Are Americans Two Distinct Species?

by James Wallace Harris, Saturday, November 4, 2016

Should we divide America into two countries as a social experiment? If we allowed liberals and conservatives to have complete control over their own nation, would that produce two happier populations? Would the citizens of each nation end up mostly agreeing on how to govern themselves? Would the majority in each culture be calmer and more satisfied? I’m wondering if Americans aren’t really two distinct species:

  • Homo sapiens liberals
  • Homo sapiens conservatives

The extreme polar views expressed in the 2016 U.S. presidential election convinces me they are. I was just reading “Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming,” and its stark description of political differences only reinforces such speculation. Science often describes two species of animals that to my eye look the same, but have adapted to the environment differently. When I listen to my Fox News loving friends, I feel they are a completely different kind of people. They are so passionately confident about being absolutely right. Then again, I feel the same way about my liberal views. Are we both seeing the same reality dramatically different because we’re different creatures that only look similar on the outside?

[ File # csp6502397, License # 2856694 ]
Licensed through http://www.canstockphoto.com in accordance with the End User License Agreement (http://www.canstockphoto.com/legal.php)
(c) Can Stock Photo Inc. / iqoncept

What would happen if we separated these two species? What would happen if all the conservatives move west of the Mississippi, and all the the liberals to the east? So each would create a government government according to their philosophies. In the west they’d form a free market nation, with a small government based on The Bible, and in the east they’d build a secular nation, with a big socialist government. Would the citizens in each new nation then be happy?

Would these two nations then evolve dramatically differently? Would the mating of conservatives with conservatives, and liberals with liberals, further enhance their distinct differences? In thousands of years, would the citizens of each country look physically different? I know this is an impossible experiment to perform, but it sure would be fun to see the results.

I might have an idea for a science fiction novel here.

Would the western states pursue an anti-science legal system, moving away from urban society, back towards small town rural living? Would easterners pursue science, becoming cyborgs, and create high-tech super cities?  Would westerners allow diversity? Or would they move towards a conformity of looks and culture? Would easterners mutate into even newer forms of post-humans, genetically enhancing themselves even more? Would westerners become like the Amish, and halt the acceptance of technology? Would easterners run their nation on renewable energy and give up fossil fuels? Would the western states build a giant wall around their country, and reject globalism? Would they still build a large world-spanning military?

I could imagine the westerns states slowing their pace of living as they settled on a ideal conservative lifestyle, whereas easterners would embrace everything new and diverse, enjoying rapid change.

I can envision the westerners creating a Christian theocracy, although it would be a strange one where everyone would carry a gun. And eastern Americans would build a non-religious culture that oddly enough would appear like the meek had inherited the Earth.

And you know what’s funny. If conservatives created their own nation, I can’t imagine them ever electing Donald Trump as their leader. He neither acts, nor looks like someone that would fit in the west (or the east).

JWH

How to Debate a Conservative?

My neighbor has a son I discuss politics with from time to time.  He’s conservative and I’m liberal.  He’s anxious for Obama to leave, I’m anxious for him to stay.  My friend, who is my age, is good guy and he doesn’t push his agenda and I try not to push mine.  Conservatives are mighty arguers, and debating them can be difficult because conservatives are often as passionate about their politics as they are about their faith.  One problem with debating conservatives is they often feel the solution to the issue at hand is all too obvious and the facts are all on their side.  And that’s the first quandary with debating conservatives – liberals have to argue against the status quo.  We’re fighting an uphill assault against a well entrenched position.

Today my friend claimed Obama was making a huge political mistake by not siding with the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.  To ordinary folk, the pipeline sounds like a no-brainer.  It promises jobs for Americans and more oil for America’s long term security, and during an election year where gasoline prices are climbing daily and politicians want to get every vote they can get, it would appear insane for Obama to reject the pipeline.  Why wouldn’t liberals want more jobs?  Why wouldn’t liberals want cheaper gasoline and securer oil supplies?

Obama recent decision to reject the current claim puts the decision off, probably until after the election.  Obama claims he wants a better environmental impact report.

If you aren’t familiar with the Keystone pipeline controversy you’ll need to do some background reading because I don’t want to summarize what is already so well-written elsewhere.

Keystone-pipeline-map-KWD2

I think it’s pretty easy to restate the conservative position.  The pipeline means jobs during times of high unemployment.  The pipeline will be another source of oil that doesn’t come from the Middle East, promising more security against future oil shortages.  It offers hope for lower gasoline prices.  It could be a great economic stimulus, especially for the state of Texas.  Finally, it’s a way to help our friends the Canadians.

How can liberals argue against all of those benefits?  We already have zillions of pipelines crisscrossing the country, why not another one?

If you read the articles you’ll see there are many people fighting the pipeline.  Why?  I don’t mean their specific reasons, but why are some people for something and other people against?  Any project benefits some people and hurts others.  It’s always that way.  A hot issue like the Keystone XL Pipeline is political.  The prime motivation for any big scheme is to make some people wealthy.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  The Canadian company and its American allies are trying to put over a big project and they are doing everything they can to convince America its in their best interests to let them go ahead.  So why stop them?

