The Three Languages of Politics: Talking Across the Political Divides

by Arnold Kling

"It changed the way I look at the world." ―Russ Roberts, host of EconTalk When it was first released in 2013, Arnold Kling's The Three Languages of Politics was a prescient exploration of political communication, detailing the “three tribal coalitions” that make up America's political landscape. Progressives, conservatives, and libertarians, he argued, are “like tribes speaking different languages. As a result, political discussions do not lead to agreement. Instead, most political commentary serves to increase polarization.” There is now widespread concern with the way that political divisions are exacerbated by the communication that takes place in both traditional and social media. With commentary on political psychology and communication in the Trump era, Kling's book could not be any more timely, as Americans―whether as media pundits or conversing at a party―talk past one another with even greater volume, heat, and disinterest in contrary opinions. The Three Languages of Politics is an accessible, precise, and insightful guide to how to lower the barriers coarsening our politics. This is not a book about one ideology over another. Instead, it is a book about how we communicate issues and our ideologies, and how language intended to persuade instead divides. Kling offers a way to see through our rhetorical blinders so that we can incorporate new perspectives, nuances, and thinking into the important issues we must together share and resolve.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Political Science

170 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

American economist, scholar, and blogger. He is an Adjunct Scholar for the Cato Institute and a member of the Financial Markets Working Group at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He teaches statistics and economics at the Berman Hebrew Academy in Rockville, Maryland.
Kling received his Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1980. He was an economist on the staff of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 1980-1986. He was a senior economist at Freddie Mac from 1986-1994.

Reviews

[Aaron Arnold · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the moments in grad school that I've come back to repeatedly is the day where we talked about hierarchies of needs and different models to explain them. Maslow and all that. The fact that there were multiple pseudo-rigorous ways to say that food and shelter were more basic and necessary than emotional validation or high self-esteem fascinated me, and to this day whenever I see a system that tries to explain some psychological or social phenomenon by using geometrical metaphors I get reminded of that class. Obviously the basic insight that some things are more important than others is true, yet how can you have multiple different non-quantitative models to explain this? It's basically guaranteed that the most interesting questions will be found where those models disagree, and in that case can you really trust any of them?

Arnold Kling is a libertarian economist who will be familiar to anyone who reads any of the blogs written by him or his friends Tyler Cowen, Robin Hanson, and Bryan Caplan, all of who get referenced in the book. This short book is a meta-rational attempt to catalog American political rhetoric by using three axes that represent frameworks for how people think about political issues:
- The Progressive axis of oppressor-oppressed
- The Conservative axis of civilization-barbarism
- The Libertarian axis of freedom-coercion

It's expected that people will see different issues in different frameworks, but in Kling's view, people of each political persuasion will tend to look at similar issues using consistent frameworks. One of the examples of an issue that he uses is the cause of the mortgage meltdown that prompted the current global economic crisis. A Progressive might say that banks swindled people into deals they didn't understand by using manipulative language and unleashed a bubble they couldn't control. A Conservative might say that the government caused the crisis by lowering mortgage standards so that poor people and minorities who shouldn't have been buying houses could get loans they had no hope of repaying. A Libertarian might argue that the government caused the crisis through the Federal Reserve's manipulation of interest rates that distorted what had otherwise been a smoothly functioning market.

Kling explains these views and offers cursory rebuttal evidence towards each of thesm, with the ultimate point that whichever of these basic explanations you agree with, you have no hope of debating them with someone you disagree with if you don't understand the lens they're using to look at the situation through. And, thanks to the ubiquitous human tendency to explain away inconvenient data ("motivated reasoning"), a depressingly large percentage of the time people are talking past each other using coded language that's less about communicating viewpoints than cheerleading to people on your "team" that already agree with you. He also discusses the concept of an "ideological Turing test", meaning that you can't effectively criticize an argument if you can't explain or paraphrase it in a way that someone who agrees with it would say that your summary fairly characterizes their view.

All of this is reasonable and true-ish, in the same sense that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is reasonable and true-ish. Kling even has some data in the form of an analysis of some editorials by Progressive E.J. Dionne, Conservative Victor Davis Hanson, and Libertarian Nick Gillespie. Does his 3 axis model explain things any better than the slightly more familiar 2 axis model of economic and social liberalism and conservativism? Would adding in a fourth axis explain still more things? Why not 5? In the appendix he points readers to works by people like George Lakoff, Thomas Sowell, Jonathan Haidt, and Daniel Kahneman who have similar models of political philosophies, but he doesn't explain how his model explains the world better than those folks'. Any socialists out there will surely be wondering what happened to their point of view, and I don't think this book will do much for a non-American.

Overall this book is useful, in the sense that it's always useful to be reminded to put yourself in someone else's shoes, and Kling is pleasant to read, but I'm not sure that this book actually breaks new ground. Making an unfair comparison of this book to something like Aristotle's Politics, or Michael Oakeshott's Rationalism in Politics, it's striking how bullet point-ish it feels, and the data is cherry-picked enough to be of dubious value (to his credit Kling is very up front about this). However, you could knock this book out in a subway commute, which you definitely can't say about Aristotle or Oakeshott. Ultimately these kinds of meta-rational works are useful only to extent that they actually explain anything, because you could fill an entire career constructing models about words without actually solving a single real-world problem. I'm happy to read a discussion of perspectives on civil rights, urban crime, or marijuana legalization, but as to learning whether your opinion on them is actually correct or grounded in real data, look elsewhere.

[Tristan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone who thinks that progressives, conservatives, or libertarians are ignorant or evil should read this. Kling outlines how progressives operate on an oppressor-oppressed heuristic, conservatives on a civilization-barbarism heuristic, and libertarians on a liberty-coercion heuristic.

These heuristics have a place, but all involve "fast" thinking (to use Daniel Kahneman's term), ensuring that we'll never get the full picture so long as we stay within the language of our own tribe. By recognizing the concerns and assumptions that each tribe brings to the table, we can better understand them. This allows for more productive disagreements.

Kling illustrates the need for "slow" thinking using many examples. For instance, a conservative or libertarian who stuck to their guns would have been in the wrong during the Ameircan civil rights movement, which was a progressive cause. Conservatives appear to have been in the right regarding stronger policing in the 1970's, which reduced urban crime and made communities safer during an uptick of criminality. And progressives and conservatives have missed the boat on drug laws—if libertarians had gotten their way long ago, we'd have far fewer nonviolent drug offenders locked away.

Also, this book only takes a few hours to read. It's rare to get so much out of such a short read. (A longer review of mine was published in Quillette a couple years ago, if readers of this review are curious for more of my thoughts.)

[Reed Schwartz · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disclaimer: The Koch Brothers paid me $500 to read this book.

