Red XOR Blue?

I'm reading Jsmes Ault's _Spirit and Flesh_, as a result of discussions on siderea's LJ. It's basically a liberal sociologist's extended visit with a fundamentalist church on the outskirts of Worcester.

One of the things that I think is going on but not fully stated in this book is a major philosophical difference between conservatives and liberals over the place of logic in the course of arguments. The liberal stands on shaky ground, because the basis of life takes the form of negotiations with other people. Adulthood is defined by the ability to make contracts, exchanges of goods and services and powers and responsibilities. Written words are important because they can nail down meanings as being the same for two parties, serving as a reference in the case of dispute. Relationships are negotiated commitments. In that environment, lying or concealing your intentions -- anything except transparency and honesty -- is fatal to your reputation.

The conservative stands on firm ground: the basis of life is the imposed obligation, which may be accepted gladly or resentfully, but nevertheless is not questioned. There is a distinct power imbalance in these relationships, where an authority is taken for granted. Adulthood means formally accepting your duties and responsibilities, acknowledging them rather than neogitating them. Oral traditions are adaptable, malleable -- there is always another aphorism which is more convenient than another one, and without a written record, there is no history to constantly point out contradictions. Information is passed throughout the community orally, so verbal reports are considered acceptbale evidence. Flexibility is achieved by ignoring inconvenient history.

The application of these two approaches to current political situations -- for example, the rationale for the war in Iraq -- is left as an exercies for the student.

Red XOR Blue?

I'm reading Jsmes Ault's _Spirit and Flesh_, as a result of discussions on siderea's LJ. It's basically a liberal sociologist's extended visit with a fundamentalist church on the outskirts of Worcester.

One of the things that I think is going on but not fully stated in this book is a major philosophical difference between conservatives and liberals over the place of logic in the course of arguments. The liberal stands on shaky ground, because the basis of life takes the form of negotiations with other people. Adulthood is defined by the ability to make contracts, exchanges of goods and services and powers and responsibilities. Written words are important because they can nail down meanings as being the same for two parties, serving as a reference in the case of dispute. Relationships are negotiated commitments. In that environment, lying or concealing your intentions -- anything except transparency and honesty -- is fatal to your reputation.

The conservative stands on firm ground: the basis of life is the imposed obligation, which may be accepted gladly or resentfully, but nevertheless is not questioned. There is a distinct power imbalance in these relationships, where an authority is taken for granted. Adulthood means formally accepting your duties and responsibilities, acknowledging them rather than neogitating them. Oral traditions are adaptable, malleable -- there is always another aphorism which is more convenient than another one, and without a written record, there is no history to constantly point out contradictions. Information is passed throughout the community orally, so verbal reports are considered acceptbale evidence. Flexibility is achieved by ignoring inconvenient history.

The application of these two approaches to current political situations -- for example, the rationale for the war in Iraq -- is left as an exercies for the student.