What brings us together as a political party?


What do we have in common that unites us? Why do we support polices that others vehemently oppose and why do we strongly oppose their policies?
What binds us, and what binds our opponents, is our sense of what is morally right as expressed by our moral values. And what research since the 90s has shown is that there are two distinct and opposed views of what is morally right and two sets of moral values? We are all some combination of those two sets.
Our sense of what is morally right and our moral values were learned as the youngest members of our families. Different families and other life situations taught us our different values. For some, our values changed over time.
For most of US: “We came together because of our moral values: care and responsibility, fairness and equality, freedom and courage, fulfillment in life, opportunity and community, cooperation and trust, honesty and openness. We united behind political principles: equality, equity (if you work for a living, you should earn a living) and government for the people–all the people.” — Professor George Lakoff, cognitive linguist.
Let’s explore our moral value of equality and its opposite from our opponent's moral values.

Equality in our families

Equality is reflected and promoted in our families by accepting that both parents, of any sex, share in raising our children. Our families teach our children compassion for others as our equals. Our families nurture our innate empathy and promote responsibility for ourselves and others as our equals. Our empathy and compassion helps us understand that equal protection and empowerment of our family and others is morally right. Our families understand that there are many factors that impact family members and that some of those factors are beyond our control. We understand we need others, including government, to help minimize those impacts in order to maximize equality.

Inequality in other families

Our opponents moral value of inequality is based on a strong belief in a social hierarchy, or social Darwinism. Both the left and right see God above all. However, our opponents extend this hierarchy to put white, wealthy, heterosexual, monogamous, Christian, men next in line to God. Then everyone/everything is ranked below that depending on various human and non-human characteristics. For example, a non-white, poor, non-heterosexual, unmarried, woman with a child ranks very low in their hierarchy. Historically, their ranking has even placed the value of some animals, like horses, above some humans.
The families of our opponents typically have an authoritarian male dictating to other family members their place, and the place of others, in the hierarchy. Only those like him are his equal. This authoritarian male defines what is morally right and severely punishes family members who resist. Other family members have no rights except those he grants. The authoritarian leader teaches his children that having empathy weakens their ranking in this hierarchy.  The authoritarian leader teaches his children that they are only responsible for their own success in life. If they are unsuccessful, it’s ALL their fault. The authoritarian leader teaches that some, like himself, are more equal than others by virtue of the purity of their genes.  There is no need for compassion or empathy for those lower in the hierarchy - less pure.

Government reflects our moral values

Moral values are learned from our families and life experiences. They are eventually reflected in our governmental leadership and the policies governments enforce.
Here are two definitions of government that amplify the difference between our moral value of equality of opportunity for all and those of our authoritarian opponents - equality only for the self-made man.
Government for equality:
A Government of, by, and for the people requires both:
(1) Government representatives with the moral commitment to equally protect and empower all the people where:
(a) people’s individual freedoms are maximized, and
(b) economic, social, racial, and environmental injustices against we the people are minimized, combined with
(2) Active participation (voting and political participation) of a majority of the people to maintain such a people-driven government.
Government for inequality:
A Government of, by, and for the successful, white, Christian, male requires both:
(1) A government with the purpose to protect and empower only the successful such that their individual freedom and wealth are maximized, and
(2) The active participation of only the successful and their minority of supporters, with the use of voter suppression and election fraud, to maintain such a government.

Government policies reflect our moral values 

Our moral differences on maximizing equality and our opponents' on maximizing inequality are also reflected in our different governmental budgetary policies.
Our opponents create federal budgets that maximize the wealth of successful white, males through tax breaks for the billionaires and government contracts for those who build, or fuel, our WMDs.
By contrast, our federal budgets maximize equality by providing jobs during severe economic downturns, by empowering our mobility with freeways and public roads, by advancing science and creating tools that empower us like the internet or protect us like weather satellites, by creating high tech green jobs to protect our air, water and land, by providing healthcare to protect us from bankruptcy and the threat of early death, by providing high quality public education to empower us without the enslaving debt, etc.

Know your moral values

Our sense of what is morally right determines our moral values which in turn drives our support for policies and laws that represent them.  When you talk policy, include your moral justification to help other understand why that policy it right.

First The Less Equal Must Demand Justice

April 2018

"Compassion Is Our New Currency"

Showing 6 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Charles Hailey
    commented 2019-06-19 00:48:39 -0500
    Equality vs Scalia’s “Racial Entitlements"

    In 2012, SCOTUS gave new life to “Jim Crow law making” by striking down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Since then, those states once required to pre-clear voting law changes have been free to limit voting by minority citizens as they see fit.

    Scalia, and the court majority, had decided that the “racial entitlements” section of the 1965 law needed nullification:

    “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes,” wrote right-wing authoritarian Antonin Scalia.

    Even though this rationale was critical to the SCOTUS decision, it was left out of Justice Roberts’ ruling. Also left out of Justice Roberts’ ruling was any indication of what part of the Constitution was violated by the VRA law to justify the nullification. Instead Roberts said, “Things have changed dramatically.”

