Skip to comments.Social Conservatismís Staying Power: A philosophy that the Right must not abandon
Posted on 04/28/2012 12:41:24 AM PDT by neverdem
The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Need Social Conservatism, by Jeffrey Bell (Encounter, 322 pp., $25.95)
I recently attended a political meeting in New York City at which the people tended to identify themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals. They argued that conservatives should focus on the nations economic challenges while either ignoring or downplaying social issues. Its a point of view shared by Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, among others. When he was considering a presidential run, Daniels memorably told an interviewer that the next president would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues.
But in The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Needs Social Conservatism, Jeffrey Bell argues that social conservatism is uniquely and idiosyncratically American, emerging from basic principles of our national politics, and that it would be ill-advised for those on the libertarian right to try to make it go away. Social conservatives remain a key constituency in the Republican Party; socially conservative principles continue to come to the fore in public debate; and social issues have helped Republicans more than hurt them at the polls. In 1984, for example, Ronald Reagan argued in an address to Protestant clergymen that people of faith should unapologetically defend their values in the public square. Walter Mondale, the Democratic nominee, castigated the president for inserting religion into politics and compared him with an ayatollah. Yet in the two months after the speech was delivered, Reagan took a huge lead in the polls that he never relinquished.
Four years later, GOP strategist Lee Atwater persuaded George Bush to highlight his disagreement with Michael Dukakis on a variety of social issues, helping turn Bushs deficit in the polls into a resounding triumph: an eight-point winning margin in the popular vote and victories in 40 states. The 1988 election set the stage for further social activism within the Republican Party. More recently, President George W. Bush argued that the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence were universal, a position held by most American social conservatives; the Left, unrelenting in its battle against traditionalism, detested him for it. Bush served two terms. As Bell notes, Republicans who shift to the left on social issues wont simply alienate the substantial number of Americans who remain committed to our founding precepts; theyll also make political enemies of the many recent immigrants who are socially conservative.
The books thesis—that Republicans who embrace social conservatism can win, and that social conservatism is in keeping with American tradition—is a useful one in this political season. Bell holds that the narrative of the nation is tied inextricably to religious influences. To deny these influences comes with a hefty political price; to embrace them requires courage, but in the end, they foster respect for the national purpose. As Bell sees it, America needs social conservatives, even if their presence leads to polarization.
It would be interesting to read the most comprehensive lists of conservative positions on social issues that people can post here.
Pro-life on abortion
Against gay marriage, civil unions, ENDA laws, and curriculum
Against affirmative action
It has always been my belief that fiscal conservatives are correct. There is no room for expansion.
Pro drug control laws (that pesky argument with the libertarians.)
I'm sure there's more.
I would say that social conservative position are essential, particularly so at the State & local level.
As for “polarization” in modern politics that is inevitable. as the Federation grows larger it invariably also grows more diverse with each new mind with his or her own ideas. Even the existing allotment of Government controls on every issue will find less and less ground of agreement among our people and their States. This is to say nothing of the inexplicable growth in federal power. That is to say Federal attempts to shove us all into its centrality dictated square hole.
As we becomes squished into conforming with that mold inevitably two things happen:
1: we try to make the shape more agreeable to us.(thus invarably less agreeable to everyone else no matter whom we are).
2: Our tempers flar as we have to fight others to do that.
Polarization is the unavoidable and logical consequence for both sides locked into this unwinable fight with each-other with ever growing stakes.
If one isn’t social conservative, then one is not conservative, they are just a liberal who approves of conservative economics, that is why the half to 2/3rds liberal, and part conservatives came up with the name, libertarian, it is a comfort zone for liberals that like the economics of conservatism.
Conservatism is merely an intellectual manifestation of the psychological drives underlying a K-selected reproductive strategy. As a result, all Conservative drives will abide by the four main traits inherent to K-selected strategy, (ie. Competitiveness, abstinence until monogamy, later age at first intercourse (delaying mating until maximally competitive) and performing high-investment, two-parent child-rearing.)
The goal of Conservatism, like K-selection, is to produce the highest quality, instead of quantity, and to see it succeed in free, fair competition. Give children optimum rearing conditions. Make them as competitive as possible. Make the competition as honest and fair as possible, and see success/fitness rewarded.
