Thinking Points Discussion of Chapter 6 - Part 2: More About American Values

In the book "Emotional Intelligence," the author explains that the roots of morality can be found in empathy. Since it is empathizing with, and sharing in the distress of another, that causes us to follow certain moral principles. The whole idea for morality and responsibility, is to try as best we can to live inside the skin of another person, and to know at a gut level what it is like to be in the position of the other person. Responsibility requires that we seek to understand.

What is the opposite of that? Leaving people on their own.

The last question, "Does investing the bulk of taxpayer money in military capacity to use force really make us safer?" Again, empathy plays a part. It requires that we seek to understand why it is our enemies are so afraid of us, and to build bridges, or make reparations where possible. It requires the skill of being a good listener. If we would only insist on this basic princible, for example, in the case of Iran. Why do they hate us, (why are they afraid of us?) We might learn some inconvienient truths about our own government, and get to the real source of the problem, and fix it.

Dmullin,

quote:"...empathy plays a part. It requires that we seek to understand why it is our enemies are so afraid of us..."

If I understand framing correctly then the very concept of an enemy makes the empathetic response unlikely. Invoking the concept means that you have already judged the situation as a serious threat that probably requires forceful action. Enemy thinking is a key part of the problem.

The challenge is to invoke the empathy response before you analyze the situation so that the "requirements" of empathy need to be met in order to make sense. If you do not invoke the empathy response, then part of your audience may still be thinking from the moral order perspective and your argument will not make sense.

International situations are very challenging because we seem to be programmed as mammals to have a very strong in-group identification that makes enemies out of anyone who appears different, thus it seems like it is easier to invoke an enemy frame than it is to invoke an empathetic nurturing frame.

Good comment.

Due perhaps to our biology, we have limits to our empathy--it typically does not extend beyond the boundary of the Tribe. By "tribe", I mean the category of "We"--be it a nation, globe, or community of any sort.

Progressives tend to have a wide, broad "We" that extends beyond the boundaries of America-as-nation. For this reason, Conseratives often accuse us of "sympathizing with the enemy", "seeking a one-world government", "kowtowing to international law", etc.

While video taping people on Earth Day for my video documentry on Progressive Values, I ran into Joe, who was working responsibly on cleaning up a street in Oakland. To see his interview on Youtube see: What are Progressive Values?
http://youtube.com/group/ProgressiveValues

edwin

donberg,

Your right. The very concept of an enemy makes the empathetic response unlikely, because at the very heart of having an enemy is fear. How do you empathize with an individual who wants to harm you? This doesn't add up.

I agree, enemy thinking is a key part of the problem. What I was trying to get at, is, how do we reverse enemy thinking? Unfortunately, enemy thinking is placed in us, in some cases, at a very early age. For example, racism. By adding empathy to those we are taught to be afraid of, along side our readiness to defend ourselves, we can discover that our enemies are not really our enemies. For now, paradoxical thinking is all I have until I get better at framing.

I was responding to the question of whether investing the bulk of taxpayer money in a strong military, ready to use force, makes us safer. The answer, of course, is "no." At least, not that alone. Without adding empathy to leadership, however, the tension between enemies remain. Even escalates. Our leaders need the added value of empathy as part of ensuring security. Not just, "might makes right." Empathy would help quell tensions, and reduce the state of fear we live in as part of our having, freedom from fear. Our leaders can't just ask for a huge military budget, and have a willingness to use force. They must have empathy, and employ diplomacy as part of being strong, and providing security. Then, paradoxically, we wouldn't need so much tax payer money in militarism as security.

Thank You for keeping my attention on framing. Do you have any suggestions for what I'm trying to get at as far as how to talk about framing enemies and empathy.

Hi Joe,

Excellent work, as always. I'm particularly drawn to the discussion of security this week - although both responsibility and integrity are also important virtues - because I think security offers the clearest lens through which to view post-WWII U.S. policy.

Since the late 1930s, as it became apparent that German and (especially) Japanese interests were on a collision course with our own, the U.S. has steadily transformed herself into a security state, both in foreign and in domestic policy. By this time in our history, war appeared to be good for business. The U.S. had fought four wars from 1898-1918 - the Spanish-American War (1898), the Philippine Revolt (1899-1907), the Punitive Expedition in Mexico (1916), and World War I (1917-1918). During that period, U.S. industry had flourished, largely through sales to foreign markets with our military serving as an overseas risk management agent. (See my essay "Risk- vs. Pareto-based Analysis" in the Ch. 5 discussion).

