Looking for the Politics Gene

Brian Frederking

February 15, 2006

            Red and Blue. Culture War. The notion of a politically divided country is now solidly in our discourse. The chasm is palpable, and the frustration is mounting. We just do not understand each other. Could the explanation be….genetics?

            The next time we argue with someone from the other camp, and we have no idea how such a smart person could believe such things, should we chalk it up to our genes?

Much of the evidence that genes influence behavior has troubling implications. For example, studies on adopted children consistently show that genes are more important influences on behavior than parental socialization. So why should parents try to “make a difference” and adopt a child? The growing evidence that genes influence predispositions to criminal behavior makes dispensing justice more difficult. Do we consider these genes to be mitigating factors when determining punishment?

            So do genes really influence political attitudes? A study in the May 2005 American Political Science Review suggests that they do. John Alford (Rice), Carolyn Funk (Virginia Commonwealth), and John R Hibbing (Nebraska) applied the standard twin methodology (compare identical twins and fraternal twins in order to control for nurture and test the influence of nature) to study the political beliefs of over 4000 twins.

They measured 28 different political attitudes, and the identical twins had more highly correlated political attitudes than the fraternal twins in all 28 measures. All the differences were statistically significant. The study presents impressive evidence for the independent influence of genes on our political beliefs.

The authors posit basic orientations influenced by genetic transmission. I bet the following sounds familiar. One is suspicious of out-groups, yearns for in-group unity and leadership, prefers clear moral codes and swift punishment for breaking those codes, tolerates inequality, and is inherently pessimistic of human nature. The other is tolerant of out-groups, evaluates behavior and punishments based on context, is suspicious of hierarchy and certainty, criticizes inequality, and is inherently optimistic about human nature.

So what does this mean? Does Red and Blue go beyond culture? Is it more nature than nurture? Will this knowledge exacerbate our feelings of division and rancor? Will we assume that dialogue is futile and simply stop talking to each other? Will the future bring us genetic engineering where parents can request both blue eyes and a blue-state voter? Will natural selection run its course, with the evolutionarily superior type dominating the other?

            Well, it’s not that bad. The evidence does not support these troubling conclusions. Genes do not directly cause behavior or political beliefs. Instead, they interact with our environment to make certain behaviors or beliefs more likely. For example, if you have a gene associated with depression and you are going through high stress events, you are more likely to go into a depression than one who does not have the gene and is not going through high stress events.

The influence of genes is probabilistic, not causal. Many will have the gene and the stress without developing a depression. Similarly, many parents do make a difference in the lives of their adopted children. And persons with genes predisposed to criminal behavior are still ultimately responsible for their actions.

The same is true with political attitudes. Our genes, while important, do not determine our political beliefs. The environment (parents, friends, media, elites, political institutions, good old-fashioned debate, etc.) still matters. Many with “conservative” genes and a conservative environment will have liberal political beliefs, and vice versa.

Alford, Funk, and Hibbing also present evidence that our choice of mates is heavily influenced by these genetically influenced political orientations. We tend to marry someone of our own type. There is no genetic melting pot in our future. We are stuck with each other.

And this may be a good thing. The authors conclude their study by citing an evolutionary theory of political behavior that sees genetic variation as itself adaptive. In other words, we need each other because neither orientation is appropriate in all contexts. Strong societies recognize when circumstances require a change in basic orientation.

Politics today is essentially about whether suspicion of out-groups, yearning for certainty, hierarchical leadership, and toleration of inequality is appropriate or has become counter-productive. It’s about how we should best adapt to our changing circumstances.

            So the next time you argue with someone from the other side, try to do so with greater understanding. Yes, we are different. But we need each other.