Can't We All Disagree More Constructively? by Jonathan Haidt

Tzer Island does not usually review essays, nor does it usually publish reviews on Tuesdays. Having accepted the opporunity to read some essays published in the Vintage Short series, however, I've been reviewing them. Two essays were reviewed last week on Tuesday and Thursay. Thursday this week is Thanksgiving and Tzer Island is taking the day off. Two more essay reviews will appear next week. Vintage Shorts are available in digital format for about a buck.

Published by Vintage on October 4, 2016. The essay is taken from The Righteous Mind, published by Vintage on March 13, 2012

The title of Jonathan Haidt's essay answers itself. If obstructionists from all political stripes worked toward constructive solutions of common problems rather than refusing to betray their ideological purity (or, more cynically, refusing to cede political power by working together with people they view as political enemies), a good many of the nation’s ills would be cured. But how can that happen?

Increasing polarization in the electorate, says Haidt, is nothing compared to polarization in Washington. Beginning in 1990, traditions of friendship between Republicans and Democrats in Congress were discouraged by party leaders, weakening human connections and making it easy for party members to treat opposing party members as political enemies. Since the ability of Congress to solve problems depends on its operation as a collegial body, the “take no prisoners” mentality weakens Congress as an institution.

What is the source of “hyperpartisanship”? Haidt suggests that social class and self-interest are no longer strong predictors of ideology (i.e., the wealthy are not always conservative and the poor are not always liberal). He reviews research suggesting that there is a genetic basis for political ideology (conservatives are genetically predisposed to fear and respect for authority; liberals are genetically inclined to empathy and to new experiences).

So far, so good. Where Haidt goes off track, I think, is his failure to recognize that many of the arguments he makes against liberalism apply equally, or more strongly, to conservatism. He contends that the failure of progressives to consider how their proposed changes to society would weaken “moral capital” is “the fundamental blind spot of the left.” His suggestion that conservatives have more moral capital (resources that sustain a moral community) than liberals is unsupportable. Contrary to Haidt's suggestion, I suspect that most liberals do consider how their proposed changes will affect society, and that they don’t find many conservative “moral” causes (condemnation of gays, suppression of minority voting rights, imprisoning suspected terrorists without due process and then torturing them, advancing economic policies that concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, hostility toward government regulations that benefit workers and the environment, etc.) to be particularly moral. The notion that “conformity and loyalty” strengthen moral capital is true only if people are expected to conform and be loyal to moral behavior, which doesn’t include bashing anyone who isn’t a white Christian conservative straight male (or a submissive white Christian conservative female).

To be fair, Haidt suggests that conservatives, while allegedly doing a better job than liberals of preserving moral capital, “often fail to notice certain classes of victims, fail to limit the predations of certain powerful interests, and fail to see the need to change or update institutions as times change.” Yet those very failures are evidence that conservatives are preserving their own narrow self-interests, not moral capital.

Haidt suggests that liberals want too much change too quickly and thus squander moral capital. Maybe, but it seems more likely that diligent efforts to combat racism, sexism, religious intolerance, and political corruption actually build the moral capital that is needed to make enduring changes that benefit all Americans, not just the social conservatives. Yes, that pisses off the conservatives and encourages them to rally around their causes, but quietly enduring oppression changes nothing.

Haidt then talks about his agreement with certain fundamental tenets of liberalism (government restraint of corporate abuses and regulatory efforts that improve the quality of life), libertarianism (free markets work wonders), and conservatism (helping minorities hurts majorities). I’m paraphrasing the last one, but I think that’s what Haidt is really saying. He argues that enforced diversity weakens social bonds that make a society strong, but America’s diversity has always been its strength — not to mention that equality of rights is a fundamental American moral value. I don’t buy the premise that helping a “subset of bees” is likely to “damage the hive.”

I don't mean to suggest that all conservatives are small-minded social conservatives, but those are the voices that control politicians on the right side of the aisle. Conservative legislators must do their bidding, at least to some extent, if they want to be reelected. Karl Rove thought he had a master plan when he created a big tent to house social conservatives together with economic conservatives, but the social conservatives won't share the tent with conservatives who reject their narrow-minded view of the world. If the Rockefeller Republicans once again have a meaningful role in the party, compromise might replace hyperpartisanship, but that won't happen any time soon.

