Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Hey man... I listened until 1 hour 3 minutes, not sure if I was going to give this video a like, because I really liked the concept of hearing out people with views not like mine. Why until this point? This is when he says something that is inexcusable, and history will expose that.
Coleman, @melissaradaker1128 in the comments below suggested a conversation between your guests here and Haidt/Peterson. It would be a great one. After listening to the whole interview I'm not fully convinced by their fragmentary thesis that there is no essentially different attitudinal or temperamental orientation to politics. Given that Haidt and Peterson would probably defend this latter position, it would be an incredibly enriching debate. Please make it happen! 😊
That was interesting . I agree that Left and Right as stable doctrines is a myth. But this makes the case for the Left and the Right as stable tribes that are not myths. But then what do you do with say Coleman Huggies who probably defines himself as being of the Left but, because of new tenets of the left for instance on race, feels he has to leave the tribe and become a heterodox? The point i’m making is that you do have a number of people leaving their political tribe or being rejected by their tribe because of a change in the tenets of their tribe which they refuse (they leave) or fail ( they are then excluded, this happening essentially on the Left) to adhere to. For example, in France, the republican left ( which is universalist) is now labeled right and even far right by the Left which has adhered a new form of racism (American racialism or identity politics )
Thanks, it was a great pleasure to listen to this podcast. Couldn't we then imagine that rather than a root philosophy shaping the ideas of the right and the left, it is the strategic choices made by political leaders (taking positions on specific issues to win elections) or their charisma (attracting followers regardless of their positions) that continuously reshape the left and the right? And only then, political philosophers try to define roots behind the overall positions of the parties. What make the left and right concepts so successful (although not so relevant) is only that it allows people to easily feel belong to one groups, and we are made for it. Amazing podcast thanks,
As someone who has identified as a centrist/politically homeless for many years, I've made this same argument in conversation with people but could never put it so eloquently as Hyram and Verlan did. I'm so glad they focused on this idea long enough to build a proper thesis around it. We're so accustomed to thinking of things in a singular way that it's so difficult to imagine anything different. Incredible ideas and conversation. Thank you.
Thank you so much for facing this critical, maybe even existential issue, head-on. My own thoughts track with those of arguably the 21st century's pre-eminent political philosopher, Bill Burr: "15% of people on the right, and 15% of people on the left, are complete fucking lunatics, and everybody else just wants to get on with their fucking life." We've lost sight of that principle somehow.
No it's like 15 percent of the left and 50 percent of the right. The right tried to walk this country off a cliff and overturn an election based on no evidence to do so. Where would we be if they actually succeeded?
One of the simplest sharp most illuminating ideas of political science that I have heard. Literally a stunning realization of truth. They had great answers to all the sharp challenges from Coleman.
This is compelling. Since I was a child and very observant and possibly on the ASD, I always found this left/right binary strange. Like I have to pick a side and spend my adult years viciously hating the other with every fiber of my being. And how could this work to keep a society functioning? It seemed wrong, almost immoral to my 10 year old mind but no one dared question it. I saw the so called culture wars coming in the early 90's.
I still found this not only immoral, but outright stupid. But many people in my country have told me that I am simply not educated enough and do not understand the great deep meaning of this system. Despite the fact that in my country there is not even such a clear division into warring left and right parties as in the United States, these people (quite numerous) people simply believe that everything should be done as in the United States, including their political system.
I feel ya! If the media, Hollywood, film industry etc. focused more on our similarities our society would focus more on those and how we have more in common than not. This left vs right programs people to be divided. Divide and conquer $$$.
Superb guests and masterful guidance of the conversation with some strong questioning of the thesis. This podcast makes the listener feel more enlightened and smarter. I wish it were true for my sake.
As much as I like Thomas Sowell, I always appreciate people who challenge his ideas. He's either revered or ignored, but rarely is he examined, challenged, or critiqued. The guests did an excellent job explaining why the constrained/unconstrained vision idea is flawed. Great interview!