Arnold Cling is an MIT-trained economist and probably very intelligent. However, his primary methodology for this book was “introspection” (p. 130); using the same method, I’ve determined it’s unserious. The core claims of the book are:

1. Different political groups use different kinds of rhetoric, and that rhetoric is often tailored to in-groups. (This strikes me as self-evident. It seems plausible that this was more novel among a mass audience in 2013?)
2. There are three main political groups among elites (Kling brackets the masses, although all of the examples he cites are of mass media) in the United States: progressives, conservatives, and libertarians. (Maybe the inclusion of libertarians was more believable in 2013 when Kling wrote the first edition, closer to the ascendance of Rand Paul? As Kling does no work to distinguish ideological differences between arbitrary categories, it would probably be better to map this to the two-party system, or acknowledge that there are more than three tendencies in American politics.)
3. Each of these three groups speaks to itself by expressing one value along a one-dimensional spectrum: for conservatives, it’s conservatism/barbarism, for progressives, oppression/the oppressed, for libertarians, liberty/coercion. (Again, that idealogues have different values is self-evident; the idea that their rhetoric can be meaningfully analyzed in a complete vacuum from their actual beliefs, as Kling attempts, is farcical, and this attempt at simplification obscures way more than it reveals.)
4. The way to have better discourse is to understand the three spectrums and try to work in “slow mode,” as a “judge” not a “lawyer.” (Kling fills much of his book with summaries of pop psychology, especially Thinking Fast and Slow, and argues that once we internalize these ideas, we should all just be more thoughtful and get along. I don’t think that these spectrums—which, again, caricature more than they reveal—do that, though, and the book’s emphasis on language obscures the real differences in values that underpin them. It presents epistemological differences as accidental and not essential to different ideologies—we cannot always discern a shared truth even if we share values and act in good faith if we do not share the same priors.

I was shocked to see positive reviews online because I’m pretty sure there will be nothing new or useful in this book for anyone who has passed an intro-level social science class. A plausible heuristic: if a book is citing the Myers-Briggs tests, Jordan Peterson’s youtube videos, and The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, it’s probably GIGO.

[Fiona Altschuler · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't really agree with EVERYTHING here (aka the human nature chapter) but this still gave me a lot to think about and solidified some things in my mind.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was expecting this to bit a bit more fleshed out than it was - Kling did a bunch of press (EconTalk, Cato) to promote this idea, and I think he more than covers the idea in those interviews, there's not much more in the book. I would have liked some more depth to establish the framework - how well does it hold up outside of American politics? How well does it hold up over time? Already in the more recent versions of the book, he has had to modify this to note that Donald Trump is using a totally different language/axis to frame his ideas, so is it now the "four languages"?

Overall, I think this is an interesting framework for thinking about political discourse. I suspect that more broadly there are other similar axes along which people make judgements - considering that for most people the Libertarian axis would barely be noticeable in modern discourse and Kling likely only notices it because that's his preferred mode.

It's a good, thought-provoking essay and it's quite short for a book, so I recommend reading it and not taking it too seriously.

3.5 of 5 stars

[Elsa Altschuler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was very good! There were very few things that I disagreed with.

[Mathew Madsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good example of a book that should have been a blog post. One central idea that gets blown out to book length: political communication is often more about in-group signaling than about honest understanding or rational persuasion.

Kling, the author, proposes that there are three broad political "tribes" each with their own "language" and outlines a three-axis model of political alignment with each axis representing one of the three tribes. Each axis is defined by a dichotomy that serves as the primary frame for the corresponding tribe's communication:

- The Progressive tribe communicates via the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, choosing to emphasize power dynamics, fairness, and victimhood.

- The Conservative tribe communicates via the civilization-barbarism dichotomy, choosing to emphasize social norms, cohesion, and cultural continuity.

- The Libertarian tribe communicates via the liberty-coercion dichotomy, choosing to emphasize individual rights and abuse of state power.

There is no real discussion of how we settled on these three tribes or even why three is the right number at all. Why does a libertarian axis make sense but not, for example, an environmentalist axis? Or a nationalist axis? Kling self-identifies as a libertarian, so was that simply a self-serving addition to the more basic left-right spectrum? We can speculate at the motives/process in constructing the model, but it would've been nice to see the author's justification. My charitable view is that, as an economist, the author is trained to value parsimonious models that abstract away details that would make the model less generalizable or practical. With that in mind, I think the three tribes do make sense as representing three more or less orthogonal "axes" of ideological values.

The author's main claim is that, while not necessarily exclusively, most people reflexively identify with one of these tribes and therefore will tend to frame communication about political issues in terms of their tribe's axis. Because most people are only fluent in one of the three political languages, most political communication is not intended to persuade, but to signal loyalty to the speaker's/writer's own tribe and reinforce their preexisting views (i.e., motivated reasoning). He calls this process "fast political thinking," and suggests that we would do well try instead to practice "slow political thinking." This parallels Daniel Khanaman's famous "System I" (fast) and "System II" (slow) thinking.

For the author, slow political thinking means moving beyond our reflexive tendency to view politics along a single axis and using two or even all three to analyze an issue. I'm reminded of an excellent civics teacher of mine who loved to talk about using different "lenses" to understand an issue. He would emphatically remind us that using multiple lenses for understanding the world helps you avoid "looking for your keys under the lamp post," which leads to Kling's "fast political thinking" and motivated reasoning.

In the discussion of "slow political thinking," the author references the "ideological Turing test" as a way to become more open minded and resist motivated reasoning. I've found this concept, first proposed by economist Bryan Caplan, to be one of the most helpful ways to think about political disagreement. A computer passes the original Turing test if a judge cannot reliably discern a machine from a human in a conversation between the two. Similarly, the ideological version of the test requires that you articulate an opposing ideological position in a way that would convince a holder of that position that you hold the position yourself. The author suggests that passing such a test requires not only that you understand the substantive arguments for an opposing view, but also that you speak the language of the relevant political tribe as represented by its core dichotomy in his three axis model.

I appreciate this focus on understanding rather than agreement. My conception of "open minded" doesn't necessarily mean that I will always or frequently change my mind on policy issues. Sure, I'm open to updating my views with new evidence, but you are going to have a hard time getting me to support a wealth tax, student loan cancelation (to the disappointment of my own loan balances), or shutting down honors, AP, and magnet programs. But I will try to understand the real and/or perceived effects of economic inequality and uneven educational opportunity that may motivate those proposals.

Similarly, I am probably not going to change my mind about warrantless NSA wiretaps, civil asset forfeiture, or broad qualified immunity for police. Not going to happen. But I will try to understand the desire for safety and order that might lead someone to support those positions.

Again, there's not much here you can't intuit by watching Fox News and MSNBC for an hour, but it's another helpful framework to have in mind when trying to make sense of the political discourse, or engaging those with whom you disagree.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very short book, available only for Kindle format I think. Describes the differences in the language used by progressives, conservatives, and libertarians and why they have such a hard time communicating with each other.

Nothing terrifically deep or complex, but he references a lot of other writers I like, like Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow) and Haidt (The Righteous Mind).

And I guess what I really like is that while the author is libertarian I think he is scrupulously fair to other viewpoints.

[E · Rating 5 out of 5]

This might be the most important book I've read so far this year. Kling discusses the political differences between conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. Because these groups have different priorities, we often assume that if they reject what we stand for, they are in favor of the opposite of our priorities. So if a conservative prioritizes order and rule of law, he assumes that someone who opposes his position is against the rule of law. If a liberal prioritizes standing up for the oppressed, then someone who opposes his position must be in favor of oppression. If a libertarian is against coercion, then someone who is arguing contra his arguments must be against liberty.