Near the end of the essay, Haidt gets around to the topic suggested by the title, but doesn’t offer much hope for constructive disagreement. If members of Congress lived in Washington instead of flying home every weekend, their kids might become friends and they might not view political opponents as enemies, but who’s going to make that happen? He urges people to open their hearts as a means to open their minds, but people who urge society’s return to the pre-Civil War era aren’t about to open their hearts to immigrants and blacks and gays and all the other people they evidently despise. Haidt’s essay is interesting, but I don’t see much in it that I would regard as constructive.

NOT RECOMMENDED

The Coming by Joe Haldeman

First published in 2000; published digitally by Open Road Media on September 27, 2016

The Coming is a light novel. More comedy than drama, the story is notable for the amusing cast of characters Joe Haldeman assembles against a backdrop of alien visitation. Haldeman gives a nod to James Gunn’s science fiction novel, The Listeners, as his inspiration for The Coming. The stories are quite different, but the form is similar, in that each book explores the impact of an alien message on a variety of different characters.

A common theme of science fiction, present in The Coming, is that scientists make better decisions than politicians. That might be true, given some of the stupidity that comes out of Washington, but nobody elects scientists. One serious point in this otherwise light-hearted novel is that politicians who convene a panel of science advisors should probably heed the advice they receive.

Something is approaching the Earth at nearly the speed of light, but it’s slowing down. It should arrive in three months, on New Year’s Day. It sent a message -- “WE’RE COMING” -- that isn’t particularly helpful, but it does get the attention of the media, thanks to the astronomer, Aurora Bell, who first decodes the message.

From that premise, the story branches off in a multitude of directions. The Coming is a free-wheeling novel. It consists of short chapters, each focusing on a specific character, many of whom make only a few brief appearances. A primary storyline involves a blackmail scheme that is only tangentially related to the first contact story. More directly tied to the main plot is a president whose first instinct is “If we don’t understand them, we should kill them.”

The thread that binds the characters is their speculation about the intent of the approaching aliens. Haldeman writes convincingly of people who perceive everything as a threat, and add aliens to the list; people who perceive everything in religious terms, and expect the aliens to be messengers from a deity (perhaps coming to smite the unholy); people who view it as a hoax because they don’t believe anything that comes from the government or the news media; and people who view a visit from aliens as a chance to make a fast buck. Occasionally a scientist comes along who refuses to base an opinion on speculation rather than fact.

I like the novel’s future-building. Haldeman envisions a future in which America (and the English language) is strongly influenced by Latino culture, university students make high tech porn, homosexuality has been outlawed (again), and addicts use genetically-programmed designer drugs. The Coming was first published in 2000, so predictions of the future seem dated in only a couple of respects.

Dialog is strong and often quite funny. After the buildup of alien visitation, the ending seems too abrupt. It’s clever, but if this were a more serious novel, I would find the ending disappointing. I don’t demand a dramatic or meaningful conclusion from light fiction, so my disappointment was mitigated by the fact that the novel as a whole is amusing and enjoyable. It’s more a reflection of silly attitudes in contemporary American society than a science fiction novel, but that’s fine for open-minded readers who thinks science fiction doesn’t need to consist exclusively of space opera.

RECOMMENDED

The Island of Dr. Moreau by H.G. Wells

First published in 1896

The Island of Dr Moreau is H.G. Wells’ novel about a mad scientist who takes the idea of anthropomorphizing animals to an extreme. It is a horror story, but it explores a number of philosophical questions as the horror unfolds.

Edward Prendick, a biologist, is near death when he is rescued from a lifeboat after being forced to abandon ship. When he recovers his senses, he finds himself on a schooner with a drunken captain, a doctor named Montgomery, a deformed man who attends the doctor, a caged puma, and an angry pack of muzzled dogs.

Montgomery, having been booted out of medical school in London, is on his way to an isolated island. Through no fault of his own, Prendick is booted off the ship, leaving him with no choice but to join Montgomery on the island.

The island, of course, is home to the mysterious Dr. Moreau. It’s probably impossible to spoil a story this old, but I won’t say much more about the plot, except to note that Prendick encounters creatures who are “human in shape, and yet human beings with the strangest air about them of some familiar animal. Each of these creatures, despite its human form, its rag of clothing, and the rough humanity of its bodily form, had woven into it, into its movements, into the expression of its countenance, into its whole presence, some now irresistible suggestion of a hog, a swinish taint, the unmistakable mark of the beast.”