The only real difference between Conservatism and the K-selected psychology is that Conservatism adds in our history of group competition (just a more complex form of K-selection/competition), adding a whole raft of pro-social drives designed to make us behave within a gorup so as to maximize group success. Politeness, decency, altruism/charity, loyalty, respect for authority in time of conflict, drives to punish anti-social activity, etc.
Abortion is about respecting compatriots (even unborn), high-investment parenting, and seeing everyone have a chance to compete fairly.
Gay marriage goes against the concept of marriage as a means of fostering high-investment parenting, with the optimization of the child’s rearing experience of paramount importance.
Affirmative action interferes in free, fair competition among men, and offers the prospect of rewarding failure at the expense of success.
All Liberal drives are outgrowths of r-selected behavioral urges. Like bunny rabbits, Libs exhibit an aversion to aggression/pacifism, embrace of promiscuity, support for single parenting, and ever earlier exposure of children to sexual themes and experiences. Their aversions to prosociality and drive towards disloyalty to in-group are just attempts to capitalize on the group competitive environment, through betrayal and selfishness at a time when everyone else is selflessly driven to altruism, loyalty, and violence. They are exploiters.
All of this comes down to r and K-selected reproductive strategies, and the psychological drives which motivate them. That they exist together in our species, and are so divergent in their nature is just an outgrowth of our unique evolutionary history. See www.anonymousconservative.com/modern.pdf for more on this.
A lot of people think beating Obama and overturning Obamacare will be huge victories, but they are relatively new things we have been occupied with, but I remember we were all pretty much in the same place before Obama without any realistic solutions. We can't even stop liberalism, so I doubt we can rollback anything since we haven't been able to in decades. We are always on the defensive, and were aren't capable of ever having a federal government the size and power it was meant to have. It's over for us, because we live under tyranny right now, and have for long time. We are just getting worse, and we tried our best, but we can't change it, and we have too many liberals in our nation. Everyone, including Conservatives, are more liberal than before. It's like a virus that slowly spreads everywhere, and can't be cured, but slowed a little with hard effort. We just choose the speed we head in the wrong unconstitutional direction.
I say we start planning to leave the Union now on our time instead of waiting for everything to break down. States need people to start movements, and see how they are received. I think it's a much more realistic idea than it has been in a long time. Conservative States need to start talking with each other, and planning for the fall of the Union. They need plans, and ideas about forming a Union, and keeping as much prestige and power as we can. Start drilling, and the other common sense things States aren't allowed to do by the feds. There are some good States out there that could form a large powerful Union, and with state rights restored it wouldn't be nearly as hard to get along, especially with states that haven't went total nuts already, and still share things like common sense.
Every single economic challenge we have is "social".
If you eat your seed corn (abortion, sterilization & rampant birth-control) then don't expect a bumper crop of economic agents.
Don't take God out of our history. As Newt has said, If you take God out of our history, you can't understand America.
Social conservatism I would define as a belief in Judeo-Christian morals and a belief in a heteronormative society. I would submit that history shows us that this is the most successful model of civilization and that those who wish to change this are in fact trying to rip that civilization down, as per Cleon Skousen’s assertions here:
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
An open sewer with a balanced budget and no debt is still an open sewer. Those who think that their stock portfolio is the only measure of conservatism should take note.
I would argue that they are essential Primarily at the federal level e.g. inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The federal government amasses power at the expense of freedom and does so by directly replacing inalienable truth with government truth.
As for polarization in modern politics that is inevitable. as the Federation grows larger it invariably also grows more diverse with each new mind with his or her own ideas. Even the existing allotment of Government controls on every issue will find less and less ground of agreement among our people and their States. This is to say nothing of the inexplicable growth in federal power. That is to say Federal attempts to shove us all into its centrality dictated square hole.
Polarizing issues have always been present; however, it was the basics that comprise the limited republican federal government the founders established that were the only things federal government at one time concerned itself with.
NOW; however, the federal government concerns itself with all manner of issues and those pleading for consensus in all things are in essence those promoting government control of all things -an imposed tyrannical top down social order.
Modern politics, my ass! It is 'progressivism', mob rules 'democracy' that subverts the republic and encroaches upon individual freedom that politics for putting it's king in the throne instead of the other's king.
