Regarding the Authoritarian Playbook

Introduction

This 6:34 video of Roger Stone supporting open attacks on the election makes it explicit that MAGA plans to steal the the 2024 election if DJT loses. This is the reality of American radical right authoritarianism. Its scope and depth has grown far, far beyond just Trump. The elites running the MAGA wealth and power movement are fueled mostly by lies, slanders, bullshit, crackpottery, rage, hate and what appears to be non-trivial, actual belief in some of their own lies, slanders, bullshit and crackpottery. American authoritarianism has deep roots and a lot of infrastructure in place. The Trump cadre of authoritarian elites** are planning to make their run at kleptocratic dictatorship with Trump as a callous, kleptocratic, above-the-law dictator for life.

** The Trump cadre of elites are the kleptocratic autocrats among MAGA elites. The kleptocratic plutocrats and kleptocratic Christian nationalist theocrats are also in play. A lot of elite authoritarians appear to be sympathetic two or all three strains. The extent of coordination between the three strains of American radical right authoritarianism is unclear to me, but significant coordination exists. Perplexity:

While the extent of explicit coordination is difficult to quantify, there are clear overlapping interests and mutually reinforcing actions between these groups that pose a threat to American democracy and civil liberties.

Stone: “They use the election system to harass you when you’re in office,

but this is about an election. We gotta fight it out on a state-to-state basis.”

☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️

The Authoritarian Playbook

A nonpartisan, anti-authoritarianism group, Protect Democracy has posted the Authoritarian Playbook as a guide for journalists to spot and understand the tactics authoritarians use to gain power against a democracy. 

Protect Democracy describes itself as “a cross-ideological nonprofit group dedicated to defeating the authoritarian threat, building more resilient democratic institutions, and protecting our freedom and liberal democracy.” The group relies on experts, advocates, litigation, legislative and communications strategies, technology, research, and analysis in its work. The point is to make a stand in defense of free and fair elections, the rule of law, fact-based debate, and a better democracy.

The group describes its playbook like this:

Authoritarian takeovers rarely happen overnight. Today’s authoritarian playbook is a process that happens piecemeal and is hard to distinguish from normal political jockeying.

Our report, The Authoritarian Playbook: How reporters can contextualize and cover authoritarian threats as distinct from politics-as-usual outlines the seven fundamental tactics used by aspiring authoritarians, describes examples from in and outside the United States, and offers a framework journalists can use to differentiate between politics-as-usual and something more dangerous to democracy.

Before the 1990s, authoritarian leaders bent on upending democracy typically came to power forcefully and swiftly, often by means of a military coup d’etat. The moment democracy ceased to exist could be time-stamped and reported on with a block headline.

Yet for at least the last 30 years, the threats to democracy have evolved. Today, democracy more often dies gradually, as the institutional, legal, and political constraints on authoritarian leaders are chipped away, one by one. This has happened, or is happening, in countries including Russia, Venezuela, Hungary, the Philippines, Poland, Nicaragua, India, Turkey — and the United States.

By using “salami tactics,” slicing away at democracy a sliver at a time, modern authoritarians still cement themselves in power, but they do so incrementally and gradually. Sometimes their actions are deliberate and calculated, but sometimes they are opportunistic, myopic, or even bumbling. There is no longer a singular bright line that countries cross between democracy and authoritarianism. But the outcome is still the same.

This presents a unique challenge for journalists, who are committed to providing the public much-needed information and context about important news. Contemporary democratic breakdowns are far more difficult to identify because — in snapshots — they can mimic the typical acts of political jockeying to gain advantage that are routine even in healthy democracies. But especially as these acts accumulate and intensify, hard-nosed politics can cross a line into authoritarian threats. Unfortunately, there is no simple bright-line answer or mechanical test to distinguish between the two.

At the same time, because authoritarianism worldwide tends to follow clear and consistent patterns, we can use these patterns to separate the signal from the noise. This basic framework — the authoritarian playbook — can help isolate clear and immediate dangers to democracy from partisan outrage, political hyperbole, and sensational spin.

The press has a foundational role to play in how democratic systems hold leaders accountable, and doing so requires clarity about the gravity and implications of their actions. Understanding and recognizing the authoritarian playbook as a whole can help journalists not only decide what to cover as threats to democracy, but can also help enrich and contextualize coverage about how the individual components of the playbook fit together. Americans suspect that their democracy is at risk. But by identifying and connecting individual threats to democracy to the global whole, reporting can help inform voters about more than just what is happening — it can tell them what the news means.