Like every wish from an Aladdin’s Lamp, something unexpected comes with our wishes.  To some, Obama’s delay is merely one for letting us think harder about what we’re wishing for – to try to foresee the possible unexpected consequences.

There’s been a boom in natural gas production in America and many landowners and towns rushed to embrace drilling and pipelines in their communities only to regret it later.  That’s the first layer of protests against the proposed pipeline.  There are individuals that don’t want it in their backyards.  Eminent domain has always been controversial in our country – it’s always the little guys versus the big guys and the benefits of the many against the sacrifice of the few.  But this is not the major consideration in the Keystone Pipeline now, but it’s growing.

The next level up is the local environmental impact of the project.  President Obama and the EPA and other agencies want to take a longer look at the problem.  What’s the worst thing that could happen?  Could Keystone shell out the billions like BP if there was a major spill?  What if there was an accident that impacted millions of citizens?  I tend to think the current delay by Obama is really about this level of opposition, and sooner or later the pipeline will be built.

But there’s two more layers, that I think are the real issues.  These two issues are at the heart of liberal opposition to the Keystone Project.  The first is oil addiction and the second is global warming.  They are related, and even interconnected, but they are still two separate issues.

Oil is a finite resource that the human race is using up at an exponential rate of consumption.  Americans are oil junkies and the Canadian tar sands offer billions of barrels we greedily want to consume.  We don’t want to give up our SUV and wasteful lifestyles, and the Keystone Pipeline is another drug dealer to rely on for our addiction.  Among our citizens are people that are saying, “Hey, this is enough, we’ve got to get off this drug.”  These people know that through conservation and energy efficiency we could easily live with much less oil.  They know oil is vital to our whole economy and wasting it is huge danger to our long-term survival.  Instead of using all the oil up in the next 50 years, maybe we should make it last 300 years or longer.

To these people, some of who are environmentalists, and others just economists, they know we don’t need more sources of oil, but a lifestyle to live with less.  And they believe we need to change now.  This would be true even if global warming didn’t exist.

Of course global warming does exist, and the Canadian tar sands are a particularly nasty way to get oil.  Conservatives refuse to believe that global warming is happening, or they refuse to believe it’s man-made.  Throughout the history of mankind people have refuse to accept anything that threatened their personal wealth and wellbeing.  Accepting that the pipeline is a bad idea means accepting that our way of life is wrong, and most people can’t go there.  But what if it’s true?

Now this brings me to the title of the essay, “How to Debate a Conservative?”  How do you convince people their way of thinking is wrong?  I’m not sure we can.  That’s why conservatives don’t like liberals.  We’re asking them to make radical changes in their lives.  What gives us the right to ask so many to give up so much?  Of course we know we can substitute an energy efficient lifestyle that would give them everything they have now and more, but it would be disruptive and costly in the transformation.

We can also tell them their children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of their wastefulness, but that’s never worked in the past.  How effective is that Bible verse about the sins of the father visiting the later generations?  If God couldn’t change the Israelites, why think the liberals can change the conservatives?

We could try and convince them to read hundreds of history and science books, but we spend billions on education and get few to read.

How long has it taken to convince white people that people of color are equal?  How long has it taken to convince men that women are also equal?  Right, the liberals are still hard at work on those issues.  Change comes slowly.  We can take some satisfaction that even the most conservative people today are flaming liberals compared to people of the past.  But is that any consolation?

And how many liberals are driving SUVs and living in 6,000 square foot houses?  I’m afraid all too many.  As long as liberals consume as much oil and live equally energy inefficient lives, we can’t argue well.

Does it come down to which side has the most lawyers, super-PACs and Congressmen in their pockets?  It certainly would help if Obama had the balls to take an environmental stand and marshal the Democrats into action.  I like Obama, and I think he’s a very eloquent guy, but he’s not a visionary leader.  We live in times that needs another Lincoln but all we got was another Kennedy, a charming man with style, beautiful wife and kids, but who is only better than average politically.

Liberals need to organize and become more successful politically.  They need to fight as hard as the conservatives do, but hopefully without the dirty tricks.  Lucky for us, the best the conservatives can find to lead them are greedy buffoons that only think about one thing:  eliminating taxes.  If liberals were as aggressive as conservatives at seeking tax breaks we’d have one healthy environment, but sadly Democrats seem to be just as corrupted by money and power, but they feel just enough guilt to help the poor.

I’m not sure how to debate a conservative.

I tend to think our addiction to oil will not be broken and the Keystone XL Pipeline will be built.

I tend to think the concerns of the little landowners, farmers and ranchers will be pushed aside when the pipeline is built.

I tend to think there will be small and large oil spills and we’ll live with the consequences.

I tend to think we will consume all the oil before we learn to live without it.

And I’m quite confident global warming will destroy our current way of life, and our generation will be cursed for centuries.

JWH – 2/26/12