I would point out a couple of conclusions from Schweizer's data and analysis. First, I think Schweizer calls it exactly right when he says the root of the gap is because liberals view truth as relative. This is the heart and soul of liberalism, and it is why there are so many inherent conflicts within various liberal groups (i.e. liberalism always eventually comes into conflict with itself). If there is no truth and if everything is relative, then anything goes. When anything goes for one person, it inevitably goes a different way for another.The headline may seem like a trick question — even a dangerous one — to ask during an election year. And notice, please, that I didn't ask whether certain politicians are more honest than others. (Politicians are a different species altogether.) Yet there is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty.
Consider these results:
Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as "very liberal" said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are "very conservative." When Pew Research asked whether it was "morally wrong" to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.
Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: "You lose your job. Your friend's company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?"
Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.
When the World Values Survey asked a similar question, the results were largely the same: Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn't deserve.
The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.
Another survey by Barna Research found that political liberals were two and a half times more likely to say that they illegally download or trade music for free on the Internet.
A study by professors published in the American Taxation Association's Journal of Legal Tax Research found conservative students took the issue of accounting scandals and tax evasion more seriously than their fellow liberal students. Those with a "liberal outlook" who "reject the idea of absolute truth" were more accepting of cheating at school, according to another study, involving 291 students and published in the Journal of Education for Business.
A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward "conservatism" translated into "higher levels of ethical values." And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between "political liberalism" and "lying in your own self-interest," based on a study involving 156 adults.
Liberals were more willing to "let others take the blame" for their own ethical lapses, "copy a published article" and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of "cheating on an exam," according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics.
Now, I'm not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply being more honest about their dishonesty.
However attractive this explanation might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be less forthcoming than other groups.
The honesty gap is also not a result of "bad people" becoming liberals and "good people" becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.
Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate "doesn't have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist."
During this political season, honesty is often in short supply. But at least we can improve things by accepting the idea that truth and honesty exist. As the late scholar Sidney Hook put it, "the easiest rationalization for the refusal to seek the truth is the denial that truth exists."
Another conclusion I would draw from this is the corresponding gap (again, this is anecdotal on my part, but I think it's a pretty concrete anecdote) between the ethical standards required of both political parties. While there are exceptions, we generally see the Republican party (the modern home -- if there is one -- of conservatism) boot out those who are obviously corrupt, and often those who are even suspected of perhaps a single infraction (think George Allen and the 'macaca' moment). On the other hand, the Democrat party (which is the modern home of liberalism) collectively shrugs at even the most blatant of law-breakers like William Jefferson, Barney Franke, and any one of the multitude of examples. A great specific example is when Trent Lott gave a speech at a private dinner for Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party several years ago. He commended him and said that if Thurmond had been in charge, our country would have been a better place. Lott was soundly criticized since Thurmond had, many years ago, supported segregationist policies, and eventually Lott was booted from his leadership position. On the other hand, we have Senator Chris Dodd (who ran for President this year) commending Senator Robert Byrd as a leader for any time, even the Civil War despite the rather obvious conflict that Byrd was a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan and attempted to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What happened to Dodd? After a lame apology, absolutely nothing.
Essentially the same offense, and a polar opposite response.
The Democrat party seems to be okay with such a lack of ethical standards, as we have seen in countless examples in just recent history. I believe this discrepancy is another natural result of the data Schweizer reports.
Finally, I like Schweizer's reference to Hook: the easiest way to avoid truth is to deny that it exists. This is a great way to sum up what I believe is the primary motivation for people who embrace moral relativism. If there really is some universal TRUTH, then everyone must be bound by it. Since they don't want to be bound by it, they declare it doesn't exist. It's a backward way of thinking, one in which the conclusion is reached before the supporting data is examined. The problem is that simply denying a TRUTH does not make it go away. I can call a spoon a fork for the rest of my life, and rail at anyone who tries to tell me a spoon is a spoon until they stop arguing with me about it, but the spoon will always remain a spoon. Shakespeare put it this way in Romeo and Juliet: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. In "The Usual Suspects", Kevin Spacey's character said the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist. However you want to phrase it, this concept is part of our culture, and not at all hard to grasp. It is what it is, not what you call it.
So, there you have it. Conservatives who tend to believe in truth are more honest than liberals who tend to think truth is relative. Anecdotal evidence shows it. Empirical evidence shows it. It is what it is. Now, the question is: where do you fit into this puzzle?
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment