I have actually wondered about this myself because I find the reactions to events in the two groups--Republicans and Democrats (or liberals and conservatives, if you will)--to be systematically different. There does seem to be a different cognitive style and evaluation of the same event or "facts." I wondered if some of this was grounded in biology. There is evidence in biology for altruistic and cooperative behavior as well as competitive and predatory behavior. I think the differences are articulated starkly in the works of some political philosophers. I think to conservatives or Republicans the organizing cognition is the "war of all against all." This justifies intensely competitive, all brakes are off, and often predatory behavior. Certainly when push comes to shove, Democrats or liberals are capable of this kind of behavior, but we start out with a different set of assumptions. I always believe I should treat someone fairly, give them a hearing, and see if their view has any merit. I can also agree to disagree with the other and not try to take them over, as long as my life is not threatened. But I realize that this approach could deteriorate into a kind of radical relativism which is not morally acceptable. Therefore, while I would like to accord everyone freedom within their private and community spheres up to a point, I think there are some BIG problems that cannot be left to individual decision making. I believe we have to deal with the structural aspects of capitalism that tend toward monopoly or at least oligarchy and a complete loss of any kind of competition, for example. We have to deal with the tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth and spread poverty. I don't think Republicans think we have to do that. They are Social Darwinists and believe --quite ironically in the case of those that reject the theory of evolution!--in the survival of the fittest. I think human history has so far worked fitfully with a lot of false starts toward a more inclusive and progressive ideal of how the world should be. But here we are in a developed, post-industrial country, and we are refighting the philosophical battles of the Enlightenment. The arguments made by the religious right are so philosophically backward they are alarming. I hope the "antithesis" to this tendency asserts itself soon, and I hope it comes on strong. Furthermore, I realize I will called an arrogant snob for stating my opinion, but there is nothing that will compel me to embrace the thinking of religious fundamentalists.

I, too, wonder why the Democrats/Liberals I know personally are all empathetic, caring, altruistic individuals, while the Republican/Conservatives I know, every single one, are self-centered, closed minded and totally unsympathetic to the suffering of others short of their own families. It is either something in the brain, or in the soul, that makes these remarkable and obvious differences.

There's a gene for altruism, I think. I'm very foggy on this since I read it years ago but I know I saw something on that order in the NY Times Science section.

--

There is a gene for 'altruism', more often discussed in terms of 'empathy', 'sympathy', or maybe just 'pathos.' But as soon as I've stated that, its oversimplification of the subject matter makes it nearly pointless or useless, if not wrong, to develop.

A modern revival of the word 'altruism' appeared, (as I see it), from Edward O. Wilson's '70s work and renown of "Sociobiology" (I'm unsure if that was literally the title of his book; Sociobiology was applied to name the field of study though). Wilson's later work, "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge," (this reviewer calls it a masterpiece), deserves to precipitate a revival of that word, too, maybe more so. 'Consilience' isn't quite archaic, only old-fashioned, and it means "a jumping together." One connotation in it could refer to the central theme Wilson offers in "Consilience." Which is that many (such as he, and I), 'know' there is a 'culture' gene, but it's unprovable, today, using deductive logic, so Wilson offers sort of an inductive argument, (stronger than 'circumstantial'), where he organizes empirical examples and logical connections that make the girders and bolts of knowledge in proximity to the premise -- culture can be genetic -- and as the reader collects the ton o' facts while reading along, at some threshhold 'tipping point' the facts sort of 'jump together' in common gravity, and amass the premise by having the collected framework matter to it while no individual supporting element makes the causal link itself. Consilience. A lot like 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.' Only more fundamental, something like 'the whole exists' (which is hard to prove), 'and is greater than its parts,' etc.

I also reference Steven Pinker's book, "The Blank Slate: Myth ...", where he documents genetically-given behaviors. In the lengthy genetic thread, there's a segment that codes for 'moral sense,' and a segment that codes for 'fairness' or 'justice,' and a segment for 'empathy,' and so on, (he names a couple dozen). So everyone is born with these faculties in some form. Then environmental situations can strengthen or atrophy the neural (maturity) growth in each 'sense center', and feature or fail the associated 'altruistic' or 'ethical' behaviors in performance.

Students in the field of genes-make-behavior are silent about Pinker's radical claims, and I don't know if that's because they're speechless (in awe?), or if they keep (secret) discretion in publicizing the mostly obvious uneasy implications in the findings.

--