Parlor Wit

Of Brains and Politics

The results of a recent neurological study suggest that Liberals and Conservatives differ not only with respect to their politics, but also with respect to the way their brains deal with information. An article about the study’s findings makes the following points:


Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show. September 10, 2007
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment being reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information………

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy……..


So, comparison of the brains of Liberals and Conservatives reveals two things:

1. Appeals to democratic individuals should differ from appeals to authoritarian individuals. Consider your target audience. Perhaps there need to be separate messages tailored to appeal to each type.

2. Conservatives have an inherent mental disability. ;)

Parlor Wit

Republicans Hope to Make InroadsWith Hispanic Voters
Promise to lower border fence by a couple of feet.

Angry Dems Get Tough onIraq War Policy
Float idea of informal discussions about tentative timetable for non-binding benchmarks.

Political Parties: Machiavelli

Political parties have a profound effect on our lives. Parties in government determine our taxes, wars, social programs and individual liberties. Yet I have found surprisingly little written about political parties as a social phenomenon. There are some scholars who argue that political parties are just harmful interest groups. Another scholar argues that political parties are helpful, because they promote compromise. In my view, the most insightful analysis of political parties was that of Niccolo Machiavelli.

Machiavelli’s name has long been associated with political manipulation, deception and trickery. But, in today’s world, he could be the “political advisor” to the President. ;) What impresses me are the following observations contained in his most famous works, The Prince and The Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius:

[from The Prince, CHAPTER IX]
But coming to the other point—where a leading citizen becomes the prince of his country, not by wickedness or any intolerable violence, but by the favour of his fellow citizens—this may be called a civil principality: nor is genius or fortune altogether necessary to attain to it, but rather a happy shrewdness. I say then that such a principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy.

[from Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, CHAPTER IV.]
I cannot indeed deny that the good fortune and the armies of Rome were the causes of her empire; yet it certainly seems to me that those holding this opinion fail to perceive, that in a State where there are good soldiers there must be good order, and, generally speaking, good fortune. And looking to the other circumstances of this city, I affirm that those who condemn these dissensions between the nobles and the commons, condemn what was the prime cause of Rome becoming free; and give more heed to the tumult and uproar wherewith these dissensions were attended, than to the good results which followed from them; not reflecting that while in every republic there are two conflicting factions, that of the people and that of the nobles, it is in this conflict that all laws favourable to freedom have their origin, as may readily be seen to have been the case in Rome. http://www.gutenberg.org

The parties which Machiavelli describes as “the faction of the nobles” and “the faction of the people” I would call “authoritarian “ and “democratic”. Looking around at the world’s democracies, it does appear that they each have two major parties, e.g., Republican and Democratic in the USA, LDP and DPJ in Japan, and CDU and SDP in Germany. In each case, one party represents authoritarian interests and the other represents democratic interests.

It’s true, therefore, that these political parties represent different interest groups. They represent the interests of citizens with conflicting worldviews, agendas, and objectives. The fact that they meet in a legislative setting does give them an opportunity to work out their differences. But even if they cannot work out their differences, it is far better that they clash in a legislature than clash on the streets.

Parlor Wit

"The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm a commander guy." --George W. Bush, who apparently is no longer "The Decider," Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007 (Watch video clip)
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

Democratic Government: Montesquieu

Where members of a social cooperative aspire to democratic values, ideals and goals, they must determine how to organize their decision-making in a way that supports their democratic values, ideals and goals. Baron de Montesquieu addressed this question in his major work, The Spirit of the Laws. As shown in the following chapters, he concluded that democracy is best served by a government where powers are separated and serve as checks to each other:

BOOK XI., CHAP. IV.
DEMOCRATIC and aristocratic states are not in their own nature free. Political liberty is to be found only in moderate governments; and even in these it is not always found. It is there only when there is no abuse of power: but constant experience shews us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. Is it not strange, though true, to say, that virtue itself has need of limits?

To prevent this abuse, it is necessary, from the very nature of things, power should be a check to power. A government may be so constituted, as no man shall be compelled to do things to which the law does not oblige him, nor forced to abstain from things which the law permits.

CHAP. VI.
IN every government there are three sorts of power: the legislative; the executive in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive in regard to matters that depend on the civil law………

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Again, there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary controul; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

One thing which Montesquieu may not have considered is the effect of political parties in this system. Where one political party gains the advantage in all three branches of government, the separation of powers is nullified. There is no check to abuse. We have seen this recently in the USA, where the Republican Party came to dominate the Presidency, the Congress and the Supreme Court. Their dominance of all three branches of government allowed them to enact laws to their advantage, implement laws to their advantage, and have those laws upheld in courts to their advantage. And thus they accomplished much mischief, to their advantage.