The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

Why is it so impossible to get anyone to change their minds when comes to politics? It makes one wonder if there is simply a genetic difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

Jonathan Haidt believes it comes down to our moral foundations. He explains how and why in this intriguing talk at TED . He also wrote a corresponding post at edge.org explaining the results of his research on morality and political affiliation. (Be sure to read the excellent commentary here)

Perhaps Haidt’s the most interesting point is that humans evolved to:

1) Unite into teams

2) Divide themselves against other teams

3) Blind themselves to the truth (Anything that might make us change teams… or feel any pity for the other team is an evolutionary weakness)

This instinct is so strong, that we actually do it for fun – creating multi-billion dollar businesses to watch people kick and hit balls around fields.

It’s little wonder that our politics have followed the same template.

But the question remains; why do Conservatives and Liberals divide up the way they do?

In addition to an intriguing difference in ideology and openness to experience, Haidt suggests that human morality is built upon 5 “foundations”.  They are listed on his  web-site as:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.

3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”

4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Haidt tells us Democrats are more likely to base their moral opinion on the first two (Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity) Whereas Republicans are more likely to base their morality on the latter three (Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect and Purity/Sanctity)

You can actually take the test yourself to see where you end up on his liberal/conservative continuum at yourmorals.org.

But I believe he’s only half right. The problem lies in how we define each group. To my eyes, he’s fudged the questions of this exam to give him the data he wants.

For instance, Liberals are clearly more concerned with the environment. Does this not fall under “Purity”? Further, liberals are also concerned with wealth redistribution and universal health care. Couldn’t one argue that these values represent ingroup loyalty? What is the difference between the conservative idea of “team” (stick together and fight) opposed to the liberal idea of “team” (lets all share the wealth)

And what about Abortion? Couldn’t we say this conservative cause falls under “Harm/care”? And while the liberal sees little fairness in the brutalities of the free market, the conservative see little fairness in the mandatory taxation and redistribution of a strong government. I think what’s at issue is not whether one side values fairness more than the other, but merely a disagreement on what set of rules achieves this sought after fairness.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there are fundamental (even genetic) differences between Republicans and Democrats. This interesting graphic from “Information is Beautiful” explores many of them. I think over all, Republicans are more competitive and form judgments more quickly.  But in truth, exit polls suggest that each party is made up a conglomerate of different social groups and strata. People choose parties for different reasons. Thus drawing any generalities  proves to be difficult. But that certainly won’t stop us from trying.