Events
Peace & Justice Expo
Saturday, April 26 Primary Election
May 13 Email Chuck Hagel Nebraska Peace Stratcom
News and important info on the threat to the world from Omaha. Whiteclay
Updates on Nebraska's tiny reservation border town. Dick Cheney
Impeachment is on the table. Speaking Our Peace Forty & Counting
By Paul Olson, NFP President Global Warming Global Warming Is Alive and Well
By Professor Bruce E. Johansen Peace Matters
Omaha NFP Newsletter StratCom Conference Space Conference
 Alexandra Svoboda
An Injury to One is an Injury to All… Event World Peace forum
 Peace Propaganda Peace Propaganda

Can Everyone Be Made to See the Light?

John R. Hibbing
UNL Department of Political Science

People are reluctant to believe that something as personal and cerebral as political orientations could have a basis in genetics. Part of this skepticism springs from scientific illiteracy. Far too many people have the idea that the effect of genes is static and automatic. People think genes make eyes blue or brown and then do nothing for the next 90 years. Actually, genes turn on and off throughout our lifetimes, making the proteins that, for example, form, transport and receive neurotransmitters. Variations in genes lead some people to crave the rush of gambling, roller coasters and hang gliding even as others find these experiences discomfiting. And it appears they lead some people to gravitate toward the political left and some toward the political right.

A little over a year ago, John Alford, Carolyn Funk and I published an article entitled “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?”. Utilizing standard twin methodology from behavioral genetics, we confirmed and extended previous findings indicating that political beliefs are partly heritable and partly environmental. Whether one is liberal or conservative is certainly not determined at birth, and there is no “gene for” liberalism or conservatism, but the findings indicate genes are far from irrelevant to politics. This research could be incorrect since all methodologies have their limitations. But the technique in question has proven useful and accurate in numerous other areas, and it is worth speculating on the possible nature of the connection between genes and politics, as well as the implications of such a relationship.

Genes are unlikely to affect directly timeand context-specific issues such as attitudes toward nuclear power or property taxes, but genes could work on orientations toward broader issues of group life and societal structure. For millennia, homo sapiens have lived in social units. Not all social units face the same pressures, however, and it is likely that different approaches to organizing group life evolved. Groups located in hostile environments over the generations could have developed a preference for group unity, for leaders exuding clarity of purpose, and for a relatively belligerent attitude toward out-groups. They may also prefer traditional behavioral codes, swift and certain punishment of in-group malefactors, and an uncharitable view of human nature and its malleability. We refer to those with this worldview as absolutists. Other people, perhaps possessing genes selected for in unthreatening environments, see less need for unquestioned leaders, for group unity, and for negativity toward out-groups. They oppose inflexible moral codes and harsh sentences, opting instead for rehabilitation, context- dependent punishment, and a belief that the human condition can be improved. We call such people contextualists.

These broad worldviews likely then shape the preferences of people in numerous areas. Absolutists tend toward fundamentalism in religion, realism in art, phonics rules in teaching reading, conservatism in politics, revealed truth in learning, and strong authority figures in child-rearing. Contextualists, on the other hand, prefer secular humanism in religion, free-form impressionism in art, whole language in reading instruction, liberalism in politics, human scientific discovery in learning, and a nurturing approach to child-rearing.

Our suspicion is that many people in modern societies are neither pure absolutists nor pure contextualists. To the extent they have a governing worldview, it is mixed or genetically indeterminate. These are the people whose positions are open for activists to influence. But a minority of people, for reasons that are in part genetic, are either committed absolutists or committed contextualists. It is unlikely any events or arguments could lead them to change their worldview. Not surprisingly, these same people gravitate toward politics and exacerbate societal political disagreements.

This research on the connection between genes and politics obviously has a number of potential implications for those on the left. Let me speculate on just two. The first is that the advice of George Lakoff, whose influential book Don’t Think of an Elephant has been making the rounds in Democratic circles, is probably misguided. Lakoff uses family relationships as a metaphor for politics, associating the right with strict parenthood and the left with a more nurturing, permissive style of parenthood. The notion he advances is that if the left became more skilled at employing the language of authoritative parenting, its message would be embraced and elections would be won, since the language of strict parenthood is believed to be more appealing to more people.

In contrast, our findings suggest that style of parenting is merely one part of a genetically influenced worldview encompassing religion, politics, acquisition of knowledge and leisure pursuits. Accordingly, absolutists will be attracted to the tough-love language of a stern father figure, while contextualists will recoil from that same language. Thus, the notion that the salvation of the left rests with linguistic gimmicks simply does not ring true, since absolutists will find the authoritarian language appealing (but still probably vote Republican) and contextualists will find it off-putting (and display diminished enthusiasm for those voicing it). Preference for a particular style of parenting is a symptom not a cause of the problem.

The second implication is that the left is indeed more likely to win if it understands that people’s politics are in part genetic. Though our findings have been roundly criticized by both the left and the right, the criticism from the left has been more intense. Contextualists like to stress the malleability of the human condition, so a role for genetics is particularly bothersome to them. But a successful electoral strategy cannot be based on an inaccurate vision of human nature, even if it is a comforting one. Many on the left are fond of pretending that all people are the same and, therefore, of assuming that the same kinds of arguments and evidence that they themselves find persuasive will appeal to others. But just because liberals believe knowledge is acquired through careful sifting of relevant facts, followed by open-minded reflection and lively discussion, does not mean everyone believes this. A significant segment of the human population believes that facts are tricky inconveniences and that core values trump empirical evidence. Liberals believe information and superior arguments will win, so they badly misdiagnose the situation when they lose. Many on the left believe that all they need to be successful is to recruit a strategist as clever as Karl Rove, to convince people to quit watching Fox News, or to encourage their candidates to repackage their positions in the language of firm parenthood.

In actuality, the left would be ahead to recognize that people are fundamentally different, politically and otherwise. The belief that absolutists are just misinformed contextualists is mistaken, and those on the left should know better, since they are generally better at appreciating and tolerating human differences, such as those in sexual orientation, learning styles, skin color and religious beliefs. Why then is it so hard for them to appreciate similar differences in worldview? Absolutists will never stop thinking there is something ‘wrong’ with Massachusetts, but contextualists could get a leg up on their antagonists by recognizing there is nothing ‘wrong’ with Kansas. When someone’s political orientation is different from ours, it does not mean that orientation is wrong, just as when someone’s sexual orientation differs from ours, it does not mean that orientation is wrong.

Believing the resurgence of the political right is entirely attributable to cagey messaging techniques, and believing that all voters subscribe to the same rules of evidence, are both serious mistakes. Appreciating that people differ genetically, not just in height and hair color but also in personal and political temperament, will encourage treating opponents with respect, and will make it possible to distinguish that which can be changed from that which cannot. Genes are probabilistic and not deterministic. So for those committed to altering the status quo, much remains in play — just not everything.