The Principle-Emotion Connection in Politics

by Micah Tillman

A caller on Tuesday asked Rush Limbaugh, “why can’t we all just get along?” He felt that Democrat-Republican conflict was, at best, unnecessary. Why not compromise?

Limbaugh responded that there can be no compromise on principles. We may be able to do without pettiness. But we cannot do without principle.

Limbaugh seems to think that if Republicans truly hold conservative principles, what his caller saw as cooperation will always be impossible. The lack of harmony is based on something more fundamental than the pride, greed, or moodiness of either side. It is not just an emotional issue.

We should always be pleased to hear our fellow citizens developing and discussing the concept of principles. Whether we agree with someone or not, a clear understanding of the theoretic foundations on which we both stand will always lead to more rational discussions.

But there is more to the Democrat-Republican and Left-Right splits than the principle difference. There is an emotive-factor that may appear to Limbaugh’s caller as pettiness. It is, however, the direct consequence of our political theories, and cannot simply be written off as a separable character flaw.

Political philosophies have emotive effects. As human beings, our minds and hearts interact. We cannot have one without the other. If we are to understand those against whom our principles pit us, therefore, we must not only understand their theory, but their theory’s emotional outlook.

Take the following as a case study:

No matter how pro-military, pro-law enforcement, pro-border integrity a Left-wing candidate is, she or he will never win the vote of those Right-wing voters whose primary principle is security. Even if the candidate were a decorated general with specialties in counter-terrorism, the situation would be the same.

For someone who only sees the principles of the voter in question, this situation will make no sense. If his primary principle is security, why would he refuse to vote for a candidate who shares that principle? Is he just being petty, partisan?

The answer is “no.” In the Right-wing voter’s political theory, the difference between Left and Right is that between big government and small government. Any candidate from the Left, therefore, will be seen as pro-big-government, as pro-government-expansion, and therefore, as pro-government-encroachment.

This theoretical stance leads to the emotive position of feeling threatened. So no matter how much a candidate’s principles align with the voter’s on the issues of war, terrorism, and border security, the Right-wing voter will never feel safe with a Left-wing Commander-in-Chief. How can you be expected to trust someone for protection when you see him as wanting government to invade your personal liberty?

What many Republicans do not understand, however, is that their own feelings of distrust towards a potential Democratic Commander-in-Chief are the same felt by their Libertarian friends toward the current Republican Commander-in-Chief. To the Libertarian, Bush has led an invasion of government into individual freedom just as much as the Republican feels any Leftist would. A president who makes them feel threatened in this way will never be able to make them feel secure.

An argument between Republican and Libertarian could then break out over the question of whether individual liberty is possible without national security. And it would be an argument over principles. But it would get nowhere because the issue isn’t one of principle alone. It has to do with the emotive consequences of the theories that accompany principles.

It simply will never make any more sense to ask a Libertarian to feel comforted by someone who makes them feel threatened, than it would to ask a Republican the same. Any argument we put forward must deal not only with the other person’s philosophy, but with the other person’s emotive situation.

As humans we will never agree to a system which we cannot make sense of both intellectually and emotionally. So if we cannot convince each other, at least we can understand each other. And that, in the end, will help us cooperate as much as our principles allow.

Notes:
1. A transcript of the conversation between Rush Limbaugh and his caller can be found at: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081407/content/01125108.guest.html

Micah Tillman is an instructor in the School of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America. He can be contacted via e-mail: micahtillman@yahoo.com.