Nicholas Kristof wonders whether liberal and conservative is all about “divergent neural responses”, and says if we just talked more to each other, we might be able to be cool. I have a number of problems with the reasoning here, Kristof writes:
One of the main divides between left and right is the dependence on different moral values. For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty — and revulsion at disgust.
This is an absurd dichotomy that mostly plays into political stereotypes. Liberals seemed pretty revolted by torture, angry about the “disloyal” Joe Lieberman endorsing John McCain, and pretty comfortable with authority now that Barack Obama is in charge. Conservatives meanwhile, have responded to a lost election with “tea party protests” and vague threats of secession, complained about the “unfairness” of a progressive tax, and argued that abolishing torture would lead to serious harm to the country.
In short, the above paragraph makes little sense, and mostly sounds like a liberal’s attempt at a charitable interpretation of what motivates conservatives. Kristof concludes:
Thus persuasion may be most effective when built on human interactions. Gay rights were probably advanced largely by the public’s growing awareness of friends and family members who were gay.
A corollary is that the most potent way to win over opponents is to accept that they have legitimate concerns, for that triggers an instinct to reciprocate. As it happens, we have a brilliant exemplar of this style of rhetoric in politics right now — Barack Obama.
I’m inclined to agree on the issue of gay rights, but in what way is Obama a “brilliant examplar” of this ? Obama’s approach has, if anything, led to greater hysteria on the right. Just last week the RNC avoided passing a resolution trying to rename the Democratic Party the “Democrat socialist party.” Republicans responded to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by calling her a racist. Prominent Republican leaders accuse Obama of being a “fascist.” In what way does Obama’s approach prove Kristof’s point that people will reciprocate if you simply acknowledge they have legitimate concerns?
I will say this however, a big part of the modern right is distinct, in a way that David Niewert has identified, in that it sees its political opponents not as simply people to disagree with but social cancers to be excised from society. No matter how nice or polite you are, it’s hard to convince someone otherwise if they simply believe you’re as bad as a terrorist or a dictator because you think universal health care coverage would be a good idea. So in fairness, Kristof may simply have chosen a poor second example.
— A. Serwer