Our goal as conservatives should be to dismantle the throne that progressivism has built on government 'values' RATHER than coronate another RINO who would be king.
Why not simply say "Christian morals"? Is "Christian" viewed as insufficient by itself that "Judeo-" has to be added?
I used the term because Judaism and Christianity, though related, are not the same thing.
Yet the hyphenate conveys the pretense that they are the same thing, or a new hybrid: a religion called “Judeo-Christianity”.
Hardly that much. I have some Jewish acquaintances and they sort of wince when I employ the term Western Christian Civilization. I figured I’d spare the FR community a flame war between the Jews and Christians.
Few if any of them would ever label their own views on morality or ethics "Judeo-Christian". So why should Christians sign on to that watered-down hybrid when those who are Jewish do not?
I'm tired of Daniels getting a bad rap because of on quote. This guy actually defunded Planned Barenthood. I don't give a rat's butt what someone SAYS on social issues. I care what someone DOES. Talk is cheap.
Make that Planned Barrenhood, not Barenthood.
2nd Amendment is non negotiable, which is shared with libertarians.
I don't support state sanctioned gay marriage/unions, nor support that crap in our schools. What two consenting adult homos do in their house isn't my business. At the same time I don't need to know about it.
Affirmative action and white guilt policies are wrong.
I do not support the drug war or anti-gambling laws. That's big with some social conservatives, not all.
Don't censor religion.
Most of what is called ‘Judeo-Christian’ morals is based on the 10 Commandments.
2nd Amendment is non negotiable, which is shared with libertarians.
Unfortunately, many Republicans sign on to gun control laws, which just mean that the weapons are in the hands of the government and criminals instead of private citizens.
I don't support state sanctioned gay marriage/unions, nor support that crap in our schools.
Right. In middle school, some GLSEN type group came in and passed out a crude "It's OK to be gay" survey. The teachers said that everyone had to take it. I threw the copt that they put before me in the trash and got branded a "troublemaker".
What two consenting adult homos do in their house isn't my business. At the same time I don't need to know about it.
They will never accept that. An inextricable part of their way of things is forcing everyone else to actively endorse it.
Affirmative action and white guilt policies are wrong.
They got Obama elected and are getting Whites attacked across the country.
I do not support the drug war
Many authorized drugs are poison; if the government would secure the border that would massively reduce the amount of unauthorized drugs flowing in.
It's kind of weird that only American Indians can run casinos. But everything is gambling: every business venture I invest in is a gamble, albeit one backed by my hard work instead of the spin of a wheel.
Ronald Reagan the Libertarian
by Alex Tabarrok on June 7, 2004 at 7:10 am in Current Affairs | Permalink
Heres a wonderful quote from Reagan in 1975 from Reason magazine.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberalsif we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I cant say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we dont each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
The Libertarian Party of today is in favor of no holds barred porn, the entire spectrum of the GLBT etc agenda, all drugs legalized, and legalized prostitution.
Do you think Reagan was in favor of all of the above?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Socially liberal Rs don't win elections. Especially presidential elections. If we are stuck with Robomney...it'll be interesting. Hopefully there will be a revolution at the convention and a real conservative will be the nominee.
“The Libertarian Party of today is in favor of no holds barred porn, the entire spectrum of the GLBT etc agenda, all drugs legalized, and legalized prostitution.
Do you think Reagan was in favor of all of the above?”
First, I posted Reagan’s own words, nothing about the Libertarian Party.
Second, I have no idea about how Reagan would come down on what you said.
Finally, I personally favor more personal freedom, less government.
I don’t trust government, so I want it to be too poor, to have resources for enforcing morality beyond bare minimums.
Did you read recently about our United States Treasury Dept. supervised Special Agents, in Columbia?
The thing worth considering is your party won’t always direct, supervise the government with all of its powers. So keep the government small, confined by money and manpower limits.
As such it won’t be able to enforce very many rules.
People, families, neighborhoods, churches will enforce human behavior limits, to the extent it is possible.
I’m sure we disagree. I don’t drink or use drugs. But I grant the next person the freedom to do so. I draw lines with methamphetamine, which I think is over the line.
And of course no supplying drugs to minors, either. No driving under the influence.
Any crimes committed under the influence punished harshly, for the crime.