I thought their critique of the constrained and unconstrained vision dichotomy was good, particularly their reference to President Bush and the Iraq War. Sowell has an aversion to messianic types...I feel like "Conflict of Visions" and "Vision of the Annointed" reflect this aversion. Their point is that unconstrained ideals are neither left nor right.
Great interview but this straw-manned Sowell's two visions. There's a reason Sowell doesn't mention right/left or Republican/Democrat in A Conflict of Visions. And the reason is probably the basis of these guys work. I doubt Sowell actually disagrees with these guys. Sowell's truth is much more fundamental. Young people, ideological/intellectual people and newly successful people tend to assume that the world is fixable and so are ambitious and radical and believe in the possibility of rapid progress. Experience of the changing tempestuous world and man's flaws means that wiser people are less confident and ambitious. Less ambitious is a synonym for (small c) conservatism. That doesn't mean that Republicans can't be naively ambitious. Trying to set up a liberal democracy from scratch after vanquishing Iraq being one such example. But that doesn't mean there is no there there in Sowell's distinction. Applying it carte blanche to left/right vernacular would be wrong, but Sowell doesn't do that.
This is one of the most important of many important topics tackled on your podcast so far, and I could go on for days about it, but instead I'd like to take the opportunity to publicly apologize to you for any idiotic or inappropriate ramblings I may have posted on your channel in the past. I'm ashamed and wish I had been even half as productive and focused on anything so worthwhile when I was your age. This has been an extremely frustrating and confusing handful of years here in the States, and you along with a few others on RU-vid have kept me hopeful that there are still thoughtful, rational, people out there trying to uncover and speak truth. Short of contributing money that I currently don't have to spare, I'll do whatever I can to promote you and your channel, including losing more old friends by re-posting your videos on my other accounts (FB, etc). You're great. Keep it up.
As a FORMER long-time active member of the Democratic Party, this liberal is glad to hear someone speaking to me. This well descibes how the Democrats left me by going to a place I was unwilling to go. For me, principle is more important that adhearing to contemporary 'left' political postitions on policy. I have lost many 'freinds' and aquaintences, but have maintained my peace of mind. NOTE: I left the party in 2013, but the insults thrown my way by my former leftists, I have never voted for a fool like Trump, and I never will. Put me in among the new class of 'Double Haters'.
Maybe the only people who will agree with the Lewis brothers are the ones they talk about who see individual issues instead of identifying so much with the liberal or conservative tribe. The rest of us are too loyal to our tribes to step outside of them for a moment to seriously contemplate the possibility that they don't actually exist.
Finally! Nice to see my own perspective being confirmed with regard to the Overton Window and the useless labels attached to the political "right and left". I find it irritating when news channels demonize "the right or the left". I vote based on the policies that are being promoted by the electoral candidates at any given time. I have voted liberal and I have voted conservative and I have voted 3rd party based on what is being supported by those candidates throughout my voting life and will continue to do so.
