NOTE: This post shows the About page as it originally appered.  The About page will be updated occasionally as this blog develops and matures.

Introduction:

This blog takes its name from a series of essays written in 1720 by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, whose later work was serialized in The London Journal, and then later in book form, as Cato’s Letters. Through The Independent Whig and Cato’s Letters these two men were foremost among a group of writers which, more than any other, shaped the mind of the American Revolutionary generation. They synthesized disparate ideas from multiple sources and formed them into a coherent whole that was greater than the sum of its parts.(1)

Recent advances in social science research are offering us a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the human mind and how we construct our moral systems. This understanding sheds new light on how and why each of us arrives at our own particular political world view.

It is time for a new synthesis.

It is the intent of this blog to continue in the spirit of Trenchard and Gordon by shining that new light onto some of our old ideas about conservatism and liberalism in the hope of synthesizing ideas from multiple sources to form a fresh interpretation of both.

In so doing, this blog will challenge many ideas about politics that are currently taken for granted by liberals and by conservatives. Statements that might start with “Everybody knows that…” will be treated with suspicion. This blog will argue that much of today’s “conventional wisdom” about liberalism and conservatism – wisdom that often serves as the presupposition behind many of our political arguments on both sides – is in fact unwise.

This blog will develop a series of ideas that, taken together, attempt to replace that unwise conventional wisdom with an understanding of liberalism and conservatism, and liberals and conservatives, that is more congruous with what we now know about the workings of the human mind and the behaviors that result. Some of these ideas are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Key Ideas:

The Rider and the Elephant: We humans are not the logical, rational, objective beings we like to think we are. When it comes to moral issues, including politics, the majority of what we think and say and do is determined not by reason, but by our subconscious mind; by our emotions, and by our instincts and intuitions. Far from being in control, the conscious mind is more like a rider on the back of an elephant, thinking it is in charge but mostly just along for the ride.  The chief role of the rider is more like that of a lawyer, arguing after the fact on behalf of the path the instinctual elephant has already taken. (2)

The Fallacy of Reason:  Reason functions quite poorly as a determiner of rational beliefs. That’s because our ability to reason did not evolve in us so that we might find the truth, it evolved so that we might win arguments against others and persuade them to adopt our way of thinking.  We use reason largely to justify our beliefs and actions after the fact. (3)   We’re superbly talented at calling out the faults of others, and almost blind to the faults of our own. (4) 

The Moral Mind:  The nature of each of our intuitive elephants is defined by our morality.  Our morality is determined by the degree to which each of us employs five, possibly six, core moral foundations.  These foundations act as the color receptors of our moral eye, and as the cognitive tools through which we make sense of what we see.  We – which is to say, our riders/lawyers – use these tools to construct the rationales we use to describe and defend out political views, and to attempt to persuade others that our views are correct.    

Reason and Experience: Ultimately every political philosophy, every morality, boils down to a matter of faith. Liberalism is a faith in reason; the power of the human mind to solve problems and overcome obstacles. Conservatism is a faith in experience; the collected wisdom of the ages, tempered by reason, as represented by customs, traditions, and institutions.

The Bees and the Hive: Humanity is groupish by nature. We’re like bees in hives. Liberal morality focuses on the bees. It seeks to help them thrive through policies intended to care for them, prevent harm from coming to them, and afford them the greatest possible individual autonomy and expression. Conservative morality focuses on the hive. It seeks to help it thrive through a process which constantly adjusts to the moving target of a relatively equal balance between the autonomy of the bees and the needs of the community of the hive, because without a healthy hive the bees can’t thrive. 

The Position of The Independent Whig:

The Problem:
This blog will argue that while the reason-based, bee-focused morality of liberalism is great at perceiving logical inconsistencies in the world at large, and in the arguments and positions of those with whom it disagrees, it is terrible at seeing and understanding the broader picture and potential benefits of the experience-based, hive-focused morality. Further, its fixation on bee-focused policies tends to foul the hive, whereupon it points to the fouled hive as the reason for ever more fixation on the bees. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy, and a slippery slope toward statism and planned societies, which in the end diminishes, if not destroys, the very autonomy it seeks to protect.

The Solution:  The solution is education and enlightenment through open minded discussion, combining the newest findings from social science research with longstanding ideas about conservatism and liberalism to form a fresh interpretation of both.  This blog will attempt to highlight the differences between, and the consequences of, the historical patterns of thoughts and behaviors of the two moralities; to promote the idea that morality is about more than just harm and care – it is also about binding groups together into healthy communities, or hives; and to encourage public policies and educational programs that incorporate this more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of human nature. 

A Final Thought and a Note About Tone:

Our intuitive elephants don’t just change their minds.  They can’t be convinced to switch to a different path or adopt a new set of beliefs.  But through patient, persistent, respectful conversation among our rational riders, they sometimes can and do, of their own accord, make adjustments to the paths they are on.  It is the modest hope of this blog that maybe a few elephants will at least consider adjusting their paths in a way that accepts the notion that morality, and thus politics, is about more than just caring for the bees; it is about caring for the bees AND for the hive because it is only through a healthy hive that the bees CAN thrive.   

References:

(1) See chapter 2 of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn.

(2) See Chapter 1: The Divided Self, from The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom by Jonathan Haidt.

(3) See The Argumentative Theory, A Conversation with Hugo Mercier  at Edge.org, or go to Dr. Mercier’s home page for more.

(4) See Chapter 4: The Faults of Others, from The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom by Jonathan Haidt.