Divided America and the Trump Phenomena Pt 1

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's s time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

(Readers Note- This was originally going to be a larger post but at the recommendation of my editor I have chopped in half.  This post will look at the topic in a more "Academic" way, while Part 2 will focus more on some personal observations from various conversations I have had with people on both sides of America's divide.)


Buffalo Springfield's 60's protest song was written as a protest song against "The Establishment' during the tumultuous 60's.  Yet  I find it useful in describing today's political climate where the "protest" is coming from both ends of the political spectrum. The Tea Party protests against Obamacare is a good example of "grassroots" mobilization on the right, but not sure anything except the late 60's War Protests can compare to the massive demonstrations following Trump's election.  I have in some previous posts referred to it as "Trump Derangement" a term I acknowledge I have picked up from conservative media.

My readers of any political persuasion should understand that my reference to the Trump "Derangement Syndrome" refers to the amazing reaction to his election.  A reaction that stirred within hours.

Colleges shut down and or gave "safe" spaces and special "counseling" (See UVM letter below as an example). Protests erupted and millions took to the streets with a theme that "all was lost". Almost immediately a cry went up that an election was stolen. Millions were apparently "duped" by outside interference and/or the misuse of social media.  Worse yet it was claimed subtle racism caused millions to cast votes that overturned the "logical choice". Why Hillary even claimed that large numbers of  women voters were duped by misogyny (i.e. women voted what their husbands told them).  This has all been hyper-inflated by much of the news media, a media where  supposed "impartial" news figures were in tears from the outcome on election night. While I believed both candidates were seriously flawed  (The choices sure sucked) I was taken aback by what seemed to me an immediate "rejection" of the results particularly by 'elite' female voters.  (Example: I will always remember Donna Carpenter the CEO of Burton Snowboards, a company built by her Husband, giving all the women at Burton the day off and transported them "on" the company to protest Trump in Washington).  I could not believe the complete denial of the underlying voter mood which was revealed by the results.

For those of you who followed my blog since day one you will recall that I promised to use as a "compass" for political discussions about "liberals" and "conservatives", an academic whose book "The Righteous Mind" provided me with some provocative and interesting insights on the divide that separates us.  Jonathan Haidt might even  tell me that my "righteous thinking" prejudgeds his work.  Regardless, I find his research on moral psychology and the political divide pretty compelling and this will be the backdrop for this blog piece.

In collecting my thoughts  for today's blog I turned back to Jonathan Haidt, and found a piece he  wrote, way back in 2008 a few months before the election of Barack Obama. It was an article written long before I had even heard of Mr. Haidt. I have a link to the entire piece at the end of this post.  Meanwhile, in italics, I have copied and pasted some parts of the piece that particularly resonated with my take on the current political landscape..  First the heading and introduction:

What Makes People Vote Republican?

Jonathan Haidt [9.8.08]

...the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer.

He goes on in the article:

For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).

This research led me to two conclusions. First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare. In fact, many people struggled to fabricate harmful consequences that could justify their gut-based condemnation. I often had to correct people when they said things like "it's wrong because… um…eating dog meat would make you sick" or "it's wrong to use the flag because… um… the rags might clog the toilet." These obviously post-hoc rationalizations illustrate the philosopher David Hume's dictum that reason is "the slave of the passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them." This is the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion. (underline is mine)

Now I was immediately struck by a personal example of this immediate passionate reasoning phenomenon, one I blogged about....the NFL/National Anthem "controversy."  

When I read this "hypothetical" scenario about a women using an American Flag as a rag to clean a toilet I was immediately disgusted literally from my very "gut". I recall my Father had a great term for certain types of "moral reasoning".  "I don't go for that". I could not help but relate it to my own "gut" aversion to the NFL players "disrespecting the sacred" our National Anthem.  It also made me wonder....did Donald Trump actually  "study" Haidt??

Later in his piece Haidt makes some very compelling points about Conservative thinking, one which if you read his article is disputed by most of the "academic reviewers" (no surprise see my last blog comment on college PHD's overwhelming political bias): 

Back in the United States the culture war was going strong, but I had lost my righteous passion. I could never have empathized with the Christian Right directly, but once I had stood outside of my home morality, once I had tried on the moral lenses of my Indian friends and interview subjects, I was able to think about conservative ideas with a newfound clinical detachment. They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate of schools and discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of single motherhood and weaken the traditional social structures that compel men to support their own children? Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later), and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

Kinda sounds like some of my concerns voiced in "gender wars". and while Haidt is no "conservative". I  find his insight into my own "feelings and biases"  uncanny.

His last two paragraphs are below,  with an underlined of his last sentence in particular.  It is hard to believe he wrote this 10 years ago. 

If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle. Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so.

So in his last sentence, written 8 years before Trump's election, Haidt predicted (actually he "nailed it") how most Democrats would interpret the 2016 election of Donald Trump.  They simply cannot grasp how a huge portion of the electorate views many of the rapid social and moral changes that happened in our society over the last generation. Instead they tend to cast this part of our society as "misogynistic", "racist", or just "deplorables". 

Haidt in his book, The Righteous Mind  suggests that Liberals and Conservatives usually "look" at the opposing view differently.  Conservatives tend to righteously dismiss Liberal positions as "misguided" while Liberals tend to righteously dismiss Conservative positions as "evil".  Maybe we could all get along better if both sides picked the same label for opposing views???  Who knows it just might work!

Perhaps more on this in some other post but until then.

Adieu

Link to article

Why people vote Republican

UVM Letter

November 9, 2016

  

To the UVM Community: 

Our country and community have gone through a challenging election yesterday with some of the results still being finalized.  Many on our campus are feeling a range of emotions, wonder, and concerns.  As we move forward as a nation and community, many questions remain how the transition and change will affect our lives and society.  There will be much discussion and exploration of the meaning and impact of this election for some time to come.  

We write at this important historical moment to remind all members of the UVM family that we are a caring and inclusive community that is committed to the safety, security, and wellbeing of each and every person.

We recognize that this is a challenging time for many of our colleagues and students, who may be feeling isolated and concerned for personal welfare.  Our University denounces any form of bias, discrimination, or violence.  It is especially important, now, to continue to work together and support each other.  We encourage you to take advantage of available programs and resources available at the University and to reach out to one another for support and encouragement.

A post-election program is being hosted today by Living Well and the Interfaith Center from 4:00 pm-7:00 pm in the Living Well Studio in the Davis Center.  There will be tea and reflections throughout that time, along with meditations (4:15 pm & 6:40 pm) and a structured discussion at 5:3 pm.

If anyone needs additional support, please contact the Counseling Center (for students) at 802-6563340 or InvestEAP (for employees) at 802-864-3270.  In addition, there are various offices on campus that offer specific support such as the LGBTQA Center, the ALANA Center, the Women’s Center, the Center for Cultural Pluralism, the Office of International Education, the Dean of Students Office, and the Interfaith Coordinator who is the liaison to the Spiritual and Religious Life Council.

In the time ahead, we will continue, as a University community, to uphold the values of Our Common Ground and remain steadfast in our commitment to providing a safe, open, inclusive, and respectful campus community and educational experience for our entire community.

Tom Sullivan                                                            

President

Wanda Heading-Grant

Vice President of Human Resources, Diversity & Multicultural Affairs