Covering the authoritarian danger requires that the press do two things: understand the interlocking components of the playbook itself, and distinguish between normal political jockeying and genuine authoritarian moves. This briefing is designed to help journalists do just that.

The analytic framework for authoritarianism is this:

Since the MSM fails to do this way too

often, we have to do it for ourselves

Perplexity summarizes the 7 main tactics the Authoritarian Playbook describes:

Weaponizing Fear: Authoritarian leaders embrace a language of violence, promote a punitive culture, and leverage military might domestically. They aim to make critics believe they'll face harm for opposing the regime.

Targeting Outsiders: They stoke xenophobia by demonizing immigrants and foreigners, blaming domestic problems on these scapegoats, and portraying political opponents as sympathetic to these perceived enemies.

Undermining Institutions: This involves taking over courts, eliminating checks and balances, undoing established treaties and legislation that limit executive power, and weakening protections for free and fair elections.

Rewriting History: Authoritarian leaders exert control over schools and media to indoctrinate the public with beliefs that reinforce their power.

Exploiting Religion: They appeal to the religious majority while targeting minorities, often conflating national identity with religious identity.

Dividing and Conquering: Using hate speech and encouraging violent actors to widen social rifts, they manufacture crises to seize more power.

Eroding Truth: They attack the press as an "enemy of the people," dismiss negative reports as "fake news," counter legitimate information with disinformation, and overwhelm the media landscape with endless scandals and contradictions.

Additional Tactics

• Politicizing Independent Institutions: Authoritarians attack and seek to capture institutions that typically operate independently from partisan politics, such as law enforcement and central banking.

• Aggrandizing Executive Power: They work to weaken legislatures, courts, and other institutions designed to provide checks and balances, often justifying this expansion of power through cults of personality.

• Corrupting Elections: While maintaining the facade of elections, they tilt rules against opponents, suppress votes, and may even overturn results.

• Stoking Violence: Many authoritarians deliberately inflame violence to create fear, division, and feelings of insecurity.

By employing these tactics, authoritarian leaders aim to consolidate their power, suppress opposition, and erode democratic norms and institutions. These tactics are often employed gradually and in combination, making them difficult to distinguish from normal political maneuvering. The playbook emphasizes that modern authoritarians frequently come to power through seemingly democratic means before slowly eroding democratic norms and institutions

A 9:16 video about the authoritarian playbook.

It's the final countdown..............

24 days to go!!

How will YOU be spending the next 24 days?

Like this..................?

If so, you might want to check this out..........

https://www.270towin.com/2024-countdown-clock/

It is definitely gonna be a nail-biter...........

https://www.270towin.com/maps/consensus-2024-presidential-election-forecast

OR will you be a SNOWFLAKE and watch the ups and downs like this................?

Let's keep our fingers crossed..................

https://www.270towin.com/news/2024/10/04/legal-us-prediction-markets-president-live_1670.html

See what I mean by nail-biter? Better stock up on popcorn (and beer, whiskey, or whatever your medicine is) 

About the Overton Window: Left vs right, or democracy vs authoritarianism?

The MSM talks very little about the OW (Overton Window). But in my opinion that is a serious mistake. Understanding the OW concept helps to understand the current ideological divide. It helps explain the false perception by tens of millions of Americans that DJT, the Republican Party and MAGA generally are not radical, authoritarian, kleptocratic or bigoted. A WaPo article directly discusses this (not paywalled):

More Americans see Harris than Trump as very ideological

It’s presumably in part because Trump’s already shifted conservative ideology so far to the right

There are those who dislike the metaphor of the frog in the slowly boiling water, but it’s hard to deny its utility. Perhaps frogs aren’t as complacent as the morality tale would suggest, but the idea of a critter becoming acclimated to increasingly dangerous environs deserves some sort of short hand. Particularly at the moment.

Republicans see a citizenry unaware that the nation is facing a crisis of the economy and public safety, mirroring the (pun intended) overheated presentation of their nominee, former president Donald Trump. Democrats see a country unconcerned about the risk of tipping into authoritarianism, a concern amplified by Vice President Kamala Harris (and that’s also driven by Trump’s past actions and rhetoric).

Partisans tend to see the other party’s candidate as an embodiment of the problem, an extreme manifestation of a political ideology they oppose. Unsurprisingly, then, polling conducted by YouGov for the Economist found that significant portions of the country view Trump and Harris not just as conservative and liberal, respectively, but very liberal or conservative. Perhaps unexpectedly, more Americans say Harris is very liberal (37 percent) than say Trump is very conservative (28 percent).

