Liberals Need to Take Their Fingertips Out of Their Ears

I actually asked Karen Stenner, the writer of “The Authoritarian Dynamic” and no enthusiast of the president, on her behalf explanation of the political dynamic in today’s struggle between still left and correct. She emailed back:

Consider a few of the core features of our ideal liberal democracy: absolutely unfettered freedom and diversity; acceptance and promotion of multiculturalism; permitting retention of individual identities; maintenance of individual communities, lifestyles and ideals; permitting open up criticism of leaders, authorities and establishments; unrestrained free expression (of what various will consider unpleasant/outrageous/unacceptable ideas); stringent prohibitions on authorities intervention in ‘non-public’ moral choices.

Actually, Stenner argues, these values will be the subject of intense debate. They lie at the key of what divides America:

These reflect a few of the fundamental fault lines of human conflict and are unlikely ever to be resolved or settled because we can’t you need to be socialized or educated away of our stances on these issues, as they are the product of deep-seated, largely heritable predispositions that trigger us to vary in our preference for and in our capability to cope with freedom and diversity, novelty and complexity, vs oneness and sameness.

Not only will be the ideals that the left uses for granted heatedly disputed in lots of sections of the country, the way various Democratic partisans assert that their ideals supplant or transcend traditional beliefs serves to mobilize the proper.

Newsletter Sign Up Read on the main story Join the Opinion Today Newsletter Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the changing times editorial table and contributing authors from all over the world. Make sure you verify you’re not a robot by clicking on the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You need to select a newsletter a subscription to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times’s products and services. Thank you for subscribing. One has occurred. Please make an effort again later. View new York Times newsletters.

Stenner makes the point that

liberal democracy’s allowance of the things inevitably creates conditions of “normative threat,” arousing the basic authoritarian fears about threats to oneness and sameness, which activate those predispositions – in regards to a third of all western populations lean toward authoritarianism – and cause the improved manifestation of racial, moral and political intolerance.

I actually am quoting Stenner – and later on in this column, the public plan analyst Eric Schnurer – at duration because they both help to make arguments about complex thoughts with precision and health care.

“Libertarians and/non-authoritarians,” Stenner writes,

will be likewise aroused and activated in these conditions, and approach toward positions of higher racial, moral and political tolerance because of this. Which rises political polarization of both camps, which further rises normative threat, therefore it moves on. This is exactly what After all by the core factors of liberal democracy creating circumstances that inevitably undermine it.

How does the undermining process function?

A system like our great liberal democracy, which does not place any constraints on critiques of leaders, authorities and establishments; and does not let any suppression of thoughts no matter how harmful to the system or objectionable to its residents; and does not permit itself to choose who can come in, or stay, based on their acceptance/rejection of fundamental liberal democratic ideals, has both: (1) assured perpetual generation of circumstances of normative risk, and all of the activation, polarization, and conflict that that produces, and (2) disallowed all means for protecting itself against that “authoritarian dynamic,” which normally might have included permitting: some selectivity in regard to the fundamental ideals of those who are allowed to come, and to stay; constraints on specific varieties of critiques of leaders, authorities and establishments; constraints on free speech that exclude racist or intolerant speech; some capability to write moral strictures into people policy to reflect classic beliefs where the majority “draws the range.” If a liberal democracy were to permit those things, it could no longer be considered a liberal democracy. But if it generally does not let those factors, it is very difficult to protect itself from fundamental threats to its continuing existence.

Stenner’s examination poses a strategic dilemma for liberalism and the Democratic Party. Insofar as Democrats look for to stem the conservative tide, a crucial aspect will be their capability to increase their knowledge of their own function in the process which has culminated in conservative dominance.

Eric Schnurer, a article writer and public sector administration consultant who has worked for most Democratic politicians and presidential candidates, addresses what he sees as the lack of recognition for liberals of what motivates conservative voters.

“Both sides of the increasingly polarized divide see the different as trying to extirpate their way of life – and not inaccurately,” Schnurer wrote in “War on the Blue States” in U.S. News and World Survey earlier this month:

Blue America spent the previous eight years dictating both economic and cultural alterations invalidating virtually every aspect of Crimson America. Liberals find all that as both righteous and benevolent – we’re both advertising better values and ready to help train them to become more like us.

