![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/Dove-Rose-2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLines Matter. Or Don\u2019t.<\/h3>\n
There\u2019s quite a bit of study on the right\/left distinction in political psychology, where they\u2019re defined by self-identification. Scientific American recently published a new idea on this point, called Many Differences between Liberals and Conservatives May Boil Down to One Belief. To quote:<\/p>\n
Psychologists have long suspected that a few fundamental differences in worldviews might underlie the conservative-liberal rift. Forty years of research has shown that, on average, conservatives see the world as a more dangerous place than liberals do. This one belief seemed to help explain many American conservative stances in policy disagreements, such as support of gun ownership, border enforcement, and increased spending on police and the military \u2013 all of which, one can argue, are meant to protect people from a threatening world.<\/p>\n
But new research . . . contradicts that long-standing theory. We find instead that the main difference between the left and the right is whether people believe the world is inherently hierarchical. Conservatives, our work shows, tend to believe more strongly than liberals in . . . the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter. A clearer understanding of that difference could help society better bridge political divides.<\/p>\n
These researchers gave surveys to thousands of people. They asked the survey-takers to rate how conservative or liberal they are. They asked all kinds of questions about policy positions. Then they used the kind of statistics that pull out themes (factor analysis).<\/p>\n
But belief that the world was dangerous wasn\u2019t as linked to those as some other research had suggested. That makes sense to me. I know plenty who emphasize such things as nuclear risks, environmental degradation and police brutality as showing how dangerous the world is, and understand themselves to be left-wing while doing so. As with the amount of government and the protection of the vulnerable, these things actually vary by issue rather than being an underlying principle.<\/p>\n
They found that the primary belief they called \u201chierarchical\u201d was 20 times more strongly related to people\u2019s self-identified right\/left position:<\/p>\n
People who score high in hierarchical world belief see the world as full of differences that matter because they usually reflect something real, inherent and significant. Such individuals often separate things of greater value from things of lesser value. You might imagine that to them the world looks full of big, bold black lines. In the opposite view\u2014held by people with lower scores for this belief\u2014differences tend to be seen as superficial and even silly. For those with this perspective, the world is mostly dotted lines or shades of gray.<\/p>\n
Fitting in the Consistent Life Ethic<\/h3>\n
Under this idea (which I\u2019m not endorsing, but playing with) \u2013<\/p>\n
Abortion:<\/strong> There\u2019s a strong line at conception \u2013 that\u2019s when the life of an individual human begins. Also, there\u2019s a line against killing. Therefore, under this scheme, consistent-lifers have a right-wing position. Saying it\u2019s iffy when the life of a human being begins, or that there are times when killing is ok, would then be left-wing.<\/p>\n Euthanasia:<\/strong> There\u2019s a line at intention, saying that intending death is a form of killing – and again, a line against killing. So opposing euthanasia is right-wing under this definition. However, the people who favor \u201caid in dying\u201d and oppose involuntary euthanasia will draw a line at the individual\u2019s choice. That would also then be right-wing. Just different lines.<\/p>\n Death Penalty:<\/strong> There\u2019s a line that executions are just plain wrong, period. No exceptions. Total death penalty abolition is therefore right-wing in this scheme. People who think there might be exceptions or that killing might be ok under some circumstances are therefore left-wing in this scheme. This is of course backwards from the positions as understood nowadays. But it could also be seen that there\u2019s a strict line about horrific crimes deserving horrific punishment, requiring deterrence, etc., which would be more right-wing, and that may be how these researchers understand it.<\/p>\n War:<\/strong> Pacifists, by definition, draw the line and say no war, period. Hence, right-wing. Advocates of just war theory have clear lines, too \u2013 clear definitions, and in European-derived cultures, the criteria set out by Augustine. Those who fudge on those criteria, which includes just about all wars that actually happen, would then be more left-wing under this lines-matter method of ascertaining right\/left differences.<\/p>\n Racism:<\/strong> When I was a girl in the 1960s, racists were understood to be right-wingers by definition. Dividing races into clear categories is also right-wing according to this scheme; left-wingers tend to see more blurred lines and see them as irrelevant. Unless, of course, they\u2019re currently into identity politics and affirmative action, where the fine distinctions become very important. That would then be right-wing, only opposite: seeing various races positively rather than negatively. Of course, nowadays, being told a person is a right-winger isn\u2019t enough to tell you the person isn\u2019t Black, and Black right-wingers generally resent the suggestion of being racist.<\/p>\n Poverty:<\/strong> Right wing could include lines about the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, or lines about taxpayers not being charged for assistance, or charities being the organizations that should be the ones helping. But really, quite a few right-wingers live in poverty themselves. Poverty itself has a clear governmental definition based on income, and I fit that definition for several years while still doing international travel \u2013 it wasn\u2019t really a good definition for ascertaining real deprivation. Lines are a lot harder to draw on this issue. But then, as the researchers said, not everything is lines.<\/p>\n One way to see the reason the CLE is both left- and right-wing is that we differ on making divisions \u2013 including the divisions on left and right. We support more policies understood to be left wing when that\u2019s healthier, prevents harm, or provides economic justice. We tend to blur the line between right and left, which in this approach\u2019s understanding is a very left-wing thing to do.<\/p>\n But we do have the clear line of not killing human beings. People who want to kill blur the boundaries, and rationalize.<\/p>\n I think, all in all, I don\u2019t have any more of a handle on what the difference in principle between right-wing and left-wing is than I did before.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ==========================================<\/p>\n For more of our posts on right-wing\/left-wing differences, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The Death Penalty and Abortion: The Conservative\/Liberal Straitjacket\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nConclusion<\/h3>\n