Range Wars and American Politics
Between 1889 and 1893, there were a series of violent clashes between large cattle companies and smaller settlers in Johnson County, Wyoming. The fight is known as the Johnson County Wars or the Wyoming Range Wars. The cattlemen and the settlers were battling over grazing lands and water rights, with the cattlemen insisting they had the absolute right to all grazing land and water. The settlers disagreed. The cattlemen brought in hired gunmen, and the settlers joined together to form a posse of 200 men to resist. Eventually, the U.S. cavalry and the Wyoming state legislature gained some measure of control, but the fighting persisted for years.
Such is the condition of our contemporary political landscape. We are engaged in range wars, battling for votes and resources and power. Like the differences between the cattlemen and settlers, our differences seem intractable. Indeed, our differences are elementally rooted in human nature. The only thing today’s adversaries have in common, like the cattlemen, large and small, of 19th century Wyoming, is that all sides want sweet grass and water.
Liberals and conservatives psychologically view the world differently; it’s a matter of how our brains are wired. Emily Laber-Warren, in her 2012 Scientific American article, “Unconscious Reactions Separates Liberals from Conservatives,” provides an overview of the issue and a brief review of the evidence.
“According to the experts who study political leanings, liberals and conservatives do not just see things differently. They are different — in their personalities and even their unconscious reactions to the world around them.” Fear is a major factor driving emotional responses, which drive behavior. Conservatives are more anxious than liberals, which makes them less amenable to change. It’s also is why conservatives tend to defend the “tradition” of the high school civics class/Leave It To Beaver variety. Conservatives prefer “clear answers even to complicated questions.”
Conservatives reject things like gay marriage, abortion, or affirmative action because they represent a moral challenge and a change to the status quo. Add to this socially acquired racism and a fear of losing one’s socio-economic status, and there is a perfect storm of reasons why conservatives and liberals can’t agree. Finding a way to appeal to different worldviews (phrasing climate change as a threat to the “American way of life,” for example), may reduce the difference between liberals and conservatives on some issues.
On July 20, 1889, Ella Watson, a local rancher, was accused of stealing cattle from another rancher. The cattlemen sent riders to seize Ella, also capturing her husband Jim. Both were hanged from a tree.
Religion, consciously or unconsciously, provides the moral foundation for both conservative and liberal viewpoints. Jonathon Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, notes that both liberals and conservatives base their judgments on a couple of central moral precepts.
“Liberals … tend to value … caring for people who are vulnerable and fairness, which for liberals tends to mean sharing resources equally. Conservatives care about those things, too, but for them fairness means proportionality — that people should get what they deserve based on the amount of effort they have put in. Conservatives also emphasize loyalty and authority — values helpful for maintaining a stable society.”
Haidt’s suggestion?
“[T]he left [should] acknowledge that the right’s emphasis on laws, institutions, customs and religion is valuable. Conservatives recognize that democracy is a huge achievement and that maintaining the social order requires imposing constraints on people. Liberal values, on the other hand, also serve important roles: ensuring that the rights of weaker members of society are respected; limiting the harmful effects, such as pollution, that corporations sometimes pass on to others; and fostering innovation by supporting diverse ideas and ways of life.”
Haidt isn’t alone in pleading for a recognition of the value of both perspectives. But it’s equally clear that most people aren’t willing to do so. In “times of plenty” or in the face of an external danger, the differences are muted, but they never vanish. In times of economic distress — or when confronted by a danger, like the coronavirus, that can’t be “fought” by a standing army — the differences are exacerbated and worldviews clash.
This is precisely why media are important. Conservative media reinforces conservative fears and morality, while liberal media reinforces liberal fears and morality. We can argue that liberal media is fact based, and that is true (although it’s not always true), but the deeper psychological dimension of the liberal-conservative divide means there is a fundamental split that won’t be easily overcome, especially since there is a proliferation of sources of news and, most importantly, opinion. Each side sees snippets of the other side’s news and opinion and forms dismissive generalizations: conservatives sneer at libtards, while liberals despair over rednecks.
There is no Walter Cronkite to present an “American” view to which most people can assent.
I don’t believe there is a “middle” to which voters and politicians are drawn. There are areas of relative agreement (or less disagreement) that allow politicians of all stripes to take action, but there is no middle. In the U.S., national defense is the biggest area of agreement. Both Republicans and Democrats are happy to lavish funds on the Pentagon, and their voters are mostly okay with it.