0:00: 📚 The book challenges the widely held belief that the political left and right represent distinct philosophies, arguing instead that people on the left and right are more like sports fans who adopt the beliefs of their tribe. 8:59: 📚 People anchor into ideological tribes based on socialization rather than philosophical expediency, as evidenced by historical data and experimental research. 16:56: 🤔 Left and right political positions are not naturally connected and are instead a result of socialization and tribalism. 23:39: 🤔 The speaker disagrees with Thomas Sowell's constrained versus unconstrained vision and believes that politics is about multiple unrelated issues. 32:12: 📚 The idea that politics can be simplified into a single left-right spectrum is flawed and outdated. 39:51: 🗞 The openness of individuals to different political ideologies is dependent on specific issues rather than being fixed to a particular tribe. 47:28: 🔀 Parties changing views and flip-flopping undermine the left-right spectrum. 55:31: 📊 The authors argue that there is no natural correlation between political ideology and views on homosexuality, and that Donald Trump's presidency has highlighted the shift in conservative values towards character. 1:04:27: 🗣 The myth of left vs right politics leads to tribalism and destructive discourse. 1:09:47: 🗣 The speakers discuss the challenges of engaging in policy-based conversations and offer practical advice for navigating them. 1:17:19: 📚 The speaker emphasizes the importance of not identifying with political labels and the dangers of tribalism. Recap by Tammy AI
This is a fantastically maverick thesis these bros are putting forth which both challenge some of my notions about politics and really confrim others! I am sure Coleman is smarter than I am, but, I was surprised that he didn't notice before or while he asked his question about halfway through the interview about how their thesis explains people who switch sides from right to left that actually, their perspective is the first I have ever come across which makes side switching easy to understand! All it would take under their thesis would be for one tribe to move on your core issue that initially made you choose them in the first place. This actually even explains what happened with Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald to me, their main issues are free speech and civil liberties, so once the left turned on those, they were out.
I'm not LGBT, but totally get it. It's frustrating...like you have to sum everything you believe into a bumper sticker. It's so much more complex and nuanced depending on the subject matter at hand. Some would think I was libtard one min and wingnut next
I hold very strong individual views across the board,and in recent years this has become "an issue", and uncomfortable, on occasion. Unlike before, where this was completely fine, and acceptable.
I don’t see any irreconcilable conflict between the way these guys are thinking to the points of Thomas Sowell in Conflict of Visions, in part, because Sowell never directly ties these conflicting visions to the permanent essence of any political parties. The insights brought by these guests might well mitigate the ability of the thesis of “Conflict” to explain the seemingly unrelated collection of issues associated with the political divide at any moment in time, but it’s not at all devastating to the thesis of the book properly understood. The fact that the same people can rationalize conflicting positions into a coherent view implies to me that it is the manner of rationality that constitutes whatever enduring “essence” associated with each side, rather than the objective particulars of the issue at hand.
Thank you for the work you are doing, Coleman. The US needs this enlightened level of clarity and veritas to show the way forward. I appreciate you. 🙏🙇♂️
Profoundly informative and enlightening discussion! As others have said, this is the best interview I have listened to yet by Mr. Hughes (and all of them are excellent in their own way). It reflects so many of the ideas and thoughts I had in my own mind (not that I'm anybody) in an extremely articulate and meaningful way that I have yet to have come across elsewhere.
Great talk… I’ve never voted for a Republican, but I’ve been registered independent since my first election in 1996 because I saw through the left right bs from the time I became politically aware. As far as I can tell, there is a huge movement for independent thinking and critical sense-making out of the eyes of mainstream media. I appreciate that although we may have some issues that we disagree on, we might be able to have humanizing conversations across differences. I would love to hear more about how the guests think we can heal divides and interpersonal destruction…there’s so much work to do in that direction…
political philosopher here! i enjoyed this discussion very much and have ordered the book. what about the idea that there is a left and right as political philosophies, but the actual parties on offer in each democratic country track those philosophies increasingly badly. that would be compatible with a lot of with the lewises say about doing real politics, and yet preserve the idea that there are principles many people ~want~ the respective parties to be tracking, and may be ultimately appealing to with the parties as a very imperfect proxy. politics could be extraordinarily non-ideal, without that meaning that the relationship between political philosophies and political parties is ~entirely~ severed. (in my own state, the libertarian party is principled in a way that seems to track libertarian political theory fairly well, while the two major parties, liberal and labour, seem like much more of a mess).
Fantastic conversation. As someone with an undergrad in philosophy, I find the parties constantly shifting their positions, while mine is relatively stable. For that reason, I'm independent...and somewhat persuadable. I register with the Ds so I can vote in primaries. The book is on my list.