After World War I, however, the U.S. largely demobilized her military, as Woodrow Wilson tried to breathe life into the dream of a League of Nations, where war would be made illegal and disputes resolved by means of negotiation. Because many U.S. firms were still dependent on overseas markets to absorb surplus production, and it seemed our military would no longer serve as a risk management agent, our financial markets took up that task in the form of highly speculative "derivative instruments" such as leveraged stock futures, hedge funds, and the like.

In essence, U.S. firms were marketing their overseas and domestic risks. That is, they were shifting onto the market as a whole the risk that the U.S. government or a foreign government might radically its change labor laws and/or tariffs, and thereby turn profitable investments into losing investments. So long as both the political scene at home and abroad remained fairly calm, so the level of risk could reasonably be foreseen, this market-based risk management worked well ... well enough to give us the "Roaring Twenties."

But the political scene did not remain calm. In the U.S. - and worldwide - labor union movements had gained enough political clout to force major changes in labor laws. The 1920s also saw a rise in protective tariffs, in the U.S. and elsewhere, and the emergence of anti-colonial nationalist movements. New technologies such as the widespread availability of electricity, the airplane, the automobile, and radio shifted both the economic and international playing fields. Japan had fully come out of her centuries-long isolationist shell and emerged as a potential industrial rival. The Versailles restrictions had created such violent unrest in Germany that it became apparent the liberal Weimar Republic could not long endure.

By the autumn of 1929, this accumulation of risk - coupled with growing rumbles of insider trading and rapacious speculation - became too much for the market to bear. The risk management "balloon" popped and the market plunged, evaporating a decade's worth of "paper wealth" within weeks. The U.S. tumbled into the Great Depression, dragging much of the rest of the world with it.

Such ended America's first (and arguably last) experiment in using the market rather than the military as the principal risk management tool. In Germany, the Depression fanned the flames of Versailles resentment and brought Hitler to power. In Japan, the perception that the vaunted U.S. economy was a "paper tiger" encouraged already imperialist movements to set their eyes on China, a collection of fragmented tribes whose central government, such as one existed, was by then a U.S. protectorate.

By the late 1930s, these looming wars offered an opportunity for what Chalmers Johnson calls "military Keynesianism." FDR promised that the U.S. would be "the arsenal of democracy," and 1940 saw a both a rise AND A SHIFT in U.S. production. Factories were retooled from civilian to military products, financed by contracts for overseas sales to our soon-to-be allies, and also increasingly by war bonds. It was this explosion in demand for and production of military hardware - our becoming a Security State whose principal contribution to the world was military rather than idealistic or industrial - that lifted the U.S. economy out of the Depression.

After World War II, there was the very real (and perhaps legitimate) fear that to dismantle this Security State - and return to civilian production and market-based risk management - might well trigger another Great Depression. Added to that fear was recognition that Soviet domination of post-war Eastern Europe, followed by the consolidation of power in China by Mao Tsedong's Communist Party, sealed off those markets to U.S. firms. The communist wave appeared to be rising. States that "went red" not only changed their political hue; they also became "red ink" for corporate interests whose investments were seized by nationalization or made unprofitable by strict labor and market controls.

So the U.S. became, more and more, a Security State. Through the newly-formed CIA, and occasionally backed by the military, the U.S. government went into the "regime change" business. Force and the threat of force once again became our primary risk management tool, as they had been from 1898-1918. Martial values were increasingly idolized, each new generation taught to believe that our military were "our bravest and best." Tom Brokaw crowned World War II veterans as "Our Greatest Generation," and more and more civic holidays such as Labor Day became occasions for military and veterans' parades.

Meanwhile, our domestic economy was increasingly "hollowed out," entire sectors of production, indeed vast regions of our country, devoted to or dependent on defense contracts or their workers. Despite our at best mediocre post-war military record, pro-military films and propaganda created the impression of the U.S. as the dominant world power, able to "create stability" at will where she wished, guaranteeing (or at least seeming to guarantee) the profits of U.S. firms investing in every corner of the globe. With foreign investment seemingly so low-risk and likely profits so much greater due to cheaper labor and unsaturated local markets, more and more U.S. production went overseas, the jobs replaced - to the extent they have been - by the retail and service industries.

Thus, like previous Security States from Rome to Great Britain, Americans' standard of living is increasingly dependent on creating and preserving an impression of U.S. military dominance, what neoconservatives call the "Pax Americana." For that is all we produce nowadays.

And once that facade cracks - as it already is doing in Iraq - the hollowness of a Security-State economy will leave us facing the same grim prospect that eventually confronts every Security State: bankruptcy.

