tu_79
Deity
I agree that politicians labeling themselves "conservative" or "liberal" is not really helpful, especially since the changes in policies they pursued over time do not match the changes in their labels; this is how one gets a situation where Angela Merkel, who calls herself conservative, is pursuing policies like mass immigration, which is clearly not a right wing position, and in fact more than 75% of the German population is in favor of immediately stopping mass immigration and has been for more than a year, so the great majority of the population is actually a lot more right wing than the supposed "center-right" party of A. Merkel, which reflects how Merkel is really much more left of the center than she pretends to be; this is not just about immigration, either, Merkel also instituted gay marriage, eroded Germany's sovereignty economically and militarily now as well and so on.
My original point was that I don't want "border dissolution" as the Freedom (a.k.a. Western) specific CV wonder. The reasoning I put forward was supposed to highlight that such a position has nothing to do with Western philosophical foundations but is simply a political sentiment, which can be found in other cultures as well (i.e. it is not even specific to the West). I elaborated that such sentiment is the result of personality characteristics that can actually be measured with great validity (especially Big 5 Personality Scale) and is replicable across cultures as well. When I was talking about conservatives and liberals I did not intend to make statements specific to the US only but specific to human nature; the reason why I used those terms instead of "right wing"/"left wing", for example, is because the US has a rather large and very accessible (for scientists) population and a rather nice bipartisan split, which makes it easy to study. When measuring Big 5 Personality Scale metrics one can actually predict with some reliability which party the person will vote for, though there are, of course, other factors at play as well. So you can just substitute "right wing"/"left wing" if you like since regarding the science I'm talking about they are what people will (usually) mean in the US when they talk about conservatives or liberals.
The fact that there is such a strong psychological and, since personality is partially biologically determined, biological basis for political opinion means that there is a certain bounding effect in the political landscape that does not change significantly over time spans of centuries (because evolution doesn't act that quickly and potential selective pressures are somewhat broad in this context); this means that there is a self-correcting mechanism at work, that can be observed right now with Trump's election and the rise of the New Right in Europe; part of this can be explained by the action of the Behavioral Immune System which is active more strongly in people who lean more to the right (they are also more sensitive to disgust) and partly by the violation of so many borders in the current time (e.g. the border around sexuality, around gender, around religion, around culture, around nations and so on) which evokes a visceral reaction in many people who are already predisposed to be more sensitive to the violation of borders.
This is why your statement that ideologies are a product of culture is only partly true; they are, in my opinion, first and foremost parasites on the religious substructure of our society, given power by the moral vacuum in the 19th century after the "death of God" as proclaimed by Nietzsche in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and defined by the personalities of the people at the extreme ends of their respective distributions (largely Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience) and only secondarily are they influenced by culture. You can see that in the differences between national socialism and marxism: the first is predicated on the idea that there are extremely important, distinctly defined categories concerning people (nation, race, but also the individual...this is like drawing borders around these things psychologically) while the latter is predicated on the idea that those categories do not exist (no borders) and every human being is equal so that any difference in life outcome must be due to oppression (with some chance sprinkled in). Culture then defines the more detailed parameters, like who the oppressor and the oppressed is, for example.
I hope I explained a bit more clearly why I'm not talking about political definitions here but about biological and psychological differences between people, which are present across cultures and are therefore clearly not part of any specific culture. The "border dissolution" idea is clearly not some idea foundational or even specific to the West but instead the product of people who are at the extreme ends of the personality distributions.
Spoiler Psychology of ideologies :
While I agree that there's a factor on psychologies, I disagree with the biological determinism you seem to believe in.
First, even when the psychology of a person influences which ideologies or political policies they may choose, it's the country culture which determines what are the options, based on historical reasons, current circumstances and probably the climate. It comes to me a scene of the Spielberg's movie 'Lincoln':
"George Yeaman: And…and! We will be forced to enfranchise the men of the colored race, it would be inhuman not to! Who among us is prepared to give Negroes the vote?
[everyone on the floor starts talking loudly]
George Yeaman: And…and! What shall follow upon that? Universal enfranchisement? Votes for women?
[everyone on the floor stands in anger to make their disagreement heard]"
So, even when some of those people would vote for Universal enfranchisement or votes for women, had they been born a few decades later, that was not the right time. The culture at the time was ready for slavery abolishment but not for universal enfranchisement. This is important to consider when we look at eastern cultures.
Second, psychology is not biologically determined. Culture also has a say. Think on cultures that value success and effort over any other thing. This puts a pressure on every person of this culture, increasing stress and anxiety, which in turn, affects people psychology. It causes people to suicide on countries like Japan.
Third, other external factors, like climate, also affect psychology. It's a known fact that the lack of sun causes unhappiness, and might be a cause for suicidals too.
I agree that we are immersed on a reactionary wave. It seems to be the pendulum law. But I have another theory about why this happens. Let's talk about what kind of foreign policies people may agree with. Some would prefer a country of only one race, banning all foreigners. Some wouldn't mind a few foreigners in the country, as long as they don't mix with the locals. Some wouldn't mind a few foreigners living in the country as long as they adapt to local culture. Some wouldn't mind a few foreigners living in the country and bringing their culture with them so we sycretize both cultures (hopefully with the best of each world). Some don't mind that the foreigners are of different races and culture, but dislike more people in the country, fearing for their jobs.
Some people raise and die thinking the same. Some other change their ideas with the age and the events (maybe a few thousands of foreigners come to live to your city and you discover that you actually dislike other cultures, even if you thought differently when younger. Or you could fall in love with another culture if you happen to visit another country.)
All those grades are like forces pushing politics in one or other direction. Most people are unhappy with current foreign policies: some want them to be harder, some want them softer, a very minority likes it, but if the current policy is approximately in the middle, then it kinds of balances. When a political party rules in minority and gets to pass laws without consent of the social majority (in virtue of the electoral system), the situation is imbalanced. You can be sure that the next term, the next party will reverse foreign policies.
This explains political waves in the short term.
Changes in the long term might be attributed to the external forces I mentioned for changes on people's psychology. War in Syria, with millions of refugees, has changed how many people think about foreigners in Europe. So, xenophobic and near fascist parties are raising. It's not the only reason, but one of the strongest, in my opinion.
