Stripe Philosophy

》TOC 》

• What does “Conservative” & “Liberal” mean?
  • Conservative Basis
  • Liberal Basis
• A Neural Underpinning of Ideological Stripes ^{(New as of 11/2/23)}
• How poles affect semantics ^(New)
• Regarding the Poles
• The Nature of Stripes

This article was first posted on May 24, 2010. It has been updated to reflect different angles, or dots, as I have encountered them over the past few months (in 2023).

I frequently go to news sites to — besides reading the news — warm up my head. I read an article and then comment on it. With that done, I begin reading the other comments into which I just added my $.02 and engage the authors.

During one of these morning mental calisthenics, there was a series of posts where each pole of the US political system was referring to the other with their accepted labels, but with a full measure of derision. Typical liberal. Typical conservative.

The dose of derision was invariably spiked with the poison of over-generalizations and, well, fallacies. But oddly, the substance of the toxicity toward one was nearly the same as that for the other. It was difficult at times to discern how an assertion was “typical” of one party without applying to the other. And both were flavored by the very same bitter bile. There was some combination of thinking process and emotion that I hadn’t sorted out.

What does “Conservative” & “Liberal” mean?

It occurred to me to wonder what the heck “conservative” or “liberal” really, supposedly, mean. What are the structures of the philosophies that produce such diametric approaches; what are the stripes of the beasts whereby we can recognize one species from another (besides the fact that one looks like an elephant and the other a donkey)? Should I avoid mixing metaphors?

I avoided Wikipedia and opted to work with what Google provided me in the way of several sites that represented themselves as being authorities on each of the polar perspectives. I chose these over the fantastically well-developed coverage of Wikipedia because I wanted to incorporate the varnish used in presenting passion-based expositions of the philosophies.

Each site had manifestos and what I thought of as cause maps, mappings of manifesto points to major contemporary flashpoint issues with the purpose of both identifying the philosophically correct stance for an issue and surfacing the ones of current or persistent concern. There were even sections to contrast (and demonize) the antagonist, adding the official base ingredient to the poisons each side was spitting into the other’s credo.

I didn’t rise to a new level of enlightenment, for no spiritual nourishment was to be found on these sites. But there was clarification in the sense that the sites aggregated the tenets of their political formulae into nice neat packages. From these packages, extrapolations of both poles seemed fairly easy, although I am mostly concerned with understanding the perspectives of the last reigning US party.

Conservative Basis

For Conservative, the weight of philosophical components relies on a belief in a strong hierarchy and a moral platform that comes ‘from on high’ (so to speak), as well as a fervent belief that “tradition” (as an institution) defines the character of a people and creates a type of ‘stability’ whose machinery need not trouble the majority’s minds, and conserving the system ensouled by the traditions is a sacred calling. There are absolute standards of right and wrong that apply to everyone in almost every situation.

Besides moral standards, there are cultural standards, one exalted standard being personal responsibility based on individual effort and self-reliance. Equal opportunity is not the same as equal outcome: we are responsible for our own actions (self-sufficiency), which applies to justice as much as it applies to economic status. Not everyone is created equal nor do we work at an equal level; and we should acknowledge that, resulting in accepted roles and differences in living standards. The term individualism is more about responsibility and self-reliance than self-actualization and “freedoms.”

Combine hierarchy and roles with tradition, and you get something of a caste system, a gentry, a priesthood, a ruling class. Parent/child, religious, and political relationships are framed in terms of the strict-father, patriarchal model. From the “cast” angle, observers get the idea that conservatives are pro-corporation instead of pro-worker: the employers are the ones with the jobs to mete out, and with them in control, the pecking order is established and the top-down engine is running self-sufficiently as ordained. Questioning is frowned upon; dissent is discouraged; straying from the path is punished with shame and ostracizion. They must be because machinery is mechanical, and stray parts break the operation. Change can happen, but it should slowly.

They believe they are a “grassroots” philosophy, but that appears mostly true in the sense of strategic mobilization to ignite or capitalize on fervor around Conservative tenets. “Grassroots” is more of an incentivized following rather than movement upward. Rallying the base often involves appealing to religious or family values, cultural symbols, and perceived threats to the status quo to ignite support and spread fervor.