Super interesting. I ran for US Congress in 2020 on a platform consistent with your book. Focus on issues, and not tribe. So much so that I would use an issues-based confidential voting platform to inform me on my constituent’s preference on any given issue. My job would then be to either go with my constituent’s views on an issue, or convince them to change their minds. Alas, the system was not ready for this reform. Maybe your book will push us in that direction.
Coleman: I wonder if this comes down to the fact that we vote for candidates-actual people-and not issues (with the exception of referenda). For example, you vote for President. You have to pick one-and only one-candidate for President. That candidate will have a position on many issues. So like it or not, you “buy” the bundle. And then you want to believe that you didn’t waste any of your vote by supporting policies you don’t actually like.
Excellent interview. My only challenge is extremist movements of far right, Islamist and Incel, all have common narratives around anti-feminism, male supremacy and highly traditional gender roles. Why so much consistency across the world and over different periods of time? I've also found myself changing how much I identify with certain ideologies, and this rejection of a concrete, essentialist left-right binary (emphasising the socialisation aspect) explains why so many of us feel "politically homeless". As more social issues emerge, the stories political parties narrate seem increasingly unconvincing and contradictory, this interview made me reflect that perhaps this increasing polarisation is partially because the core framework of left-right is based on a faulty conceptualisation.
This was a fascinating conversation. However as I thought more about it while the Lewis’s recognize the existence of political and ideological philosophy they overlook in favor of self proclaimed tribalism. I totally agree that in practical terms many people divide into political tribes and their beliefs follow the current positions of the political tribe. However, there is such a thing as political philosophy. For example, limited government is a distinct differentiating governing philosophy. What they have discovered, and it’s an important discovery, is that the beliefs of political tribes are fluid and malleable based on rhetorical interests and power of the tribal leadership and elites. That is the social and economic interests of tribal elites determines tribal philosophy. Take progressivism historically both Republicans and Democrats elites have embraced the same progressive positions when it suited and suits them. What we need to uncover is what are fundamental governing philosophies that differentiate between elites. I think the Lewis’s dismissed Sowell’s position much too quickly because it fails to support their thesis. The quotes you read from Sowell were attempting to identify true differences in governing philosophy independent of political tribe.
The two-party system is the perfect recipe for the predicament we find oursleves in now. It caters perfectly to tribalistic, "us vs them" binary thinking. It also distills our political process into the most simplistc, efficient illusion of choice that is possible. And the Lewis brothers are spot-on that it isn't one party or the other that is doing us "great harm" - it's the whole thing that is.
I think all people's political stances fall on two sliding scales. The first is the compromise between safety and freedom, and the other is the compromise between community and independence. All the most impactful political issues fall under these categories. The current left largely leans more towards independence (independence meaning things like self actualization and egoic rewards) and safety, whereas the Right seems to be mostly concerned with maximizing freedom and community. (Community meaning traditional in group structures like family and religion)
The left hates individuality so it hates independence. And it doesn't foster safety-- see California, Chicago, St. Louis. So really, there's nothing going for the left, at least nothing rational.
Except that on economic issues like taxation and the welfare state the "left" is the one who wants to be communal, and the "right" wants to be individualistic. Healthcare? Ditto. How about criminal justice? It's the "left" that talks about the effects on various communities and the "right" that views each person as an independent moral agent. It would certainly be "safer" for the people that live in high-crime areas if criminals are aggressively prosecuted, as they are the most likely pool of victims, but community safety takes a backseat to giving suspects freedom from harsh bail requirements if you are on the "left." The overwhelming support of enormous military spending on the "right" sounds like a "safety" issue to me. I don't think your thesis holds water.
@@stonecoldscubasteveo4827 This is why I've tried to stop using left and right and stick to purely an individualist vs collectivist scale when trying to have productive conversations. And as you note, most people will shift on that scale depending on the issue being discussed.
