I tried to suggest earlier that I am tired of the futility of trying to debate conservatives from the point of view of how wrong and evil they are. I am looking for a consciously evolved understanding or explanation of western cultural evolution, a philosophical and psychological explanation of human nature and human society into which their contribution to cloture has a place. I want to integrate and include rather than mock and reject. I am not interested in winning elections but in establishing new understandings that promote western cultural advance. The presence of the culture war is a sign that the memes of our current level of understandings are failing.
I take issue with the focus on "traditional values" when it come to modern American conservatism. While I understand that as a generally correct description of the conservative world view, something is awry of late. That being the sudden tolerance of serial adultery (see Commandment #7) while condemning it only when done by members of another tribe, being a "patriotic" flag waver while supporting a POTUS who consorts with authoritarian dictators who hate democracy, and supporting a POTUS who pisses all over the rule of law (including law enforcement) to name just three flagrant departures from the traditional values conservatives claim to represent.
I agree with at least some of the traditional values that conservatives say they support. The problem is, I'm no longer certain that
they agree.
I have been spending more time out of boredom with the same old Trump is a disaster in P and N exploring what other people are saying and have discovered a number of thinkers with whom I have natural sympathy. Their skills and positions of notoriety verbal and intellectual plus the internet made it possible for them to come to my attention. A number of them note the same flaws or weaknesses in liberal thinking as I do and they are all pretty much liberals who tend to include rather than divide.
The point is that you wast to find a way to get conservatives to see the he world as you do whereas I want to get them to see that I see the world as they do and more. You fight and reject and I want to include and add. They are me. You diminish yourself to reject the best in them. Their point of view at core is vital to civilization. They conserve core values that are foundational to society.
To provide something on your request for formulas I searched around for the kind of thinking I have been looking at and found this:
https://www.culturalevolution.org/
Read your link, or one article in it, for starts.
https://www.culturalevolution.org/docs/ICE-Growing-Out-of-Americas-Divided-Culture.pdf
I liked the piece quite a bit. Its description of the three, or, arguably, four prevalent political world views in America strikes me as useful and likely accurate. Traditionalism (i.e. social conservatism), conservative modernism (establishment/libertarian conservatism), liberal modernism (establishment), and postmodern progressivism (far left).
It's useful because it doesn't just describe a right left spectrum but actually explains that each category involves a qualitatively different set of values. I would consider myself to be a liberal modernist, yet that doesn't make me "center-left." I tend to agree with postmodern progressives 85-90% on
issues. Yet I recognize that they have a totally different world view than I do.
The problem in all this is that there is no notion of how to even formulate a single, coherent world view which synthesizes the existing world views, retaining the positive aspects and discarding the negative, let alone how to make this the dominant view in our culture. When people change their world view - and they don't do it often after about age 20 - it's usually in response to events in their lives or in the world, not to people trying to convince them to do it. That was why I had a skeptical reaction to your post. Not because I don't agree with your theoretical framework, which seems sound. But because I don't see its practical application on a wide scale.
The article does contain an important practical idea, however, but it is issue specific and unfortunately cannot be applied across the board. They give the example of gay marriage, as furthering the values of progressives (caring), liberal modernists (equality/fairness), conservatives modernists (freedom), and, crucially, traditionalists (family values). If traditionists object to the wild promiscuity they see in gay culture, shouldn't they consider that allowing them to marry promotes monogamy?
If only all issues were like that, where one could credibly argue that policies they support also advance the values of those with a seemingly opposing world view. And again, if only they were
listening in the first place.
Still, there's a kernel of a good practical idea there. Will read more.
When I said, I'm all ears, I wasn't being flip. I'll listen to any ideas from anyone who, in good faith, is trying to get us out of this mess we're in.