Conservatism believes the role of Federal or National government should be confined to national security and domestic order, supporting the mechanisms of the free market (from a protectionist standpoint) and allowing for the survival of the self-sufficiently fit. That role exists for order, stability, and control, not to protect rights. Militarily, a large, well-funded force is essential for safeguarding society and ensuring peace, and unilateral action is favored over multilateralism, which is completely consistent with the strong conservative notion of self-sufficiency.

For day-to-day matters, the preference is for state-level decision-making to uphold their tenets. shat preference stems from a belief that the closer the governing body is to the people, the more it can reflect and serve their needs and values. However, with that in place, state governments often use “preemption” to override or limit the policies and laws of country and city governments, exerting top-down compliance, such as prohibiting cities from declaring themselves “sanctuary cities.” So “local control” only extends so far because any further, then we stray into the type of “individualism” that weakens uniformity.

When it comes to protecting “rights,” often it’s more about protecting the structure and machinery than what is “inalienable” to humans as free humans.  An illuminating example of machinery over substance is the recent Supreme Court ruling (2023) against previous Supreme Court rulings in affirmative action in both employment and education. The Conservative view is that equality emerges from the equal application of laws, or “formal equality.” The talking point then is: The equal application of law is equality. It’s trickle-down economics for equality.

An example that’s a little tougher to see is Freedom of Religion: when it is invoked, is more about conserving the perceived Christian basis for how our society operates than it is about the freedom to believe or not believe in whatever you want.

Another example is gun rights, where the defense of of the 2nd Amendment is more of a symbol of defending a traditional view of American freedom and societal structure, rather than a focus on the nuanced balance between individual liberty and public safety. It emanates from the Conservative reverence for self-reliance, resistance to government overreach, and preserving America’s (Conservative) core values and traditions.

Education and “family values” are about submitting to the parental or hierarchical ways of thinking.  Critical thinking is frowned upon as a watering down of the cognitive glue to adhere to those ways of thinking, a way to erode the solidity of an elemental building block of a strong society. A couple of State GOP platforms actually derided critical thinking by name as something to be stamped out because it erodes a child’s respect for parents and authority. An attack on family values, which are a pillar of unity.

These viewpoints may result in giving more importance to safeguarding specific values or systems rather than adhering strictly to the democratic notions of majority rule within a multicultural society.

Liberal Basis

Liberal ideas have been around since before the term “liberal” got its own definition (beyond that of ‘sedition’), which of course has its roots in a relaxation of the structural strictures placed on self-identity and social interactions. The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that the first use of the term meant “tending in favor of freedom and democracy”.

Today, equated with the term Progressive, Liberal is associated with laissez-faire and the over-indulgent forgiveness of sins committed in the pursuit of individual self-actualization without concern for the welfare of established order and cohesion. Its ideals are faulted for the creation of a “welfare state” wherein were are all “equal” in our shared dependence upon the trough.

Speaking more positively, liberalism is as structured as a hierarchy, but from the bottom-up. For example, job creation as a function of consumer demand (bottom-up) vs. tax breaks for corporations where jobs are found (top-down). The machinery favors the individual parts that make up the whole, allowing for order to happen organically, guided by (of course) motivations of humanistic welfare, diversity, religious freedom, and cultural richness.

It is individuals who make up society and formulate contracts and laws that favor equality over rank. In this perspective, we are products of our society, with the mechanisms of society bearing some responsibility for how we turn out. Unequal outcomes are a result of unequal opportunities; and the more equality, the fewer social conflicts.

In the discussion of conservatism, I brought up the Supreme Court ruling on equality. Here, Liberalism prefers “substantive equality,” where changes in societal perspectives make equality something people can experience. Equality is not only expressed by treating all individuals the same under the law (formal equality), but society also takes steps to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity to succeed.

The term individualism has more to do with individual liberty, finding your own way, and self-actualizing from a personality perspective than from one of independence — being yourself not necessarily guided by productivity or responsibility. In Liberalism, there is no one ‘right’ way to do anything but rather, there are social well-being guidelines; and everyone has to decide for themselves what’s right and wrong in particular situations that will be judged by these guidelines as worthy or not.

