Why doesn’t Ron Paul use the word ‘America’ much?

25Jan/12

Why doesn’t Ron Paul use the word ‘America’ much?

A colleague of mine forwarded me this article in the New York Times, which compared the presidential candidates' usages of various terms. Some words require more context, but what struck him (and me, after I saw it) in this graph is the fact that Ron Paul doesn't use the words America or American very much, even as he talks a lot about war (usually in negative terms), the constitution, and liberty.

A simple possible convergent explanation comes from this graph of questions concerning how much how much a person identifies (e.g. feel's close to, has things in common with, uses the word "we") with people in their community, in their country, and around the world. Ron Paul and libertarians like him, may think of themselves as individuals, moreseo than the typical liberal or conservative, and less as members of a community, a country, or the world.

From a psychological perspective, this is a further illustration of the idea that moral reasoning is intimately inter-twined with social functioning in that people tend to have a moral profile that correlates well with the types of social functioning they desire.

I would argue that a healthy society needs all types of social concerns. Cohesive working units such as armies, companies, and to a lesser extent countries, are necessary for efficiently performing tasks and competing with/defending against other groups. At the same time, it would seem callous to be an extraordinarily efficient society that doesn't care about the plight of others who are not in our group. Finally, any society needs people who are less constrained by group concerns who can push society forward. We should be thankful for the diverse ideological perspectives in our country and rather than seeing politics as war, we could see it as an exercise in finding balance between worthy concerns.

- Ravi Iyer

Comments

comments

Tagged as: 2012 election, libertarians, new york times, ron paul Leave a comment

Old Comments (2) Trackbacks (0)

Isabel Penraeth
February 10th, 2012 - 10:19

“We should be thankful for the diverse ideological perspectives in our country and rather than seeing politics as war, we could see it as an exercise in finding balance between worthy concerns.”

That is where my thinking has landed as well, but it isn’t a popular stance. My experience is that when I argue anything close to this I make pretty much everyone (liberal, libertarian or conservative) angry. And isn’t it a form of centrism?

I must tell thee that I post even this small question with some trepidation. Although in the About Me, thee says, “One of my focuses is to help research from the social sciences reach non-academic audiences and this blog is part of that.” The reality is that what thee writes uses so much statistical information that others (me for instance) have no training in, it feels difficult to become part of the dialogue, and impossible to analyze critically with any confidence.

I do thank thee, though, for the efforts put forth here and look forward to delving into all this output.
Scott Wagner
February 12th, 2012 - 18:24

Isabel, statistics can be tough to understand and rely on- I sympathize. I think it’s actually a strength to admit that and back off evidence you’re not sure about, like you do. Unfortunately for some, one of Ravi’s great strengths is his ability to use data effectively, and it’s really tough, virtually impossible sometimes, to drag in non-academics to understand a point about data that’s complicated- even when it’s important, when we wish we could. I think much of the blog is useful without a lot of science background- the rest is probably more for people with some statistical and/or psychology exposure. Despite Ravi’s ability to be clear, a certain amount of difficulty can’t be helped.

I think Ravi’s final point, though, the one that you’re responding to, can stand well on its own without trying to divine out what is shown with Ron Paul’s propensity to use various words. We can be quite far left or right depending on values that we have, but it’s quite another thing, a great big leap, to assume that the world would be a better place if we just had everyone believing and acting only the way that we do. We can want more far right values to be faring much better in society, for instance, but we should be able to look across the aisle at any time and recognize strengths and validity that are there, that give other people a reason to be at the table with us, all fighting for what they believe in. We shouldn’t think of it as a political war in which we’re trying to wipe out the other side- each of us just want a “balance”, in Ravi’s sense, that is at a different place. We work together, in compromise, to find societal balances.

I firmly believe Ravi’s contention, and I am not at all a centrist. Not believing his statement, to me, is like saying my little know-it-all group, whether centrist, left, or right, has all the answers America needs, and everyone else should go home and let us run things. I don’t know about you, but when I look around at “my people”, that’s a very scary notion :0) I think the whole point of much of Ravi’s work, is that even centrist total control (let alone far left or far right) would be awful, given the different missing strengths and unaddressed weaknesses of all the players at the table.

I would add that, although it is a silly notion to believe your group magically has all the answers, it seems to be a common one.

Thanks for asking your question, and giving me a chance to think about it.