While I sympathize with cultural influence as explanatory to some degree, I find the Yankee/Scots explanation not only reductive and tidy, but superficial. I find big-L Liberalism a much more convincing explanation, and one that also accounts for why California and the coasts in general tend to be the vanguard of developments that later spread to the rest of the country and elsewhere.
Liberalism itself is not a coherent worldview, and the observed duality in this article seems unsurprising given the tensions that pull Liberalism in different direction. On the one hand, there is the Liberal notion of "freedom" or liberty as absence of external constraint (what the author would likely identify with the Scots-Irish) that pulls Liberalism toward ever greater "pushing of boundaries" and the transgression of limits, hyper-individualism, secularism, and skepticism. On the other, the tacit theology grounding Liberalism is a Protestant theism and a tradition that is, surprise surprise, communitarian (i.e., what the author identifies with Yankee or Puritans). So liberty vs. order.
Of course, Liberalism, like any worldview, doesn't just stand still. Its consequences are fleshed out over time. And here is where we see conflict. On the one hand, Liberalism celebrates neutrality. Its understanding of religious tolerance is rooted in this idea of neutrality. But on the other hand, Liberalism is justified by Protestant theological notions. Even its neutrality is itself extended only to doctrines that share its liberal egalitarian presuppositions.
Of course, just as Liberalism (Locke) is incomprehensible without Descartes and Protestantism (Luther), Protestantism (Luther) and Descartes cannot be appreciated without Ockham [0][1]. It's been a religious and philosophical war all along.
[0] https://a.co/d/hLLKYlD
[1] https://a.co/d/gE2GhbL
Liberalism itself is not a coherent worldview, and the observed duality in this article seems unsurprising given the tensions that pull Liberalism in different direction. On the one hand, there is the Liberal notion of "freedom" or liberty as absence of external constraint (what the author would likely identify with the Scots-Irish) that pulls Liberalism toward ever greater "pushing of boundaries" and the transgression of limits, hyper-individualism, secularism, and skepticism. On the other, the tacit theology grounding Liberalism is a Protestant theism and a tradition that is, surprise surprise, communitarian (i.e., what the author identifies with Yankee or Puritans). So liberty vs. order.
Of course, Liberalism, like any worldview, doesn't just stand still. Its consequences are fleshed out over time. And here is where we see conflict. On the one hand, Liberalism celebrates neutrality. Its understanding of religious tolerance is rooted in this idea of neutrality. But on the other hand, Liberalism is justified by Protestant theological notions. Even its neutrality is itself extended only to doctrines that share its liberal egalitarian presuppositions.
Of course, just as Liberalism (Locke) is incomprehensible without Descartes and Protestantism (Luther), Protestantism (Luther) and Descartes cannot be appreciated without Ockham [0][1]. It's been a religious and philosophical war all along.
[0] https://a.co/d/hLLKYlD
[1] https://a.co/d/gE2GhbL