Relationships — whether parent/child, religious, or political — are in terms of the “nurturing parent”, which then extends to the conception of government, whose size and scope are determined by how much we confer upon, or transfer to, it. In matters of national security, this approach prioritizes communication and understanding over might-makes-right and avoiding war as much as possible. “Political correctness” is a symptom of the nurturing parent, projecting our conscience and culpability to the whole. A type of societal empathy in which diverse experiences and needs of the whole community are respected in law and life.

Educationally and parentally, critical thinking, sound thinking, and unbastardized “truth” in information are prizes above all else because, with these things, individuals are able to make the “right decisions” based on the ability to distinguish fact from opinion, and where “truth” and being informed raises the human condition … from the bottom up.  In other words, the strength is in the development of the components and common cause, not the structure.

One of its primary roles is to drive change and protect individual rights as well as to support the free market against fraud and force, and promote sustainability in balance with the health of the planet. “Progress.”  In the face of liberal concern for the environment, for instance, it is easy to see the contrast with that of the conservative concern for the primacy of an existing human economy and human community over the concern for human over-consumption of the environment and ecosystems of which we are an inextricable part.  The whole — whether mental, physical, environmental, or political — and balance are favored over prescribed rules and dogma as the glue for society.

A Neural Underpinning of Ideological Stripes

The findings from Nature Human Behaviour ^(paid) and reviewed by neurosciencenews.com ^(free) provide an intriguing backdrop against which to examine the contrasting poles of Conservative and Liberal ideologies. The sources describe a study from the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) in which they mapped the neural pathways that light up when individuals grapple with moral conundrums. Interestingly, the findings revealed a general network within our gray matter that is activated when judging moral violations, yet distinct activity patterns emerge for different moral dimensions, suggesting a pluralistic moral landscape.

“Individualizing” Foundations	“Binding” Foundations
Issues of care and harm,  Concerns of fairness and cheating,	Liberty versus oppression,  Matters of loyalty and betrayal,  Adherence to and subversion of authority,  And sanctity versus degradation

Now, the plot thickens when these neural insights are juxtaposed against the political spectrum. It seems Liberals have a heightened sensitivity to issues in the “binding” foundations of care/harm and fairness/cheating, which primarily protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. On the flip side of the coin, Conservatives place a higher premium on loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation, which tend to safeguard group cohesion and social order — at the group level.

The Conservative ethos, with its reverence for hierarchy and tradition, reflects this emphasis on loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The envisioned societal machinery, fueled by traditions, seeks to conserve a stability that need not vex the minds of the masses. There’s a cast system at play, a semblance of a gentry or a ruling class, where questioning is seen as a wrench in the works. The hierarchical tableau, be it in a religious, political, or familial setting, is framed in the contours of a strict-father model. This top-down engine, with its gears greased by a moral code handed ‘from on high,’ runs smoothly when all parts adhere to their ordained roles.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Liberal ethos, structured from a bottom-up vantage point, resonates with a nurturing parent model. The machinery here is envisioned to hum smoothly when individual parts—citizens—exercise their liberty, finding their unique rhythm in the societal orchestra. The emphasis on individual liberty and equality fosters a milieu where societal order blossoms organically, guided by the gentle hand of humanistic welfare and a rich tapestry of cultural diversity.

The findings from the realm of neuroscience underscore the cognitive underpinnings that might subtly nudge individuals toward one end of the political spectrum or the other. The neural response to moral issues, as revealed by the MFT, illuminates how the moral fibers of Conservatism and Liberalism might be part of our core makeup! (See “External Catalysts_⚓” in the appendix for a reflection on how to supersede core programming, or makeup.)

How poles affect semantics

Invariably, language and linguistics play key roles in both individual viewpoints and social interaction.

Language becomes a battleground of interpretation in the area where the neurobiology of morality intersects with the stripes of political philosophy. Words, which appear to be universal, are frequently colored by ideological poles, each assigning its own hue, tinting perception and understanding. Consider the phrase ‘liberty,’ which is embedded in the language of political debate, as well as two other powerful words: ‘justice,’ and ‘welfare.’