Smoking pot at home, listening to tunes and eating chips and dip, no problem.
I don’t want a big enough police force (or budget), to kick down that pot smokers door.
Oh, so you can’t answer.
PS - there’s a difference between federal gov and state gov, you know.
And you don’t know if we disagree or not, since I have not stated my positions. Nor have you, other than obliquely. But you certinaly insinuated that Reagan would have ssented to the Libertarian viewpoints I described above.
BTW, are you on TB2 as “truthseeker”?
In #23, you have that just about right. On Mitch Daniels, note also that he has cut an ad seeking to prolong Richard Lugar’s miserable existence in the US Senate. I think we can wisely ignore Daniels henceforth. Mike Pence will be just as good or better as governor and will always be a movement conservative across the board. Daniels is a star on money and on cutting useless expenditures but he appeared to be seeking the support of the wrong people when he spoke to CPAC 2011. We have to separate the whet from the chaff. Look what happened this year with all those conservative candidates and just one evil and well-funded Romney. Also, if we don’t continue the drug war, what will we do? It is superficially attractive to say nothing but I used to practice criminal law and I really don’t think we want to just throw up our hands and not give a sh*t. This stuff (not marijuana but speed, coke, crack and whatnot) is nasty and insidious especially when spread among 14 year-olds. I don’t have the perfect answer but there must be a better one somewhere between War on Drugs and nothing at all. Like Arab oil, drug revenues finance our enemies.
“BTW, are you on TB2 as truthseeker?”
Just one name truth_seeker, here and several other sites over the years.
Am I being investigated, for posting Reagan’s words?
“PS - theres a difference between federal gov and state gov, you know.”
I want all government to be small, too small to bother people very much.
I assume prostitution will occur, if it is legal or if it is illegal.
When it is illegal, the cops and politicians will probably be involved in one corrupt way or another.
Are you Truthseeker on TB2?
“”I would say that social conservative position are essential, particularly so at the State & local level.”
I would argue that they are essential Primarily at the federal level e.g. inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The federal government amasses power at the expense of freedom and does so by directly replacing inalienable truth with government truth.”
Although I don’t dispute your assertion about Federal actions I’m not following your thinking regarding the priority of social conservative attention to Washington over States & local government.
Washington has usurped our rights to govern ourselves and has stuck its ugly outsider head into our local and individual business. It has no right to be involved period in local or domesic matters. Social conservatism therefore should not be very much concerned with Washington, importantly nto more concerned with Washington than they are with State & local governments.
It is after all State & local governments that illegitimately make domestic policy and can illegitimately have the “police power”. It is only State & local governments that might illegitimately give Social conservatism(Whatever the local variant is) a form
Washington is too distant from the people to govern and too divided in its population to even form & enforce a coherent social policy that is anything but destructive to rights & liberties.
It IS time for a new Party, but we have to start planning NOW!
Not a coupla months before some election .............................................. FRegards
NOW; however, the federal government concerns itself with all manner of issues and those pleading for consensus in all things are in essence those promoting government control of all things -an imposed tyrannical top down social order.”
With this Statement I could not agree more. You hit the nail on the head.
Although I think many of those arguing for compromise don’t even realize what a “compromise” is really demanding of us all. I don’t think the thought itself has even crossed their mind. Its like to them its always been a question of how the Federal government should run the issue not whether it should run it at all.
AKA: What policy we can agree on, not whether or not we should have to agree at all.
We shouldn’t have to agree on how our healthcare is run, we should each run our own healthcare policy according to our own means & desires. The left only want us to “agree” because at the end of the day their game is about redistribution(thief) not justice, not better services.
Simply stealing from one man who carried his weight to pay off anther who did not. That in itself is the greatest of moral evils.
Right. In middle school, some GLSEN type group came in and passed out a crude "It's OK to be gay" survey.
We had a white guilt thing in the era of Malice Green and OJ Simpson, and most of us called it out for what it was. We didn't have GLSEN though. Too many rednecks, and I say that in a good way.
But here's the question nobody on their side can answer. Why the kids, especially in middle school? They alienate so many people who while disagree personally with gay lobby, don't support being jerks to them either. It places doubts to movies in the minds of many, including myself.
They will never accept that. An inextricable part of their way of things is forcing everyone else to actively endorse it.
