slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

How Political Leanings Boil Down to Moral Beliefs and Group Loyalties

The following is excerpted from "Tribal Politics", by Ryan Howes

We've all have had our fill of the partisan rancor that's become commonplace in politics. Perhaps you yourself have had the experience of getting lost in an argument in which you became exasperated that people on the other side couldn't see what was so obvious, despite your best efforts to reason with them.

When caught in the stalemate of a political debate, the advice of Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion and a social psychologist in the New York University Stern School of Business, is to save our breath--or at least recognize that what we think we're arguing about isn't really what we're arguing about. Haidt believes that most political debates, at least the way they're usually conducted, are useless because the underlying issues aren't what they appear to be on the surface. Politics, he says, is ultimately about our stance on fundamental moral beliefs and group loyalties--things that aren't usually influenced by facts, figures, or rational policy debate. In the interview that follows, he offers a perspective on why we v**e the way that we do that differs from what you're likely to read about in our mainstream e******n-season coverage.

RH: Your book is based on the idea that most of us don't understand the true roots of political differences. What are we missing?

Haidt: People often assume that politics is primarily about self-interest. They wonder why someone would v**e for a candidate who's going to raise their taxes or cut their benefits. But politics, especially at the p**********l level, is more like religion than a shopping excursion. Despite all the individualism and materialism within our culture, our group affiliations matter deeply to most of us. Politics begins to make more sense when you understand it as a tribal phenomenon.

RH: So, in politics, group membership trumps individual need?

Haidt: Yes. The more we care about our ethnic group, our city, our state, our occupational group, the likelier we are to v**e for politicians who we believe will advance those interests, even when they diverge from our individual interests. For example, it's striking how many liberal parents with children weren't more opposed to forced school bussing in the 1970s. Politics is largely about moral missions for the nation, and the president is expected to be the high priest of the American civic religion. It can be illuminating to see the left and right in this country as practicing different civic religions, and looking to very different high priests.

RH: From a moral standpoint, what's the difference in the outlook of the left and the right?

Haidt: To begin with, left and right have different understandings of fairness. The left tends to focus on e******y, with an emphasis on e******y of outcome. In contrast, the right cares exclusively about proportionality of outcome: if outcomes are equalized when deservingness isn't the same, they consider that an a*********n. This is why welfare is such a contentious issue. When social conservatives look at people who might have contributed to their own sorry state, they're deeply offended by the thought of bailing them out, but on the left, compassion for those who are suffering is more widespread. There's a basic difference in moral attitude about how each side thinks about "fairness."

RH: But fairness is often raised by both sides in debating social-justice issues, like gay marriage.

Haidt: The left tends to focus on victim groups--on people whom they see as being treated badly and denied opportunity. We've had several civil-rights revolutions in this country since the '60s, first for African Americans, then for women, and then the disabled. Gay people are pretty much the last group against whom it's legal to discriminate. That's become one of the central issues for the left in recent years.

RH: Does it come down to the left and right just having fundamentally different ideas of how things should be?

Haidt: Well, both sides care about fairness, and both sides care about liberty--but on the right, their version of fairness is much more focused on catching c***ters and slackers. The idea of a person getting something for nothing really makes their blood boil. That's why we had Republican Congressman Joe Wilson's "You lie!" moment during Obama's healthcare speech in 2009. It was over the question of whether i*****l i*******ts can get free healthcare--something that deeply offends the right's sense of what's morally correct. On the left, people approach that issue from the perspective of compassion: some vulnerable, hardworking i*****l i*******t is here in America and gets hit by a car, what should happen to him? Are we going to let him die? It's a fundamental difference of viewpoint, but rational debate leads nowhere because you can't change people's minds on moral and political issues with arguments and evidence.

RH: Why not?

Haidt: Political views aren't like views about factual matters. If you believe that it's faster to drive to the airport than take mass t***sit, and I give you evidence that mass t***sit is faster, there's a good chance that I'll change your mind, because your goal is actually to get to the airport more quickly. With political and moral questions, our goal isn't "the t***h." That's why it's always vital to bear in mind the importance of group membership when trying to understand political differences. Political beliefs act as badges of membership, badges that say who we are and give us a sense of meaning and purpose. They're badges that we display to show our moral character. So simply refuting someone's views about g****l w*****g or needle-exchange programs or a******n or anything else will have little effect, because people aren't going to betray their team because you show them evidence that they're wrong.

