The Righteous Mind

I want to recommend a book to you. Truthfully, I haven't read it yet but I watched an interview with the author, Jonathon Haidt, on Bill Moyers' Journal and the author expounded on its premise and it is one that will challenge the way you think. That assumes that you are willing to have that challenged. The title of the book is “The Righteous Mind” and it deals with how, when we are thinking, we come to a place we call righteousness. I am not dealing with religious thought here although the book does say that we deal with many issues in the same way that we think about religiosity.

The book deals with how we, as a society, think about social and political issues and come to believe that our conclusions a correct (righteous) and it then must follow that the opposing thought will be wrong (unrighteous). In it the book argues that we do not necessarily proceed to conclusions in a rational manner but rather that we are evolved to reach conclusions based on how it will support our position in our societal group. It is a survival skill, in other words. Mr. Haidt says that it is only when we create an opportunity for conflicting thoughts to come together without being critical or demonizing the other side that we have the opportunity for compromise and rational thought to prevail. If we seek to gain advantage by calling the other side stupid or otherwise delegitimizing them then we have retreated into our enclave where reason is not possible.

As you know, I tend to lean to the left of center but I think I stay pretty close to the center. Depending on where you are you may not see it that way. However, I have found that I do see the rationality of some conservative thought and the flaws in traditional liberal thinking. I try to see the nuances between the poles. Let me give you an example. I can see how unrestricted government subsidization can create a dependent class and lessen the drive to provide for one's self and family. However, I strongly believe that we should not allow our fellow citizens, through no fault of their own, to go without sustenance or health care. I recognize that there is a tension inherent in those positions but I cannot accept that we are powerless to alleviate the burdens. That is the purpose of societies, after all. What has to happen is that people from both ends of the spectrum must come together to reason. The purpose of the reason must not be to bring the opposition into the light but rather to find something in the middle that may accomplish our desire, although imperfectly. We must get rid of the notion that compromise is evil.

When I started writing this column I told the Editor that my purpose was to try to create a space where people of opposing thought could reason together free from the vitriolic speech that causes one to become defensive and the blood to boil. I have independently come to some of the conclusions reached in this book but I lacked the skill to be able to present my beliefs. That is why I always emphasize that the opinions I posit are “My Take” and then ask for your comments, pro or con. It is because I hope to create that space for conversation. Well, Mr. Haidt is a much more skilled writer and thinker than I am and I intend to read the book in addition to the critics remarks that I have seen.

His interview with Bill Moyers was enlightening. Many of you will recognize Mr. Moyers' name as being a renowned liberal but don't let that put you off. If you are of a conservative persuasion then you will delight at Mr. Moyers being contradicted and if you are of a liberal persuasion then you may find some reason to accept nuances.

Mr. Haidt points out that in this technological age we simply are not exposed to viewpoints other than our own. With the profusion of television channels and the internet we can go to sites that support our viewpoints and gain the confirmation that we need that our views are righteous.

I noticed that in the Sunday paper there were three editorials that expounded on conserative viewpoints. One quoted a conservative darling, Ayn Rand. Another spoke of watching Hannity and the other one took on my column about Obama and the Democrats. For me, I think Ayn Rand was a hypocrite and I can assure you that I never watch Hannity. As for the other, I think I probably know more about Kentucky Democrats than he does. See how that sets us up for conflict? Unless we, and I am speaking collectively, are willing to drop the pejoratives and try to find some common ground government of, by and for the people is impossible. And we have to give our elected representatives permission to seek solutions other than victory or capitulation.

I am going to end this with the link to Bill Moyers' interview. It is www.billmoyers.com. Then do a search for the episode with Jonathon Haidt. You can also find the interview on my blog at www.rfmoore.blogspot.com. I urge you to watch the interview. It could change the way you view things.

That is my take on the conundrum we face in our political system. Let me know what you think of either this column or the Moyers interview.