229: Raising kids in divisive times: Where do we go after the 2024 election?

  Chances are, if you're thinking of listening to this podcast episode, the 2024 election didn't go the way you hoped it would.   A lot of people are feeling scared right now. I've heard some people wanting to fight, while others want to hunker down. I've had both of those feelings myself over the last few weeks.   I don't usually wade into current events. My brain needs time to process and digest and preferably take in a lot of peer-reviewed research before I can decide what I think.   I tried to do something different in this episode: I did read a lot, but I only took notes and then spoke mostly extemporaneously. And now you've seen the length of this episode you'll know why I don't do that very often.  

In this episode we will help you answer questions like:

• How do our values shape political views and actions?

 

• How can we make sense of the way that liberals and conservatives prioritize different values?

 

• Is it possible that liberals haven't been truly honest about how we live our values?

 

• What kinds of actions can we take to create true belonging so we don't have to grasp at power?

 

• How can we create true belonging in our families, to live our values honestly and completely?

  I hope you find this thought-provoking and useful as we all start to think about the ways we can move forward - and keep everyone safe.  

These are the graphs mentioned on this episode:

Episodes Mentioned:

• 179: I Never Thought of It That Way with Mónica Guzmán and Lulu

 

• 114: How to stop ‘Othering’ and instead ‘Build Belonging’

 

• 221: How to advocate for the schools our children deserve with Allyson Criner Brown & Cassie Gardener Manjikian

 

Books mentioned in this episode:

(Affiliate links)

• Parenting Beyond Power: How to Use Connection and Collaboration to Transform Your Family - and the World, by Jen Lumanlan

 

• Belonging without Othering, by John A. Powell and Stephen Menendian

 

• Schedule your own Red/Blue conversation through Braver Angels

 

Jump to highlights:

