottery. For them, the state acts well when it intervenes to smooth theunequal wages of fortune. However, Mr Haidt contends, "[f]or the teapartiers, federal activism has become a moral insult. They believe that,over time, the government has made a concerted effort to subvert thelaw of karma."
This is an intriguing hypothesis, and Mr Haidtoffers a number of pieces of evidence to back it up. The data he setsforth, it turns out, strike a blow to the idea that the tea-partymovement is primarily animated by "libertarian" sentiments.
Here'sa statement about the positive side of karma: "Employees who work thehardest should be paid the most." Everyone agrees, but conservativesagree more enthusiastically than liberals and libertarians, whoseresponses were identical.
And here's a statement about thenegative side of karma: "Whenever possible, a criminal should be made tosuffer in the same way that his victim suffered." Liberals reject thisharsh notion, and libertarians mildly reject it. But conservatives areslightly positive about it.
The tea party is often said to be amixture of conservative and libertarian ideals. But in a study of152,000 people who filled out surveys at YourMorals.org, led by mycolleague Ravi Iyer of the University of Southern California, we foundthat libertarians are morally a bit more similar to liberals than toconservatives.
Mr Haidt goes on to note thatlibertarians differ as strongly as do liberals with conservatives aboutthe importance of "group loyalty, respect for authority and spiritualsanctity" among moral considerations. Mr Haidt seems to suggest thatthese differences in moral temperament will cause the largelyconservative tea-party movement to fail to fully integrate itslibertarian rump. This prediction rings true. For over 40 yearslibertarians have been an impotent drop of oil in the conservativegallon bucket. One is almost tempted to say that libertarians pinningtheir hopes on tea-party triumph deserve what they've got coming tothem, but, alas, there is no karma.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
- Oldest first
- Newest first
- Readers' most recommended
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- >>
- Last
Nice post.
There's a unifying theory ensiling conservative thought, as portrayedhere, with liberal thought, as portrayed here. The underlyingassumption is that we would be wealthy if we hadn't been robbed.
Recommend (23)PermalinkReport abuseJohn Albert Robertson wrote:Oct 19th 2010 1:38 GMT"Above all, they want to live in a country in which hard workand personal responsibility pay off and laziness, cheating andirresponsibility bring people to ruin."
This is a remarkable passage.
First, wow. The notion that the Tea Partiers believe in, practice,and support hard work and personal responsibility more than otherAmericans, and are less prone to laziness, cheating, andirresponsibility, is ... well, gimme a break. Arrogant is the verynicest thing that I can say.
Second, say what? When I look at the people in the U.S. who are theleading achievers -- the people who created the great companies,invented the great products, who are leaders in the academic community, Idon't think I see very many Tea Partiers. When I look at the youths atmy son's high school who are winning the Science Olympiads and thedebate championships and who are getting the 3.95 GPAs and the 35 ACTscores, I don't see many Tea Partiers. So where is the evidence for thisclaim?
Put another way, what in the background of the Palin family eversuggested that they are a harder-working, more moral, and deservingbunch than anybody else in the U.S.? Or the Beck family? Or theMcConnell family? From where does this belief arise?
Third, this passage was written 100% in the author's voice. Meaning,maybe it's merely his fantasy, and most Tea Partiers do not believe thatthey are hard working and morally superior to other Americans. Icertainly hope so.
Recommend (66)PermalinkReport abusehedgefundguy wrote:Oct 19th 2010 1:51 GMT"WHAT makes tea partiers tick?"
For the men, they like the bimbo candidates.
(don't tell thier wives)
Regards
Recommend (43)PermalinkReport abusek.a.gardner wrote:Oct 19th 2010 2:04 GMTOne (1) this week for me!
Recommend (10)PermalinkReport abuseI-95 wrote:Oct 19th 2010 2:08 GMTin this context karma's synonymous with moral hazard, it seems.
Recommend (15)PermalinkReport abuseeric meyer wrote:Oct 19th 2010 2:12 GMTI've long been caught between the two wings because I believehard work and personal responsibility are just as important as good luckin terms of finding success (and in tackling life in general).Conservatives deride me for my belief that luck matters and liberalsthink that I should stop blaming the victims of bad luck. There is nonatural U.S. political party for someone like me.
Further to that: I agree with both the positive- and negative-karmastatements quoted in the article. I was and am outraged by therewarding of bad behavior on the parts of banks and homeowners but I'llalmost certainly never be a Tea Partier because I actually dare tobelieve that we'll need both deep cuts to entitlements and raised incometaxes in order to get out of the hole both parties—which is to say, thefreely elected representatives of the voting public—have dug for us.
Recommend (56)PermalinkReport abuseBrookse wrote:Oct 19th 2010 2:18 GMT"What makes tea partiers tick?"