This is incredibly insightful. It should help us refrain from demonizing our opponents. When people are disagreeing with us, it is often because they are viewing things along a different axis, not because they are evil and are against standing up for the oppressed or preserving liberty or maintaining high standards in society. We should practice voicing the arguments of others. Do I understand the position of a progressive well enough that I could convince a liberal organization that I'm one of them? Could a liberal voice the neoconservative position well enough to convince Bill Kristol that he's an ally? And so forth.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a squish. I think I'm right and others are wrong. But I shouldn't then decide that it is because everyone else is evil or unenlightened (or both). I should consider along what axis they are viewing things, and then see how that might reasonably lead them to a different position.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

What's great about this book is that it paves the way for civil, thoughtful political discussion. Kling asserts there are three major political languages in contemporary America (conservative, progressive, and libertarian), and that no single language is sufficient for solving all the problems we face in every situation.

Kling says that each of these languages prioritizes different ideals:

1. Conservatives are primarily concerned with maintaining order and fending off barbarism.
2. Progressives are primarily concerned about supporting the oppressed and fighting oppressors.
3. Libertarians are primarily concerned with maintaining freedom and rejecting coercion.

While Kling is a libertarian himself, he admits there are times when another political language is more ethical in a given situation. For instance, he admits that libertarians were wrong in the 1964 Civil Rights debate and that the progressive framework was right.

This framework for thinking about political language is fantastic because it opens up the possibility that your team (whoever your team might be) isn't infallible. Once you believe that, you can stop demonizing people who disagree with you and listen. Bring on civility!

[Carolyn Kost · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a tiny little book that accomplishes its goals neatly and succinctly. In Spanish, the saying is "Lo bueno, si breve, dos veces bueno" [that which is good, if brief, is twice as good]. Kling reveals himself as a libertarian and the book was published by the libertarian Cato Institute. By his reckoning, most of us can be politically categorized as progressive P, Conservative C or Libertarian L. He describes them thus: P believe in human betterment, revere science and regard markets as unfair. C emphasize human weakness, revere the past, and believe markets promote virtue. L believe in human rationality, revere technology and believe markets promote peaceful cooperation. It is essential for humans to feel part of a group with a "a higher moral purpose. For centuries, major religions met this need, but now the need is being met increasingly by political affiliation."

In the effort to foster more civil discourse, Kling urges us to examine the language of political tribalism that signals to others we are either in their group or not and asserts moral superiority. Understanding that political differences are languages can enable us to maintain open minds to more effectively communicate --listening and understanding, not merely speaking or writing-- across the political spectrum.

Kling's model for that political language is compelling. "A progressive will communicate [and frame issues] along the oppressor-oppressed axis, framing issues in [those] terms....A conservative will communicate along the civilization-barbarism axis, ....A libertarian will communicate along the liberty-coercion axis." The archetypal hero myths and media stories that receive the most play operate respond to the "three negative polarities: oppression, barbarism, and coercive tyranny." Clearly, these are deeply rooted in the collective unconscious.

Kling explores different aspects and applications of the axes model. The phenomenon of motivated reasoning describes the way a P, an L and a C can all examine the same evidence and come away with a perspective that affirms their side. The aversion to "ambiguity and uncertainty" is so strong it presses the need for closure. Kling proposes thinking more slowly, de-centering (intuiting what others are thinking, not feeling) and striving for objectivity. He recommends that we approach evidence that supports our perspective "as if it had reached the opposite conclusion...and with that mindset scrutinize the study for methodological weaknesses." Excellent idea.

In the 20 page appendix, Kling continues to test his axes model. It's an effective illustration to help us recognize the languages in practice. Last is a section for further reading.

This is a helpful book that has great potential for helping all of us to engage in more civil discourse.

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a stimulating read. It is essentially a long essay on being charitable to others views. Because I have always thought the principle of charity is important, the book resonates with me. The book's main idea is that in the US there are three main axes that people use to evaluate policies (perhaps four, now, with the rise of Donald Trump in the GOP, according to the author). The three axes are progressive (along oppressor-oppressed), conservative (along civilization-barbarism), and libertarian (along liberty-coercion) [and perhaps a new axis along cosmopolitanism-nationalism now). If you realize that people of different political viewpoints are using different axes to evalute arguments, you can see why most arguments make no difference to anyone but people who already believe the argument. The author is careful to restrict this theory to the US and to not make too strong of claims. Indeed, the author admits, that like everyone, his preferred axis of libertarianism means that he may not interpret the other axes correctly.

I think the book is a useful way of thinking about political systems of thought in a generic way, and is probably helpful whenever you hear an argument that does not make immediate sense to you. You should try to evaluate the argument on the terms the arguer sees it. This book is rather short, and that is why I can give it a full 5 stars. If it were much longer it would feel like it was taking too much time to say what is a fairly simple point.

[Alex Yauk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Giving 5 stars to this short, little book (available free as an audiobook or ebook!) because I think it has a great, simple idea that I think is useful.

In the book, Kling identifies three axes of political dialogue that each group tends to emphasize to signal to or gain status with in their own group rather than attempting to communicate across political divides. The three groups Kling identifies on the American political scene are progressives, conservatives, and libertarians.

Originally, written in 2013, Kling concedes that Trump doesn’t fit easily in one of the three buckets, but I still believe his thesis holds together. The axes associated with each group are as follows:

- Progressive: Oppressor-oppressed axis
- Conservative: Civilization-barbarism axis
- Libertarian: Liberty-coercion axis

Kling doesn’t necessarily argue that one axis is better than the others (even though he identifies as libertarian) or that one axis is always correct. He shows that each view has relative strengths and weaknesses depending on the context. And he shows through examples that once you understand these different axes, the possibility of true communication is increased.

Now obviously, more clearly understanding what is behind another’s political views is not enough to solve all of our problems. I found myself early on thinking “okay now what?”. But because Kling doesn’t solve that problem doesn’t mean this book isn’t useful. Kling’s narrow focus is a feature, communicating one useful idea that I think readers can use to make ourselves better at understanding and communicating political ideas.

[Francisco Nogueira · Rating 4 out of 5]

A small book about a big topic that is affecting western cultures. Proposes a very interesting metaphor about language and how people, in political discourse, speak in a specific language most aligned to their political beliefs (progressive, conservative and libertarian). Most interesting is that the book doesn’t try to convince anyone to switch sides or provoke a fight about specific issues. The author doesn’t argue the virtues of his position but, instead, challenges the reader to consider the other languages and to think in a politically slow way, understanding the virtues and faults of all the positions and how those can translate into cooperation and good decisions.

I quite liked the transparency of the author who explicitly shows a libertarian lean but does a very fair analysis of the other points of view he touches upon. The agenda of the book is clear: to show that we’re all susceptible to fast political judgement and to propose a constructive and positive way of dealing with the different thoughts and priorities of our fellow human beings.

[John Crippen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thanks to EconTalk, again, for the recommendation. Russ Roberts' recent podcast interview with Kling is a good explanation of most of this short book. Kling's thesis is that progressives communicate along the oppressor-oppressed axis, conservatives communicate along the civilization-barbarism axis, and libertarians communicate along the liberty-coercion axis. This is a good complement to Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory. We'd probably all be more civil towards each other if we considered Haidt and Kling's thoughts before we spoke. Although in its third edition, this book is close to self-published and not edited thoroughly. I suggest the inexpensive Kindle format or the free ebook.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Arnold Kling's The Three Languages of Politics provides welcome insight into the way in which libertarians, conservatives and progressives perceive the world and each other's perspectives. Kling posits that progressives see the world in the quasi-Marxist axis of oppressor - oppressed, conservatives embrace the civilization - barbarism axis and libertarians gravitate toward the liberty - coercion continuum. Unfortunately, such siloed perspectives do not lend themselves to harmony and mutual understanding. The explicit objective of this book is to create awareness of how each of these three schools of thought differ in their fundamental foundation of analysis of the same events and how such mutual understanding can hopefully help the three tribes to more effectively interact.