That quotation gives you a sense of Wells’ prose style which, to readers raised on genre authors who write eight word sentences and three sentence paragraphs, might seem laborious. Perhaps it is, but it is a style uniquely Wells’ own.

Prendick discovers that human-like beasts on the island are (rather reluctantly) following a set of laws. Transgressions are enforced by punishment that is “sharp and sure.” But, just as the promise of swift punishment does little to deter criminal behavior or misbehaving children, threatening to punish beasts who eat the flesh of other animals (or humans) isn’t likely to change their nature. And like all systems of punishment-based law, the system does no good if those who violate the law are not caught.

Philosophical questions that the novel raises include the difference between man and beast and the justice of a system that forces the island’s inhabitants to live in fear of laws they do not understand. The novel could be viewed as an allegory of legal systems and particularly of religious law, where obedience is coerced by instilling fear of punishment by a higher power. It can also be seen as an indictment of totalitarian government, where the “sayer of the law” uses ruthless tactics to dictate obedience among the masses, who are viewed as incapable of governing themselves (or whose self-governance is feared). And the novel can be seen as a caution against attempts to replace the natural with the unnatural, perhaps a forerunner of the debate about genetic engineering. On a simpler level, while the novel isn’t very frightening when viewed as a horror story, it is an entertaining tale, made all the more interesting by convincing characters, both man and beast (and in-between).

RECOMMENDED

The Vanishing Year by Kate Moretti

Published by Atria Books on September 27, 2016

The seemingly perfect boyfriend who turns out to be a dangerous and demented husband has been a popular thriller theme in recent years. Popular to the point of being overused, as writers strive to find a new twist to place on a story that is getting old. Kate Moretti does that, but the twist isn’t convincing. The novel as a whole, however, has modest entertainment value.

Pretty but poor Zoe Swanson was wooed by handsome and wealthy Henry Whittaker while she was working in a florist’s shop. The man who was charming and kind during courtship becomes cold and vaguely threatening as soon they exchange wedding vows. After that, he vacillates between being attentive and distant. Henry isolates himself with people of his own social standing. He doesn’t share his thoughts with Zoe, and he complains that Zoe too often shares her thoughts about Carolyn, the mother who abandoned her. His summer home has a mysterious locked room. All of that is a little too familiar.

Zoe is trying to keep her past a secret -- she used to be Hilary Lawlor, a woman most people believe is dead -- and has managed to do so for five years, ever since Hilary vanished into the night. Hilary/Zoe is, of course, a good person who does some moderately bad things -- but not bad enough to lose the reader’s sympathy. She witnessed a crime and decided to disappear rather than playing the role of a pawn in a game between the government and the criminals it was prosecuting. The contrived backstory lacks the detail that would be required to make it convincing. It’s the usual sad story of modern fictional heroines. The effort to manipulate the reader’s emotions is a little too obvious to provoke genuine sympathy.

With its premise established, the novel moves forward with Zoe’s new life. It seems that someone is trying to kill Zoe, and therein lies the plot. Or at least, that should be the plot, but the story is actually more of a family drama involving Zoe/Hilary and her mother and her husband and a reporter who has a crush on her. The book builds little tension until the last 30 or 40 pages. The story seems to be in search of a theme as it meanders its way to a conclusion. Billed as a psychological thriller, The Vanishing Year packs few thrills into its pages. I won’t spoil any surprises, but I can say that the family drama is more soap opera than drama.

Kate Moretti’s prose style is fine. Other than Hilary/Zoe, her characters have little depth, and Hilary/Zoe’s depth comes from a backstory that’s just too familiar. Henry, in particular, is a hollow cypher. Moretti provides no explanation for his devious, psychopathic nature.

It is nevertheless worth hanging in for the resolution of the various plotlines. Again, the resolution is not entirely convincing -- Zoe has a chance at the end to resolve her problem but she chooses instead to place herself in continuing danger -- although the ending is more entertaining than its setup. Still, the story is too contrived and the characters too shallow to merit giving The Vanishing Year an enthusiastic recommendation. Fans of chick lit might like it more than I did.

RECOMMENDED WITH RESERVATIONS

The Paranoid Style in American Politics: An Essay by Richard Hofstadter

Tzer Island does not usually review essays, nor does it usually publish reviews on Thursdays. Having accepted the opporunity to read some essays published in the Vintage Short series, however, I've decided to review them this week and next on Tuesday and Thursay. Vintage Shorts are available in digital format for about a buck.