At one extreme, ‘liberty’ is a sacred value. It’s a rallying cry for individual liberties unfettered by governmental overreach. In this context, liberty is equivalent to self-determination, or the right to seek one’s pleasure and property without interference by state oversight. It’s a beacon of self-reliance, a bulwark against collectivist impulses.

Yet, from a conservative standpoint, the balance between state intervention and individual liberty is not necessarily about the absence of government action, but rather about ensuring that government action aligns with certain moral and philosophical principles they believe support the overall makeup and function of society. This reflects the “group level” and “binding” categories of the Moral Foundations Theory in action.

Compare this to the opposite pole where ‘liberty’ means independence from societal, dogmatic, and economic constraints that prevent one from fully participating in public life. This pole advocates for a liberty that is not just the absence of restraint; it is a platform from which every individual can leap toward their potential, unfettered by systemic or ideological inequities. (See a deeper dive of Liberty in the “appendix_⚓“.)

The interpretation of ‘justice’ similarly diverges. Is it the stern father, dispensing out punishment in line with the letter of the law and preserving order and hierarchy? Or is it the nurturing parent, looking for a balance that allows for growth and rehabilitation by addressing the underlying injustices that give rise to transgressions?

A prime example is the recent Supreme Court decision against affirmative action and the concept of “equality.” The Right favors “formal equality,” and the Left favors “substantive equality.” The distinction lies in the understanding that while formal equality can ensure that everyone is treated the same under the law, substantive equality is concerned with the fairness of the results of such treatment.

Substantive equality recognizes that because of various barriers, simply treating everyone the same may not be enough to achieve true, lived equality for all individuals. The former is rule-based, mechanical, and almost “trickle-down”, and the latter is lived, organic, and bottom-up.

With ‘welfare’, we see an ideological battle over the role of government and that of social responsibility. On the Liberal side, welfare is seen as a communal investment in and a shared commitment to the well-being of society to provide those who fall the means to get back on their feet. Welfare reflects our societal empathy, which promotes social cohesion by bridging the gap between the haves and have-nots.

On the Conservative side, welfare becomes a disincentive for self-improvement and self-sufficiency when recipients build their lives around the support it provides. Even though welfare is well-intentioned, it inadvertently traps recipients in a cycle of dependency, thus stifling individual motivation and initiative and burdening the state’s resources. Conservatives prefer policies that reinforce the traditional values of hard work and self-reliance, so welfare should be, at best, a temporary aid, not a permanent solution.

Appreciating the different interpretations of concepts like these, while often polarizing, is important to the type of debate that nurtures democracy. Each pole has value in balancing the other.

Regarding the Poles

Remember now, I’m talking about poles, not the temperate regions wherein most of us act and live. The poles have no balance in and of themselves, but they are part of the scale making up a system that can balance if the selfishness of one does not eviscerate the other. I’m pretty sure that, given an opportunity, basic natural selfishness, and a penchant for humans to repeat mistakes, a super concentration of other-party philosophy would result in a debilitating, toxic overdose and consequent ill-affected health that we’ve just experienced. And of course, this is not an exhaustive political dissertation with the purpose of thorough analysis — I’m making over-simplified characterizations that don’t mention a great deal. I’m aware of that with purposeful redactic restraint. My aim is to paint with enough dots to make a point.

With both poles and everything in between, these philosophies are heartfelt, stemming from the feelings that give life to otherwise sterile thought-forms (the tenets). People appear to think with these feelings, or at least set them up as arbiters of “truth” or “the way.” The feeling from their cores establishes what they recoil from, what they embrace, and what they can concede. And feelings are harder to analyze or even merely to “see” that they make up part of the cognitive equation.

The Nature of Stripes

It is not hard to notice that people have a separate standard for evaluating feelings than they do for evaluating ideas alone. Feelings, being generated from within, are unentanglable from self-identity and the spirit. And they are presumed infallible. People glance at their antagonist’s position and summarily judge, drawing from judgments already made, that those positions cannot work or are morally wrong. Obama acknowledged politicians coming to the bargaining table with the opening, or even closing, arguments from the arbitrating perspectives, pleading for them to give proposals outside their comfort zone a chance.