Unfortunately, Kling's book will probably mostly be read by libertarians who, as they are constantly surrounded by the other two dominant perspectives, already have a fairly developed appreciation of how progressives and conservatives think. For them, this quick read offers additional clarity and vocabulary to more consciously categorize political thought.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The core idea is sound:

According to the author, there are three separate buckets of political thinking in the USA: a libertarian bucket, a progressive bucket and a conservative bucket. For each bucket, there is a corresponding axis along which we evaluate political ideas. For example, a libertarian will evaluate an idea based on whether it increases or reduces freedom; a conservative will evaluate the same idea based on whether it conserves or imperils some important aspect of civilization; and a progressive will evaluate the idea based on whether it helps or harms some oppressed minority.

Most of us fall into one of these buckets and, while we are very quick to evaluate ideas using our **own** axis as a guide, we are cognitively unable to grasp that people in other buckets use a different axis. This causes us to dismiss those people as stupid or wilfully obstinate.

This basic idea calls to mind George Lakoff's Moral Politics and Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations.

Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think

In Lakoff's version, we evaluate political ideas using one of two metaphors according to whether we are conservative or liberal.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

In Haidt’s version, we all share six moral “senses” that are activated in different proportions in liberals and conservatives. The details are a bit different but the advice is the same: we can be more effective politically if make more of an effort to understand our opponent's point of view.

So far so good. We could all benefit from understanding what our opponents are saying and from learning to make arguments using our opponent's axis for reference. My problem with the book is that I know of almost no one who fits into one of the author's buckets. I certainly don’t fit in any of them.

I know that progressives have a disproportionate influence in academia and in the Democratic Party. I mostly know this because they terrify the conservative writers that I read on the web. In real life, I know just a handful. The left-leaning people that I meet in real life are either freedom-loving liberals who believe society should be organised to be fairer to the disadvantaged or people who picked Team Blue early in life and buy whatever the Democrats are selling in any particular election.

Living in Silicon Valley, I know a LOT of libertarians. Even the liberals are libertarians. However, I know vanishingly few people who believe that the US government is a greater threat to liberty than the corporations who own our media (social or otherwise), our food supply, most of the land and wealth in the United States and, even, the politicians who run the goverment.

On the evening of the last election, a prominent conservative personality said he had always believed that most Republic voters were conservative but “it turns out that there are only about 200 of us and we all know each other”. The Republicans stopped being conservative many years ago.

The people I know who voted for Trump were either a) Christians who are afraid that atheists and progressives want to eliminate Christianity from the public square (I think they are right to be afraid), b) Make America Great Again types who want to return America to its former glory and think that a swamp creature is just what we need to drain that swamp and (most of all) c) people who picked Team Red early in life and have been persuaded that Team Blue is out to destroy everything they cherish or d) Very Rich People who think their wealth is safer with Republican hands on the levers of government (totals may add to more than 100%).

I do know a very small number of conservatives but they all started voting Democrat in about 2008 about 4 years after the Republic Party lost its moral compass entirely.

To summarise: full marks to the author for encouraging us to try to understand our opponents views but I’m afraid his buckets do carry even a passing resemblance to real life voters.

The author, a libertarian, proves his own thesis by entirely failing to understand the political views of everyone who is not in his bucket. As to understanding libertarians, I’ve found it much easier to predict their views since I started to think of them as “Propertarians”. They don’t value **liberty** so much as they value **property**. If you own something, you probably deserve it. The government should not be allowed to interfere with your property rights. If you own nothing, well. Hard luck to you. You probably don’t deserve it. Try to own more stuff in your next life.

Fukuyama announced the End of History in 1992. I’m announcing that political theory ended in 2016. Political science has nothing more to say about American elections that can’t be explained by assigning voters to Team Red or Team Blue. Even when Team Red reverses it’s policy on everything that the Red Team previously held dear, the Team Red voters change their opinion along with them. There’s a small number of people who think about the issues more deeply but not enough to influence the outcome of an election.


Read the book though. It’s cheap and short and easy to read. You might learn something or, more likely, it might encourage you to come up with your own taxonomy like I did.

[Thomas George Phillips · Rating 5 out of 5]

According to Mr. Kling there are three axis of politics: Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian. After reading this book, I found, at least by Mr. Kling's definition, I am more prone towards the Libertarian's view point. The book is not about a person's views over another. Rather Mr. Kling offers a way to explain how we communicate our politics with one another. I found it interesting and quite frankly, believable.

[Darrel Bishop · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very quick read. Kling synthesizes a number of thinkers like Jonathan Haidt and others into a framework that offers an explanation of the nature of political polarization in the US and offers a series of solutions at the micro and macro level.

I think his framework is useful in thinking about American politics but it is also adaptable to other social scenarios like the religious and the secular.

This would be a great intro to the wide body of work regarding social psychology.

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very short book and practical in our age of social media argumentation and vilification. Extra points because it's not just a progressives - conservatives dichotomy, but libertarians are given equal attention.

[محمد هِج‌هاگ · Rating 4 out of 5]

ویرایش سوم رو مرور می‌کنم:

۱-شاید شما هم این دغدغه رو داشته باشید که چرا گفتگوهای سیاسی ما با بقیه بیشتر به داد و بیداد و دلخوری ختم میشه. آرنولد کلینگ میگه که ما در سیاست یک زبان مشترک نداریم، بلکه چند زبان داریم. وقتی دو نفر با عقاید سیاسی متفاوت با هم صحبت می‌کنند، بیشتر اوقات هر کدوم با زبانی خاص صحبت می‌کنه که طرف مقابل نمی‌فهمه. کلینگ معتقده که یاد گرفتن زبان‌های سیاسی دیگه می‌تونه از اصطکاک‌های بی‌مورد جلوگیری کنه.

۲- این کتاب به طور کلی درباره‌ی سیاست و به طور خاص درباره‌ی سیاست آمریکاست. اما ایده‌ی کتاب برای بقیه‌ی جاهای دنیا هم میتونه به کار بره.

۲- نویسنده‌ یک اقتصاددان لیبرتارین آمریکایی است. کتاب رو در دفاع از لیبرتارینسم ننوشته و سعی کرده تا حد امکان در نگارش بی‌طرف باشه که به نظرم موفق بوده.

۲- ویرایش اول کتاب در ۲۰۱۳ منتشر شده. من ویرایش سوم رو خوندم.

۳- کتاب حدود ۱۷۰ صفحه است. حجم مطالب کتاب نسبتاً کمه. اما به نظرم نویسنده میتونست از این هم خلاصه‌تر بنویسه. نثر کتاب یه کم سخت‌تر از حد انتظارم بود و سرعت پیشروی‌ام رو کم کرد. از کتاب صوتی برای بالا بردن سرعت استفاده کردم.

۴- همونطور که نویسنده، خودش اشاره میکنه، ایده‌ی اصلی رو از کتاب دنیل کانمن (تفکر سریع و آهسته) گرفته.

۵- کتاب رو به صورت رایگان دانلود کنید:
https://www.libertarianism.org/books/...

