Bill Moers always makes me question myself

I believe the 'liberal' American values are correct. Care (empathy), Liberty (freedom), Fairness (justice), are more valuable than Loyalty (to people), Authority (power), and Sanctity (tradition), they are not equal as 'conservative' Americans would want. What is more, I think Haidt is trapped in his data, unable to see outside his own paradigm and recognize the limits of science in human psychology.

Is my rational faith in reason as the best path to truth unfounded simply because I myself am fallible? Even if I am sometimes irrational, or unreasonable, does that undermine the argument that reason is sacred? If reason is not essential to our human nature, if it is not what is essential to separate human being from all other animals, then I've been wrong all along. Even if on average, 'human nature' is basically animal nature, and the group consciousness we call democracy is subject to the vagaries of inter-subjective irrational behaviors, does that make it wrong to hold reason itself as sacred? If we fail to hold reason as the goal, as the ultimate form for which we strive, even if we are individually incompetent and only barley adequate in groups using the scientific method, then we give up on our humanism and our freedom of will. If so, we will revert to tribalism, to religion, to the darkness before the enlightenment, and we will kill our planet and its species of life by nuclear war. If social psychologist Jonathan Haidt is right, and our 'human (animal, social) nature is evolved to support war, and yet our rational consciousness is unable to reflect upon itself and adapt to the new technological reality, then we and our planet are doomed to Armageddon. The definition of heroism is to strive in the face of certain doom. Even Haidt would admit that the irrational hope that stems from our belief in our individual ability to achieve far beyond what we should reasonably expect is what gives us the psychological edge to attempt the impossible, so our goal must be to ignore the 'facts' of his social psychology and create a form of social cognitive-dissonance that ignores the cynicism, the data, and seeks to transcend our very nature and achieve the epic win, freeing ourselves from the matrix individually, and ultimately as a species. Perhaps this means evolving socially away from traditional cultures of religious fundamentalism and conservative foolishness, or just building technological safeguards and safety nets to avoid extinction. The war has begun.

Both liberals and conservatives may be insane, but liberals are less insane, because their moral views are based in rational consequences of human action rather than a supernatural religious jingoism. Liberals are crazy, but conservatives are crazy and blind.

We have rejected a reality based political system in favor of ideological faith. The end is nigh