Opinion

'The foundation of an idea'

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

To understand what is happening to our thinking in the world today, I've been reading, listening. The following information is helpful. It is a study of how good people, confronted by the same facts, arrive at completely different conclusions.

In a paper, "Politics Is Personal," research is cited to help us understand the process. In a section, called "Doing morality tales," the following statement is made, "it's long been understood that people evaluate policy ideas through partisan and ideological lenses."

George Lakoff, at the University of California Berkeley, describes what might be called a hierarchy of understanding, beginning with our conception of morality and then evaluating the details through that lens.

Simply put, the brain does not handle single ideas as separate entities. A bigger context, a logical construct within which the idea is defined, is evoked to grasp its meaning.

While liberals and conservatives often see their counterparts as horrible people these days, the reality, according to Lakoff, is that they are processing information through very different and often diametrically opposed moral frameworks. Lakoff is quoted as saying, "conservatives have a very different view of democracy which follows their moral system."

The basic idea in terms of economics is that democracy gives people the liberty to seek their self-interest in their own well-being without worrying or being responsible for the well-being or interest of anybody else.

Therefore, they say everybody has individual responsibility, not social responsibility, therefore you are on your own. If you make it, that's wonderful. That's what the market is about. If you don't make it, that's your problem.

The moral imperative to be self-sufficient has always been central to the political right's moral worldview. Beginning in the early 1960s, the Right's deeply flawed "culture of poverty" narrative is a defining morality tale about how the public sector does nothing but foster "dependency." This, according to today's conservatives, makes virtually every form of government intervention in the economy profoundly immoral, as it keeps this segment of the population mired in poverty for generations.

This powerful story has become more deeply entrenched in the conservative worldview with the growing influence of Ayn Rand.

In my reading, I discovered that Ayn Rand is credited or blamed, depending on the person's viewpoint, for much of the thinking of conservatives. She is the author of the 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged." Hearing her work and this book referred to often, I began to read the book. It was roughly 700 pages and I struggled through it.

I cannot find the quote but one person says she is promoting capitalism and the only function of government is to allow corporations. My own interpretation is that she sees government workers as inept bunglers and managers as a successful upper class while the working class is expendable.

Another author defends her and says her writings have been misused and misunderstood. A phrase in the work cited above summarizes what seems to be the attitude of the "far right."

The author, Joshua Holland, describes her this way. "She was the progenitor of a sweeping "moral philosophy" that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle classes as well."

The next phrase is the one I would call to your attention. "Her books provided wide ranging parables, a world made up of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor." It is these words I have heard repeated many times.

A prominent sign on US Highway 49, pictured, blames the Democrat Party for fostering these attitudes. A title is being given to the group using these derogatory names in campaign, advocating freedom for corporations, smaller government and fewer social programs to help the needy and less fortunate. They are being called "Neoliberals" (because they emphasize the freedom of the individual?) and have used the title "liberal" to blame all ills on anyone they can label as "destructive." Often the term has included an oath or linkage to any bad result that comes to mind. I am sure they will not like any name implying liberal, but some of the influence can be traced back to Ron Paul, his son Rand and their "libertarian" roots.

In reality, the idea that people must work for their living comes much earlier than these individuals. Some people quote the Bible's 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

Paraphrased, it is that if you do not work, you do not eat. In checking that source, I discovered that one seminary describes that as a Jewish proverb that has evidently been around for 3,000 years. I suspect it came much earlier than that in the history of mankind. The person who contributes little to society, expects to live from the goodwill of others, is never regarded very highly.

It raises another question that cannot be covered here, but must be considered. That question is: What is work or labor? How you answer that question will have great influence on how you see life and consider the life of others.

I hope to say more in a later column. In the meantime, consider carefully the ideas that are being presented in regard to our political situation on how people should vote and how decisions are being made.

Many feel, and the evidence is there to prove the "Far Right" advocating less government and freeing corporations to make excessive profit at the expense of the "working poor," the middle class and the unfortunate are pushing us down a destructive path.

Go back to the idea we fit our facts into a framework that fits our morality tale. They are not "conserving" the important freedoms placed in our Constitution to provide opportunity for all. They proclaim their faith but take away from widow, orphan, young, aged, sick, disabled; give power to the powerful and money to the wealthy. Jesus, many Christian leaders, including "our Pope" (he is in the church universal) remind us our budget is a moral document. The direction of a half century ago is tearing at the very fabric of our country and has placed us at great risk of losing our real freedoms and is morally deficient.