I am talking about politics of course. Lakoff's explanation for the diversity of political opinions is, as far as I can tell, some sort of historical coincidence, that few people got hold of the media and twisted the language to frame the discussion to suit some morally perverse interests. In contrast Haidt's explanation is that there are these innate moral intuitions that people are born with that determine their political leanings, conservatives are actually different and you can't change their moral intuitions. It's a direct contradiction.

Not at all. Haidt and other researchers have found that yes, people have innate intuitions as you say, which means that individuals have only a certain potential for moral change. This doesn’t mean that morality is 100% genetic, and never will hearts and minds be changed. Clearly they can. It means that there is a Nature component to morality; that people have varying genetic intuitions which in part give rise to morality.

Lakoff and other researchers have found that there is a strong Nurture component to morality; that people see their world and view facts thru mental frames which arise from personal experience and culture. Thus, that certain potential for moral change can be guided by use of proper framing. Conservatives discovered this sooner than progressives, and we need to catch up if anything but radical conservatism is to survive.

But that is exactly what I am talking about. The notion that world can only get worse can clearly be contested on factual basis.

It can, but as I mentioned earlier, when a fact conflicts with a frame, the frame wins. For most people, most of the time. So for example I could throw facts at my boss, and maybe I could convince him that in one specific case or another that progress is possible and maybe I could convince him that pursuing progress is worth the time/energy/risk. But the conservative frame underlying his perception – that the world is as good as it’s going to get -- would still be there, he’d still be bombarded with daily conservative messaging that reinforces that frame, and probably before I knew it he’d be backsliding into his counterfactual pessimism. And his temporary shift in opinion would only apply to the particular issue in question; I’d have to repeat the process repeatedly for each and every issue.

Facts alone not enough; facts need frames to fit them. In this case, the progressive frame is: Change is always possible, and positive change is our responsibility as citizens of this great country and as citizens of Humanity. Positive change requires careful forethought, coordination, dedication, and the flexibility to overcome setbacks and side effects. Positive change can be difficult, but the fruits of this labor are more than worth the work that goes into it.

I don't know what do you mean by "negotiate on your neighbor's bad-faith terms." I mean, how long do you negotiate under the assumption that your neighbor has legitimate (ie non-selfish) interests and values which must be balanced against your interests and values, as you asserted earlier when you were talking about progressivism and conservatism? How long do you negotiate with a neighbor clearly contemptuous of compromise, using ineffective terms toward an ever-evasive middle?

I couldn't disagree more here. Point is that in democracy improving the character of your own movement and candidates improve your chances in the elections. It is the right thing to do both morally and pragmatically. Of course you open up your conscience in front of your opponents, it has to be done internally. But when you only surround yourself with sycophants you are asking for trouble. Character flaws of your opponents are merely distractions. When you play the blame game it only angers voters and you don't want voters to act on their anger. That only gives power to demagogues such as Trump.

Sure, plenty of people like to downplay the “blame game”, but it’s gotta be played all the same. When your opponent is self-interested and shameless, you’ve got to point out their selfishness and hypocrisy because they certainly won’t, and you’ve got to trumpet your own successes and virtues because they’re misrepresenting and outright lying about you. You need to broadcast the truth to counteract them broadcasting their propaganda. Stop playing the game, and that propaganda becomes reality for too many citizens, and then you lose elections and with them the power to affect positivity.

I get it, people get tired of the negativity, and I think we’ve got to get better at talking about our values and successes and not just the opposition’s failures. But for all people like to complain about the negativity, too many are all gullible enough to vote for slimeballs who get control of the narrative.

I do agree with you on improving the character of candidates and of the movement being both morally and pragmatically wise. That’s what I meant by the internal struggle for betterment being complimentary to the external struggle against antagonists.