I agree. I missed it and haven't heard of it in my old district, but I know it's big where I live now right outside Ann Arbor. What actually offends me most is the push of effeminate behavior upon males these days. Not all gay men are that way, and some straights are as well. Obama fits one of those two categories. I'm old school on that, and was raised that way (by example in how family members conducted themselves). Men should be men. Not jerks or bullies, but strong and not wimps. If effeminacy and trans crap wasn't pushed on our kids, I wouldn't complain.
As far as the drug war, I personally hate most of the stuff. I don't even smoke pot (bad experience with it years ago). I have a big problem with all the freedoms that have been given up in the name of the "war on (insert here)" with the drug war being the biggest culprit.
“Our goal as conservatives should be to dismantle the throne that progressivism has built on government ‘values’ RATHER than coronate another RINO who would be king.”
I agree again wholeheartedly. But have you ever thought about the implications of turning that thrown against the left. Then using that period where they told themselves that “the throne has gone mad” to really drive in our message about the dangers of centralized Government power to them?
We would be forcing the left to face a basic reality of life. As long as there is diversity in man(A concept they claim to cherish) There must also be as a consequence a proportional need for a diversity in governance.
Indeed the very fact that we are different is the reason why what works best for one group is harmful to anther. For that reason our efficiency and happiness as both a civilization & individuals is undermined by the inherently homogeneous solutions of centralized government.
Also, if we dont continue the drug war, what will we do? It is superficially attractive to say nothing but I used to practice criminal law and I really dont think we want to just throw up our hands and not give a sh*t. This stuff (not marijuana but speed, coke, crack and whatnot) is nasty and insidious especially when spread among 14 year-olds.
I don't deny what hard drugs do. I'm in a different part of law, but have seen enough to realize that those things are bad and cause people to lose control. However, there is an extremely high price paid in the war on drugs by giving up our freedoms (From Terry Stops onward), and putting a ton of people in jail or slapping them with felonies reducing their employment chances if they ever do get clean. Felonies should be reserved for what they were originally intended. Murder, rape, robbery, child molestation, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, grand larceny, fraud, embezzlement, etc. Evil, not stupidity.
Not all, but a lot of the real bad drugs are from plants/labs outside the US. Actual border control can reduce a lot of the cocaine, crack, and heroin. It won't stop meth, pills, or pot, much of which is homegrown, but it can reduce some of the supply.
I think addicts need treatment more than jail. I don't have the major solution, but status quo obviously isn't working. I can get most drugs without even leaving my township. I can get crack in probably 30 minutes without leaving the county. Same with meth. Pot in 5 minutes. I have no plans to do it, but I can, and I don't practice crim law.
I did not go for "more on this" at the pdf, but perhaps you can indulge one question.
These seem to be survival strategies of any competitive group. Is the Left pursuing a survival strategy or an annihilation strategy?
Rock, hard place, us.
I’m hoping for a revolution at the convention.
In this work, the Left/Right divide around group competition isn’t about two groups of ideologues competing with each other. Rather it is about one psychology in our species that is composed of group-centric individuals who seek to form altruistic groups and try to win competitions with other groups, and one psychology composed of selfish individualists, who seek to parasitize any group they can, while pursuing their own personal self interests at every turn.
The left is pursuing an individualistic strategy within a group competitive species. John Jost (himself a Liberal) has done a lot of work showing that Liberals are more open to out-group interests, and less loyal to in-group. This allows them to do anything in their interest, up to and including allying with an out-group, against their own in-group, so as to use betrayal as a survival strategy.
How many Freepers could ally with Al Qaida, against fellow Americans, just to advance their own position? Liberals are actually driven to do this, and to think it is noble. They wanted to free the Uighurs in Guantanamo onto the streets of DC. They still oppose CIA blacksites.
In the 60’s Hippies sought to aid the Vietcong and North Vietnamese, and viciously opposed our own soldiers. Imagine if that war was fought on our southern border, we were roughly evenly matched, and America were to lose. The VC and NVA would have taken us over, and put Hippies in position of power, overseeing the occupation. Full blown defective retards, drugged up and physically pathetic, would have elevated their status above that of every other American, by being more open to out-group interests, and less loyal to in-group. By using betrayal of their in-group as a survival strategy in group competition.