ما انسان‌ها گونه‌ای اجتماعی هستیم. آرنولد کلینگ‌ میگه ما به دلایل تکاملی و فرهنگی قبیله‌گرا هستیم و دلایلی رو برای این ادعا ارائه می‌کنه. قبیله‌گرایی ما در طول تاریخ شکل‌های مختلفی به خودش گرفته. قدیم‌ها قبیله‌گرایی دینی برجسته بود. الان که نقش دین کم‌رنگ شده، قبیله‌گرایی سیاسی جایگزین شده. وجود ورزش‌های تیمی، هواداران‌ سلبریتی‌ها و ... نمونه‌های کوچک‌تری از تمایل ما آدم‌ها به زندگی قبیله‌ای هستند.

ما زندگی در قبیله رو دوست داریم. اینکه همفکر و هم‌پیمان داشته باشیم برامون مفیده. علاوه بر این دوست داریم توی قبیله جایگاه بالاتری در مقایسه‌ با هم‌قیبله‌ای‌ها داشته باشیم و قبیله‌ هم جایگاه بالاتری در مقایسه با بقیه‌ی قبلیه‌های رقیب داشته باشه. برای رسیدن به این هدف، سعی می‌کنیم از عقاید قبیله‌ی خودمون دفاع کنیم و عقاید سایر قبیله‌ها رو تقبیح کنیم. در نتیجه مجموعه‌ای از تفکرات، ارزش‌ها، اصطلاحات و به طور کلی یک دستگاه فکری برای هر قبیله اهمیت پیدا می‌کنه که برای سایر قبیله‌ها کم‌اهمیته. این دستگاه فکری رو میشه شبیه یک زبان در نظر گرفت. دو نفر از یک قبیله، زبان هم رو می‌فهمند اما دو نفر از قبیله‌های متفاوت، نه.

نویسنده مردم امروز آمریکا رو در سه قبیله‌ی سیاسی دسته‌بندی می‌کنه: ۱. ترقی‌خواهان ۲. محافظه‌کاران ۳.آزادی‌خواهان

هر قبیله یک محور فکری (زبان) داره و اتفاقات رو روی همون محور خودش تفسیر می‌کنه. چون در آمریکا سه تا قبیله داریم و هر قبیله یک محور داره، نویسنده یک مدل سه-محوری رو برای جامعه آمریکا تعریف می‌کنه.

محور فکری ترقی‌خواهان: مظلوم (مثبت)/ظالم (منفی)
محور فکری محافظه‌کاران: متمدن (مثبت)/وحشی (منفی)
محور فکری آزادی‌خواهان: آزادی (مثبت)/اجبار (منفی)

نویسنده چند مثال از آمریکای فعلی رو میاره و با استفاده از هر محور اونو تفسیر می‌کنه تا بگه که هر قبیله به وقایع چطور نگاه میکنه. شکل دیگه‌ای از این نوع مدل‌سازی رو شاید بشه برای بقیه‌ی جاهای دنیا هم استفاده کرد.

ظلم و ستم برای ترقی‌خواه اهمیت زیادی داره. وقتی یک ترقی‌خواه به موضوعی نگاه میکنه، دنبال مظلوم و ظالم میگرده. راهی برای همدردی با مظلوم و تنبیه ظالم پیدا میکنه. برای رسیدن به این هدف معمولاً دخالت دولت رو طلب میکنه. ترقی‌خواهان در واقع همون چپی‌ها میشن. سوسیالیست‌ها و لیبرال‌های چپ رو مترقی میگن. کلینگ یهودیان را مثال میزنه که چون در داستان هجرت موسی اقلیتی تحت ظلم بودند، باعث شده نسبت به ظلم حساس باشند و وقایع رو روی محور مظلوم/ظالم تفسیر کنند. به همین دلیل بیشتر یهودی‌ها ترقی‌خواه هستند. ترقی‌خواه‌ها بهبود و پیشرفت ستمدیدگان رو دوست دارند. ترقی‌خواه‌ها به علم توجه زیادی دارند چون معتقدند علم باعث بهبود وضعیت ستم‌دیده‌ها میشه. با بازار موافق نیستند چون معتقدند ظالمانه است. حمایت ترقی‌خواهان از سیاهپوست‌ها، حمایت از زنان، مخالفت با تغییرات آب‌وهوایی، حمایت از فلسطینی‌ها، حمایت از بهار عربی، مخالفت با آزادی اسلحه، حمایت از مداخله‌ی دولت در بازار و ... با محور مظلوم/ظالم قابل درک میشه.

محافظه‌کارها برای تمدن ارزش بالایی قائلند. وقتی یک محافظه‌کار به موضوعی نگاه میکنه دنبال نمادهای تمدن و بربریت میگرده. محافظه‌کار تمدن و نظم و قانون رو دوست داره و از هرج و مرج و وحشی‌گری منتفره. محافظه‌کارها به سنت و گذشته‌ها اهمیت میدن. از نظرشون خانواده و دولت نماد تمدن هستند. بازار رو مفید و فعالیت در اون رو ناگزیر می‌دونند. حمایت محافظه‌کارها از پلیس، مخالفت با ورود مهاجران، توجه به مرزها، حمایت از اسرائیل و مخالفت با بهار عربی و .... با محور تمدن/وحشی‌گری قابل درک میشه.

آزادی‌خواهان آزادی رو ارزشمندترین دارایی یک انسان می‌دوند و با بردگی مخالفند. وقتی یک آزادی‌خواه به موضوعی نگاه میکنه دنبال چیزهایی میگرده که آزادی رو تحت تاثیر قرار میده. آزادی‌خواهان به دولت آلرژی دارند. به حدود دخالت دولت در زندگی توجه شدیدی نشون میدن. میگن دولت راه‌حل مشکلات نیست، خودش مشکله. بازار از نظر اون‌ها یه نوع همکاری مشترک برای منفعت دو طرفه است و اون رو تشویق می‌کنند. معتقدند آدم‌ها در کنار هم یک نظم خودجوش رو تشکیل میدن که به بهترین شکل ممکن وضعیت رو جلو میبره. تکنولوژی رو خیلی دوست دارند، چون تکنولوژی اون‌ها رو از بردگی رهایی میده. حمایت آزادی‌خواهان از اینترنت و بیتکوین، مخالفت با ممنوعیت مواد مخدر، مخالفت با مالیات، حمایت از مرزهای باز و تجارت آزاد، حمایت از عدم مداخله در کشورهای خارجی، حمایت از آزادی اسلحه و ... با محور آزادی/اجبار قابل درک میشه.

مردم دو نوع تفکر در برخورد با موضوعات سیاسی دارند: "تفکر سریع" و "تفکر آهسته"

تفکر سریع: در برخورد اولیه احتمالاً با شهود و بدون استدلال، موضعی رو به سرعت درباره‌ی یک مسئله انتخاب می‌کنیم که ظاهراً با با دستگاه فکری ما مطابقت داره.

تفکر آهسته: در زمان بیشتر میتونیم از چارچوب فکری خودمون فاصله بگیریم و از بالا به قضیه نگاه کنیم. در تفکر آهسته با دیدن قضیه از جنبه‌های مختلف و بررسی جزئیات می‌تونیم به یک پاسخ مستدل و منطقی برسیم.

