A typical liberal social psychologist/anthropologist asks the question "Why do people vote Republican?" and gains a new respect for conservative values. He analyzes the definition of morality and compares the underpinnings of American society versus traditional societies. He's not going to become Republican but he's lost the chip on his shoulder and can see things from a conservative perspective. You could say that a liberal gets liberal. Like the author's view of conservativism, you won't agree with him but you'll respect his perspective.
(Thanks to Mike C.)
I'm sorry, but this is a terrible article that represents all that's wrong with the hard left's approach to politics. Start with this passage:
People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.
In other words, Republicans (or, better, conservatives) don't offer appeals to reason; they rather present everything in stark black/white contrasts. Never mind the Contract With America; the scholarship of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others; the clear intellectual arguments of Bill Buckley that confounded his opponents; etc. Never mind the Democratic/liberal instinct to paint Republicans/conservatives as hearltess bast*rds who would throw their grandmother over the bus if they had the chance. No, we'll just explain the right-wing instincts as genetics, and the left-wing instincts as reason.
How, one wonders, would the author explain conversions from liberalism to conservatism? Or does he think they are all based on fear?
Jack, did you read the whole article? The portion you quote is not Haidt's opinion, it is his description of the typical, knee-jerk response that most liberal academics have to the question, "Why do people vote Republican?"
The rest of the article is a refutation of that typical response.
I loved the article, and blogged it. Thanks, Eric.
Rae Stabosz
I did read the whole article, and never negates that point of view. The article essentially elaborated on why Republicans are successful by promoting black and white choices, and why they are successful at their scare tactics. There was no admission, not even any hint, that in many cases, Republican/conservative arguments are in fact more logically persuasive than Democratic/liberal arguments. For example,
Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society.
There's no acknowledgment by the author that the "conservative" position on immigration (whatever that might be) might be well-thought out, carefully considered, and more advantageous economically, socially, or otherwise, than liberal positions. The liberal position is considered as valuing "fairness" and "compassion", not the conservative position. There's no acknowledgment at all that some conservatives (like me) base their arguments on immigration based on fairness and compassion, as well, or even think about their positions on issues. Conservatives merely win because they address a wider moral spectrum.
In the same way, the author says that liberals have a hard time using arguments from "authority" or "respect" even though liberals do that all the time, even when those arguments are demonstrably wrong in a scientific sense. See: global warming in the Al Gore narrative. See: selective choice of which laws to enforce (Elian Gonzalez was sent back to Cuba because it was the "law", not because it was fair or compassionate to do so). See: political correctness, which is based on a highly selective notion of "respect".
Liberals care about individual rights, he says, while making no acknowledgment that liberals forget about individual rights of the unborn, whereas conservatives do not. Liberals forget about individual rights to own guns, whereas conservatives do not. On these issues and more the liberal position is often based on considerations for a practical society (decreasing poverty, reducing crime), certainly not out of a consideration of fairness or individual rights.
The author cites internet surveys as authoritative, although (1) they're his own surveys, and (2) internet surveys are generally considered unreliable. They have problems with self selection, for starters: amusingly, the author encourages this with the statement, You can test yourself at www.YourMorals.org..
Or take this one: Religion and political leadership are so intertwined across eras and cultures because they are about the same thing: performing the miracle of converting unrelated individuals into a group. Do you really agree with him that Catholicism, or any religion, is "about" converting unrelated individuals into a group? All this time, I thought it was "about" a relationship with God. Many religions make relatively zero attempts at conversion, and still survive. It would be one thing to say that bringing unrelated individuals together into a group is an effect of religion, but that is not what religions is about. Bringing people together is, however, what politics is about (as opposed to governance, which is different). These sorts of flaws in his reasoning abound.
Looking it over again, I feel confident that I could continue picking it apart. Essentially, though, my point is that rather than acknowledge that liberal arguments may not be as convincing as they are—speaking of self-interest how do Obama's proposed income tax cuts help me, when I already pay zero income taxes? or, as Fred Thompson said at the Republican convention, tax increases he proposes won't hurt me, unless I buy something, pay for a service, drive somewhere,etc.?—the author argues that conservatives win because they address the full moral spectrum and liberals don't. Actually, conservatives sometimes (not always) have more convincing arguments, not because of some "moral superiority", but often because of economic self-interest, or other values/assumptions.
I do agree, Jack, with most of your points. Haidt is, after all, writing from the point of view of a liberal Democrat who believes that liberal Democratic ideals and ideas ARE the best. He never concedes or even analyses the reasonableness of conservative Republican ideas.
What I do think is worthy of note is that, as you write, the author acknowledges that conservatives do address the full moral spectrum and liberals do not. This, to me, is a very welcome note after working for 27 years in an academic environment in which liberal thought predominated and conservative thought was demonized as immoral, racist, sexist, and elitist.
Economic self-interest itself is a manifestation of attending to the full moral spectrum. It recognizes that human beings are fallen creatures, not innocents whose natural moral goodness would shine if only society would loosen its repressive bonds.