For most questions, though, a “middle” is elusive. How do you form a “middle” on gay marriage? People can’t be half-married. Is it allowing civil marriages, but not requiring religions to “bless” marriages? What about abortion? Is it that some abortions are acceptable, but others are not? How is that so? These are, it seems to me, either/or questions, and the space for compromise is small.
The governor of Wyoming sent a telegram to President Benjamin Harrison, requesting federal troops to protect the large cattlemen:
“About sixty-one owners of live stock are reported to have made an armed expedition into Johnson County for the purpose of protecting their live stock and preventing unlawful roundups by rustlers. They are at ‘T.A.’ Ranch, thirteen miles from Fort McKinney, and are besieged by Sheriff and posse and by rustlers from that section of the country, said to be two or three hundred in number. The wagons of stockmen were captured and taken away from them and it is reported a battle took place yesterday, during which a number of men were killed. Great excitement prevails. Both parties are very determined and it is feared that if successful will show no mercy to the persons captured. The civil authorities are unable to prevent violence. The situation is serious and immediate assistance will probably prevent great loss of life.”
The president sent the Sixth Cavalry to the rescue.
There is a third perspective which looks at the policies of liberals and conservatives and sees “no significant difference.” This is typically the viewpoint of someone on the left, and it, too has a strong moral foundation. But the third perspective it isn’t about gay marriage or abortion rights, it’s about economics.
Both conservatives and liberals support capitalism, but the left considers capitalism both profoundly undemocratic and the root of the inequalities in our society. The problems arising from capitalism are more important than the ordinary political differences of liberals and conservatives.
Walter Cronkite may have spoken for liberals and conservatives, but as a spokesperson for capitalism, he didn’t speak for the left.
Capitalism, for example, was responsible for slavery, which is responsible for much of the racism in contemporary America. Capitalism creates the conditions in which a woman might be forced into choosing an abortion because she can’t adequately care for a child. Capitalism creates homelessness and hunger despite abundant material wealth.
To be sure, liberals are more interested in ameliorating the harsh effects of capitalism than are conservatives, but the left insists that eliminating capitalism is required for the reduction of inequality and its resultant tensions.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Like conservatives, leftists say, “eight hours of work,” because everyone must contribute, and work is a part of a dignified life. But like liberals, leftists insist that no one should go hungry or be homeless, regardless of their income. Leftists also say, “eight hours of leisure and learning and eight hours of sleep.” Like liberals and conservatives, leftists believe in a balanced life.
Unlike liberals and conservatives, however, leftists don’t believe capitalism can achieve those goals. Further, leftists believe capitalism to be undemocratic: people spend most of their waking hours working in authoritarian organizations in which they have little or no say about products, working conditions, pay, safety, etc. How can we say we live in a democracy if the one place most adults spend most of their time is undemocratic?
Psychologically (since that’s how I started this essay), there are two types of leftists: doctrinaire (as in Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, etc.; the permutations are endless) and those who are not Marxists (they may be socialists of the 19th century English variety, for example, or religious socialists). There is means/end gap as well. Some on the left believe a revolution, necessarily involving violence, is required to change society. Other leftists believe the end (a just society) does not justify any means (violence), and that change can occur peacefully (on the part of the left), although the reaction to change (on the part of liberals and conservatives in government) may be violent. Liberals and conservatives will defend capitalism, erroneously believing they are defending democracy.
Each leftist “tendency” has its own media, and the only thing the left likes more than it likes hating capitalism is arguing among themselves. By way of comparison, the Bernie Sanders vs. the Democratic Party dispute is too dignified to be called a good argument.
So, there are more than two perspectives in American political life, even if the third is mostly ignored. All three arise from psychological predispositions and moral judgments. Insisting that we must “respect each other,” while necessary, isn’t going to resolve the differences. As American political history illustrates, one tendency dominates for a while, only to fall prey to hubris and giving another side an advantage. The left would add that has long as the two main parties agree on capitalism, true progress isn’t possible.
It remains to be seen, of course, if the American system, however imperfect, can survive the dangers of a populist right, a pandemic, a shattered economy, and a climate catastrophe. We are cursed, as the saying goes, to live in interesting times. As in the days of the Wyoming Range Wars, proto-gunslingers have been engaged and encouraged by one side, and a peaceful, democratic outcome is by no means guaranteed.
