Handle, who is a popular commenter here, wrote a long essay on this post.

I’ll start with my outline/interpretation of Handle’s comment, and then reproduce the comment.

1. Political movements need to coordinate. This requires simplifying messaging. (This may explain why my three-axes model seems to work. While there may be all sorts of subtle nuances to individuals’ thinking, it is easiest for progressives to signal to one another by invoking the oppressor-oppressed axis, or for conservatives to signal using the civilization-barbarism axis, or for libertarians to signal using the freedom-coercion axis.)

2. In a complex world, this sort of simplification can have adverse consequences if one group becomes dominant and tries to cram every issue into its simple framework. We are better off in a society where no one ideological framework takes over.

3. However, the progressive movement seems dominant today. The more that the progressive agenda becomes implemented, the more damage it will cause. Paradoxically, this will lead progressives to become more adamant and less tolerant of dissent.

If you combine Sanders and Warren, what you get is socialism combined with demonization and intimidation of anyone who does not support left-wing views. This is the country that the Democratic left wants to live in?

I take this as a rhetorical question to try and make mainstream elite democrats, who would not be comfortable admitting that they side with Socialist bullies, a little ashamed of not speaking up against them and of belonging to a party increasingly characterized by those types of characters and behaviors.

However, I think the accurate and unfortunate answer is ‘yes’ for a good portion of Democrats, and the reasonable, enlightened and moderate folks for whom the answer is ‘no’, still have no desire or ability to resist it.

Which raises the question as to why that should be, which I think is the most important question about social-psychological dynamics of our era, especially since it could give us some insight into how the near future will unfold.

Please allow me to speculate a little on it. Continue reading →

The crisis du jour is once again aligning people along the three-axis model. The freedom-coercion axis says that borders should be open. The oppressor-oppressed axis says that people fleeing Syria are oppressed, and anyone who would keep them out is evil. The civilization-barbarism axis says that European countries that take in large numbers of refugees are committing cultural suicide. Just one of many examples in this genre:

Few intend or desire to adapt to European society. They may want to ride Europe’s gravy train, but by and large they feel contempt for its values. Many scorn Christians and Jews. They reject freedom of speech and religion. Most openly subjugate women and think that homosexuals should perish. Yet to hear Europe’s political class talk, accepting these newcomers and many more like them constitutes a moral test for liberal and Christian principles.

The author goes on to cite Gibbon on how Rome succumbed to barbarians.

My guess is that:

1. Most of those who support allowing more migration from the Middle East live in affluent neighborhoods.

2. Wherever the migrants from the Middle East end up, it will not be in affluent neighborhoods.

Libertarians should not be so quick to align with progressives on this issue. Be as suspicious about government involvement in “solving” the crisis as you are about government’s role in enforcing borders.

Imagine the decisions about taking in Middle Easterners being made by individuals, rather than by government. That is, imagine that it were up to individual households to take them in.

Or imagine that refugee resettlement had to be funded entirely through private donations. What if the political leaders doing their moral posturing on behalf of refugees had no access to taxpayer money. Instead, suppose that they had to contribute their own money or money that they raised through private charity.

Summarizing a paper by two sociologists, he writes,

The key idea is that the new moral culture of victimhood fosters “moral dependence” and an atrophying of the ability to handle small interpersonal matters on one’s own. At the same time that it weakens individuals, it creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims.

The paper is by Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning.

To me, this just sounds like what I call the oppressor-oppressed axis in the three-axes model.* With college campuses dominated by progressives, you would expect them to see things in terms of oppressors and oppressed. But I am not sure that the rest of American culture is going to go this way.

*Well, I’ll be darned. They cite The Three Languages of Politics. They say, though, that non-progressives are starting to use oppressor-oppressed terminology. That may be true (as when one complains that academic life is prejudiced against conservatives), but ultimately I think you have to stick to a different axis to remain a conservative or libertarian.

The authors claim that what preceded our current culture was a culture of individual dignity. Haidt quotes the authors,

Members of a dignity culture, on the other hand, would see no shame in appealing to third parties, but they would not approve of such appeals for minor and merely verbal offenses. Instead they would likely counsel either confronting the offender directly to discuss the issue, or better yet, ignoring the remarks altogether.

Ron Bailey offers a succinct description of the earlier transition from an honor culture to a dignity culture.

In honor cultures, people (men) maintained their honor by responding to insults, slights, violations of rights by self-help violence. Generally honor cultures exist where the rule of law is weak. In honor cultures, people protected themselves, their families, and property through having a reputation for swift violence. During the 19th century, most Western societies began the moral transition toward dignity cultures in which all citizens were legally endowed with equal rights. In such societies, persons, property, and rights are defended by recourse to third parties, usually courts, police, and so forth, that, if necessary, wield violence on their behalf. Dignity cultures practice tolerance and are much more peaceful than honor cultures.

The “honor culture” reminds me a bit of The Rule of the Clan and Mark Weiner’s view that it is the alternative to a strong state.

I would give the paper the Cowenian caveat: “speculative”