How does a progressive talk to a conservative, especially in any constructive way? Is any discourse doomed to, at worst, a shouting match a la last year's town hall meetings or, at best, a stand off between ideological viewpoints? Is there no hope we can ever move forward on the changes in public policy our country seems to need?
I think there's hope, but not if we continue as we have been. We have to try something different.
A few months ago, I ran across an article about why people vote Republican versus Democrat by Jonathan Haidt, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia who's been researching morality and culture since 1987. You can read the whole article if you'd like (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html), but I'll just discuss a few items from it here.
Dr. Haidt has developed a theory that people who identify with the Republican party do so because they "prefer the Republican vision of a moral order." He says, "Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society."
Dr. Haidt believes that, for conservatives, "...morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats 'just don't get it,' this is the 'it' to which they refer."
His conclusion is that liberals will never be able to appeal to conservatives unless liberals can broaden their appeal across a wider range of emotional values. Democrats tend to focus on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity as the basis for their arguments. Dr. Haidt's research showed "...that social conservatives do indeed rely upon those two foundations, but they also value virtues related to three additional psychological systems: ingroup/loyalty...authority/respect...and purity/sanctity."
Without being more considerate of these additional bases, conservatives will correctly perceive progressive arguments as violations of their moral code and react negatively as well as emotionally while liberals will continue to be surprised and feel superior to what they perceive as irrational reactions. Check out this video clip from the BBC about the two sides to the climate change argument. Advance to about 3:50 timewise and you'll see a perfect example of the emotionality vs. rationality phenomena between a liberal and a conservative: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8400206.stm.
Dr. Haidt muses, "Might the Democrats expand their moral range without betraying their principles? Might they even find ways to improve their policies by incorporating and publicly praising some conservative insights?"
Dr. Haidt--like President Obama--thinks they can. He suggests that to achieve conservative buy-in on diversity programs, for instance, Democrats should refrain from condemning Republicans resistance as racism or discrimination and focus the conversation instead on "assimilation and a sense of shared identity," something that both sides can easily support. Likewise, liberal causes such as saving the environment and treating animals well might gain more support from conservatives if framed as "overcoming our lower, grasping, carnal selves in order to live in a way that is higher, nobler, and more spiritual welfare."
Finally, Dr. Haidt concludes:
I think there's hope, but not if we continue as we have been. We have to try something different.
A few months ago, I ran across an article about why people vote Republican versus Democrat by Jonathan Haidt, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia who's been researching morality and culture since 1987. You can read the whole article if you'd like (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html), but I'll just discuss a few items from it here.
Dr. Haidt has developed a theory that people who identify with the Republican party do so because they "prefer the Republican vision of a moral order." He says, "Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society."
Dr. Haidt believes that, for conservatives, "...morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats 'just don't get it,' this is the 'it' to which they refer."
His conclusion is that liberals will never be able to appeal to conservatives unless liberals can broaden their appeal across a wider range of emotional values. Democrats tend to focus on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity as the basis for their arguments. Dr. Haidt's research showed "...that social conservatives do indeed rely upon those two foundations, but they also value virtues related to three additional psychological systems: ingroup/loyalty...authority/respect...and purity/sanctity."
Without being more considerate of these additional bases, conservatives will correctly perceive progressive arguments as violations of their moral code and react negatively as well as emotionally while liberals will continue to be surprised and feel superior to what they perceive as irrational reactions. Check out this video clip from the BBC about the two sides to the climate change argument. Advance to about 3:50 timewise and you'll see a perfect example of the emotionality vs. rationality phenomena between a liberal and a conservative: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8400206.stm.
Dr. Haidt muses, "Might the Democrats expand their moral range without betraying their principles? Might they even find ways to improve their policies by incorporating and publicly praising some conservative insights?"
Dr. Haidt--like President Obama--thinks they can. He suggests that to achieve conservative buy-in on diversity programs, for instance, Democrats should refrain from condemning Republicans resistance as racism or discrimination and focus the conversation instead on "assimilation and a sense of shared identity," something that both sides can easily support. Likewise, liberal causes such as saving the environment and treating animals well might gain more support from conservatives if framed as "overcoming our lower, grasping, carnal selves in order to live in a way that is higher, nobler, and more spiritual welfare."
Finally, Dr. Haidt concludes:
"Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle. Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so."I think Dr. Haidt's a pretty smart guy.
No comments:
Post a Comment