Parlor Wit

Your News with a Twist, courtesy of the "Ironic Times" blogpaper [9/21/09]:

• Many Don't Want Health Insurance

If forced to get it, they'll move to Canada.

• Study: Teen Birth Rates Highest in the Most Religious States
  

Conclusion: Saying “Please, God, don't let me be pregnant” doesn't work.

• Iraq: Sunnis Increasingly Desperate as Shiites Consolidate Power

U.S.: Republicans increasingly desperate as Democrats consolidate power.

Status Orientation, Conservative v. Liberal

George Lakoff, and more recently Sara Robinson and Tim Wise, have written thoughtful articles about the contrasting worldviews of conservatives and liberals. I think the common theme is this:

Conservatives view the world with an authoritarian “status orientation”. They see their social world in terms of people who are superior and people who are inferior, masters and servants, producers and parasites, worthy and unworthy, usually based on such things as race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, heredity or wealth. They see this as the natural order. Those who are inferior and unworthy have no “right” to social benefits. Receiving the fruits of society is a privilege reserved for the righteous, superior, productive and worthy. If you are not in that group, it is no concern of theirs, and they will resent being forced to help or follow lower-status individuals. You see this in their concerns about contributing to the health and well-being of others. It is because the others might not qualify as “worthy.” You also see this in their nasty references to President Obama’s race, Muslim background, and Kenyan roots. He is not one of them, the “worthies.”

Liberals view the world with a democratic “status orientation”. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, “...all Men are created equal.” The fact that someone is White, male, Christian, American and/or rich is immaterial. These distinctions do not make them “better” or more worthy than anyone else. To continue, the Declaration of Independence says that we all have rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It does not say that these rights depend on our status or worthiness. It does not say that these are “unalienable privileges”. It says that these are “unalienable rights”. That is why Liberals argue, for example, that adequate health care should be available to all members of our society, regardless of their perceived social status. Health coverage should not be determined by wealth or any other status measure. These truths may be self-evident to Liberals, but they not acceptable to Conservatives.

Having read some time ago that the brains of Liberals and Conservatives process information differently, I have to wonder: is “status orientation” perhaps like sexual orientation?