The pdf makes a step by step case that K-selection (diminished resources forcing competition among peers to acquire them) produces a competitive, monogamous, high-investment parenting psychology. This is well established in biology (where it is called r/K Selection Theory), and it is in most basic biology textbooks. K-selection is the foundation of the Conservative psychology, and K-selected species in nature are where one should look for a more primitive incarnation of our psychology in other species. Think wolves, lions, etc. (as contrasted with the prey species, such as rabbits, which are r-selected).
r-selection (the plentiful availability of resources) offers no advantage to the fit, as both fit and less fit get free food, absent a need to compete for it. There, the most sexually prolific win by out-reproducing peers (even if all of their offspring are defective idiots there is no competition for food to cull the defective idiots and make them less fit than highly adapted individuals) So r-selection produces a psychology of copetition aversion, early age promiscuity, and low-investment (get them out the door to make way for the next brood) parenting. Find an r-selected species in nature (think rabbits, who can never eat all of the grass available, due to predation reducing their numbers), and you will find a species which avoids competition between peers, is sexually promiscuous, thinks nothing of very young offspring having sex, and in which offspring are raised by single moms.
In group competition for limited resources (ie K-selection), the K-type psychology has evolved to seek to win the competition. Thus, K-types amass into functional groups, and compete for limited resources. As the competitions proceed, the population is culled for individuals who self assort into functional groups, and win. This favors K-types who exhibit pro-sociality, loyalty, altruism, etc.
Under this model, r-types would get wiped out if they tried to compete - they are less fit, less competitive, and less capable (due to the r-type’s aversion to competitive selection). Those r-types who survived this environment were those who adapted to exploit their competition-aversion and selfishness, to deceptively parasitize K-type groups, while seeking their own personal advantage at every turn, often through pursuing a strategy of betrayal for personal advantage.
K-types will be fitter, and better at acquiring resources. But loyalty, altruism and other pro-social traits come with a cost you may end up dead for your peers. r-types will be less fit, and less capable, but they can do whatever they need to in order to survive during periods of violence, including fleeing, or betraying their own group. And if they can make it to a period of free resource availability, their r-strategy of producing large quantities of offspring, will allow them to build their numbers up significantly.
The pdf basically makes the case that r and K strategies are genetic, one of the genes which produces them has been identified as correlating with political ideology in humans, and thus this whole political debate we have is a battle between two genes, and two reproductive strategies. K-types want to amass into groups, and acquire resources in competition, while r-types attempt to infiltrate the groups, stymie their success (to stall the advance of the K-type allele into the population), and pursue their own self interest.
Understand r/K Selection Theory, and how it relates to group competition, and you will understand politics, in a way few do.
It will even explain the societal decline of successful civilizations. Give the r-strategy free resource availability, to reduce mortality due to competitive selection, and it will reproduce very quickly, like an invasive species. But r-strategists are not highly motivated to succeed like K-strategists their environment never required high levels of motivation (which the pdf supports with genetic and personality studies of Liberals and depression/low incentive salience).
So if you have a population which has undergone competitive selections for fitness (ie K-selection), it’s large majority of K-strategists will be highly fit and highly productive (and highly Conservative). But their excess production produces free resource availability, which fuels the gradual growth of r-types (and Liberalism). r-types are mostly evolved to just reproduce their own defective offspring, using selfishness, and cowardice to stay alive, and promiscuity, early age at first intercourse, and single parenting to maximize their reproductive rates.
Thus, a successful society, through it’s success, creates a rapidly growing sub-population of non-productive individuals who reproduce ever faster. As they grow, they demand more and more free resource availability, while promiscuously producing single-parented offspring who do more of the same.
Inevitably, they will reach a point where their numbers are so great relative to the K-types, that the K-types will no longer be able to support them. At that point, the system will collapse, and a ruthless competition for resources begins (K-selection). You see this in the Roman Empire, Greece today, The Dark Ages following the Medieval Warming Period (which provided free availability of crops) and everywhere a highly successful society of producers has gradually found the few remaining productive individuals unable to provide for an entitled class of low-IQ, low-producing, sexually promiscuous degenerates, demanding free stuff.