What happens then - whether we seize on that as an excuse to revoke or renew the promises of our Constitution - will determine our future as a nation. But one thing is certain:

No Security State lasts forever.

Crissie

Fascinating discussion of differences in the dual meanings of security.

Once again, I'm struck by the geometry of these differences. How the strict "security as fist" is a linear "striking" versus the nurturing "security as boundary", which is a perimeter, circumscribing function.

Just to add some complexity though, conservatives often promote components of this "security as boundary" element--two examples are the Minutemen/anti-Immigrant mentality and the SDI proposal under Reagan, recently resurrected (SDI is the "space shield" idea that supposedly will protect us from nuclear attack)

I think this security analysis also applies to crime on a more local, municipal level. Police are viewed in this dual role in their function in neighborhoods--they simultaneously "go after criminals" and "act as a bulwark" against crime. In the murals on the walls of schools in my neighborhood of Queens, NY, policemen are portrayed as smiling benevolent parents, shielding the community. The reality is often much different, although not entirely inconsistent with this image.

Personally I think we need to take a dual approach to security framing--not only activate the latent deep "boundary" frames, but also acknowledge that application of proactive, punitive definitions of security are sometimes appropriate. However, not to the insane extent of our current administration.

Hiya extrapol,

I think at its core, security is both less and more a contested concept than it seems. Fundamentally, security is about the predictability and management of risk. We don't so much need to "eliminate risk" to feel secure - it's impossible to eliminate risk from our lives - but rather we simply need to feel that we can PREDICT the risks we'll encounter, and that we have options for MANAGING those risks. The classic example is our differing perceptions of security in driving vs. flying.

Most people feel more secure driving a car than riding in an airliner. Objectively, this is "wrong." If you look at the risk of death per hour of travel, you're FAR more likely to die in a car than in an airliner. But we can better predict the risks we'll face while driving (they are common experiences), and we have a set of strategies for managing those risks (defensive driving skills, etc.). Most of us have very little idea of the risks we might face while riding in an airliner, and we have very few strategies for managing those risks we do know about because we're not in control of the aircraft. So while the risk of death per hour of travel is MUCH less in an airliner, we FEEL "more secure" behind the wheel of our cars.

That distinction is important when we talk about "security." We often make choices that make us FEEL "more secure" - we can better predict the risks, and feel we have more options for managing them - but in fact place us in far greater danger than the alternatives.

When we frame "security" in terms of "predicting and managing risk," it's easier to understand concepts like Othering (xenophobia, tribalism, racism, etc.). Language and culture shape how we think about and react to situations and others' behavior. People of different languages or cultures seem more dangerous, because we're less able to predict their responses - sometimes we can't even understand what they're saying - and less able to manage the risks when things go wrong.

So we try to avoid Others, or to render them powerless to interfere with the more predictable, more manageable risks of our lives (such as doing business in their countries, or shopping in their neighborhoods). This of course breeds resentment, and in fact puts us MORE at risk than if we were to take the time to learn their languages and cultures and deal with them as equal partners. But because we have a whole set of established strategies for marginalizing Others - dominance by force or threat of force - we FEEL "more secure" if we deal with Others that way.

Conservatism is, at its deepest roots, the impulse to eliminate unpredictable or unmanageable risks ... to FEEL "secure" even if that means creating or accepting more dangers:

* Fundamentalist religions allow us to predict and manage beliefs about the nature of our world ... even if those beliefs are scientifically invalid.

* Strict and strictly-enforced moral codes limit our behavior to predictable and manageable norms ... even if we sometimes punish the innocent, or make out-of-norm people resentful and angry.

* Limiting immigration to those who are like us, and compelling assimilation by other immigrants to adopt our language and culture, makes our society more uniform, more predictable and manageable ... even if it costs us the talents or friendship of those who don't want to be like us.

* Demands for "strict constructionist" judges make it less likely that "some unelected judge" will change the rules ... even if the our society has changed such that the old law no longer works well.

* A "unitary executive" and a "blank check" legislature render policymaking more predictable and manageable, because there are fewer voices to consider and fewer interests to appease ... even if it means a wrong-headed executive choose ruinous policies.

* Having a massive military makes international relations more predictable and manageable, because we simply demand what we want by force or the threat of force ... even if that policy makes it even more likely that other countries or groups will resist that force with force.

* Universal surveillance makes both law enforcement and domestic politics more predictable and manageable, because we know (or think we can know) who the trouble makers are and can stop them before they acquire the means to break (or change) the law ... even if that means surrendering our right to political dissent, leading to unrest and revolution, or tyranny.