پس احتمالاً با تفکر آهسته باید در قضایا، نظرات مشترک یا حداقل نزدیکی پیدا کنیم ولی واقعیت این رو نشون نمیده. مثلاً آمریکای دوران ترامپ یا ایران فعلی رو ببینید. تفاوت‌های آدم‌ها در عقاید سیاسی از زمین تا آسمونه. ممکلت تا حدی قطبی شده که داره از هم می‌پاشه. موضوع چیه؟ چرا اختلافات تا این حد عمیقه؟
جواب اینه که ما سوگیری‌های شناختی داریم و تفکر آهسته رو به درستی انجام نمیدیم. آرنولد کلینگ بر دو خطای شناختی تاکید داره: "استدلال هدفمند" و "واقع‌گرایی ساده‌لوحانه".

استدلال هدفمند: ذهن ما بیشتر شبیه یک وکیل مدافع است تا یک قاضی بی‌طرف. دنبال این نیستیم که به منطقی‌ترین و مستدل‌ترین جواب برسیم بلکه از قوه‌ی استدلال برای توجیه نتیجه‌ای که از پیش قبول کردیم استفاده میکنیم. در واقع می‌کوشیم با تفکر آهسته به همون نتیجه‌ای برسیم که در تفکر سریع به اون رسیده بودیم.

واقع‌گرایی ساده‌لوحانه: ما تصور می‌کنیم دنیا رو بهتر از بقیه می‌شناسیم. درواقع اعتقاد داریم شناختی که ما از تفکرات مخالفان داریم بهتر از شناختی است که مخالفان از تفکرات ما دارند. البته به این بسنده نمی‌کنیم و جلوتر میریم. طوری که اعتقاد داریم ما حتی مخالفان رو بهتر از خودشون می‌شناسیم. نتیجه این میشه که جزئیات حرف‌های مخالف رو موشکافی می‌کنیم تا نقصی رو که به نظرمون حتماً باید در روش‌شناسی اون‌ها وجود داشته باشه، پیدا کنیم اما حرف‌های موافق به راحتی می‌پذیریم و مته به خشخاش نمیذاریم.

این خطاها باعث انحراف بیشتر ما از واقعیت و افزایش رویا‌رویی‌ها میشه.

نویسنده خواننده رو به استفاده از تفکر آهسته ترغیب می‌کنه و درباره‌ی خطاهای شناختی هشدار میده. راه حل عملی آرنولد کلینگ برای تفکر آهسته در سیاست اینه که ما زبان‌های (محورهای) سایر قبیله‌ها رو یاد بگیریم. هر قبیله ادبیات، ارزش‌ها و چارچوب فکری خودش رو داره که ما اون رو به یک زبان تشبیه کردیم. ما هر موضوعی رو روی محور خودمون میذاریم و بررسی می کنیم ولی کافی نیست. باید موضوع رو روی محورهای دیگه هم بذاریم و به قضیه از دید رقبا نگاه کنیم. یعنی ببینیم چرا بقیه‌ی قبیله‌ها به نظر فعلی‌شون رسیدند.

تفکر آهسته در موضوعات سیاسی دو تا پیامد مثبت داره:
۱. به جواب‌های مستدل‌تر و منسجم‌تری می‌رسیم و از انتخاب مواضع افراطی و احساسی و متزلزل دوری ‌می‌کنیم.
۲. با درک زبان قبیله‌های دیگه و صحبت کردن به اون‌ زبان‌ها می‌تونیم اصطکاک‌ها بی‌مورد و تقابل‌های خشن رو کاهش بدیم.

توجه کنید که هدف از تفکر آهسته این نیست که برای رسیدن به نقطه‌ی مشترک با رقبا، دستگاه عقایدتون رو تغییر بدید. هدف اینه که بعد از پذیریش یک جواب مستدل بتونید اون رو راحت‌تر و با هزینه‌ی کمتری با بقیه مطرح کنید و با وجود اختلاف‌ها این امکان وجود داشته باشه که نهایتاً مصالحه کنید. آمریکای دوران ترامپ طوری شده که مردم میخوان شاهرگ همدیگه رو پاره کنند. دغدغه‌ی آرنولد کلینگ برای نوشتن این کتاب دوقطبی شدن شدید جامعه‌ی آمریکا بوده.

خود این تقسیم‌بندی‌های کلینگ هم شهودی بوده و آمارها و تحقیقات تجربی قدرتمندی از دسته‌بندی اون پشتیبانی نمی‌کنند. پس با اینکه ایده‌ی ارزشمندی پشت کتاب بوده اما به تقسیم‌بندی کلینگ از جامعه‌ی آمریکا میشه ایرادات مختلفی رو وارد کرد. حتی خود کلینگ هم به این موضوع اشاره میکنه. فصل آخری که کلینگ به ویرایش سوم اضافه کرده، شاهد این ادعاست. این فصل مورد خاص دونالد ترامپ رو توضیح میده. قبیله‌ی ترامپ خودش یک محور (زبان) چهارمی رو به سه محور قبلی اضافه کرده. طبق گفته کلینگ باید محور چهارم رو اینطوری تعریف کنیم:
محور طرفداران ترامپ: ملی‌گرایی (مثبت)/جهان‌وطنی (منفی)
طرفداران ترامپ مخالف جهانی شدن هستند و ملی‌گرایی، مخالفت با بازار آزاد و مخالفت با مهاجرت رو پدیده‌ی مثبتی می‌دوند. اما طبق نظر نویسنده این محور پایدار نیست و احتمال میده که بعد از پایان دوران ترامپ از بین بره و به مدل سه‌-محوری برگردیم. پس جامعه پویاست و انتخاب ترامپ ضعف مدل‌سازی‌های امثال کلینگ رو نشون میده. چیزی که خود کلینگ هم اقرار میکنه.

ایراد دیگه‌ای‌ که میشه به روش نویسنده وارد کرد اینکه در پیوست کتاب به دنبال روش ضعیفی برای تایید تقسیم‌بندی‌های خودش میره. روش اون اینطوریه که سه تا صاحب‌نظر سیاسی رو به نمایندگی از سه قبیله‌ای که تعریف کرده بوده انتخاب کرده و تعدادی مقاله از هر کدوم رو خونده. بعد هرجا حرفی رو میخونده که با یکی از محورها همخوانی داشته، به عنوان مثال برای خواننده آورده. واضحه اگه هدف اینکار تایید مدل‌سازی‌اش بوده، باید گفت که اصلاً روش درستی نیست. چرا که اگه چکش رو دست من بدی، فقط میخ‌ها رو می‌بنیم. اما این کار حداقل یک خوبی داره. توی این بررسی‌ها می‌فهمیم که یک صاحب نظر سیاسی همیشه و در همه‌جا روی یک محور خاص قرار نمیگیره و برخی اوقات حرف‌هایی رو میزنه که با محورهای دیگه قابل تفسیره.

در پایان آرنولد کلینگ کتاب‌هایی رو برای مطالعه‌ی بیشتر ارائه میکنه که من هم اهمیت سه تا از اون‌ها رو از زبان افراد دیگه‌ای شنیدیم. کتابی از برایان کاپلان درباره‌ی رای‌دهنده‌ها در دموکراسی، کتابی از توماس ساول درباره‌ی اختلافات سیاسی و همون کتاب دنیل کانمن که ابتدای نوشته اشاره کردم. این کتاب کانمن اثر خیلی مهمیه.