We should have hit that point a while back, but we borrowed from China, allowing us to extend the period of free resource availability and delay the collapse, by feeding the r-types using government debt. Eventually, that debt will run out, and as it would in every other species in nature, the period of r-selected free resource availability will end. Resources simply cannot be supplied in limitless quantities forever. Unfortunately, I suspect that the cessation of incoming debt, combined with the need to pay back the old debt with interest, will provide a pretty harsh selection pressure to our population in the form of extremely diminished resources available to the poor. It will be ugly, even if we don’t end up with some Global Cooling lowering crop availability, or creating other problems.
Well, from a Christian standpoint, pride is a sin, after all. Mayhaps the Jews are due some credit for it, also.
Thank you very much for the detailed answer.
Let us say the palliatives like borrowing from China and intimidating oil suppliers fail, no rational political solution is arrived at because of the r-selecteds running the political show, and we have a collapse of the American system of government.
Do you think the r-types will be forced to adapt to the changed environment and behave like R-types? in other words, is the distinction wholly genetic? We see people “converting” to conservatism all the time, do we not? In fact, it is even a well-known process: a student is naturally drawn to leftwing politics because he stands to gain from them; then as the student becomes a worker and a taxpayer, all of a sudden he becomes conservative. This seems to militate against the gene theory.
Also, the American left does not fit the r-Selected paradigm in at least one way: while they are advocates for promiscuity, they are not advocates for fecundity. It is conservatives who make babies in this country.
My prediction is that following the collapse something that can be described as neo-feudalism will emerge. People will be forced to work at what they are good at to survive. The k-selecteds will either learn to work or they won’t survive. I think, most will learn to work.
Liberalism has been linked to a specific allele of the D4 dopamine receptor gene. The gene is also tied to competitiveness, drive for reward, sexual drive, promiscuity, infidelity, and rearing styles, so it intimately involved in regulating all of the r/K traits together. A genetic correlate to political ideology is also correlated to all of the r/K traits. Check the paper for all the cites.
From a structural standpoint, it would appear Liberalism is likely a result of failed amygdala development, likely related to the altered dopamine function produced by the DRD4 variations. Liberals have smaller amygdalae, and pathologically diminished amygdala function is associated with docility, elevated sexual drive, poor parental investment, and an inability to perceive malice in those who mean them harm, or judge them unapproachable. One researcher even described monkeys with damaged amygdalae as retarded in their ability to foresee and avoid dangerous confrontations. In other words, this is a mechanism by which to imbue a strategy of conflict avoidance through friendly approach of threats.
That said, we have evolved an adaptive ability, as the paper discusses. But is has been laid over the underlying r/K mechanisms. If all of this is correct (and I firmly believe it is) it takes a level of amygdala development to adopt Conservatism. Since we are not born with fully functional amygdalae, we will begin our lives with undeveloped amygdalae, and tend Liberal, only to become more Conservative as we age, and our amygdalae develop.
So there will be a tendency for the young to be r-type Anticompetitive. This is good, as an r-type strategy is the best strategy for an inferior, less fit individual to employ to survive in a competitive environment. If I am a child who weighs 50 lbs, and a 280 lb mixed Martial Artist takes my lollipop, it would be bad for me to get angry and stab him in the eye with a pencil. I would probably get killed. So when I’m young and less able, my less developed amygdala will protect me from the dangers of competition by making me docile, and I will, as a result have a psychology predisposing me to Liberalism. He takes my lollipop, and I then try to make friends. As I mature, my amygdala will either develop with the rest of my brain, perhaps in part due to a specific allele of the DRD4 gene producing the tendency to develop, and I will become more competitive, and Conservative, or my amygdala will not develop, and I will go through life as an r-strategist, averse to confrontation/competition, prone to seek the friendship of threats, and prone to be Liberal.
Notice the amygdala is associated with threat perception. Face a robber (or bad economic times), and your amygdala will flag the threat, and apply aversive stimuli until you resolve a solution to it, such as getting a gun and getting trained up. This mulling over the threat until a solution is reached will exercise the amygdala, and develop a pathway to a solution. Unless, of course, you develop an alternative means by which to neurologically shut off the amygdala, like telling yourself the robber is not a threat, and you will never be robbed, so you don’t need to be able to protect yourself.
Thus a mild Liberal with the capacity for intellectual analysis, who is mugged, may become a Conservative, though there are some boot-licking cowards who will never come around.