One liberal article I read said the Bush administration was one of the most “successful conservative administrations” ever, in a contradictory response to the progressive theme of “failed administration.” Successful because they ardently pursued and fabulously effected the embodiment and institutionalization of their conservative tenets. The current structures of the machinery in place are extensions and extrapolations of the last reigning philosophy. The believers were true to the philosophy that coheres to their party and accordant policies.

They do not subscribe to the other party’s more liberal beliefs and principles. Their resistance to these views is almost reflexive, a kind of blind faith that if they are against something, it must inherently be wrong based on their own beliefs. Obama here referred to, not only the “bad [mental] habits,” but the incarnation of the habits into laws, executive orders, blessings, and consequences. His admonishment to the press corps was that we cannot expect new accordability before we have sorted through the concentration of tenets-made-tangible — it will take time for habits of thinking to be identified as such, allowing other thought forms to be adapted to their core philosophy. Such are the ways of dealing with other humans.

Shouldn’t we expect their reactions to and evaluations of an approach that is outside their core and dominant posture to be resistant, dismissive, and even combative? Should we expect them to change their stripes to give another option a chance? I think not, although I know plenty of smart people (who I will admit are on the outside edge of the bright side of the bell curve in terms of intellectual capabilities), who can evaluate the merit of a policy based on the soundness of its proposals regardless of its genitor. But even with that last statement, I wonder if they, themselves, aren’t acting according to a philosophy that simply allows for less-prescribed conclusions.

Compromise is not where you get your way one day and I get mine. Nor is it where if I don’t get my way, I will make getting your way unpleasant. The various definitions of compromise include both the concepts of concession and agreement. And I’m absolutely sure that we share enough common humanity and structure (in the overlap between the two approaches) where we could start with the agreements and work out the concessions. The trick here is for opposing parties to recognize, in advance, that agreements are even possible. I also believe that being able to do that is maturity; not being able to do that is selfishness.

And yes, I also believe we can politically evolve in the sense that we can move forward in the betterment of mankind and the care of the garden through the maturity of our collective selves, our nation. I even believe it is possible from a neuroplasticity standpoint, changing the brain pathways and affecting the Moral Foundation. But momentous change happens only when we’re pushed to the brink; and progress happens with the fortuitous contemporary appearance of opportunities, such as a black candidate for President. But the underlying philosophies still vie for the extinction or subjugation of the other.

It’s only human, isn’t it? Doesn’t someone have to be right?

---

This area is a sort of APPENDIX where I’ve put some thoughts exploratory or supportive, but not critical, to the main points.

》Deep-dive on Liberty 》

An acquaintance of mine who is a member of a GOP think tank told me once that the GOP was a “grassroots” party whose constituents wanted liberty. When thinking about a top-down, hierarchical party that favors tradition over self-actualization, I wondered: how does one square liberty within that framework.

I think it is important to do these exercises because they expose legitimate facets of a concept.

The interplay between a concept like liberty and conservative ideologies can be quite complex, particularly within the political dynamics of the United States. Here’s how one might see “liberty” within a conservative framework:

1. Liberty as Autonomy:
   Within conservative circles, liberty is often construed as individual autonomy — the right to live one’s life without undue interference from the government. This conceptualization of liberty prioritizes personal responsibility, economic freedom, and the protection of private property rights.
2. Liberty vs. Equality:
   The conservative rationale often places a greater emphasis on liberty than on equality, viewing government intervention to achieve equality as a potential infringement on individual freedoms. Here, liberty is not necessarily in opposition to a caste system; instead, it’s about preserving the right to maintain one’s status or advance without external constraints.
3. Hierarchical Social Structures:
   Conservatism can be comfortable with hierarchical social structures, viewing them as natural or traditional. From this perspective, liberty is about preserving the freedom to maintain established hierarchies, which are seen as reflections of a natural order or as rewards for hard work and merit.
4. Liberty as a Guard against Tyranny:
   The grassroots conservative movement often views liberty as a bulwark against tyranny, including the perceived overreach of government. The emphasis on liberty serves as a rallying cry to protect against what they see as the erosion of foundational freedoms and the encroachment of state power.
5. Economic Liberty:
   Economic liberty is a central tenet for many conservatives. This includes the freedom to engage in business, trade, and other economic activities with minimal government regulation. The grassroots may view economic liberty as the pathway to prosperity and social mobility within a caste system.
6. Selective Application of Liberty:
   Critics argue that conservative movements may selectively apply the principle of liberty, championing freedoms that align with their values while supporting restrictions in other domains, such as reproductive rights or immigration.
7. Liberty in the Cultural Domain:
   For some grassroots conservatives, liberty also encompasses the freedom to uphold and practice cultural and religious traditions without interference or criticism, which can sometimes conflict with progressive notions of inclusivity and diversity.