  03:50 References to Dr. John Powell’s and Dr. Jonathan Haidt’s work, particularly The Righteous Mind, exploring political views.   04:45 Explanation of Haidt's five moral foundations and their impact on political perspectives.   07:00 Comparison of liberal and conservative priorities around moral foundations.   08:36 Discussion on care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity in policies.   10:46 Exploration of government intervention, wealth redistribution, immigration, and in-group loyalty.   13:06 Discussion on understanding and addressing the underlying needs of both groups.   17:46 Examples of Social Security and the GI Bill’s exclusionary practices.   19:16 Discussion of economic disparities and the call for fair, inclusive policies.   22:38 References to sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s work on the economic story behind Trump’s support.   24:00 Examination of cultural and economic factors influencing Trump’s voter base.   28:50 Examples of identity threats leading to group cohesion.   32:30 Advocacy for listening to Trump voters to understand their perspectives.   36:39 Explanation of targeted universalism to create inclusive policies.   38:25 Emphasis on policies that promote belonging and equity for all groups.   47:03 Discussion on the need for a new vision of masculinity and racially integrated relationships.   52:04 Emphasis on men understanding and supporting their partners’ needs.   01:00:53 Health benefits of belonging and the need to address exclusion.   01:03:27 Encouragement for civic engagement and understanding diverse perspectives to build an inclusive society.   01:28:07 Jen’s closing message on creating a world where everyone belongs.     [accordion] [accordion-item title="Click here to read the full transcript"] Adrian 00:03 Adrian, Hi, I'm Adrien in suburban Chicagoland, and this is your parenting Mojo with Jen Lumanlan. Jen is working on a series of episodes based on the challenges you are having with your child, from tooth brushing to sibling fighting to the endless resistance to whatever you ask, Jen will look across all the evidence from 1000s of scientific papers across a whole range of topics related to parenting and child development to help you see solutions to the issue you're facing that hadn't seen possible before. If you'd like a personalized answer to your challenge, just make a video if possible, or an audio clip if not. That's less than one minute long that describes what's happening, and email it to support at your parentingmojo.com and listen out for your episode soon. Jen Lumanlan 00:52 Hello and welcome to the Your Parenting Mojo podcast. Last time I did an episode like this was in January of 2020, right after the US capital was stormed. And so this is the only episode I've done since then that focuses on current events, and it is not one that I have tightly scripted, because I would have taken another two weeks to be able to do that. And so it's definitely an episode that I don't feel totally comfortable with. So I just want you to kind of know that going in, I don't find it easy to comment on current issues, because I need time to process and digest but this was kind of too big to let pass. So I find it hard to know what to say about big events like the election, because I'm not a political analyst, and frankly, it kind of drives me up the wall when people who don't have much knowledge about child development and parenting, uh, kind of like, you know, economists tell us how to raise our children, and because making the best decisions for one family using economic rationale doesn't help us to create a society that benefits all families. And so if you have sophisticated political analysis, you may find mine to be lacking. It's mostly drawn from other sources which are cited in the references for this episode. I do draw very heavily on Dr John Powell's work, and you can hear from him in our episode 114 on how to stop othering and instead build belonging. And he has a new book out that I was very interested to read, and I also draw heavily on Dr Jonathan Heights work as well. So what I'm going to do today is to kind of share some ideas that I hesitate to share because they may not be popular with listeners. Not everybody sees the connections between politics and parenting or wants to see them. Parents have told me that they put off episodes related to social issues that I have recorded for, quote, unquote when they have time, and that they focus primarily on the episodes that will help them with their children's behavior, which I totally get. But then they tell me, Well, I just, you know, I never have time. And so I do wonder, Are we a little more willing today to start to see the connections between the ways that we are raising our children, between the political climate and you know, our children's future. And so a lot of people have already written about why Trump won, and so I'm going to draw on those ideas and try to understand what that means for our families, for our culture, for where we go from here, connecting quite a few different ideas from different places. Because I think the argument that all the people who voted for Trump are racist misogynist is kind of dangerous. I don't think that that's really real. Maybe some of them are for sure, most of them are not. And so why did they vote for him? Where do we go from here? Can we avoid going through this again? And if so, how do we do that? And so the first tool that I'm going to draw on is Dr Jonathan Haidt model The Righteous Mind. And I have to give a hat tip to Dr Ari Parsi, whom I interviewed in a podcast episode a few months ago, and she was the person who introduced me to his work. I actually read it after I had already written parenting beyond power, and as I read it, I was like, yes, yes, yes. And I wish all of this could have been in the book as well. So it was too late that ship had sailed by that point, and so the purpose of the book is to to kind of uncover how liberals and conservatives have such different ideas about what's right and what's wrong, and the underlying idea is that our opinions are really kind of based on gut instincts about our morality rather than reason. And so there's one central graph that's in the book, and I'm going to post these charts that I'm going to walk you through, sort of verbally on the episode page, so that you can go and see them for yourself. And so the first chart is one that I basically rebuilt directly from his book, and he illustrates how liberals and conservatives perceive different issues. He has these five major foundations, and Haidt argues that we evolved each of them to help us cope with specific challenges that we face throughout our evolutionary history. So these five foundations, the first one is the care harm Foundation, which helps us to care for vulnerable children, makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need, makes us despise cruelty and care for those who are suffering. The fairness cheating Foundation helps us to cooperate with each other. It makes us sensitive to indicators that other people are likely to be good partners for collaboration, and makes us want to punish cheaters. The loyalty and betrayal Foundation helps us to develop group coalitions that are essential for survival, where we become sensitive to signs that another person is a team player, and makes us trust and reward people who are team players and hurt those that betray our group. The authority subversion Foundation helps us to forge relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies, and makes us sensitive to signs of rank or status and to signs that other people are behaving properly given their position. And then finally, the sanctity degradation Foundation helps us to cope with the potential risks and rewards of eating a wide