Published by Vintage on October 4, 2016

Richard Hofstadter’s essay was first delivered as a lecture in 1963. The lecture was revised and expanded into this 1965 essay. Hofstadter’s analysis is even more salient today.

Hofstadter uses “paranoid style” as a shorthand for “the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.” He wrote those words long before “birthers” ignored the president’s birth certificate to claim he wasn’t an American, long before suggestions were made that Hillary Clinton conspired to murder Vince Foster, and long before wild claims surfaced that leftists assassinated Justice Scalia.

The paranoid style characterizes people who persist in believing, on the basis of no evidence, that a conspiracy is afoot to attack “a nation, a culture, a way of life.” They posture themselves as true patriots who justly respond to the conspirators with righteousness and moral indignation. Hofstadter uses the word “style” to emphasize that he is talking about the way ideas are advocated rather than the truth or falsity of their content, although he acknowledges that the paranoid style “has a better affinity for bad causes than good.”

Hofstadter traces examples of the paranoid style from the nation’s inception to the early 1960s. He gives special attention to conspiracy claims advanced against Masons and Catholics in earlier centuries before turning his attention to “the contemporary right wing” (remembering, again that “contemporary” means 1950s and early 1960s). As opposed to the earlier right wing, which felt it was defending values that were still common in America (such as racial supremacy), Hofstadter notes that the new right wing feels “dispossessed.” Their values were no longer at the core of American life, having been maliciously eroded (they believe) by intellectuals and urban dwellers. They see themselves as fighting a losing battle against foreign influences, define those who disagree with them as Communists, and see conspiracies everywhere. Indeed, anyone who disagrees with their paranoid view of America is by definition a traitor. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The enemy today is not so much Communism as the perceived threat of a “world government” that would oust the United States from its entitled position of leadership, but not much else needs to be changed to update Hofstadter’s analysis.

According to Hofstadter, a vast and sinister conspiracy to destroy the American way of life is at the heart of the paranoid style. Conspiracies are viewed in apocalyptic terms, as struggles of ultimate good versus ultimate evil. Alleged conspirators are attacked for their lack of morality (particularly as expressed by their sexual freedom and desires). The threat posed by conspirators can only be overcome by militant action that eliminates the threat and leads to unqualified victory (hence, the preference for tough talking, saber-rattling leaders and the lack of tolerance for any viewpoint with which they disagree). Anything less leaves them frustrated, which is why they are doomed always to feel frustrated, regardless of election outcomes. Opposing viewpoints are difficult to eradicate, they feel, because the enemy controls the media, has unlimited resources, and has taken over the educational system. They strive mightily to find evidence to support their paranoid thoughts and are prepared to believe anything that purports to stand as proof, no matter how unverified or fanciful, since only the unbelievable is worthy of belief. Or, if they meticulously gather facts, the facts have nothing to do with the judgments they make. Again, this sounds awfully familiar.

Hofstadter suggests that the paranoid style surfaces most prominently in times of ethnic or religious conflict. That observation is apt. Immigrants and Muslims have served to trigger paranoid thinking in current society. What Hofstadter wrote half a century ago is just as germane today, as witnessed by the election of Donald Trump, who fanned the flames of racial and religious hatred that feeds the paranoid style. Since they believe the enemy must be wiped out, people who adopt the paranoid style have no interest in electing leaders who will negotiate political solutions to the real problems that weaken the nation. The paranoid are not subject to reason, because they will not surrender their fantasies. Sadly, they think their wrong-headed votes will change things, when in fact nothing can relieve them of their paranoid delusions. Of course, if they elect enough candidates who share their paranoia, they might get what they want -- the utter destruction of those who disagree with them -- but at a considerable cost to the nation.

Of course, those who have adopted the paranoid style will dismiss Hofstadter's essay as enemy propaganda. For everyone else, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, this essay is essential to understand why progress in America is so often blocked by people who would rather shout (or shoot) than try to find common ground.

RECOMMENDED

Update (Nov 26, 2016): The essay is all the more timely in light of persuasive reports that conspiracy theorists were manipulated by fake news reports that caused them to believe untrue accusations against Hillary Clinton. Ironic, isn't it, that the Russian governmetn was largely responsible for those stories, thus allying themselves with right-wing voters who would, if not so gullible, be suspicious of "news" that originates from a government committed to undermining American democracy.