در نهایت میخوام به این سوال جواب بدم که آیا برای فارسی‌زبان‌ها خوندن کتاب آرنولد کلینگ مفیده یا نه؟
جواب: بله. قطعاً مفیده و من این کتاب رو به همه توصیه می کنم. چه فارسی زبان، چه غیر فارسی زبان. چه آمریکایی چه غیر آمریکایی. چه لیبرتارین چه غیر لیبرتارین. ایده‌ای اصلی این کتاب در خارج از جامعه‌ی آمریکا و حتی خارج از فضای سیاست برای همه‌ی ما کاربرد داره.

[Mitch Hall · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very useful primer to understand what I truly believe (politically) and why, and how to more effectively interact with those outside my political "bubble"

[Murtaza]

Realizing ones political opponents are usually just different and not evil is the first step to engaging constructively. If you’ve read The Righteous Mind by Jon Haidt you will have internalized this message very well and this short book will likely be redundant.

[Luigi · Rating 4 out of 5]

An impressively small thought-provoking book about the principle of charity. This is how I'd sum up it in a single phrase.

Kling doesn't hold punches and lays down his sociological critique of political engagements. There's some good stuff in here, and I both like and dislike his writing (sometimes it feels bullet-pointy, some other times it's concise and straight to the point, without useless embellishment and with a cool summary of the most relevant arguments in the chapter).

Don't let the length misguide you, the book is both a bit banal (kind of feels like you know some of this stuff) and a bit complex (a lot of nuanced passages here and there, especially when dealing with the tribe mindset).

Kling's main argument is that we're biased toward 3 main axes of value-related principles.
Progressives fall for the quasi-Marxist oppressor-oppressed axis.
Conservatives fall for the traditional barbarism-civilization axis.
Libertarians fall for the Austrian coercion-liberty axis.

I already have some criticism here. First of all, for how nuanced Kling's discourse is, he seems blindingly biased. Like the philosophers of old who tried to systematize everything down to the last speck of dust, Kling forces everything under his axis.
He criticizes these heuristics of thought (a la Kahneman), and aptly reminds the reader that he is also a victim to them, but still, he backtrackingly tries to fit some happenings to his ideas, by generalizing a lot of stuff (like all progressives care about that axis) and excludes some exceptionally relevant political theories from the game (socialism and classical liberalism).

In a way, his system is solid, but the foundations are weak, and it's not developed enough given the length of the book. He recognizes it, of course, but that's no excuse for it, anyway.
That being said, his arguments make sense, and even if there are countless more axes, his ideas are still engaging and interesting enough to read along.

Kling goes on to cite a bunch of research to demonstrate that humans prefer to live in tribes, that the absence of positive/social tribes and the ongoing loneliness epidemic is causing people to join increasingly aggressive political tribes, and that the people who are part of these tribes are not interested in speaking with other tribes.

A member of the progressive tribe reads everything through the lenses of their own value axis. It's more like a language they're speaking and interpreting reality rather than a way of thinking.
And Klings convincingly says that people are dehumanizing the "enemies", treating their arguments as offensive, and downgrading said opponents as unreasonable. Tribe members are not interested in dialogue, they are interested in showing to the other members that they're just like them. This of course means that there's no dialogue to be had, only political bickering between antagonist factions.

He then goes on, to provide a bunch of examples to explain his analysis and show how during the financial crisis of 2008, all axes got something right and something wrong. The same goes for racism during the '60s (Progressive got it right), fighting against crime in the 70s (Conservatives got the solution), and legalizing marijuana (Libertarians called it).

In a way, Kling argues that we all should understand the limitations of our heuristics, recognize if we're using one of his axes, and force us to become more scrupulous toward ourselves.

Kling supports the idea that we should strive to use "slow political thinking", abstracting from our heuristics, and trying to truly understand how others think.
His maxim is "the only person you should consider unreasonable is you".

I find his arguments very compelling, but at the same time a bit simplistic, and too grandiose in their scope (there are a bunch of other axes, people don't necessarily abide by them, etc.).

He correctly points out that journalism is a threat to society at large because they are not interested in informing you, but to get your attention by poking the consumer with outrages toward the supposed enemy side. Stopping to engage with such middling political discourse is probably way better than some smart people realize.

The Appendix chapter is pretty bad, he tries to shoehorn his axes into a bunch of articles, but it doesn't work and he admits it's kind of pointless since he knows who wrote those articles and which political inclination they have.

What I got from this book is that we are way more similar to our ancestors than we realize, that we should try to join more positive social groups, treat others with respect, recognize our limitations (naive realism theory), and stop demonizing those who have a different political alignment. In a word, apply the principle of charity.

They are not necessarily unreasonable, they merely have a different point of view. He also says that this book is only valid for the US but I respectfully disagree. It's a good primer for the rest of the Western world, at the very least.

Some more useful stuff: realize that your view of reality is not necessarily the right one. Realize that sometimes your political opponents (who you should not call like that) have the solution to the problem and make some pretty great points (I'd add: not agreeing with everything a political theory says is not hypocritical or unreasonable, it's the sensible thing to do). Split hairs when dealing with your own arguments, theories, and allies, instead of immediately attacking everything your opponent shares in the discussion.

Besides what I have already pointed out, my biggest gripe with the book is that some people are genuinely evil and intend to sow discord among the masses. I should not have to respect Alex Jones', Vladimir Putin's, or Viktor Orban's inane theories.
The same goes for their followers. At best, which is fine by me, we should stop flouting them, criticizing only their leaders, and act calmly towards the others. It's a hard thing to balance, though.

I am also very critical of the oppressor-oppressed axis. I find it the most horrifying one because of its consequences worldwide, especially when dealing with foreign policy issues.

In conclusion, it is a worthwhile read, just be advised, it's simplified and more like a framework to understand the political arena we live in.

[Pete · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book that looks at how people with different political views weigh different explanations.

Kling divides people interested in politics into Progressives, who look at the world in terms of oppressors and the oppressed, Conservatives who see the world as being divided between barbarism and Libertarians who see the world as being either free or forced.

While Kling's division of where people stand may not apply everywhere his arguments about closely examining things that support your views, seeing if you could impersonate someone with certain views and making sure you really appreciate where people are coming from are very much worth reading.

It's also interesting that Kling adds Libertarians as a major political grouping in the US. Perhaps they are really becoming so.

The book is also an excellent use of a Kindle single. It makes a point well, is backed up by evidence and doesn't waste the readers time.

[Arj · Rating 2 out of 5]

Heavily over-simplistic (which meant it was simultaneously too short to be a properly rigorous book while also being too long to function as an instructive essay), and in my view better summed up elsewhere (specifically in Haidt's The Righteous Mind). This book's "value-add" on The Righteous Mind is the explication of the three-axes model, and much of that value can be gleaned from reading the blurb. If you really need this concept, I'd just listen to the Econtalk episode on the matter.

[book_explorer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good for what it is, but you should recognize that it's more of a layman's guide to navigating politics than anything else. Useful for the axes:

1. Left: Oppressor and oppressed
2. Right: Civilized and barbaric
3. Libertarian: Liberty and coercion

When talking to people who know nothing about politics (and even a few who do know a thing or two), these axes will prove useful.

[Natalie Dowzicky · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book gets better and better each version that is made! It is particularly appealing to those who follow the current political climate. It can help you navigate the wide world of debate by speaking the other sides' language.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short but important book (I read it in just over an hour) that explores why we so often seem to talk politics past each other rather than with each other these days.