All of these "conservative" ideas are, at their core, about FEELING "more secure" - even at FAR greater actual risk - by refusing to engage the world except on terms that we can (or think we can) predict and control. Conservatives are willing to accept more ACTUAL risk in exchange for a greater FEELING of "security" ... because to minimize the ACTUAL risk would require radical changes in worldview, and at times simply accepting that some risks cannot be completely predicted ... or managed.

Crissie

Does responsibility include authority figures being accountable to the public?

I'm surprised to hear that the strict father model doesn't hold authority figures accountable. The examples cited come from the Bush administration, who are authoritarian conservatives, and it's hard to determine what those guys stand for except for the continuation of their own political power. We've seen religious authorities like Jim Bakker and Ted Haggard and Jimmy Lee Swaggert fall from grace with the public when their moral shortcomings were revealed. There has always been a principle that no one is above the law in this country. The ultimate moral authority in this country is the Bible, where the moral code of the strict father model is set out. The Bible reveals absolute morality, and if a leader doesn't act morally then he or she doesn't deserve to be a leader. Look at the way they treated Bill Clinton.

The conservative view of responsibility is more limited than the liberal view. Milton Friedman said, if I remember correctly, that the only responsibility of the corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Progressives would add a couple of other dimensions--one to not cause harm to the public, e.g. pollution, and two to use its resources to benefit the community in which it operates, e.g. philanthropy.

If we want to express things in a language that conservatives can understand, we could say that the president is like the CEO, Congress is like the board of directors, and the public is like the shareholders. The CEO and board get their authority from the shareholders, who must vote them into office. In practice, of course, the shareholders don't exercise much power because they are disorganized. Ultimately, though, management has to answer to the shareholders.

I've often wondered if Bush doesn't model his presidential behavior after a CEO's behavior. In a corporation, the CEO is the decider. There is a unitary executive, as power flows from the top down and everyone is expected to implement the policies set by the board and CEO. The corporation is not a democracy nor a republic; it is an authoritarian hierarchy.

Is moral consistency a matter of consistent discipline or consistent concern for the well-being of ourselves and others?

I think it has to be both, though for discipline I would use the word wisdom; wisdom that directs compassion in helpful ways, and compassion that motivates us to use our wisdom to benefit others.

Does investing the bulk of taxpayer money in military capacity to use force really make us safer?

John Dean in his book "Conservatives without Conscience" cites a study of the psychology of political conservatism by John Joost of NYU (2003) that found "that people become or remain political conservatives because they have a heightened psychological need to manage uncertainty and threat." That fits with what we've been saying so far. Naturally a person preoccupied by threats would seek to obtain strength.

Unfortunately it seems that strength is now equated with using force. Americans want their leaders to be strong; after all, our national bird is the bald eagle, not the chicken. Most of our presidents until Clinton had military experience; I think Reagan was an exception, though he sometimes got his wartime Hollywood experience confused with the real thing. Somebody like Eisenhower didn't have to prove anything, whereas Clinton with his collegiate anti-war activities and Bush with his dubious record of military service have had to.

Negotiation seems to have fallen out of favor. To be a successful negotiator one has to have empathy. Having empathy doesn't neccessarily mean that you don't want to dominate the negotiation, but it means that one can understand the other side's concerns, which means that one has a better chance of avoiding a provocation. It seems like this administration has something to prove, which it does by seeking to overtly dominate others, which leads to a predictable reaction. Negotiation is seen as a sign of weakness, unless the negotiation involves determining the terms of the other side's surrender.

So, my answer is that it makes more sense to invest in policies that will defuse situations that might turn into conflicts. That is a lot cheaper than using force. I recently read a column urging an economic program in Iraq that would cost $100 million, which sounds expensive until, as he pointed out, that equalled 12 hours of military spending in Iraq.

"Does responsibility include authority figures being accountable to the public?"

I don't think so. Just look at parenting. In the conservative world view, a parent can do no wrong and children don't hold their parent's accountable. It's always the children's fault. If a kid does something bad it's because the kid didn't obey the parents. Obviously, abuse and how this gets replicated in children doesn't fit in with their world view.

Same goes with government. A leader can do no wrong. If things go wrong, it's because the leader wasn't obeyed.

In a nutshell, conservatives only believe they are accountable to their superiors. Accountability only goes upward; it's totally hierarchical.

Somehow Strict Father as a value doesn't see accurate to me. It's mentioned a lot on Rockridge. Wouldn't authoritarian be more accurate? It seems to me that authoritarianism is the more fundamental value. Then you have levels of strictness applied to that value. The more fundamental question is how useful, functional, etc. authoritarianism is.

