The Reasons for Jefferson’s Parlor

This blog, not the parlor at Monticello!

This month marks the fourth year since I started this blog. One reason I started it was to vent my rage at the stupid, misguided, and criminal actions of the Bush/Cheney regime and their Republican sycophants who dominated Congress and the Supreme Court. The other reason was to challenge their worldview, to question its legitimacy, and to present a rational alternative grounded in philosophy, science and U.S. history. That is Progressivism. And Progressivism is not a collection of notions foreign to our country’s Founders. It is the embodiment of the American Promise. That is why I have pointed to progressive democratic ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. It is vital for Progressive Democrats to explain the legitimacy of our agenda to the voting public. We should not cede our history or our national symbols to the Authoritarians. There is no need to do so.

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?