variety of foods, and now the challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. And so the diagram kind of shows, you know, given these five foundations, how important are these two different groups of voters? And so the key thing that you can kind of see in this diagram is that liberals see care and fairness as incredibly important to almost four on a scale of zero to five, with zero not being at all relevant to their views, and five being extremely relevant. And liberals see loyalty, authority and sanctity as not being very relevant to them at all, between kind of a one to 1.5 on that zero to five scale, conservatives put these issues in roughly the same order of importance as liberals, but rate them much more evenly. All cluster between two and two and a half on that scale of zero to five. And so the way that we express these foundations is also very different, and liberals will use policies like health care to provide care right, health care for all conservatives want to be able to provide for their family in a way that they see best and don't want the government interfering in their lives. So conservatives see care as being relatively less important than liberals do, and also the way that they want to provide care for their families differs from the way that liberals want to do that. Liberals want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, while conservatives think that each person should take care of themselves, and if they can't do that, then their church should help them, because accepting help that you haven't earned is called free riding, and is not acceptable, right? Liberals are willing to accept a degree of free riding to know that wealth is being redistributed and that everybody kind of has what they need to survive. Liberals talk about getting rid of in groups, which leads us to things like open immigration policies and conservatives primary loyalty is to their in group, the people who are already there. And kind of thinking back to a book that I read on New Mexican history a while ago, and I had never fully wondered why Hispanic Latino voters vote for conservatives, and that book helped me to understand that there's the people who are have been in the US, the who identify as Hispanic or Latin X for generations, see themselves very differently as immigrants that are crossing the border, and the old timers kind of see, you know, I've been here forever. I've been here before this country was even a country, and you all are just, you know, Johnny come lately, who are trying to flout the rules, and that's not okay, and illegal immigrants should be kicked out. So I had perceived this kind of shared heritage as a reason why Hispanics, Latinos should be kind of supporting immigration when actually people are seeing it very differently. Liberals want to flatten hierarchical power structures to increase equality. So conservatives like the hierarchical power structures of church. They like having a strong president who's going to lay down the law to others, and the idea of lawlessness is not okay. And then there's the cleanliness purity, right? How pure is the in group? So liberal see everyone's ability to be their whole selves is important, and that kind of fits with the care fairness Foundation, whereas conservatives perceive this as contamination. And so conservative viewpoint might be that transgender people are a threat to the natural order of the two sexes, and so they see this as a contamination. And Seth Moulton, who's a Democratic Representative in Massachusetts, said Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. He said, I have two little girls. I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete. But as a Democrat, I'm supposed to be afraid to say that. So that kind of walks through kind of the five moral foundations and how they fit together. So if you can basically kind of imagine this arrow shape where we've got kind of liberals on the left really kind of thinking this. Because the you know, the care and fairness are really important, and also the loyalty to the in groups is not so important, right? We should get rid of the in groups. We should flatten power structures. We don't really see these contaminants as a threat. So there's a real bifurcation between those two things. And as we head over to the right side of the diagram, where we represent conservatives, all of those are considered much more evenly. They're much more evenly important to conservatives. And so after the election, I was just kind of thinking, Okay, can I translate this into the idea of needs that we talk about on the show? And if you're not sure kind of what needs are, I would definitely encourage you to go to yourparentingmojo.com. Forward slash needs and there is a list of needs there, and I basically use that list to try to think through, okay, what do these concepts mean to the people who hold them as best I can, right? Obviously, I identify as a liberal. I don't fully understand the conservative position, but based on Jonathan Haidt explanation, can I understand what needs conservatives are trying to fill, and also what needs Democrats are trying to fill, right? And so I so I'm sort of thinking through, okay, well, care for all. It means care for everybody, right? Care for for everybody is casting the net as broadly as we possibly can, and government is the mechanism through which this happened. And so sort of big government is kind of necessary to be able to make that care for everybody happen. Conservatives on the other side are kind of seeing, you know, care for few is the most important, and autonomy is super, super important as well. I want to decide what's best for my family. I don't want the government telling me what's best for my family. I perceive that as government overreach. And then there's sort of the, you know, the fairness equality obviously very important to liberals, and that contrasts with the independence and self reliance that's really important to conservatives. So liberals will say, you know, every person gets what they need, and conservatives will say, Well, every person gets what they earn, because what's in my pocket is most important. Loyalty is about group belonging and how wide we draw that circle. So conservatives will draw a pretty narrow circle around family and church, and liberals will draw that circle really wide and say, you know, everybody belongs. Liberals want the freedom that comes with flattening and subverting power structures a strong hierarchy where there's kind of God at the top, and then the President and men in charge feels comfortable for conservatives. So there shouldn't be any lawlessness. When we think about the Israel, Palestine, Israel is seen as civilization in the Middle East, rather than, you know, free Palestine, sort of subverting the power structure that's in place there. And then finally, you know, liberals think that my and your and everyone's self expression enhances the group's beauty, and conservatives see that self expression as threatening the group's purity. So there, we're talking about sort of needs related to self expression and cleanliness and purity. So, you know, obviously this is where you get the culture wars. So Trump has sexual impurity, right? That's pretty obvious, but other factors are more important to people who vote for him. And so then I started to think, well, you know, is there some overarching need or set of needs that kind of sits over all of these needs for liberals and sits over all of these needs for conservatives? And what I eventually realized was that we can ladder them all up to safety, but that safety means different things to each of the two groups. So for liberals, safety means the ability to be and express our whole selves, basically to be in integrity, right to have these values and live in alignment...