Great couple of podcasts, and I hope that you can keep mining the last questions regarding liberal culture.

Uh, it looks like exactly the opposite is true:

http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconservative/2008/05/pubs-and-dems-brands-and-beliefs.html

I’m not a libertarian, so I’m curious how the “slides” would work for one who held up anarcho-capitalism as an ideal. The following remarks are just guesses: Would someone of that type be more accepting of “harm” as something that would create incentives for others, or toughens one up? (I don’t mean this in a bad way – I’m thinking of the logic of the “Death Wish” movies).

“Ingroup” seems like something that would not register (i.e. “Starship Troopers”). Reciprocity as a sentiment might mean an enormous amount – one would have the right to be ungrateful, but the bonds needed for enterprise generally could mean that people need to recognize what is fair and unfair in their most essential dealings.

“Hierarchy” and “purity” are where I really get tripped up. I’m not clear how “hierarchy” is a sentiment distinct from “ingroup,” and positing an anarchist society seems to throw “ingroup” and “hierarchy” away at the same time for me, and thus a flag is raised. Then again, I’m just guessing at how these foundations work. Also, can’t “purity” be defined as a species of harm?

In any case, I guess I have two questions going: how do the sliders work for a libertarian, and if some of the foundations can be seen not-quite-so distinct from the other foundations, can a reasonable electoral strategy be to recast one’s ideas in terms of the relevant passions?

You seem to hint at this latter idea very strongly when you mention the “moral primacy of harm, autonomy and rights” – the repugnance at gay marriage is nowhere near as great as the repugnance of crime against gays for most conservatives. That can be played upon to give left-leaning and libertarian parties an advantage (of course, exaggerating a threat can also work to one’s detriment). Harm and reciprocity could be said to be at work in a greater vision of purity, where moral conservatives see themselves as classic liberals first, and therefore concede rights rather than see others be hurt by a climate of prejudice needlessly.

I realize this comment is all over the place, but any thoughts you have would be welcome, I’m still trying to sort out everything you said.

I agree that it looks bad.

But, on the other hand, if most people are built so that they’re shielded from arguments by their emotional armor, then it seems like a legitimate tactic to appeal to their emotions so that we can get past the blockade, and get a fair hearing of our arguments.

That doesn’t seem like manipulation to me.

Is it just me, or does this sound like Will’s advising more Michael Moore-like behavior?

We won’t win major elections for a long time, anyway.

But, it’ll be longer if we don’t encourage as many people to adopt a metaphor for government closer to “night watchman” than “mommy” or “daddy”.

–”disgust is uniquely inarticulate, implying no real reason beyond itself, and so is unfit as a basis for persuasion and policy in an open, pluralistic society.”

Hmm. If only we had these silly ideas about transcendence removed from our decision-making, then we’d really have something. Why would anyone want to be disgusted at something like unfair taxation or slavery based on morals from some made-up god? We didn’t really need emotion to inspire people to fight in the Revolution or the Civil War. An open, pluralistic society would have seen by virtue of “pure” reason that these ills do not an efficient society make.