If you check the paper you will see the Hippie example, which further supports r/K and Liberal/Conservative predispositions as having a genetic underpinning.
Finally, as I have said, ideology is like the natural world. Zoom in to the quantum level, and our world operates by the laws of Quantum Mechanics. Everything is hazy, undefined,, and impossible to fully characterize. This is much like examining an individual’s ideological predispositions. But zoom out, and the world is neat and orderly, operating according to the simple laws of Newtonian Physics. Likewise, zoom out to the level of our nation, and you find two ideologies, each based upon psychological drives which are exactly identical to the drives which motivate the r and K-selected psychologies in nature. Four traits, (Competitiveness/aversion to competitions, monogamy/promiscuity, abstinence in children/early sexual exposure, and high-investment two-parent parenting (family values), or low-investment single parenting (Murphy Brown)), and each correlates exactly to it’s ideological out-growth. To think that the underlying psychological forces which produce r and K-type psychologies would not affect the way an intelligent organism would structure a government, is actually far less likely than the idea that such defining motivators of behavior would produce actual philosophies devoted to expressing how the world should be.
Also, the American left does not fit the r-Selected paradigm in at least one way: while they are advocates for promiscuity, they are not advocates for fecundity. It is conservatives who make babies in this country.
If there were no birth control, r-type and Liberal behaviors would produce more babies. One aspect of the r-type psychology is low-investment parenting. This means r-type males have no urge to be associated with child-rearing, and r-type females want to get the last kids out the door, so as to make room for the new one on the way. That means less emotional attachment to children, and less desire to rear them. Combine a reduced desire to rear children, with a new-fangled technology that allows one to avoid having a kid by following a simple regimen, like taking a pill, and you have a sub population driven to promiscuous sex, but prone to avoid actually having children. K-types love children, as that facilitates monogamous couples rearing them for long periods. This makes children something most K-types actively want, once they are in committed relationships.
I believe the r-type cohort as a whole is still adapting to this new birth-control selection pressure, though. As time goes on, those who have promiscuous sex, but responsibly avoid pregnancy will cull themselves. What will become the defacto form of the r-type population will be a less responsible female who has promiscuous sex, but doesn’t consider the consequences. Think welfare moms, with twelve kids, and no dad in sight. It’s a Brave New World. Of course, that is going to be dealt with by Darwin with a vengeance, when the time comes.
My prediction is that following the collapse something that can be described as neo-feudalism will emerge. People will be forced to work at what they are good at to survive. The k-selecteds will either learn to work or they wont survive. I think, most will learn to work.
Correct. Our government will collapse, as the r-types who fail to produce will continue to multiply until it does. Producers will no longer have to provide for the sloths, and people will either be removed from the gene pool through prison, leave for more socialist environs, or find themselves afflicted with medical problems they will not be able to get treated properly. It will be ugly, but it will remove a lot of the dead weight on our economy and our nation. The K-types who best succeed will also be well functioning in groups, as they will need the protection. A lone K-type, good at what he does but tightly allied with no one, will eventually confront violence, with savages trying to take what he has earned by force. Those who are part of a community which can help ward off the savages will have enough of an advantage over the lone wolves, that eventually group functionality will be important again to our natures. Pro-sociality will return. It’s so funny that all the traits which are good within us, require such a nasty anvil be applied to our population, but I guess that’s how nature has always worked.
Thank you for the questions. I am in the process of beginning the promotional campaign for this among Conservatives, and every honest challenge I am presented with prepares me to face the questions which are coming with speed and accuracy.
BTW, the pdf is not a trick, or a marketing gimmick designed to catch your attention but tell you nothing, in order to rope you into some further purchase. It is genuinely the most concise, substantiated form of this research I could produce. It is designed to give everyone who reads it a full understanding of the research, and what it indicates. I do have a book for sale, but it is just a more technical version, designed to confront any challenges over group selection and address the finer points of r/K Theory. I expect a lot of push-back from the Libs in Polysci and Evo-psych, and that book is designed to cut that off. The pdf is all anyone of moderate scientific inclination needs to grasp the work fully, and to be able to use it as an argumentative tool against Liberals.
Yes, thank you. I will read the pdf. I was not finding time earlier, but I will make time.
Newt was right on that.