See my comment in the main thread where I suggest a different set of values that define the Left vs. Right axis. In summary, the Left is guided by empathy+ guilt, and the right is guided by meritocracy+social Darwinism.
@@filmjazz Empathy is a myth. Not just a myth, it's irrational, extremely biased and causes corruption because the first side to talk gets the empathy. No wonder the left is a disaster.
At its core, political leanings often relate to trust in different power structures. Those on the left tend to trust the state or government as a means to progress and address societal issues. They often believe that unchecked corporate power can become problematic or inherently malign. Conversely, those on the right generally place their trust in markets and corporate structures to drive societal improvement. They view excessive state power with caution. Additionally, many on the right, though not all, uphold religious institutions as trustworthy power structures. Certainly, while this trust/power dynamic largely shapes the left/right divide, it doesn't encompass every aspect of their differences.
This is really not true. The left and the right both love corporations and the government, so long as those institutions do what either side likes. Curently, the stereotypical left hates government institutions like ICE, USCBP, CIA, NSA, the Supreme Court, the electoral college. The stereotypical left also loves big corporations, especially entertainment and progressive media and big pharma (vaccine), hollywood writers, social media (especially when people like Trump get banned). Currently, the stereotypical right hates markets when they allow for Chinese competition, 'woke' business, ESG investing, the media, most social media. But the stereotypical right loves the government when it implements things like border walls, tariffs for Chinese goods, tough trade deals with previously close partners (Canada).
Biden is supposed to be a Catholic yet his policies are not compatible with the Catholic church. Trump is not a confessing Christian but his policies are more compatible with Christian Conservative views. Neither candidate is a good choice so people may hold their nose and vote Trump because the policies he promoted were less objectionable. That is how it often is in politics. Not all those who vote Republican are Christians and not all who vote Democrat are non-religious.
Great discussion of an important topic. Hyrum and Verlan gave me Luke and Owen Wilson vibes... both had different perspectives and discussion styles which helped to give a more rounded framing of their argument. Thanks, Coleman, for sharing this.
It leads to the problem why moderate voters today feel they have nobody to vote for who represents them at a reasonable level to feel comfortable with. Both political "left" and "right" are captured by extreme fringe dominant commitments that are alienating to a point of real discomfort.
I don't think this thesis is as deep as they think it is, i mean, just listening to them here and not reading their work, but left and right are just shorthands and change from era to era and country to country. This is not some breaking idea.
One problem with people who place themselves in a tribe is they assume everyone has also done so. They can't think any other way, and thus their search for truth comes to an end because they think they have found it.
I've never agreed with anything so hard in my entire life. 20 years ago my father pointed out how many of the positions of Democrats and Republicans on individual issues are the opposite of what he would have guessed based on their proclaimed philosophies and once you start to see it, it's clear that what the Lewis brothers talk about here is completely accurate.
Even if you don't fully buy their arguments, those arguments and evidence seem strong enough that some serious adjustments to understanding seem due. I do find the absoluteness and confidence slightly overcooked. But the dogged force of the rhetoric does serve to break through people's equally strong opposing senses and sentiments. The relentless push doesn't leave me where they are, but much closer to their view than the CW.😉
Great questions Coleman. I agree that psychological sentiment gets to the heart of this issue. They claim the past studies were severely flawed but has there been subsequent studies that proved their point. Just because the previous studies were flawed doesn't mean the opposite is true.
The American perception of right and left is unfortunate. When I was talking to an American friend and he said I was "right-wing", he looked like he had been hit by a plane. It took me a while to work out "why". It turned out that "right-wing" was synonymous with "conservatism" for him. But... "right-wing" and "conservatism" are two completely different terms, which have in common only that they are used in political science. Here in Europe, it is often exactly the opposite - the right tends to be more liberal and progressive, while at the same time striving for free markets, free enterprise, etc. And the left tends to be conservative and tends towards communism (Stalinist type). Being a right-wing liberal in America must be a traumatic experience. Especially in the context of Trump. Throw that at Trump...I'd have to chop off my right hand. But to throw it to a liberal ... I'd have to cut off the left one again. And not voting is alibi-ish. Note: I'm more of a center-right liberal. And as for my "liberalism" - seeing hard-core American liberals, I guess I wouldn't fall into their perception of liberalism.