    For our political opponents, who believe in social hierarchy and inequality, “racial entitlement” is a dog whistle for equalizing minority voting rights and reducing their power over those deemed less pure. It means sharing their white privilege and diluting their racial purity, and that is immoral in their worldview.

    The dramatic change Justice Roberts spoke of is really growing equality which threatens white privilege.

    How might this racial entitlement rationale impact a SCOTUS decision on the citizenship census question?

  • Charles Hailey
    commented 2019-06-09 16:24:27 -0500
    Juli, Thanks for your comment. This posting, and it’s comments, are an evolving effort.

    “Civility” as an action comes from our compassion and empathy and they come from our deep, moral, belief in equality, or as you put it, “seeing great value in EVERY individual being an element in our society.”

    On the other side, empathy is seen as a weakness because it weakens their place in their hierarchy and goes against their moral belief in inequality. If you see others as less than you, it OK to punish them. Some punishment is to teach their children. Some to enforce hierarchy. Some for abuse of others. Some to train troops. Some to enslave. Some to kill.

    Their position in the hierarchy means they are pure. They want cardon copies of those who are pure.
  • Juli Perry
    commented 2019-06-09 11:38:19 -0500
    Something not mentioned is that there’s a very serious inside us to express our beliefs with civility. We are bound together to not be hostile like our opponents. I think it’s because of our interest in seeing great value in EVERY individual being an element in our society, not just the ones who are carbon copies of us.
  • Charles Hailey
    commented 2019-06-07 22:16:19 -0500
    The Power Dynamic of Right and Left – Concentration or Distribution

    As stated in the original posting, those on the left, non-hierarchical/equality side of the political spectrum tend to favor a government that equally empowers and protects all citizens. Then there are those on the right, hierarchical/inequality side who tend to favor empowering and protecting those whom they consider most pure.

    As stated in another comment to this post, there is an integral power dynamic that is used to express the moral values of each side. On the left, it is about maximizing the distribution of power. The greater our empowerment, the greater the freedom for all to succeed. On the right it is about maximizing the power of the purest amongst them. The greater their power, the greater their freedom to succeed without regard to impact on others lower in their hierarchy.

    When it comes to enforcing their hierarchy and power concentration, the right demands a heavy hand, guns, and a strong, excessively, funded military. These tools impose and agressively maintain their unnatural and immoral hierarchy.

    When it comes to nurturing equality and power sharing, the left relies on integrity, strength of character, empathy, cooperation, diplomacy, and a moderately funded military focused on defense. Enforcement tools are available, but appropriately limited for protection — not aggression.
  • Charles Hailey
    commented 2019-06-07 19:48:41 -0500
    Take some time to listen to this 2018 interview of Rev. Dr. William Barber, of the Poor People’s Campaign a movement. You will hear about the moral values that brings us together, Fusion Politics, and what actions must be taken to reverse the injustices put in place by the right-wing authoritarians and their 50 year enslavement plan and reestablish our moral values as the vision for America. Hear about “Saving the soul of this democracy:” “Give American a real choice!” " … people in a movement to vote." " … change the moral narrative." " … there’s a battle for morality …" “… bring it on …”
  • Charles Hailey
    commented 2019-06-03 23:38:45 -0500
    Hierarchy Side Effects:

    Before interacting with one of our right-wing authoritarian opponents, keep the following in mind to help understand their opposition to equality and policies that equalize. There are two side effects from the purity aspect of their social hierarchy: their perceived power from exceptionalism and feelings of victimization with any loss of power.

    Our opponents that believe in social hierarchy are predisposed to obtaining, retaining, legalizing, and enforcing their power over others lower in the hierarchy. Any attempt to elevate ‘others’ in their mythical hierarchy is a real threat to their perceived power. Proposals that infect their perceived purity with equality threaten this power perception and induce fear. That fear amplifies their hatred of others and leads to inciting and committing violence.

    Our opponents believe in a hierarchy where their purity makes them top dog. They perpetually expound on the myth of American exceptionalism that grew after WWII. Attacking (9/11) or diminishing that purity through expansion of equality (Equal Rights Act) is an attack on the top dog. Giving ‘advantage’ to those inferior in their hierarchy leads to victimhood. To lessen this feeling of victimhood, they will accept loss of a social benefit as long as the ‘others’ also lose that benefit. Don’t forget that initially Social Security excluded domestic and farm labor. Now that the others have guaranteed SS, our opponents don’t mind losing it (privatization – no guarantee) as long as ‘they’ don’t get that guarantee either. This shared victimhood also unites them and strengthens their support for their leaders when those leaders are attacked/victimized by Democrats or Congressional investigations.

    Voter Turnout Effects
    For our opponents, the growing threat of policies that promote equality, and of those who support those policies, has a direct impact on their voter turnout. For example, the historical Republican voter turnout for midterm elections in Galveston county is 17% less than for presidential elections. However, in 2018 Republican voter turnout was only 1% less than 2016. The Democratic numbers are 11% and 2.5%, respectively.
Volunteer Post a suggestion