Jonathan Haidt/Bruce L Gibb - 'What makes People vote Republican?' #2

Part 2

A useful heuristic would be to think about each issue, and about the party itself, from the perspective of the three Durkheimian foundations. 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?

The ingroup/loyalty foundation supports virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice that can lead to dangerous nationalism[24], but in moderate doses a sense that "we are all one" is a recipe for high social capital and civic wellbeing. A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled ’E Pluribus Unum’, 2007) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie and social isolation by decreasing people's sense of belonging to a shared community. Democrats should think carefully, therefore, about why they celebrate diversity. If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns), then these goals might be better served by encouraging assimilation and a sense of shared identity.

The purity/sanctity foundation is used heavily by the Christian right to condemn hedonism and sexual ‘deviance’, but it can also be harnessed for progressive causes. Sanctity does not have to come from God; the psychology of this system is about overcoming our lower, grasping, carnal selves in order to live in a way that is higher, nobler, and more spiritual[25]. Many liberals criticise the crassness and ugliness that our unrestrained free market society has created. There is a long tradition of liberal anti-materialism often linked to a reverence for nature. Environmental and animal welfare issues are easily promoted using the language of harm/care, but such appeals might be more effective when supplemented with hints of purity/sanctity.

The authority/respect[26] foundation will be the hardest for Democrats to use. But even as liberal bumper stickers urge us to "question authority" and assert that “dissent is patriotic”, Democrats can ask what needs this foundation serves, and then look for other ways to meet them. The authority foundation is all about maintaining social order, so any candidate seen to be ‘soft on crime’ has disqualified himself, for many Americans, from being entrusted with the ultimate authority. Democrats would do well to read Durkheim (1912) and think about the quasi-religious importance of the criminal justice system. The miracle of turning individuals into groups can only be performed by groups that impose costs on cheaters and slackers. You can do this the authoritarian way (with strict rules and harsh penalties) or you can do it using the fairness/reciprocity foundation by stressing personal responsibility and the beneficence of the nation towards those who “work hard and play by the rules”. But if you don't do it at all - if you seem to tolerate or enable cheaters and slackers - then you are committing a kind of sacrilege.

If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

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.

Comments: It seems to me that Haidt is doing his analysis from a position above GREEN - ie: YELLOW - and is advocating for GREEN Democrats to see, value, and incorporate the BLUE core of Republicans. His personal transformational experience in a traditional BLUE culture gives him a perspective which allows him to understand its value. Living in a tribal society would probably sensitise him to the differences between BLUE traditional and PURPLE tribal cultures. A time with the warlords of Afghanistan would awaken his understanding of the RED warrior culture. His conflating of modern ORANGE with postmodern GREEN creates some confusion in his analysis.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[24] Each of the stages has both ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ manifestations; healthy means they are good for people at that stage and allow people to emerge into subsequent stages and regress temporarily as life conditions dictate.

[25]Here the enemy posited is unhealthy RED, power-independence which is found below the level of the BLUE, truth-order culture; GREEN, communitarian culture shares this loathing but also values the RED, power-independence when it is used heroically or in a revolutionary mode against systems of injustice and inequality.