The ideas in this post are from my book, The Genesis of Values, which uses concepts in psychology to analyze political change.

I have been watching the constant struggle between liberals and conservatives for my entire adult life, with each side always working to remake America in its own image, trying and hoping to consign the other side to the dustbin of history.  Who will win?  Can we know?

Yes, we can know who will win.  The answer, I am certain, is that if America does not suffer a severe economic depression then it will become a European-style liberal society within thirty years.  This is, in fact, inevitable.  Surprisingly, the reasons flow not from any analysis of politics, but from evolutionary psychology. 

When people watch the attitudes and behavior of those whose values differ from theirs, they often think, 'How can they feel this way?'  The answer to this comes also from evolutionary psychology. 

I believe that evolution has given us emotions for a reason, and that reason is to impel (create an impulse toward) adaptive behavior.  Our emotions have been shaped by evolution to make us want to do things that aid in our survival and reproduction.  They are sensations that impel socially adaptive behavior, just as physical sensations like hunger or thirst impel physically adaptive behavior like eating and drinking. 

This includes the moral emotions, meaning those emotional reactions we feel when we perceive something as being morally 'right' or 'wrong'.  This strong sensation of rightness or wrongness feels like a direct perception of reality, but it isn't.  Seeing something as right or wrong is different from seeing the sky as blue on a clear day.  One is emotion, the other perception, and emotions concern what we want, not what is factually true. 

Obviously, people regard very different things as right or wrong, and are shocked when others don't share their perceptions.  It's as if the others can't see that the sky is blue.  This happens because evolution has programmed us to 'want' different things under different conditions. 

A standard argument in evolutionary psychology holds that humans engage in cooperative behavior because this increases resources available for survival.  Humans are therefore also endowed with 'cheating detectors' so that they can make sure others respond to cooperative behavior by reciprocating.   Without a cheating detector you could be generous to someone else and they could be selfish towards you, and your generosity would be bad for your survival.  With a cheating detector you punish people who do that, and they learn to reciprocate, or you stop dealing with them.  Voluntary exchange, and therefore all economic transactions, are made possible by cheating detectors. 

When your cheating detector goes off, you feel a sense of 'wrongness', and this sensation produces anger and an impulse to punish the person who is 'wrong'.  This helps you survive.  I believe that the same logic applies to things other than cheating.  I believe that evolution has endowed us with several 'wrongness' detectors adapted to different types of relationships. 

Humans increase their resources for survival whenever they coordinate their actions with others, and coordination can be cooperative or coercive.  This means that there are three modes of relating: cooperative, dominant, and submissive.  In each one people act in ways that are intended to elicit desired behavior in others, and they have a wrongness detector that goes off when they don't receive the response they want. 

Cooperation is intended to elicit cooperation from others.  When it is received the detector for cooperation detects rightness, when it isn't the detector detects wrongness.  This is the evolutionary basis for the egalitarian values of fairness and justice. 

The other modes of relating operate similarly.  Dominance is intended to elicit obedience.  When it is received the detector for dominance detects rightness, when it isn't the detector detects wrongness.  This is the evolutionary basis for the hierarchical values of obedience and respect for authority.  Submission is intended to elicit approval and protection from those who are dominant.  When this is received the detector for submission detects rightness, when it isn't the detector detects wrongness.  This reinforces the values of obedience and respect for authority, and is also the evolutionary basis for the human desire to worship a just and loving God.  (More on this in another post, but for now I will just note that the word 'Islam' is Arabic for 'submission'.)

These different modes of relating, and their detectors, are activated by the circumstances in which they are adaptive for survival.  Scarcity makes dominance more adaptive for survival, while abundance makes cooperation more adaptive for survival.  When individuals need to coordinate activity in order to obtain resources, the question is whether to cooperate or to try to dominate.  There are risks and benefits to both.  One risk is the risk of death or injury from conflict.  The other risk is insufficient resources for survival.  With an attempt to dominanate, the risk of harm in conflict is increased, because the other individual might fight back and injure or kill the aggressor.   With cooperation the primary risk is insufficient resources, because conflict is avoided. 

In times of scarcity the risk of dying from insufficient resources is very much increased.  Since this is the primary risk with cooperation, this means that scarcity makes cooperation more risky.  Thus dominance is relatively less risky in times of scarcity than in times of abundance.  The risk of being harmed in conflict stays the same during times of scarcity and times of abundance, while the risk of dying from insufficient resources declines as abundance increases.  This means that as abundance increases, cooperation becomes less and less risky, and so becomes the preferred evolutionary strategy more and more often.

What this means in practice is that when individuals of roughly equal capacities need to coordinate activity, the potential payoff of dominance in survival terms is much greater under conditions of scarcity.  Therefore conditions of scarcity should increase the number of situations in which dominance is perceived as advantageous, and so dominant, coercive, non-cooperative behavior should be higher under these conditions.  And when we look at societies around the world and throughout history, this is exactly the pattern that we see.  The correlation between scarcity and authoritarianism, while not perfect, is very high. 

What this tells us about politics, our own and in general, is that scarcity will cause increased activation of dominance and submission and the detectors that accompany those behaviors.  Therefore, the hierarchical values of obedience and automatic respect for authority will be stronger and more prevalent under conditions of scarcity.  Conversely, abundance will cause increased activation of cooperation and the detector that accompanies it.  Therefore, the egalitarian values of fairness and justice will be stronger and more prevalent under conditions of abundance. 

These ideas are original, and I call them coordination theory.  Coordination theory provides the mechanisms that explain the historical progression in the West from authoritarian systems such as monarchy, fascism, and communism, to modern liberal democracy.  It also explains why democracy seems to eventually become inevitable as economic affluence increases.   Additionally, coordination theory also explains political change over time within democracies, from conservative to liberal as affluence increases. 

Of course the correlation between economic advancement and political change is not perfect.  The reason for this is that much of the change is time-lagged.  Personality and consequently values are largely formed during childhood and adolescence, so much of the political effect of economic changes is not revealed until the generation that grew up during those changes reaches maturity.  This process is detailed in my previous post. 

The important thing about coordination theory is that it not only explains the past, it also predicts the future.  One prediction I made privately a few years ago was that Russia was due to enter a period of increased authoritarianism, due to conditions of increased scarcity that have prevailed there since 1990.  The generation raised under these conditions is now maturing, and the increase in authoritarianism there can already be seen.  My prediction now is that it will continue to increase significantly over the next few years, and this will constitute a major foreign policy challenge. 

I also predicted that America would see an increase in liberal tendencies after about 2002, when the generation born after the difficult times of the 1970s and early 1980s matured.  That prediction was too early by a few years, but still occurred.  My prediction for America now, as stated above, is that if decent economic conditions continue, we will become a European-style democracy within thirty years.  If coordination theory is correct, then that's pretty much inevitable.  Unfortunately, however, decent economic conditions can no longer be assumed.  

The next post will explain the evolutionary roots of empathy, entitlement, and hatred, and how these affect into political values, according to coordination theory.