That’s in part because Democrats are less likely to say that Trump is very conservative (40 percent do) than Republicans are to say that Harris is very liberal (71 percent do).

That is in part because Republicans are more fervent in their ideology than are Democrats. That’s reflected in how partisans view their own candidates. About half of Republicans say Trump is “conservative” with another quarter saying he’s “very conservative.” Among Democrats, a bit under half say Harris is “liberal” — with nearly a third describing her as “moderate.” What it means to be “conservative” has shifted — perhaps not among purists but certainly among a lot of Americans. Donald Trump has been the Republican nominee for three straight cycles and, as the head of the ticket, has helped reshape the party and redefine right-wing politics. 

So by the standard of national politics in 2014, Trump is unquestionably more ideological than Republicans overall. We might not have used “conservative” to describe his politics at the time, since “conservative” was a signifier for Republican spending and social positions. Now it’s a signifier for Trump’s far-right mix of populism, isolationism and xenophobia. And by the standard of the new Trump “conservatism,” Trump is in fact not extreme at all. The water got warmer. 

Democrats identify themselves as liberal and moderate and see their candidate as liberal or moderate. Republicans identify themselves as conservative and see their candidate as conservative. But presumably in part because Trump has already shifted “conservatism” to the right, his ideology is seen as less fervent than his opponent’s overall. 

An important concept that is absent here is authoritarianism. DJT's ideology is not "conservative." It is authoritarian, and kleptocratic. The same applies to Republican Party elites and most rank and file MAGA people/DJT supporters. 

Note that the WaPo article referred to DJT's politics as Trump’s far-right mix of populism, isolationism and xenophobia. A Perplexity search about authoritarianism in that kind of politics gave this response:

Q: Can a far-right mix of populism, isolationism and xenophobia be considered inherently authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning, for example as in the case of Trump and MAGA?

A: Trump has shown a tendency to aggrandize executive power and resist checks and balances. This includes: Asserting broad emergency powers, issuing controversial [corrupt, actually] pardons, making extensive use of acting appointments, resisting congressional oversight, and claiming immunity from judicial accountability. These actions align with authoritarian efforts to consolidate power in the executive branch.

The MAGA movement has engaged in tactics that threaten core democratic processes: Spreading disinformation about election integrity by (i) attempting to overturn legitimate election results, (ii)
passing laws that may enable partisan interference in elections, and (iii) supporting the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Such efforts to subvert democratic norms and institutions are hallmarks of authoritarian movements.

The movement revolves heavily around Trump as a strongman figure, with supporters often displaying intense, unquestioning loyalty. This cult of personality is a common feature of authoritarian regimes.

There are indications of hostility toward critics and opposition, including attacks on media as "enemies of the people", attempts to silence or discredit political opponents, and combative rhetoric toward those who disagree. This intolerance of dissent reflects authoritarian impulses to suppress opposing views.

While not every aspect of the movement is inherently authoritarian, the combination of these factors - executive overreach, undermining of democratic norms, nativism, cult of personality, and intolerance of opposition - creates a political ideology with strong authoritarian leanings. However, it's important to note that supporters may not view these elements as authoritarian, often seeing them instead as necessary measures to "make America great again."

That last sentence speaks truth. As far as I can tell, nearly all of the MAGA rank and file claim they are fighting to make American great again. Supporting DJT and MAGA is how they do that. That is solid evidence that the OW has shifted far toward authoritarianism, not necessarily far toward conservatism. There is a huge problem with limiting the OW spectrum to a left vs right scale. The most important OW scale here is democracy vs authoritarianism, not liberal vs conservative. 

"Real" reality... 🤷‍♀️

 

We talk of this thing called “afterlife.”  If it exists, and since we have no direct access to it, we can only imagine it, or if you are the religious type, maybe/probably you believe in it.

But…

What if what we are experiencing now is an/the “afterlife” of some existence we had before the current one?  Is that impossible? 

Like dreaming is an altered state of existence from what we experience in our waking hours, maybe life as we experience it is just an altered state of our “real” existence.

Take these thoughts and run with them (i.e., speculate).

