Jonathan Haidt: Can a divided America heal?

[miniboes]

I didn't realize, but after the election what I really needed was 20 minutes of Jonathan Haidt. He was interviewed by the founder of TED, and I found it very refreshing how he's neither overly optimistic nor overly resentful, and just speaks with a lot of clarity about these issues. I recommend giving it a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-_Az5nZBBM

[EquALLity]

Jonathan Haidt also gave a TED talk about the values of liberals vs the values of conservatives.
It seemed to make sense at the time, but upon realizing republicans have elected Trump, the idea that conservatives care more about stability while liberals like to shake things up seems questionable.

[miniboes]

Jonathan Haidt also gave a TED talk about the values of liberals vs the values of conservatives.
It seemed to make sense at the time, but upon realizing republicans have elected Trump, the idea that conservatives care more about stability while liberals like to shake things up seems questionable.

Note that trump is an anti change candidate: repeal Obamacare, isolationist stuff, anti immigration.. I can elaborate more tomorrow but trump responds to all sorts of changes that people are outraged over

[EquALLity]

Jonathan Haidt also gave a TED talk about the values of liberals vs the values of conservatives.
It seemed to make sense at the time, but upon realizing republicans have elected Trump, the idea that conservatives care more about stability while liberals like to shake things up seems questionable.

Note that trump is an anti change candidate: repeal Obamacare, isolationist stuff, anti immigration.. I can elaborate more tomorrow but trump responds to all sorts of changes that people are outraged over

I would argue the exact opposite. Hillary Clinton was the anti-change candidate - that's why Bernie Sanders almost beat her with like no name recognition and with no super PAC - because Bernie represented change and Hillary represented the establishment.

Hillary Clinton is an incrementalist. She doesn't really have any revolutionary ideas, she just wants to continue with slow but steady liberal (sort of) progress. She didn't run universal health care, she ran on expanding Obamacare. With every issue, she just wanted a LITTLE progress. There was no hope of real change in her campaign.
Bernie wanted to fundamentally change the government by getting money out of politics, and Hillary wanted to keep things the same. Sure, she said she was against Citizens United, but she only brought it up in response to Bernie.

Trump is very similar in that regard- Bernie and Trump are both populists who campaigned on radical change. Of course, the actual messages in policies in that change varied substantially. Trump's radical change was "we're going to take back America from minorities and put ourselves first", while Bernie's was "we're going to take back America for the powerful and make it work for everyone".

Those policies you listed about Trump ARE his change. Repealing Obamacare is change, because that is law. Isolationism is extreme change, because that's the opposite of American foreign policy since forever. Building a wall to stop immigration is also change.
It's not all liberal change, but it's change.

[knot]

I'd say Trump is so far away from classical conservatism that he's almost the polar opposite. Concepts that are central to conservatism are things like restraint, gradual change and stability -- none of which apply to Trump at all. That's why tons of conservatives supported Hillary instead, and why Trump supporters called those people "cuckservatives"

[miniboes]

I would argue the exact opposite. Hillary Clinton was the anti-change candidate - that's why Bernie Sanders almost beat her with like no name recognition and with no super PAC - because Bernie represented change and Hillary represented the establishment.

I'm honestly not quite sure what I was trying to say yesterday, I was pretty tired . I don't remember/haven't seen Haidt's talk you refer to. I don't think change/anti-change is a useful way of thinking about politics at all. Out of your post I make up you understand this; all ideologies have a vision, and are only pro-change if change leads the nation closer to their vision.

A lot has changed recently, so Haidt's research may be otudated. The old political divisions of left-right and progressive-conservative/secular-religious are being replaced with a new division which, unfortunately for the US, is not between but within the parties. The division I'm talking about is the nationalist-globalist/cosmopolitan one.

I think nationalism is largely a response to globalisation, which is a trend that most 'establishment' cosmopolitan politicians (including clinton & obama) are either allowing to happen naturally or actively promoting. It's a trend, not a sudden change in policy. Globalisation and climate change are quite similar; they're creeping trends that only one side of the political spectrum seems to care about. Nationalists tend not to care about climate change, and cosmopolitans don't think globalisation is a problem.