An insulting hypothesis
While visiting the homestead this past weekend, as I sat cooking in the jacuzzi, I stumbled upon an interesting and highly insulting hypothesis. Not insulting to me, mind you, but to the group I am about to describe.
The basis of this hypothesis lies in the idea that many popular social perspectives, views, and/or positions are at least somewhat influenced on a biological or instinctual level. For instance, racism, which is still something that modern civilizations have trouble with, might well be rooted in a biological bias against others different from yourself (i.e., the notion that a gazelle will be biased against a cheetah, albeit using more obvious physiological cues). I am not attempting to justify racism or other issues of this type, only to lay the logical foundation for my hypothesis.
Fortunately for humans as a species, our brain has allowed us to overcome instinctual and biological triggers to some extent, in part by allowing for the rationalization and implementation of societal frameworks that abridge various behaviors. It is unlikely that the cheetah feels remorse over his “murder” of the gazelle; but humanity, having moralized the value of life on a widespread scale, often takes steps to preclude or disincentivize the commission of murder. This is useful in maintaining a cohesive, functioning civilization; civil rights laws, too, are useful in much the same way.
Which brings us to the insulting part:
I hypothesize that, at least in part, the (socially and/or politically) conservative individual is in some senses less evolutionarily advanced than his liberal brethren.
Talk about a qualified statement! But how do I arrive at this hypothesis? Basically, it comes down to fear, and how we as a species treat fear-inducing stimuli. Fear is a useful biological reaction, but much of humanity’s progress has involved overcoming frightening things. The ability to achieve flight; exploration of inhospitable areas on and off Earth; interaction with other cultures within our own species: all acts that required behavior contrary to what instinct might dictate, yet all acts that have yielded immeasurable benefit for humanity.
Now, let us examine the conservative ethos. In popular politics and social commentary, the overriding emotion is fear. Fear of government; fear of gays; fear of change; fear of socialism. The word “fear” may not be used in many or even any of the statements made about these subjects by conservatives, but it’s most often the underlying emotion, the driving force behind an argument that the politician or popular speaker is hoping will bring his message home, bypassing more logical or rational analyses in favor of a response from the gut. Whether any individual argument is logically sound, presenting it in a shroud of fear does not belie the fact that the logic often seems less important than the emotion.
Which is not to say that liberals don’t sometimes employ similar tactics, but in the age of the “party of no” it’s fairly obvious as to which camp employs them more often. And, as such, is it unreasonable to hypothesize that part of the impetus for the more conservatively-minded among us is that they are less developed? That their mental progress is not yet sufficient to overcome as much biological bias as others are able to? That gays and taxes and health reform and the less fortunate are simply too much like the cheetah to risk trusting?
This is my hypothesis.
Comments
I disagree with you completely. Is it unreasonable to hypothesize that part of the impetus for the more conservatively-minded among us is that they are less developed? Indeed it is, and not only that, but further solidifies the idea that neither conservatives nor liberals are willing to attempt to understand the others viewpoint, instead more content to demonize the opposing side, turning political affiliation into a new racism.
First, I’d like to address something that many people seem to miss when it comes to politics: There is almost never a definite right or wrong to a situation. Take the healthcare reform as an example.While I agree that it must be done, there are several ways health reform can go wrong, and I can see the argument against it. We have two ongoing wars, which cost incredible amounts of money we don’t have, which increases the national debt while our economy collapses. If the healthcare reform were to go wrong now, the issues it would create could be irreversible for decades.
While I am for gay marriage, my father isn’t so enthusiastic about it. He was raised in a catholic home, and has been taught all his life that simply being gay is a sin. While he has no problem with the thought of gays getting married, it goes against what he was taught for most of his life, and it takes remarkable will to go against what has been drilled into his basic beliefs of what is right and wrong.
If there is one thing that our history has proven, it is that intensity wins. The minority can overwhelm the majority if they are vigorous about what they stand for. Conservative groups are fighting to take control of congress back, and with the November elections close at hand, they believe fear to be their best bet for re-taking congress. Fear may not last long as a political tool, but they believe it may last long enough that come November, they can take control of the legislative branch again.
People disagree. That is fact, it is inevitable. What one side sees as evolution another sees as a violent mutation. Intensity wins, and right now the conservatives are giving it everything they’ve got.
By Robo_Leader on 02/09/10
You might characterize my hypothesis as an attempt to “demonize” conservatives, but I don’t think it is. Is it perhaps a little tongue-in-cheeck? Yes. But is there not also a little truth to it? (Note that I am neither proposing we treat conservatives as inferior, nor that, if such a biological impediment does exist, it is therefore justifiable to hold certain offensive positions.)
Indeed, some of your statements only help my point. “Intensity wins” is a great differentiating factor between a more liberal mindset and a more conservative one, at least when using those two terms as popularly construed. Not just politicians, but also the conservative base seems willing to interpret important life issues on an emotional, often fear-laden level much more often than those of a liberal mindset will tend to. Relying instead on logic almost always makes the most sense, at least in my opinion–many points supported by fear-inducing rhetoric may in fact also be logical–but using fear instead of logic as your catalyst betrays what I believe to be an unfortunate dependence on emotion (most often fear) to garner support, rather than appealing to the organ that has allowed humanity to be so successful (the brain).
I used actual political examples to help flesh out my point, but you don’t need to talk about things in terms of “right and wrong” on a policy level to understand what I’m getting at. It’s a question of mentality and approach, not of who makes the most objective sense.
By CyberMonk on 02/09/10