RH: So why do we invest so much energy in debating politics?

Haidt: The goal is to be a good team member. We argue not so much to persuade as to show off our team membership. Blog debates on the Internet are really instructive about this phenomenon because it's so clear there's no chance of persuasion. People just get more and more extreme in stating their case and showing off how cleverly they can state their arguments. They're really not interested in what the other side is saying.

RH: What do therapists need to know to understand the kinds of conflicts that revolve around political divisions?

Haidt: I'm not sure it's especially helpful for therapists to empathize with people's political beliefs per se, but I think they should be sensitive to the moral differences that are underlying cases in which ideology is dividing someone from a loved one on the other side of the political spectrum. I think we need to be respectful of both sides and recognize that both are really wise about the different kinds of threats that exist in the world. What the study of moral psychology can do is help everyone understand the other side and treat them with more understanding, even honor. The alternative is the kind of demonization that happens when our partisan reactivity activates the endless cycle of argument and rebuttal that we see too often these days.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

One line that got me. Of many of course
***Gay people are pretty much the last group against whom it's legal to discriminate. That's become one of the central issues for the left in recent years.
>>>No, it is the successful Christian white man, the last group against whom we are supposed to discriminate against.

RobertV2

The article is true in large part, I guess.

One thing it says is:

"The idea of a person getting something for nothing really makes their [the Right's] blood boil."

I think that is true: the Right does apparently often feel that way. However, if everybody could get some good thing for nothing, that would be ideal.

For example, if everybody could go to the nearest river and drink the water safely, without having to pay any money for it, that would be a good thing. It would be good water, and zero payment for it. Something for nothing.

Who polluted the rivers in America? Weren't they a lot better drinking water before the Europeans started coming a few centuries ago? Now we have to spend money to get safe drinking water: either to have city water made safe, or to buy bottled water. It used to be that everybody could get good water for free. Now we have a water industry for profit; the richer people can afford more good water, the poorer people sometimes can't even get good water. Who benefits from that situation? Why didn't we instead develop a system in which _everybody_ could, again as it was before, get good water for free, or a system in which everybody paid a small tax for water treatment plants so that everybody would have equal access to good water? Why do we have the stratification in which richer people get more or better water, and poorer people get less or worse water, when originally everybody had the same access to good water and it wasn't an issue?

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Why would christian white men discriminate against themselves?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Indeed, Doc, as that would present quite a quandary for themselves.

Rose42

Since man is tribal by nature it stands to reason so are politics. Though I find this guy over generalizing. Too tired to elaborate. Lol

moldyoldy

Speaking of water, nestle gets practically free water that they bottle and sell for enormous profits.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-fight-over-water-how-nestle-dries-up-us-creeks-to-sell-water-in-plastic-bottles

Even in a drought they keep siphoning. Which shows that big business can screw us all by bribing a few people.

moldyoldy

The group that has control of everything always seems to be complaining about everyone else taking things.

BigJim

True, I look at attempts to create "equity" as discrimination against w****s.


Unfortunately discrimination against Jews seems to be coming back in style.

hbmac10

The way to clean water is to shut down all industries and go back to living in one with nature. Tear down all cities and live in a tent and piss and crap two miles from a water source, but remember animals die and poop in the water. So you might still have to boil your water to k**l pathogens. I am sure with no modern facilities the death toll would reduce the world to a NWO population level. Would that be moral?

RobertV2

That does seem likely.

RobertV2

There's more than one way to arrange that water will be clean.

We might have to shut down some industries, but not all. And some industries would have to be regulated.

Yes, there is pollution even from "natural" sources. And there is also pollution from "industrial" sources. For each, there are remedies.

It is not necessary to suppose that some change for the better (such as "clean water") implies that an entire civilization has to be reduced to rubble.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

You aren't paying attention. And they are also discriminated against by virtually all sub categories, including you l*****ts on OPP