But linguistics is multilayered. Let’s peel back #4, where Liberty is a guard against tyranny.

In the current political landscape, even members of the GOP and conservative leadership see the GOP sliding into authoritarianism, not only by embracing the Trump camp’s readying itself to take executive control over agencies that are meant to be politically independent if he is elected to a second term, but also the party’s gerrymandering of congressional districts, suppression of voter turnout, and attacks on democratic norms with the intent to take out what they see is broken and start over, to name a few.

How do we square “guard against tyranny” with that?

This tension can be understood through several analytical lenses:

1. Selective Prioritization of Liberties:
   There is often a selective prioritization where certain liberties are championed, while others are de-emphasized or sacrificed. This can lead to situations where the defense of specific freedoms (like gun rights or religious liberties) is seen as paramount, while broader civil liberties (such as voting rights or press freedoms) may be compromised under the justification of preserving the former.
2. Fear of External Threats:
   A common rationale for the acceptance of authoritarian measures is the perceived existence of existential threats. When the fear of external threats (real or perceived) becomes pronounced, a segment of the populace may accept or even demand stronger, more centralized authority as a protective measure, believing that it serves the greater good of preserving the nation and its core values.
3. Protection of In-Group Interests:
   There may be a belief that authoritarian measures are necessary to protect the interests of an in-group. This can manifest as support for policies or leaders that promise to uphold the status and security of that group, even at the expense of broader democratic principles.
4. Crisis and Response:
   Political groups may veer towards authoritarianism in response to crises, whether economic, social, or national security-related. In such times, the urgency of the situation can be used to justify a consolidation of power and a curtailing of liberties, framed as a temporary but necessary response.
5. Populist Authoritarianism:
   Populist movements within the conservative sphere can sometimes veer towards authoritarianism by positing a direct connection between a strong leader and the will of the people. Here, the concept of liberty gets intertwined with the idea of a leader who claims to directly embody the people’s will, bypassing traditional democratic institutions which are framed as corrupt or ineffective.
6. Liberty for Whom?:
   A critical analysis would point out that discourses on liberty within authoritarian-leaning segments might implicitly be about preserving freedoms for certain groups over others, reflecting underlying social or cultural hierarchies.
7. Rhetoric vs. Action:
   The discrepancy between rhetoric and action is also a factor. While the rhetoric may strongly advocate for liberty against tyranny, the actions taken by some factions might not align with this principle. It’s a dissonance that can be rooted in political strategy or ideological conviction.
8. Historical Context:
   The historical context of conservatism shows that the relationship between authoritarianism and liberty is not straightforward. Conservative movements have at times aligned with authoritarian regimes or policies (like those of South Korea and Putin), particularly when those regimes have supported conservative social orders or fought against common adversaries.

The coexistence of calls for liberty with a slide towards authoritarianism can be seen as a reflection of the intricate, and sometimes contradictory, nature of political ideologies and movements. It underlines the multifaceted and often contested interpretations of what constitutes liberty, tyranny, and the appropriate means of guarding against the latter. It is within these tensions and contradictions that the political discourse continuously evolves, shaped by the interplay of values, fears, and the pursuit of power.

》External Catalysts and the Plasticity of Political Ideologies 》

Something that may be related to core makeup is how people’s politics can bend.

I posit that there is a threshold wherein the traditional conservative-liberal dichotomy might undergo nuanced metamorphoses, spurred by the collective and individual experiences of coping with a global crises, aging, changes in socio-economic status, and the intensity of health-induced adversities.

The human brain’s ability to adapt — its neuroplasticity — as discussed in “Changing Core Wiring,” opens a window into understanding how profound external stimuli, like a pandemic, can potentially rewire long-held political beliefs or affiliations.