(by PrimalSoup)

Regarding the morality and rationality of fear and anger against DJT and his MAGA

The election is still too close to call. DJT could be elected in 2024. The Hill comments: 

Democrats start to hit the panic button 

“Everything is deadlocked and the composition of the electorate is unknowable, and there are so many things that are unprecedented,” said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons, who served as Harris’s communications director until last year. “We can’t look back with any level of security because we haven’t had an African American woman on the ticket. We haven’t had a former president running again. We haven’t had a campaign with two assassination attempts. We haven’t switched out a candidate two months before Election Day before. .... So it’s just hard to know. If you’re not nervous, you’re not paying attention.” .... “Now that the sugar high is gone, people have realized what Kamala Harris has said from the start, which is that she is the underdog. This is going to be a fight. … These numbers are just so stubborn.”

I feel the fear. It is getting more intense. Personal anger too. We should not have to face the horror of the thoroughly morally rotted, chronically lying DJT, GOP and their morally rotted MAGA movement, which is currently reveling “motivated ignorance”[1]. But here we are, staring a deeply corrupt authoritarian moral horror in the face. Personal feelings of sympathy for the deceit, betrayal and dark free speech-fomented bigotry of the MAGA rank and file are gone. There is no excuse for supporting DJT or MAGA. No excuse.

There are multiple rational reasons for fear and anger at DJT and America's radical right authoritarianism. The trend among radical right authoritarians remain solidly supporting of corruption and authoritarianism. Recent Annenberg data on trust in the USSC exemplifies the radicalism and authoritarianism of America's radical right.

56% disapprove disapprove of the Supreme Court, they trust the USSC 

either “a little” or “not at all” to act in the best interest of “people like you”

But, Republicans like the USSC -- their level of trust is increasing

One of the things about MAGA that really rattled me in 2018 was (i) how the Brett Kavanaugh investigation whitewashed staggering amounts evidence of Kavanaugh's very bad behaviors, and (ii) the lies DJT and his corrupted DoJ told us about their "through" investigation of hundreds of allegations against Kavanaugh. Salon reports:

Trump is not women's "protector": New Brett Kavanaugh 

report shows MAGA protects predators

Republicans believed the allegations against Trump's Supreme Court pick — and knew Trump would still defend him

Trump won't protect women, but on Tuesday, we were reminded of who he is determined to protect: Men he believes to be his fellow sexual assailants. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., released a years-long investigation into how the Trump White House responded when Christine Blasey Ford accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape during his 2018 confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court. Unsurprisingly, Trump's goal was to suppress evidence and silence anyone who could corroborate her story. Yet the details that show the extent of the cover-up are still shocking.

Trump told the public at the time that the FBI had "free rein" to investigate the allegation and he wanted them "talking to everybody." This was a flat-out lie. As the new report outlines, the White House blocked the FBI from interviewing either Kavanaugh or Blasey Ford. Investigators were barred from interviewing corroborating witnesses. A "tip line" was set up, but tips were sent to the White House, which ignored them. It's important to remember there was a lot of corroborating evidence, including another woman who claimed Blasey Ford was abused by Kavanaugh in front of witnesses. As Whitehouse said on Twitter, the investigation "was a sham, controlled by the Trump White House, for political cover to Senate Republicans to put Judge Kavanaugh on track to confirmation."  

Polls at the time showed most Americans believed Kavanaugh was guilty. The White House cover-up shows Trump and his staff also believed in Kavanaugh's guilt. If they thought Kavanaugh was innocent, they would have been eager to conduct an investigation to exonerate him. Instead, they ignored over 4,500 tips and prevented the FBI from doing basic background research.

That does not just show that DJT is a morally rotted authoritarian thug and sex predator. It also shows the same for Republicans in the Senate, and by rational association, House Republicans too. They all knew that Kavanaugh was a sleazy thug and liar and that the FBI was prevented from investigating Kavanaugh's sleaze and lies. But they voted for him anyway. Republican elites did that in 2018 and they will do it again if they get the chance. Also note that MAGA and GOP elites do not care about public opinion that opposes their wishes. That is a hallmark of authoritarianism.

Various sources are reporting (NYT report) that at a recent rally in Wisconsin, DJT encouraged his supporters to physic ally attack people who plan to vote for Harris: “Is there anybody here who’s going to vote for lyin’ Kamala? .... Actually, I should say don’t raise your hand; it would be very dangerous. We don’t want to see anybody get hurt. Please don’t raise your hand.”

There are more than enough reasons for rational, evidence-based fear and anger at DJT, the GOP and the entire MAGA movement. The moral rot** of America's authoritarian radical right wealth and power movement stinks worse than death. MAGA elites are morally rotted in the name of wealth and power, while most of the rank and file are rotted mostly in the name of their MAGA propaganda-fomented irrational fears, anger and intolerant bigotry.