It really depends on your definition of “liberal” as I’ve always seen myself as a liberal but when I talk to the “progressive liberal” types I quickly distance myself from that group. The terms “left” and “right” are really messy these days as well
I think the point here is there is really no clear or coherent definition of the terms “right” or “left” and i think that’s correct. We should really stop using them and just discuss the issues we actually want to talk about and our positions on them.
I like this, and I agree with the brothers after hearing the explanation on/about 8:45. I think of conservatism and liberalism as maintenance of tradition/status quo and improvement upon tradition/status quo respectively. They work together. You can't improve on something that isn't established, and you can't establish something unless it has been proven to work--at least for awhile.
One must make the distinction between POPULAR conceptions of the political spectrum, and REAL distinctions that actually give meaning to the characterizations of 'right' and 'left.' For most, political identification is EXACTLY like choosing a sports team, and for many of the reasons listed in this conversation. After all, modern society/culture is ESSENTIALLY consumerist (much more so than 'tribalist'). And contemporary representations of right and left as monolithic 'teams,' each having exactly opposite positions on EVERY issue (social, political, sexual), at any given time, is simply part of this consumerist character.
Arguments of these gentlemen are truly indisputable. Amazing insight. I can just add one example, historical: homosexuality? - look no further then Plato... 😊🧠
I just, finally, finished the book which I found very thought provoking... I pitched this to Coleman quite a while back when he inquired from viewers for subject ideas. Hope this lives up to my hopes!! BTW: Corey Clark... Social Psychologist studying various biases and tribalism like effect that tread into useful areas in a responsible manner... Stuff that seems important, that hasn't come to my attention elsewhere, and that seems to be getting unwarranted resistance. No books, but interviews have been impressive enough, and there are interesting topics among her papers.
This was a very interesting discussion because I think most people have one or two issues. However, conservatism in the US is a more recent political phenomena. While there may have been Republicans who were more tolerant of homosexuality they were not conservatives. Also, the discussion about Haidt was very incomplete. Haidt used the moral foundations theory. Also, his questions about disgust were intended to gross out both conservatives and liberals. Ex. Man buys a chicken has sex with it then eats. This was to show how irrational political values can be. This aligns with what Pareto said about how irrational politics is.
Conservatism isn’t new in the U.S. and is not new anywhere in the world. I’ve been to South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia and they all have parties that fall into categories like traditional and progressive.
@jasonburrow4551 there was Burkean conservatism in England. The French had De Maitre. Who was the American conservative thinker before the 20th century?
Like most either/or debates--EITHER our politics are determined by social and tribal factors, OR they're determined by philosophical factors--the truth is that both tribalism and philosophy determine our politics.
This explains why, in my state, voters registered Independent and Libertarian Party combined now outnumber voters registered Republican and Democrat combined. The Libertarians are clearly philosophical (and argue only on tactics) while the Independents can pick and choose candidates and policies.
Only a few minutes in, but wondering what Jonathan Haidt would say about whether there is actually a left and right worldview? He seemed to conclude the left and right consistently have certain beliefs related to moral thinking.
Left and right is divisive, which is the goal of the world elite. What everyone needs is a strong opinion on each issue and we might just find out we share a lot of opinions if we dont label ourselves. It is not about following party lines, it is about doing what is right and best for everyone.
The authors seem to rely on the Democratic and Republican parties as proxies for left and right ideologies. US political parties certainly command tribal followers, but they are poor representatives for the political spectrum. Interesting talk.