Call me crazy, but I'm thinkin' it's low taxes, while keeping them social security checks and medicare benefits a-comin'.
And, no entitlements for them poor folks. Their just a bunch of bums anyway...
Recommend (60)PermalinkReport abuseMilo Minderbinder wrote:Oct 19th 2010 2:22 GMTI agree with JAR.
This is the same self-inflating tripe we get from Ayn Randians and Gauntworshippers, ie, "All the intelligent, hardworking people that arebeing dragged down by society are going to up and leave and, since Iespouse this ideal, I am certainly one of those same intelligent, hardworking people."
Thinly veiled self righteousness is the same no matter what culturalterms you wrap it in. I think the spirit of Karma means you don't goaround lording your percieved good karma over people and counting theminutes until you are rewarded for it.
If Tea partiers really embrace this idea, does that not alienate themfrom their Christian roots? Above, you state how Conservatives preferold testament "Eye for an Eye". While liberals tend to prefer the,"Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, yehave done unto me." biblical business.
Does that mean the Christian card has changed hands?
"Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most." Everyone agrees
Has it occurred to anyone that an employee could work very hard, but very ineffectively?
Recommend (46)PermalinkReport abuseRestrainedRadical wrote:Oct 19th 2010 2:41 GMTAnalyzing it in terms of karma seems unnecessary. Conservatives believe in justice, a concept with deep Judeo-Christian roots.
Recommend (13)PermalinkReport abusegrover cleveland wrote:Oct 19th 2010 2:56 GMT@Restrained Radical:
I don't think this can be explained in terms of conventionalChristianity. Consider the parables of the Prodigal Son and the GoodSamaritan -- both contradict the karmic message.
Recommend (24)PermalinkReport abusegrover cleveland wrote:Oct 19th 2010 2:58 GMTThis reminds me of a survey where people said that the TARPbailouts shouldn't have happened, even if they had prevented a secondGreat Depression.
Of course, I doubt that such beliefs would survive contact with a real second Great Depression...
Recommend (38)PermalinkReport abusemartin horn wrote:Oct 19th 2010 3:16 GMTKarma is a good frame for it. Personally, I believe it all comes down to equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.
American conservatives are primarily concerned with equality ofopportunity. So long as everyone has "a fair shot at high income,"they're comfortable with a great many falling far short. Theyimmediately think of the statistic that the vast majority of people wholive in poverty in the U.S. (I believe 3/4, but I can't find the study)made at least one of three mistakes - they either dropped out of highschool, became a parent before graduating high school, or were arrestedbefore age 18 (or a combination of the above). Conservatives thenconclude that poverty is primarily the result of poor choices, sothey're less sympathetic to the argument of "bad luck."
American liberals and Europeans are very interested in equality ofoutcomes. So long as everyone has "somewhat equal income," they'recomfortable with a great many getting more money (via the state) thanthey would earn from a job. They immediately think of the statistic thatthe biggest predictor of a child's academic and financial success isthe economic and financial success of their parents - which to themhints strongly to a system in which it's much easier to break into theupper quintile if you're born into it, which ruins the assumption thatthere is a level-playing field, so they're less sympathetic to theargument that high income earners earned their money solely as a resultof individual effort and should get to keep it all.
It ultimately comes down to whether, when you think of the people who are in the bottom income quintile, you think of:
1. The goofballs and screwups who were infamous in your high schoolclass (i.e., people who made bad choices) - making you a conservative,or
2. Hardworking people who did their best but couldn't overcome their circumstances - making you a liberal.
Brookse,
You forgot about keeping those subsidies to businesses a'rollin' in.
Regards
Recommend (21)PermalinkReport abuseHeimdall wrote:Oct 19th 2010 3:30 GMT"'Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most.'Everyone agrees, but conservatives agree more enthusiastically thanliberals and libertarians..."
Everyone agrees? Conservatives the most?
How to reconcile that 'belief' with the fact that the wealthiestAmericans derive the vast majority of their income from not working(i.e., unearned income derived from their virtue of being rich in thefirst place)?
Or the fact that there are millions of "working poor", who juggle multiple jobs and are still unable to make ends meet?
Yet even the working poor are deemed unworthy of deserving suchnecessities as health care since they weren't hard working enough(presumably) to work for an employer that provided health insurance orpay wages commensurate with affording it on the free market.
Lastly, the TP folks I spoke with are mostly retired and living onSocial Security instead of working hard to greet folks at WalMart.
I don't buy it...