** A NYT opinion from 2018, The Moral Rot That Threatens America, commented: What eats at America — and so its place in the world — is moral rot: unrelenting blight that emanates from on high. When it comes to rottenness, Denmark is passé. Try the White House. .... [Trump] traffics in slurs and untruths. The deepest form of rot is the erosion of the distinction between truth and falsehood. Totalitarianism was one big lie perpetrated on human beings reduced to the often hopeless quest for survival in a fog. A universe where morality ceases is the one Trump is most comfortable in.

Footnote:

1. Perplexity discusses some of the lies and insulting slanders that rank and file MAGA people are sanctimoniously spewing on the public and political opposition:

There are several major lies that MAGA supporters are currently asserting:

MAGA supporters continue to propagate false claims about the 2020 election, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary

They assert widespread voter fraud occurred, particularly with mail-in ballots.

Some claim that 20% of Pennsylvania's mail-in ballots were fraudulent, even though mail-in ballots for the upcoming election haven't even been sent out yet.

Attacks on Democratic Opponents

MAGA supporters, led by figures like Elon Musk, are spreading false narratives about Democrats:

They claim Democrats want to take away freedoms, including freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and voting rights.

Some falsely assert that Democrats are bringing illegal immigrants into the U.S. so they can vote for Democratic candidates.

MAGA supporters are distorting the nature of legal actions against Trump 

Some claim that the Department of Justice authorized the use of "deadly force" during the Mar-a-Lago search, which is false.

They portray legal actions against Trump as politically motivated "lawfare" rather than legitimate law enforcement.

MAGA supporters are promoting various [crackpot] conspiracy theories

Some suggest that if Trump doesn't win, "this will be the last election," implying a threat to democracy from his opponents rather than his own actions. They portray Trump as a victim of assassination attempts, mischaracterizing legal actions as violent threats.

These lies persist despite being readily debunked, demonstrating what some observers call "motivated ignorance"** among MAGA supporters. The spread of these falsehoods through social media platforms and conservative news outlets continues to shape the political discourse, even as the 2024 election approaches.

** Instead of mostly ignorance, is it mostly a matter of knowing lies, slanders and crackpottery grounded in the authoritarianism and moral rot inherent in the our means justify our ends mindset? In my opinion, it probably is more motivated ignorance than knowing lies, although both are non-trivially present.

Chapter review: Morality

The 2021 book, An Introduction to the Cognitive Science of Religion: Connecting Evolution, Brain, Cognition, and Culture, is a college undergraduate textbook by Claire White. Chapter 8 is entitled Morality. of As the book’s title indicates, research on morality and religion is multidisciplinary. My main interest is the science of morality related to politics and what progress the field has made in the last ~25 years since I became aware of the high importance of morality. 

From what I can tell, the field has not progressed much. What progress there is seems to be a modest increased understanding by some researchers at how little they know compared to what they used to think they knew. But that is not all bad. Dispelling misunderstandings is necessary for researchers to progress by reassessing their research and data.

Some points White makes about current beliefs among experts:

• Morality is believed to have arose from the human need to cooperate for survival, a human cognitive trait that is believed to predate religion. Children show signs of moral understanding and behavior at an early age, indicating that moral impulses are at least partly hard wired early on.

• White and experts are unable to define morality, which arguably (in my opinion) makes it an essentially contested concept: “Although scholars differ in how they conceptualize the term morality, it is used here in a broad sense too refer to standards or principles about right or wrong conduct. .... Scholars seem to circumvent the definitional problems of studying morality by investigating ‘prosociality’ to mean behavior that furthers the interests of a particular group. Yet scholars are seldom explicit about what, precisely, their use of the term prosociality designates. The lack of upfront conceptualizations is especially problematic because, depending on which definition is used, the same behavior can be labeled as prosocial or not. For instance, murder and even genocide can be viewed as prosocial according to the evolutionary conceptualization of the term because they [at least sometimes] facilitate success in intergroup competition.” 

• Theists and non-theists show some overlap in moral beliefs, but religious social and moral influences sometimes makes theist morality manifest differently compared to non-theists. Specifically, theists tend to be less trustful of members of other religions, and even more distrustful of non-theists. Theists tend to direct their moral impulses and behaviors to members of their group. That sometimes leads to social division. By contrast, non-theists tend to apply their moral values universally to all people. Presumably the non-theist moral mindset and behavior tends to be less socially divisive, but White does not comment specifically on that point in Chapter 8.