Great conversation. It seems to presume "tribalism" as the dominant characteristic of our political life, and then debunk our dominant paradigm for describing that tribalism. My church, neighborhood association, County Commission, school board and city council are all non-partusan. When I talk with my neighbor we are not part of political tribes. How MUCH of our real face-to-face public life is rightly characterized as "tribal?"
This conversation made me think about Integral theory, it attempts to place a wide diversity of theories and models into one single framework. I (subjective), it (objective), we (intersubjective), its (inter-objective). Individual - collective. Interior - exterior.
This was wild, and the conflation of left/right with liberal/conservative really missed the mark. The fact that the republican party advocates a particular policy doesn’t make that policy “right-wing.” The spectrum of left and right comes down to beliefs about hierarchies of political power, with politics here being defined as anything that has to do with decision making in groups (this is how we get workplace/friend group/household/public “politics” etc). People further to the left tend to favor flattening or eliminating these hierarchies (inequalities), while people on the right tend to want to strengthen or preserve them. People on the right tend to operate under the notion that people are inherently unequal (or “different” if that’s easier to swallow) and are thus deserving of different qualities of life; we need the rich and powerful because they’re talented and hardworking and push society forward, men and women have distinct and predetermined roles in societal reproduction, the lives of people in our country/group are more valuable (to us) than the lives of those in others. All of these statements involve people having different, unequal levels of political power, and people on the right believe these inequalities are just. People on the left tend to believe people are inherently equal and that there should be less (or no) societal disparity in political power; tax the rich and redistribute to reduce money (power) inequality, gender is a social construct that shouldn’t lock people into preset roles, the life of a Syrian refugee is just as valuable (to us) as that of an American. These statements all involve reducing inequalities in political power because people on the “left” view these inequalities as unjust. The channel What Is Politics has a whole series getting into what these words mean if people want to understand more. The philosophical differences between left/right/liberal/conservative go so much deeper than political parties. That’s why the anarchists in post ww1 russia called lenin a right-winger even though he embraced socialism, a leftist ideology, as his goal.
Here's my argument against their thesis: I've noticed that there IS a common "essence" that once identified in a person can predict whether they identify as on the philosophical Left or the Right. On the left axis we have empathy+guilt ("why can't you just be a kinder, nicer person who wants to take care of the African migrants who are fleeing countries the West colonized and oppressed?"), and on the right axis we have meritocracy+social Darwinism ("these corrupt African countries have been free of colonialism for longer than they were colonized, so if they can't get their act together by now it's not our responsibility to take them in and help them"). Those who are too far on the left axis place "being a nice person" above meritocracy and equality, which is why they push for "equity" against a backdrop of white guilt, even though equity, which necessarily requires racial discrimination, is clearly unfair to anyone who isn't a member of the currently designated "oppressed group." Those who are too far on the right axis believe in a dog eat dog world where your failure in the "free market" as a worker or business can lead to sickness, homelessness, and ultimately death, because a social safety net rewards failure and leads to too many "free riders." I believe I can identify a person's politics and views on most issues by simply asking them a few questions to determine which side of that axis a person falls on. That being said, there are people like myself who fall in the center and can't be easily pigeonholed into one political leaning or the other. I believe it's the people who don't become tribal or aligned with "sports teams" who are the leaders in a society, and everyone else the followers. Natural leaders can identify with both sides of an argument because they have developed both empathy and reason, and the two faculties moderate one another when evaluating the world, its problems, and people.
Updated thoughts after watching most of the interview: IMHO, all they have shown is that politics in the USA tends to fall into a two-party binary, most people are very tribalistic and will take on whatever positions their chosen "sports team" espouses, and finally, that political parties can reverse their own positions from time to time, and their followers will simply toe the line even if the new position is in direct conflict with the prior position. I think the Lewis brothers are confusing political parties aka "sports teams" with the deep, philosophical, and even genetic differences that underpin the true meaning of whether someone falls on the philosophical Left or Right.