There should be a debate in the country about authoritarianism and the harm it's done. A more functional approach is democratic, while it's a slower process, all sides are heard, more creative ideas surface and better decisions are made. Strict father gets in the way of that because it's a confusing term. At least to me.

edwin

a little comment on human nature, in-group identification, or tribalism.

I guess these things can be understood as humans just having a strong need to be comfortable with what we are familiar with. But this need not put limitations on our empathy, or desire to relate well with those who appear different.

Perhaps the problem is not human nature, but law.

Take for example the seemingly perpetual problem of racism. It's not so much that humans have a problem with getting over their fear of differences, but that it is against the law for "us" to attempt to relate well with "them." For example, in the 60s, it was against the law for two people to inter-racially marry. If I decided to brake the law and marry anyway, then someone had the right to use force on me, and take away my freedom if I kept resisting that law. That's how one would keep me from attempting to relate well with another who is different.

Perhaps the real problem of perpetuating tribalism, or a strong in-group identification, in a negative way, is top-down authority. The problem comes from those who designate themselves as having the right to lower the status of one group of people under another, so as to use them for whatever reason. Such as slave labor. Then, making it against the law for anyone to even attempt to relate well with those we are not suppose to.

The problem may not be human nature, (biology). Our fear of differences need not be a negative thing. Our fear of differences can be something that draws us out of ourselves, draws us out of our comfort zones, and helps us to expand on ourselves. This process gets retarded by those with power who wish to degrade, and use others for their benefit, and insist, with force, that the rest of us go along with it.

Then, security brakes down. Not so much because of human nature, but from a select few who wish to perpetuate the problem of divide and conquer. Then making it against the law for us to bring healing, and good relationality into the picture.

"Strangers" not "enemies." Thanks Joe.
       

I found much to value in David Berreby's book, Us and Them. Berreby explores aspects of in-group / out-group relationships in interesting and useful ways.

Berreby has an FAQ about the book at http://www.davidberreby.com/work1.htm . There's also a link to an excerpt from the first chapter (which I won't post here because the link is rather lengthy).

From a satisfied reader who likes to recommend books (http://bluepuzzle.org/books), cheers

etbnc

In looking at what has been going on in American foreign affairs, especially since I now live on an Indian reservation, I realize that certain dynamics have been in place for a long time.

Christianity has been used, for one thing, as something quite opposite to its core philosophical thrust. It is really a mask that hides true intent and lulls people into passivity so they can be acted upon.

In an analysis of this process by Oren Lyons of the Haudenoshaunee or Six Nations Confederacy, he proposes that this goes back to the time when peasants were separated from the land in Europe and Christianity was used as an instrument of assembling state power. Dispossessed and displaced poor people came to America and fell upon the indigenous inhabitants here in a displaced retribution.

Colonialism then, can be seen as a process that is more like a chemical chain reaction operating through the generations and across continents.

That same process is at work in the Middle East and we can't separate ourselves from it because we lack the ability to analyze history in terms of a long term psychology. We merely state a chronological sequence as if there were no passions, displaced hurts, or great hungers in us.

So, it seems to me that foreign adventures like the Iraq war come out of being unconscious. Also, the conservative instinct that comes from the past is reactive and is that part of us that believe that arguments are not settled by debate, but by being ruthless.

One might ask, why are movies and TV shows about the mafia consistently popular? In a sense these are people who are free to make their own rules and they are simpler than those imposed by a more regulated social order.

During the last election I had a dream. I saw a group of us standing on a football field, debating about whether to start a PAC or do some other thing. It was intense and interesting. But
at some point, a Republican in a football uniform came running up the field with a ball and knocked into us at full speed, ran over us with cleats and speeded on towards a touchdown.

I think the issue is whether the model of the warrior with a sword who is willing to use it, has given way in our present stage of social evolution to the kind of informed debate that the Constitutional framers saw as the basis for ongoing citizenship in a Republic.

The status of the military industrial complex that Chalmers Johnson has done such a great job of analyzing argues that many people put their faith in the strong arm with the sword and the ruthlessness to use it.

I think it would be useful if more progressives were talking about the lessons from history that America could learn from studying the perspective of Oren Lyons and other indigenous intellectuals. Are we going to continue seeing the world in colonialist terms, continuing to force others into submission and into our empire? Or are we going to find an alternative that really finds the true potential in the historic alternative put forward by our Founders - informed, I might add by insights gained from the Iroquois Confederacy.