White discusses one bit of possible progress, namely a view by some experts that morality is not a cognitive unitary whole, but instead moral judgments and beliefs are fragmented into different moral domains or values. Responses to those values are triggered by different things and weighed differently by different individuals. This line of thinking goes back to 2004 when Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) was initially proposed. MFT hypothesized the existence of several basic moral domains or values that constituted care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and later liberty/oppression. Values of equality and proportionality were added to MFT in 2023. Different people displayed sensitivities to, or even degrees of rejection of, those moral values in their reasoning, beliefs and behaviors. 

An overlapping variant of MFT that White calls Morality Fractionation has been proposed to broaden the MFT concept to includes lots of moral values or domains. MFT constitutes one specific implementation or example of the broader concept of morality fractionation. Both convey the general idea that distinct moral values, domains or mental modules exist.

My suspicion is that some or many individual moral values or domains at least partly overlap with other moral values or domains. If so, sensitivity to, or rejection of, one moral value may be able to influence a person's reaction to the triggering of a different value. That is a very messy state of affairs if it is real.

Germaine’s commentary & hubris

The cognitive science of morality still struggles with simply describing and understanding what morality is. As best I can tell, cognitive science is nowhere close to having any authoritative, or at least near-universal, prescriptive theory of how people ought to make moral judgments, much less what judgments should be under various circumstances. My suspicion is that this goal will turn out to be something that humans can never achieve. If nothing else, (1) essentially contested concepts, (2) differing personal and cultural norms, and (3) dark free speech, all stand squarely in the way of a universal moral theory.

There are a few semi-universal beliefs that White mentions, i.e., don’t murder or steal, but in my opinion that is infantile in its shallowness. It is inadequate, to put it mildly. My sense of White, maybe significantly reflecting the mindsets of experts generally, is that her mind is trapped by her academic circumstances and the cramped, constraining sociology and history of the cognitive science of morality. Assuming most experts want to improve and/or sustain a happy and peaceful human condition, I suspect that the human history of morality blinds experts to what the most important moral values actually are in modern societies. The experts keep looking back to the apes and young children. Instead they need to look at least as hard, probably a lot harder, at modern adults as individuals or in groups, tribes, nations and political mindsets. Yes, political mindsets. (I'll circle back to this assertion shortly)

Despite science’s limited knowledge and excruciatingly slow progress, I find that White’s overview of morality in chapter 8 is rather comforting. I strongly suspect that morality fractionation is on the right track and MFT is a part of the story, maybe a big part. But I admit to having serious bias in favor of the more recent morality fractionation hypothesis. What bias?

Two kinds of bias. First, the same bias that I asserted (without evidence) most experts have, i.e., a general desire to improve and/or sustain a happy and peaceful human condition. I bet if a survey was done, at least 95% of experts would agree with that assertion, larded with essentially contested concepts as it is. If that is true, and I bet it is, then there is no choice but to consider fundamentally different political mindsets as a central focus of the cognitive science of morality. What different political-moral mindsets? Pro-democracy and pro-authoritarian. Politics and morality cannot be separated. That is an inherent part of the human condition.

My second bias is that the moral foundations of pro-democracy and pro-authoritarianism are fundamentally different. Generally speaking, and as supported by human history, including the modern American MAGA movement, democracy exists and sustains itself only on the basis of reasonable acceptance of facts, true truths, sound reasoning and reasonable compromise (polluted with biases and moral judgments as those factors may be). All major forms of authoritarianism I am aware of, autocracy, plutocracy and theocracy, are opposed to or reject reasonable compromise, and facts, true truths, and sound reasoning, especially when they are inconvenient. 

From that point of view, and in view of the morality fractionation hypothesis, there is good reason to think that (i) support for reasonable compromise, and (ii) fidelity to facts, true truths, and sound reasoning (less irrational) are all core moral political values, separately or overlapping.

Yeah, that is hubris, but I think is it basically correct. My pragmatic rationalism anti-ideology ideology easily fits into the morality fractionation hypothesis. Fitting it into MFT is messier, but probably doable. It is possible that in time data from new research will collapse MFT and the morality fractionation hypothesis back into the earlier unitary morality hypothesis. But at present, that strikes me as unlikely. 

For better or worse, we’re still awfully ignorant. But, we ought to have a better grasp of the cognitive science of morality in another 20-30 years. Of course, I said that in 2017 in my original review of S.M. Liao’s 2016 book, Moral Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality. (review reposted here in 2019).

Is it just me, or is the science of morality in a slowed time warp? . . . . Is morality science something humans can even coherently study? . . . . . grumble, grumble . . . . . . 🤨