Toxic emotions underlying our political inequality

This is the first post in a series on toxic emotions Politics.

The main theme of this blog is the importance of emotions in understanding our political beliefs. You might want to believe that we are not, but we are free in our heads or conservative, in our gut.

When asked why we are liberal or conservative, we give a reason. We may justify opinions based on evidence and reflection on what we have learned from personal experience. To some extent, the reason we give political opinions must be realistic and honest. But in many cases, this cannot be the whole story.

As he is an “originalist” or “strict constructionist”, Supreme Court judges are not conservative. He is an originalist because he is conservative. Antonin Scalia objected to this and even called it a slander, but his argument is unconvincing. Liberal justice is not liberal because it believes in a “living constitution.” They believe in the living constitution because they are liberals. For Ruth Bader Ginsberg, her starting point and core premise for justice philosophy It was a perception of fraud. For Scalia, the starting point was what he recognized as the need to defend the moral decadence and traditional values ​​of society. This is why my friends Scalia and Ginsburg continued to oppose them for decades.

In modern America, we are increasingly divided by feelings of responsiveness. Humiliationand fear. On the right, our current politics are dominated by dissatisfaction. It’s about others getting what we worked so hard on, that liberal values ​​are destroying the moral foundations of society, and being taught to disgrace and hate a country that our children are proud of. To the extreme, these complaints have become increasingly malignant, and for decades, as sentiment of resentment and from top-down by demagogues and partisan media, they now justify efforts in the threat of violence and threat of violence against opponents.

On the left, political attitudes are dominated by a variety of sets of complaints, a sense of injustice that is often becoming malignant. It justifies rog-worrisome and self-righteous demand (and self-censorship, self-censorship through fear) and justifies the act of “cancellation.”

However, extreme and dangerous political attitudes arise mostly from understandable concerns. In response to actual events, if we can talk about these feelings and these feelings in their sources, we have the opportunity to arrest this malignant process.

Res and the Politics of Humiliation

Historian Francis Fukuyama presented a compelling analysis of political history and emotional forces that influence our present moment. Fukuyama believes that to understand modern political events, a better theory of the human soul is necessary.

Fukuyama argues from Hegel’s philosophy of history that politics is not only energised than economic self-interest (assumed by many theories), but also by the fundamental human needs of what we call the “inner sense of dignity.” He believes that, both individually and as a member of the group, is an experiment of recognition, honor, respect and pride, a driving force behind political events around the world, and an experiment of dignity, honor, respect and pride. Fukuyama calls this the politics of responsiveness.

Philosopher Michael Sandel presented a similar analysis to explain current political polarization and dissatisfaction. Sandel, following Hegel, agrees that we are motivated by a need for recognition, a sense of gratitude and respect.

Sandel argues that political divisions in modern American society are partly based on the confluence of economic but more fundamentally psychological forces. In our increasingly powerful and inequality society, men without universities education They suffer from more than losses in employment safety and stagnation or lower wages. They experienced the loss of “social respect.” In past generations, these workers were more widely respected for their contribution to society and for their prosperity that many of us enjoy. The lack of respect is at least as much as financial dissatisfaction as it is the source of their responsiveness. Financial security is important, but feelings of pride are even more important. Sandel calls this a politics of humiliation.

Fukuyama and Sandel believe that a society that cannot provide many people with a feeling of dignity and pride, is a society that limits the hope of achieving social respect, and that will become a society that is deeply divided between “we” and “them” and at risk of the negative effects of dignity and vulnerability on the appeal of the devil.

The politics of terror

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum presented a different understanding of the emotional causes of our current political polarization. Nussbaum believes we are becoming increasingly divided into fear.

Nussbaum contrasts with love, compassion, hope, and the feelings that unite people who separate us from others. angerdisgust, and envy. In Nussbaum’s analysis, fear is the most fundamental thing of these emotions. Anger, disgust, and vy hope are the “children” of fear. These feelings and their expressions in political attitudes (e.g. Racism, Xenophobiaanti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia, and fear of people with disabilities) is ultimately based on fear and draws power from fear.

Nussbaum calls fear “tyrants.” Fear weakens compassion and contracts our care and circle of concern. Fear increases tribalism in its positive form. cooperation Within the tribe, and its destructive form, is the excretion, hatred, and dehumanization of others. Fear increases support for authoritarianism, violence, atrocities, and revenge. Fear (my way of life is at risk) and res (“they” get what I deserve) are particularly toxic mixes.

There is an antidote to these malignant political sentiments. In the next post, I will explain how we can alleviate the toxic emotions that currently dominate America’s political life.