Recommend (52)PermalinkReport abusemartin horn wrote:Oct 19th 2010 3:30 GMTThe (Uncensored) Evolution of Presidential Eloquence
by Martin Horn
"My friends, circumstances render it impossible that you can flourishin the midst of a civilized community. You have but one remedy withinyour reach, and that is to remove to the west. And the sooner you dothis, the sooner you will commence your career of improvement andprosperity." - Andrew Jackson, Addressing Native Americans whilediscussing his Indian Relocation Policy
"Moreover, the negro, unlike so many of the inferior races, does notdwindle away in the presence of the white man...From this point of viewthe presence of the negro is the real problem; slavery is merely theworst possible method of solving the problem." - Teddy Roosevelt(Source: "Winning of the West" by Teddy Roosvelt)
[Spies] are all Jews. Every one's a Jew. Gelb's a Jew. Halperin's aJew. But there are bad-Hiss was not a Jew. So that proves something.Very interesting thing. - Richard Nixon (link: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=48623)
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America,Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And Iwish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan.12, 2009
"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out whathappened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,May 12, 2008
Just for giggles:
"Go f*ck yourself," -- Vice-President Dick Cheney, on the Senate Floor
Recommend (45)PermalinkReport abuseTurkey Vulture wrote:Oct 19th 2010 3:36 GMT"'Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most.'Everyone agrees, but conservatives agree more enthusiastically thanliberals and libertarians, whose responses were identical."
That seems to echo the labor theory of value, a concept which Karl Marx loved.
Recommend (26)PermalinkReport abuseabjecthorror wrote:Oct 19th 2010 3:47 GMT@MARTIN HORN
Of course the top three mistakes are made in early youth which may bea result of poor parenting or poor role models. I for one was anincredibly stupid youth, thankfully I was surrounded by eternallypatient adults and so I now have a PhD and a career rather than noeducation and 2.3 children.
Recommend (23)PermalinkReport abuseDoug Pascover wrote:Oct 19th 2010 3:48 GMTRestrained Radical, it's funny you say that. I decided not tobring this up in my first comment because I get tired of the assumptionsthat tea partiers are Christian or Judeo-Christian and that being so,they ought to want government to intermediate charity. But, in fact,the idea that justice means everyone ought to get what they deserve is,in fact, contrary to the Christian message. Justification by grace isanathema to karma, isn't it? The crucifixion is given to us as thedismantling of that kind of justice.
Recommend (21)PermalinkReport abuseTheNepali wrote:Oct 19th 2010 3:51 GMTEquality of Opportunity is a farce. Conservatives only pay lipservice to it while torpedoing any reasonable chance of getting to it. Agreat stride could be made here once the colossal disaster known as theWar on Drugs is ended and this conservative hang-up over sex educationput to rest.
Recommend (18)PermalinkReport abuse- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- >>
- Last
- Comment (103)
- Recommend (89)
- Share
- Delicious
- Digg
- Permalink
About Democracy in America
In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts andopinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy itproduces.
RSS feedAdvertisement
')<SCRIPTSRC="http://ad.adlegend.com/jscript?spacedesc=2107771_1096738_300x250_1125166_2107771&ML_NIF=Y&target=_blank&@CPSC@=http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/3a3a/3/0/%2a/q%3B229442363%3B0-0%3B1%3B41245891%3B4307-300/250%3B38844073/38861830/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3f"></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT><AHREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/3a3a/3/0/%2a/q%3B229442363%3B0-0%3B1%3B41245891%3B4307-300/250%3B38844073/38861830/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://ad.adlegend.com/click?spacedesc=2107771_1096738_300x250_1125166_2107771&ML_NIF=Y"TARGET="_blank"><IMGSRC="http://ad.adlegend.com/image?spacedesc=2107771_1096738_300x250_1125166_2107771&ML_NIF=Y"WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 ALT="Click Here" BORDER=0></A></NOSCRIPT>Economist blogs
- Americas view
- Asia view
- Babbage
- Bagehot's notebook
- Banyan's notebook
- Baobab
- Blighty
- Buttonwood's notebook
- Charlemagne's notebook
- Daily chart
- Democracy in America
- Eastern approaches
- Free exchange
- Gulliver
- Johnson
- Lexington's notebook
- Multimedia
- Newsbook
- Prospero
- Schumpeter's notebook
Most commented
- The Nobel peace prize: The laureate behind bars
- Charlemagne: A false prophet
- Mass murder: History and its woes
- Succession in China: Next in line
- The global economy: How to stop a currency war
- Banyan: A hard stone in the wilderness
- France's fuel shortages: Running on empty
- Psychology and politics: Karmic conservatives
- Islamic law and democracy: Sense about sharia
- Drugs and security in North America: Mexican waves, Californian cool
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The global economy: How to stop a currency war
- KAL's cartoon
- Succession in China: Next in line
- Mass murder: History and its woes
- The Nobel peace prize: The laureate behind bars
- Islamic law and democracy: Sense about sharia
- Drugs and security in North America: Mexican waves, Californian cool
- Marijuana in California: An altered state
- Health care and the mid-term elections: Coming back to bite him
- Jihad and soup: Islam-baiting in America
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
')