@@filmjazzI think you may have missed the point. You are classifying the left vs right as sharing vs competition. The point is that both left and right compete and share. Its just the stories each side tells itself that can spin a policy to appear that way. For example, anti-immigration can be spun as social justice. Every immigrant emigrated, leaving their original country poorer. I.e. we should stop "stealing" other countries workers.
Love the interview and generally support what the Lewises are saying and doing (wanting to get rid of increasingly useless terms like Left, Right, liberal, conservative, etc. and to improve civil discourse and policy resolution). However, the issues concerning "essence or ideology" versus "constructivism or tribalism" are not any more binary than dispositions toward the plethora of issues in the arena of politics itself. The Lewises show weakness when the say, on the one hand, that "ideology is an illusion" (or something like that), yet, on the other, that "there are good, better, and worse tribes." One could not have the latter being true without "ideology" in the form of morality. Conclusion 1: Worldview actually does matter quite a bit (recognizing that worldview and ideology are not necessarily the same thing - but I could define them to be). Conclusion 2: Both ideology and tribes are extremely important and experience the praxis together we call "politics." Conclusion 3: How we dialogue about politics very much helps to determine the results. Thank you, Hyrum, Verlan, and host Coleman!!!
Its been obvious to me for some time that tribalism accounts for most of people's behavior. Although, traits like Big 5 seem to matter on an individual level. I suspect you might really learn something if you studied the serial "leavers" or "heavy reformers" intergenerationally, within and between parties on a scale such as: Big 5.
What/whom do you resent the most, or perhaps better said, what/whom have you been led to resent the most? The answer to that question will, if you are old, indicate whether you watch FOX or MSNBC, or if you are young, the interlocking group of social media silos you visit. The trick to escape the tribal politics these guys convincingly deconstruct would be to rise above resentment altogether. So was the wisest political advice ever given given 2000 years ago; namely, that we learn to love our enemies?
This was an amazing interview. I'll be reading the book. This is exactly how I have come to view left and right. Is there such a thing as a centrist tribe?
I have a regular experience that lines up well with the Lewis's thesis. I am neither conservative no libertarian but am in some vague way libertarianish. That means I come out "left" on some things (say, trans rights) and right wing on other things (I prefer markets to be less regulated). BUT, when I meet folks who find out my position on one thing, it is often the case that they are surprised whenever they find out my position on another thing, that it wasn't what they expect. It seems they find out my position, extrapolate what tribe I am part of, expect me to adhere to the positions of the tribe, and get surprised (for good or ill) when I defy that prediction. I suspect a lot of folks get that, and I suspect it is because, for most folks, politics really IS a tribal sport.
"Is the two-party system good? Probably." ~Hyrum Lewis "People make all these assumptions because they are assuming a unidimensional spectrum." ~Verlan Lewis @verlanlewis But Americans' fallacious left-right pseudo-ideological dichotomy results from the two-party system. Maybe the two-party system has other benefits, but these do not include nuance, epistemic hygiene, civil discourse, harmony, and consensus. Following Verlan Lewis' analogy, why should there be only two political shopping carts? The two-party system results from our choose-one Plurality Voting method, via Duverger's Law. The solution for multi-party choice is an alternative voting method, most simply Approval Voting. Unsplit the vote!
I was mostly in agreement with this theory until I read this comment. While I do believe they have good points, why say the red vs blue dichotomy is the best system when it promotes polarization? Wouldn’t he be in favor of a multi-party system based on policies? Am I getting your point right or did I miss?
@@iankane1733 Exactly. The two-party system creates the polarization. If we had more viable parties, one could actually be centrist!! And others could show that you can be for gay rights and gun rights at the same time!
@@simplulo I was just about to post that same comment! The two party system is the origin of a lot of the problems in the states today, it's archaic and enhances tribalism. He knows there are better working systems and still thinks it's the best system right now?
