Prius vs Pickup: Explaining America's Political Divide

[Dan Z]

Perhaps "open to new experience and ways of thinking"?

Yes, I'm also intrigued by the comparison of "fixed" vs "fluid." It think this describes what I see in contemporary politics quite well. Liberalism seems more fluid as it bends societal norms and relationships, conservatism seems more fixed as it looks toward restoration of order and proven ways of being.

Indeed. Liberals, for example, think things whether a child is a boy or a girl is “fluid”.

Those old fashioned conservatives just can’t get on board with their close minded “fixed” thinking.

Josh - you are sounding "touchy" about these definitions, as if you are being attacked here. You are not, and I'd encourage you to step back a bit and discuss the topic a bit more clinically/academically rather than defensively - e.g. less sarcasm would help. You're among friends and fellow seekers.

Regarding your point above...I believe this gets to the root words of "conservatism" and "progressivism" - conserving vs progressing...fixed vs fluid.

I suspect a person's tolerance for ambiguity may also play into where they come out.

[Bootstrap]

Perhaps "open to new experience and ways of thinking"?

Yes, I'm also intrigued by the comparison of "fixed" vs "fluid." It think this describes what I see in contemporary politics quite well. Liberalism seems more fluid as it bends societal norms and relationships, conservatism seems more fixed as it looks toward restoration of order and proven ways of being.

Views of truth/reality enter in also, in my opinion, and authority. The belief that there are universal laws which reflect timeless realities causes a worldview that is more fixed than fluid.

I don't think that the people in the Bible lived in a world that was more fixed than fluid, they spent their whole lives coming to terms with God's fixed realities in lives that were often fluid. That's what these narratives are often about. And I find that I read the Bible best if I am open to God showing me new things each time I read a familiar passage - the Bible is stable and reliable, but my past understanding of it is often very limited.

Stepping out in faith to embrace new experiences and challenges is something biblical conservatives often do. I think trusting and following the Bible is a dimension Haidt did not fully explore.

[Dan Z]

Views of truth/reality enter in also, in my opinion, and authority. The belief that there are universal laws which reflect timeless realities causes a worldview that is more fixed than fluid.

I think the authors agree with you Mike. Similar to Haidt's approach, their evaluation of whether people are more "fixed" or "fluid" comes from an analysis based on how people answer the following four questions (predicated on which trait they think is more important for a child to have):

• 1. Independence versus *respect for elders
  2. *Obedience versus self-reliance
  3. Curiosity versus good *manners
  4. Being *considerate versus being *well behaved

The four I marked with the * are the four markers of a more "fixed" worldview, while the unmarked responses indicate a more "fluid" worldview.

[mike]

Views of truth/reality enter in also, in my opinion, and authority. The belief that there are universal laws which reflect timeless realities causes a worldview that is more fixed than fluid.

I don't think that the people in the Bible lived in a world that was more fixed than fluid, they spent their whole lives coming to terms with God's fixed realities in lives that were often fluid. That's what these narratives are often about. And I find that I read the Bible best if I am open to God showing me new things each time I read a familiar passage - the Bible is stable and reliable, but my past understanding of it is often very limited.

Stepping out in faith to embrace new experiences and challenges is something biblical conservatives often do. I think trusting and following the Bible is a dimension Haidt did not fully explore.

The belief that there are universal laws which reflect timeless realities does not presuppose that one can easily know what those universal laws and timeless realities are. Our own knowledge of God (what universal laws and timeless realities are, essentially) is something that is somewhat fluid, and should be humbly acknowledged as limited and flawed. But human though we are, I think it does make a difference whether we believe those laws and realities do exist. I think that there is a pretty clear division between people who believe all truth is relative and fluid, and those who don't.

[mike]

Views of truth/reality enter in also, in my opinion, and authority. The belief that there are universal laws which reflect timeless realities causes a worldview that is more fixed than fluid.

I think the authors agree with you Mike. Similar to Haidt's approach, their evaluation of whether people are more "fixed" or "fluid" comes from an analysis based on how people answer the following four questions (predicated on which trait they think is more important for a child to have):

• 1. Independence versus respect for elders
  2. Obedience versus self-reliance
  3. Curiosity versus good manners
  4. Being considerate versus being well behaved

That's fascinating.

[Dan Z]

Mike, FYI, I edited my post above with a bit more info about the four questions.

I should add that the authors recognize that some folks fall in-between on the continuum between "fixed" and "fluid," but that generally even these folks have a leaning, which becomes amplified by the social relationships and expectations in their lives.

[JimFoxvog]

I should add that the authors recognize that some folks fall in-between on the continuum between "fixed" and "fluid," but that generally even these folks have a leaning, which becomes amplified by the social relationships and expectations in their lives.

That makes sense. It should motivate us to have social relationships with people from all over the political/social spectrum.
Full disclosure: I must be pretty confused; I own a Prius and have driven a lot of pickups.

[Ernie]

Views of truth/reality enter in also, in my opinion, and authority. The belief that there are universal laws which reflect timeless realities causes a worldview that is more fixed than fluid.