Schnurer elaborated upon this line of idea in an email:

The prototypical Trump voter sees a changing America leaving him behind; part of the is economic, part of it demographic, part cultural. I think liberals tend to find this as a thin covers for racism, a reflection of troglodyte viewpoints, and in any event unwarranted as the community these folks are resisting will be better possibly for them only if they’d let it, giving up their benighted spiritual views, accepting job training in the brand new technologies, and ideally moving to 1 or the different coasts or at least the closest key city.

Crimson and blue America often attract diametrically opposed conclusions from the same experience and developments, Schnurer contends:

I actually don’t think there’s many argument that the modern economy is killing away small towns, US-based developing, the interior of the united states generally, etc. There is certainly, or could be, an argument as to whether that’s just the necessary functioning of larger economic forces, or whether there will be political choices which may have produced, or at least aided and abetted, those outcomes. In any event, while most of us in Blue Globe see these alterations as beneficent, they have had devastating effects on the economies of “red” communities.

Schnurer observes that

This is a classic political issue of general benefit at the cost of specific individual harm. At a minimum, “we” – as a country but as well as a self-styled progressive subset of this country – have given inadequate thought to those harms and how exactly to ameliorate them; but I think you can also make the argument that people have exacerbated them.

Long-term trends may be working in favor of the still left, as the new governor’s races on Virginia and NJ suggest, but liberals, Schnurer argues, are employing policy to accelerate the procedure without determining the costs:

For example, we’re able to adopt protectionist policies, which of training we haven’t because both mainstream Democrats and Republicans find them as counterproductive in the long run; but we have also attempted even more actively to steer the economy more quickly to the likely, appropriate, outcome by shifting countrywide tax and spending priorities toward brand-new energy technologies, and away from fossil fuels.

Schnurer notes that

You don’t have to choose the right’s “war on coal” rhetoric to accept that, whether or not that’s the course the world is headed, anyway, hastening coal’s demise and shifting federal subsidy plan away from it and into alternative energy sources will have a negative economic influence on certain communities.

As well as the economic setbacks experienced in heavily Republican regions of the country, Schnurer, himself a liberal, argues that blue America has over the last decade declared war on the “red way of life.”

He makes a circumstance nearly the same as Stenner’s:

The political, economic, and cultural triumph nationwide of a couple of principles and realities essentially alien to many Americans is viewed as (a) being imposed after them, and (b) overturning a lot of what they take for granted in their lives – and I don’t think they’re wrong about this. I think they’ve risen in angry revolt, and today intend to surrender to the “elite” in the same terms that they’ve been given to. I don’t think this is good – actually, I think it’s an extremely dangerous situation – but I think we have to understand it so as to responsibly address it.

Do liberals actually have to understand – or empathize with – their various antagonists, the women and men who are sharply significant of the liberal project?

Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard, observes that “believers in liberal democracy have unilaterally disarmed in the defense of the institution” simply by agreeing in many cases with the premise of the Trump campaign: “that the country is a hopeless swamp.” This still left Democrats “defenseless when he proposed to drain it.”

Where, Pinker asks,

will be the liberals who are willing to claim that liberal democracy has worked? That environmental regulations have slashed surroundings pollutants while allowing Americans to drive more miles and burn up more fuel? That interpersonal transfers have lowered poverty rates fivefold? That globalization features allowed Americans to afford more food, clothing, TVs, autos, and air-conditioners? That overseas companies have prevented nuclear battle, and reduced the rate of death in warfare by 90 percent? That environmental treaties will be recovery the hole in the ozone level?

Pinker remains confident:

Progress always must struggle headwinds. Human character doesn’t switch, and the appeal of regressive impulses is certainly perennial. The forces of liberalism, modernity, cosmopolitanism, the open up society, and Enlightenment ideals always have to force against our innate tribalism, authoritarianism, and thirst for vengeance. We can even acknowledge these instincts in ourselves, possibly in Trump’s cavalier remarks about the rule of legislation.

Pinker continues:

Over the longer run, I think the forces of modernity prevail – affluence, education, mobility, communication, and generational replacement. Trumpism, like Brexit and European populism, are good old men’s actions: support drops off sharply with time.

Pinker is optimistic about the near future. I hope he’s right.

The problem is that whether or not Pinker is right, his analysis does not preclude a sustained period in which the anti-democratic right dominates American politics. There is absolutely no telling how prolonged it will be before the movements Trump has mobilized will have run its training. Nor can we anticipate – if and when Trumpism does implode – how comprehensive the damage will come to be that Pinker’s “forces of modernity” will need to repair.

Read more on: http://nytimes.com