THE ELUSIVE 'IT'

Bill Maher, Los Angeles Times. Posted April 25, 2009 wrote: " The conservative base is absolutely apoplectic because, because ... well, nobody knows. They're mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore. Even though they're not quite sure what "it" is. But they know they're fed up with "it," and that "it" has got to stop."

Tom Jacobs, Miller-McCune.com. Posted April 25, 2009 explains the 'it'. Jonathan Haidt explains it. "He views the demonization that has marred American political debate in recent decades as a massive failure in moral imagination. We assume everyone's ethical compass points in the same direction and label those whose views don't align with our sense of right and wrong as either misguided or evil. In fact, he argues, there are multiple due norths.

"I think of liberals as colorblind," he says in a hushed tone that conveys the quiet intensity of a low-key crusader. "We have finely tuned sensors for harm and injustice but are blind to other moral dimensions. Look at the way the word 'wall' is used in liberal discourse. It's almost always related to the idea that we have to knock them down."

Since Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist, he misses that minds are not equal, nor are brains. There is evidence that some brains find it harder to accept change, thus cling to that with which they are familiar. It would appear that more people, given the teabagger protests, fall in this category. While the majority of the country voted for hope and change with great expectation and enthusiasm, some voters want to keep everything as it was, forgetting that seeing 'it' unchanged, would mean the destruction of the country, financially and otherwise, in a few years if not sooner.

To be convinced that the brain controls the amount of change a person can tolerate, it would be helpful to know someone on the autistic scale. It is likely that there is much yet to be learned about the brain that would help us understand why people on polar ends of an issue can be so convinced that they are right and others must, therefore, be wrong. They leave no room for more than one 'right', whereas many of us realize that there are many 'rights' for many solutions to problems and value systems.