I think the authors agree with you Mike. Similar to Haidt's approach, their evaluation of whether people are more "fixed" or "fluid" comes from an analysis based on how people answer the following four questions (predicated on which trait they think is more important for a child to have):

• 1. Independence versus respect for elders
  2. Obedience versus self-reliance
  3. Curiosity versus good manners
  4. Being considerate versus being well behaved

I like a society that has a nice mix of these things. This would seem healthy IMO. I don't know why it needs to be either or.

If I had to pick one side or the other, I don't know which one I would pick. Here is a quote from Ed Welch that describes the shift in Western culture away from the traditional worldview.

Recently there was an interesting study that contrasted the Japanese response to personal trials with the American response. The question was, How did people comfort themselves during these difficulties? The Japanese consistently said, "I think about my family. I imagine that my family is with me." The American response was typically, "I can overcome this, I just have to work harder." Or there was self-talk that was intended to inflate the needy self: "I'm great. This person can't beat me. I am better than he is." In other words, we live in a culture that emphasizes the individual over the corporate.
Americans often use variations on the phrase "self-reliance." This phrase is a notorious problem for translators. For example, in Latin America, the closest they can come is a word more like our independence" in that it is political and social, not personal. In some Asian countries the phrase makes no sense, or it is a sign of mental instability. The person should never be self-reliant, according to most Asian traditions. The person should be interdependent.
Do you remember the Christian woman who said that God told her to marry someone who was not a Christian? That may have been an extreme example, but how often do we consult with pastors, elders, and those in our church when we are thinking about marriage, a job change, or other major decisions? How often do I ask for prayer from the body when I am writing or speaking? There is always a lot of discussion and instruction about knowing God's personal will for our lives, but do you ever hear people talking about God's will for the church or even for their family?
Have you ever noticed that for many people, church as family doesn't exist? …

[Dan Z]

I like a society that has a nice mix of these things. This would seem healthy IMO. I don't know why it needs to be either or.

I agree with this Ernie. Perhaps perspective (conservative vs liberal) is something akin to personality styles - despite the conflict these different perspectives bring about, we need them all to have a well balanced society.

By the way, based on the four questions, I'm unsurprisingly one of those middle people.

[HondurasKeiser]

I think the authors agree with you Mike. Similar to Haidt's approach, their evaluation of whether people are more "fixed" or "fluid" comes from an analysis based on how people answer the following four questions (predicated on which trait they think is more important for a child to have):

• 1. Independence versus *respect for elders
  2. *Obedience versus self-reliance
  3. Curiosity versus good *manners
  4. Being *considerate versus being *well behaved

The four I marked with the * are the four markers of a more "fixed" worldview, while the unmarked responses indicate a more "fluid" worldview.

It strikes me Dan that one group of traits, the “fluid traits” end up giving primacy and place higher value on the individual, his desires and his liberty whereas the “fixed traits” give primacy and place a higher value on the community, it’s wisdom and it’s commitment to transcendent values. Fluidity in norms, the liberty of the individual as a priori to all other commitments/restraints, tearing down the old (in every and all aspects of culture) to build the new. These are values and presuppositional and unspoken political commitments that cut across the American political divide and define to varying degrees and in different aspects both the Left and Right. Josh may be correct that the Left sees little use for previous generations’ defined gender norms and thus the current destruction of gender and gender roles that we see occurring at an alarming and unprecedented pace. So too though, the Right’s foundational commitment to individual property rights is of a piece with those fluid liberal values. Right-leaning economists/thinkers dress up the capitalist goal of ever-newer and expanding markets as “creative destruction” but they either refuse to acknowledge or openly sneer at the whole-sale destruction of communities, families and the social fabric that those expanding markets leave in their wake. It would appear then that the American political landscape could be defined as Leftists that want to set the individual free in the social/political realm but protect the community in the economic realm and visa-versa for the Rightists. That’s too trite of a reading though I’m afraid. It strikes me rather that nearly all Americans whether Left or Right are on a fast-moving train that is fundamentally committed to individual liberty in all aspects e.g. economic, political, social and personal. The left attempts to apply the brakes in the economic sphere and the Right does the same in the social and political (think William F. Buckley over at National Review standing athwart history and yelling stop). Conservatives want to stop the progressive advance of society but they have no real desire to turn the train around and head towards something other than the primacy of the individual. That would be a repudiation of the Enlightenment, rationalism, Locke and our own Constitution; something that they cannot fathom. That is why so many conservatives eventually “come around” to ideas like gay marriage, lenient divorce laws, legalized drugs and sex education. They may tut-tut those progressive advances in the pages of their magazines but they would never do anything to question the right of the individual to do those things. In America then we are all truly Liberals and speeding headlong, not towards a flexible, open-to-experiences and new ways of thinking, pluralistic utopia but rather an atomized and liquified modernity where the self is all that there is and the self is left to define itself and redefine itself and redefine itself again in constant and quixotic quest for community.
The only groups in American society that are prepared to truly withstand the oncoming tidal wave of liquidity and atomization, itself the product of a rapid shedding of transcendent, cultural Christian norms, are those that have not imbibed, wholesale the Classically Liberal notion of the liberty of the individual and social contract theory before all other commitments. Groups like the Amish, Hutterites, some Mennonites, Orthodox Jews, and some Muslims...though even they seem to be assimilating rapidly to an American/liberal conception of society.