MIDDLE OF THE ROAD JOE

As I watch Mitt Romney continue to puke on himself regarding his tenure at Bain Capital, I often wonder if he ever watched an episode of Seinfeld?  My guess is that the genius of Larry David is lost on someone as mirthless as Mitt, but it would have served him well. The majority of Seinfeld episodes deal with Little White Lies and their eventual destruction. Lies that in the beginning seem harmless, but in the end prove to be painfully anxious and funny.  

As I watch Seinfeld now, I cannot help but see Mitt in the role of George Constanza defending his silly little white lie. And in this newly created episode, Mitt kicks off the show by publicly stating that he had “no involvement in the operations of Bain Capital in any way since February 11th, 1999.” The Rub: The Securities and Exchange Commission has his signature as the sole President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board through 2002... oh, and he received a salary of 100,000+ dollars a year for having "no involvement in the operations...'"  Mitt’s confusing retort then states that he was just complying with the SEC “paperwork” as part of his duty as the uninvolved, omnipotent ruler of Bain Capital. Mitt’s little white lies are no longer little or white… They are now, like a Seinfeld episode, painfully anxious and funny. Mitt now has to admit he did nothing for his salary of $100,000 + dollars a year, or admit that he was in fact involved with Bain Capital after he stated the converse publicly. Either path is now a lie.

My hope with my new blog is to engage in true political debate with people on both sides of the isle.  My additional hope is that this debate will be polite, passionate and well researched. 

My first blush with such debate has been with my step-father, who will be forever be known as Pops. He is a kind, highly educated, religious, proudly Conservative white man.  Over the years we have engaged in polite debate over why our political body is broken and who is to blame.  I have argued on the Left, and Pop's has argued on the Right. His religious ideology reveres groups and celebrates belonging to something bigger than the individual, and my agnostic ideology reveres the individual first, groups second. 

I broach the subject of ideology due to a book I read recently called The Righteous Mind, by Dr. Jonathan Haidt.  I can say without flare, this is the best book I have ever read to explain why people like my Pop's and I see things so differently.  Dr. Haidt literally deconstructs the foundational thinking of both Liberals and Conservative based on 6 pillars of measurement: Harm, Fairness, Liberty, Sanctity, Loyalty, and Authority.  Liberals historically favor only Harm and Fairness when making a political decision, and conservatives consider each pillar equally and see any threat to one as a threat to all. A current example is the conservative's passionate defense of Traditional Marriage with Proposition 8.  This issue violates one of the 6 pillars, Sanctity, and if Sanctity is allowed to perish, they fear that the other 5 will domino to their demise as well.  Conservatives reverence for lineage, homogeny, and transcendentalism aligns with their ideology of Community over the Individual.  And often times this ideology has sad consequences like people of the same gender being in love and not being able to marry one another.  And this is OK to a conservative ideology because it serves the greater good of a society and keep all 6 pillars of reverence standing tall.

Dr. Haidt also points to philosophical foundations and their importance to religion and politics, e.g. Rationalism vs. Intuitivism.  If you believe that our current remedy to our political polarization is purely based in Rationalism (Socrates, Plato) you are in one camp.  If you believe that our remedy is based in Intuitivism (Hume) you are in another. Dr. Haidt then uses a brilliant analogy of an elephant representing Intuitivism, and the Rider of the elephant representing Rationalism.  So pretend someone says: "Gay marriage is an abomination and should be a crime!"  If you are a Liberal your intuitive nature has immediately swayed to the Left, and the Rider (Reason) is now only justifying the movement to the left.  His thesis is that the gentle beast (elephant) is in charge of our decisions and the Rider can only offer up post hoc arguments that support the decision, not alter it. 

Dr. Haidt's thesis is brilliant, overdue, and needs to be part of the discussion on a country wide level.  People need to begin to understand why their emotions play such a large part of their views regarding politics.  If we can achieve this understanding as a society, we can once again begin a debate without the venom and separation we currently witness today (and maybe even remember we are all brothers and sisters).  Our opposing parties actually see each other as evil, and not just another human being with a differing opinion or ideology.  This should worry us all.  

Dr.Haidt has finally connected these proverbial Dots for me.  I am Liberal due to my emotional and philosophical weighting of Harm and Fairness over Sanctity, Loyalty, and Authority. Period.  And neither my opinion, nor my Pop's is correct or incorrect, just ideologically different.  What a great thing to learn!

So my first request to anyone that reads this post is, whaddya think?  Does Dr. Haidt's thesis resonate?  Is he now considered a converted Right Wing Conservative?  Is he a waffling Liberal?  For the record, he is an admitted atheist, leftist, who has now become a Political (and religious) Moderate due to his prolonged and granular research on both topics.