Recent discussions have emerged surrounding the generational shift in political leanings. One article, published in The Atlantic in 2022, argues that there is some evidence to suggest that young people do become more conservative as they age. The article cites a study by the Pew Research Center that found that millennials (adults born between 1981 and 1996) were more likely to identify as liberal when they were in their early 20s, but that they became more conservative as they got older.

The article in the Intelligencer called “Millennials Will Not Age Into Voting Like Boomers,” presents a lot of interesting graphic.  In particular, this graphic from the Pew Research Center:

The article pretty much says that core politics of individuals don’t usually change in spite of “folk” theories that they do. However, notice the little decline dip in the second column.

Two things: 1) “Become more conservative” doesn’t mean a total change of clothes.  It’s more like instead of mini-skirts, they wear slacks.  And 2) It is important to note that these studies are based on observational data, which means that they cannot prove that becoming older causes people to become more or less conservative. There may be other factors, such as changes in life circumstances or exposure to different ideas, that explain why people’s political views may change over time.

The point here, though, is there’s something about changing perspectives that is possible in spite of the “cohort effect”. Is it a natural progression, a result of the evolving priorities with age, or could it be a manifestation of the neuroplasticity responding to the changing socio-political climates or shared events like a pandemic or the Great Depression?

This foray into the interconnection between external catalysts, neuroplasticity, and political ideologies provides a scaffold to further explore how the conservative-liberal spectrum might oscillate in the face of unprecedented global challenges. It beckons a deeper dive into the realms of political psychology and neuroscience to unravel the intricacies of this evolving discourse.

》8 interpretive lenses for reconciling apparent Conservative contradictions of social interdependence and self-reliance 》

The conservative emphasis on individual responsibility and self-reliance juxtaposed with the recognition of social interdependence is a nuanced aspect of their ideology that often seems contradictory at first glance. So, let’s see if we can reconcile these two concepts within conservative thought within 8 interpretive lenses.

1. Moral Foundations Theory:
   According to Moral Foundations Theory, conservatives do indeed value in-group loyalty and authority/respect (which contribute to social cohesion), alongside sanctity/purity. They balance these with the value placed on individualism, which includes the moral dimensions of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. Conservatives might argue that a society functions best when individuals strive to be self-reliant, which reduces the burden on the community, thereby enhancing overall welfare.
2. Meritocratic Ideals:
   There is a strong belief in meritocracy within conservative circles, where success is seen as a result of hard work and personal initiative. Social programs are sometimes viewed through a lens that distinguishes between those who are deemed to have made genuine efforts to be self-sufficient and those who are perceived as reliant on assistance out of choice or lack of effort.
3. Limited Government Intervention:
   Conservatives generally favor a limited government role in individual lives but do recognize the need for certain collective goods and services, such as infrastructure, defense, and emergency services. These are seen as essential functions that facilitate, rather than hinder, individual initiative and societal flourishing.
4. Personal vs. Collective Responsibility:
   The conservative narrative often includes the notion that while society should provide the framework for individuals to succeed (such as rule of law, security, and basic infrastructure), it is up to the individual to take advantage of these provisions. Welfare, by this logic, should be a safety net rather than a long-term support system.
5. Cultural Attitudes Towards Welfare:
   There is also a cultural dimension, where welfare is sometimes associated with a stigma of dependency. Conservatives may argue that welfare programs should be structured in a way that encourages recipients to move towards self-sufficiency rather than creating dependency.
6. Economic Self-Interest:
   The conservative focus on economic self-interest posits that individuals, through pursuing their own economic well-being, inadvertently contribute to the prosperity of the community via the “invisible hand” of the market, as theorized by Adam Smith.
7. Distinction Between Deserving and Undeserving:
   Within conservative thought, there is often a distinction made between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. The ‘deserving’ are those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own and are actively seeking to improve their circumstances, whereas the ‘undeserving’ are perceived as those not taking personal responsibility to change their situation.
8. Philosophical Individualism:
   The conservative perspective is deeply rooted in philosophical individualism, which holds that the individual is the primary moral and political unit. From this viewpoint, individual success is a testament to personal virtue, and failure is often attributed to personal shortcomings.

• Politicality
• Reflection