First published in 2013 and revised in 2017, Arnold Kling focuses on the contemporary American political environment, noting three broad "tribes" of political identity and thought: progressive, conservative, and libertarian. Each tribe, he observes, uses a particular "language" along a particular "axis" of morality that serves, in a sort of heuristic short-hand, to identify (a shibboleth) and strengthen tribal association while providing a framework for refuting and downplaying the arguments (and often character) of others.

Each tribe views events, issues, and policies along an axis that opposes an abstract good (or virtue) against an abstract evil. For progressives, this axis is the oppressed-oppressor axis; for conservatives, civilization-barbarism; for libertarians, liberty-coercion. Therefore, "for a progressive, the highest virtue is to be on the side of the oppressed, and the worst sin is to be aligned with the oppressor. For a conservative, the highest virtue is to be on the side of civilizing institutions, and the worst sin is to be aligned with those who would tear down those institutions and thereby promote barbarism. For a libertarian, the highest virtue is to be on the side of individual choice, and the worst sin is to be aligned with expanding the scope of government."

As you might imagine, many contemporary hot-button issues can be framed along each of these axes in different ways, and Kling gives numerous examples to illustrate his point. Kling would propose, however (and I would agree), that each tribe is actually likely being reasonable given their own axis, and that our talking past each other has to do with an uncharitable view toward people who don't "speak our language" or readily share our axis of perspective, rather than any nuanced understanding of an opposing viewpoint which we understand but reject. (We seem to resonate with us v. them arguments, even though there is much area for discretion in policy-making--my words.) "If you are lucky," Kling says, "sometimes you can convince others that they are wrong.... But pounding the table and asserting that someone else is being unreasonable adds nothing to your argument."

(I am reminded here of a lesson that my wife received in cross-cultural training before studying abroad in college. All cultures, she was told, are reasonable--you just have to understand the reasoning. So often, what we see as unreasonable, then, is simply someone--sometimes literally!--speaking a different language.)

Unfortunately, these heuristic and linguistic axes often end up reinforcing the divide, because we feel others are completely off the rails when they can't readily see things our way. As they say, though, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and Kling suggests we acknowledge our own biases as we work toward evaluating an argument, situation, or policy from another heuristic axis. "Most political issues are sufficiently complex that they cannot be understood fully using just one heuristic. If that is the case, then we probably will be much wiser if we can detach ourselves from our preferred language," Kling says. (He even suggests at one point a sort of Turning test, in which one would choose to adopt another, non-dominant axis to discuss an issue, to see if one could be mistaken as a member of an alternate tribe. This seems to resonate with another technique I've heard proposed elsewhere, as far as being charitable toward others goes, in which one should be able to make the strongest arguments for an opposing viewpoint before presenting one's own.) "In addition," Kling continues, "treating people who use other heuristics as reasonable is likely to prove a less stressful and more productive way of approaching politics than treating the other heuristics as heresies that must be stamped out."

This book has certainly been helpful in very quickly framing some of my own attitudes, and I am more aware of (and have some terminology now to to discuss) my own dominant axis. One particular area I anticipate this being particularly helpful is in understanding the perspective of media sources I consume, as it provides a framework for considering and evaluating the predispositions of differing views of the same or similar events or issues.

I highly recommend this short read. Though the author is a self-acknowledged libertarian, he is rigorously charitable toward the conservative and progressive axes--which I greatly appreciate. As of the writing of this review, the book was available for Kindle on Amazon for $3.99, or in several digital formats for free from Libertarianism.org.

[Igor Veloso · Rating 4 out of 5]

This small but very important book may not cure ills, but prevents them and its better than self help books.

The current political climate is clearly more polarized – certainly not coincidence that while religious presence declines, political tribalism increases. No way around being human. In general, tribes divide themselves between Progressives (P) and conservatives (C), but there’s always a small percentage that believes possible to merge the best of the two while accepting the trade offs Liberty presents, and this is called Libertarianism (L).

Arnold Kling calls these the three-axes of political communication. P communicates along oppressor-oppressed axis, C communicate along civilization-barbarism axis, and Libertarian will communicate along liberty-coercion axis. He quickly adds a disclaimer however:

Let me quickly add that I do not believe that the three-axes model serves to explain or describe different political ideologies. I am not trying to say that political beliefs are caused by one’s choice of axis. Nor am I saying that people think exclusively in terms of their preferred axis.

What I am saying is that when we communicate about issues, we tend to fall back on once of the three axes. By doing so, we engage in political tribalism.

Most people will be moderates but its easy to fall back into a specific axis when communicating certain issues with someone that disagrees. It’s in our nature to gain status in our own tribe while defaming the other, it can be seen daily on social media and news outlets. Axis and related goals allows for coalitions to be formed and work towards policies that further those goals. Say progressives assert moral superiority by denouncing oppression and accusing others of failing to do so. Conservatives assert their moral superiority by denouncing barbarism and accusing others of failing to do so. Libertarians assert their moral superiority by denouncing coercion and accusing others of failing to do so. The axis may appear simplistic, but even when finding nuance, once can’t help but to pick a side, and again, examples of this can be found daily.

Kling’s objective is to raise awareness of this on the reader and prompt him or her to risk passing an Ideological Turing Test. He makes it as if you have to infiltrate a group of adverse ideas and talk in a way they’d expect. If they believe every word you say, you passed the test. I’d say its layman and day to day equivalent is known as steelmanning. You will find and understand the best of your opponent’s argument and communicate it in a way the opponent can relate or agree as accurately as possible. This will show to others you understand his position clearly and in turn he feels his view is validated, even if you disagree. This allows for a much better and respectful discourse.

In political interchange all sides claim to be searching for the truth, yet they disagree, so either all of them are being blatantly dishonest or are not really searching for truth. This is due to motivated reasoning: everyone will defend their argument through the position on their axis. This becomes clear when you find someone who acts like a lawyer arguing a case: he will reinforce his preconceived opinions while scrutinize anything that appears slightly contradictory. These individuals focus on what they want it to be and are not very open to new variables. That’s also a pundits game. They narrow their understanding of issues and in consequence, narrow the viewers understanding. The pundit closes the people’s mind to the pundit’s own side. A healthy discourse opens the minds of the people on whatever side he talks to. (Opening a mind does not mean accepting an idea but means understanding an idea.)

Even when honesty is present, individuals tend to think they understand a political ideology better than those who belong to it. Conservatives claim to understand progressives better than progressives do. Progressives claim to understand conservatism better than conservatives do. Yet, from the opponent perspective, the one who makes the claim possesses a straw-man view, not an accurate view. Not a steelmaned view.

It takes a presence of mind to be aware of this. Everyone can do it, but people are glued to the internet and have its biases confirmed at every minute. Amazing how one has thousands of opinions at a distance of a click, yet they always tune in into the show that preaches to the choir. If more face to face time was encouraged, polarization would not become the “new normal” as easy nor as fast. We’re at a tipping point, however.

Again, brief books like this are better than political self help books that many times have manipulation and “sealioning” as ways to survive today’s events, but that’s me, I like to keep it straight. Its small and concise, well presented and well sourced, - I admit being familiar with all his sources so I’m also subject to confirmation bias – and you can quickly read this and get the whole gist of it. If you want more disclaimers, author is libertarian.