A couple weeks ago, I heard an interview that really shook up my political world. It was from the public radio show “On Being,” and featured a conversation with positive psychologist Jonathan Haidt. If you are interested in politics and civil discourse, I highly recommend you listen to this episode when you have a chance. In particular, it’s got me thinking about the Syrian refugee issue. I’ll explain, but let me give you some provocative context first.
Haidt’s work focuses on the psychology of morality. He and his colleagues have established the “Moral Foundations Theory,” which postulates certain values that form the foundation of each person’s “moral matrix.” They have identified five primary values that people most often rate as important to their moral makeup. Those values are:
- Fairness
- Compassion
- Loyalty
- Authority
- Purity (or sanctity)
Within each group, there are “conservatives” and “liberals.” These terms are bigger than our politics. They refer even more deeply to our perspectives on life. One’s politics are merely a function of his or her way of being human. Openness to new experiences is the main trait that correlates to “liberal” and “conservative.” To find out your scores on the five foundations, you can take this survey.
One important note made by Haidt: Morality in a psychological sense is not about being a “good person.” It is about being a good group member. They sound similar, but the difference is really important. Every group has morals – even ISIL. In the ISIL moral universe, to be moral means to kill apostates and adhere dogmatically to all of the insane religious views of the group.
But back to non-insane people: Of fairness, compassion, loyalty, authority, and purity, conservatives tend to rate all five as very important to them. Meanwhile, liberals tend to rate only fairness and compassion as super important. In fact, the last three values tend to be symbols of oppression for liberal people. Valuing authority? Authority figures are “The Man.” Group loyalty? That’s the hallmark of racism and exclusion.
Loyalty is also not as highly rated among liberals because they tend to be more universal and inclusive. They want to continually widen the circle and open the group to new and diverse members, whereas conservatives want to protect the existing group and its identity. Both ways can be valuable, depending on what you need at the moment. If you want more ideas and fresh thinking, go the liberal way. If you want to shore up the group identity and protect the brand, go with the conservative way.
The most positive expression of the conservative view on identity that I've heard comes from my friend Nikki, who wrote, “Locking our doors to the outside does not mean we hate what is on the outside. It just means we love what’s on the inside.” Liberals would do well to recognize the validity of this line of thinking as they advocate for refugee resettlement.
When the values of loyalty and purity are combined, we can see why conservatives are so turned off by liberal ideas on immigration and refugees. They fear liberals are exposing the group (America, Indiana, etc.) to outsiders who will degrade the purity (American ideals) of the group.
People who take the purity and loyalty too far are the racists among us. The “group” becomes defined even narrower as “white Christian Americans,” for example, and the group is threatened quite literally by people with darker skin or a different religion. That’s why throughout history we have seen such strong reactions – including lynching – to men of color who have been accused of having sex with white women. The “purity” frame also helps us understand why conservatives have led the fight against marriage equality. They are protecting “the sanctity (purity) of marriage” as they define it. To be clear: I don't agree with this view of purity, and not all views on purity have to be racist or antagonistic. I'm just describing it as I understand it.
I’ve noticed Haidt’s work aligns with the work of George Lakoff, a linguist who has written about moral “frames.” In short, Lakoff theorizes that we see through moral frames which are deeper than our conscious minds can grasp. Frames are formed early in life and strongly influence our worldview. When facts and frames contradict, it’s the facts that get thrown out the window. This may explain why we all tune into our favorite brand of “news” programs, which offer mostly non-factual information that reinforces our frames.
Lakoff notes that conservatives most often come from a religious upbringing in which God (and sometimes Dad) is the ultimate authority figure. To be a good person is to obey and respect authority, particularly by working hard. If you’re rich, it’s because you worked hard and did it the right way. If you’re poor, it’s because you’re lazy or a cheater. This correlates to the God of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament to Christians) who is depicted as somewhat of a rule-based hardass. (Sorry for my liberal bias.) For Jewish people, this correlates to being a "Purim Jew" according to Haidt (who is Jewish).
According to Lakoff, liberals most often have a concept of God as the compassionate provider who takes care of “the least” among us. To be a good person is to work for social justice and protect the innocent from exploitation. If you’re rich, it’s often because you’ve cheated and exploited your way to the top. If you’re poor, it’s because you’ve been abused by systematic forces of oppression. This correlates to the Jesus of the Christian New Testament, who hung out with the druggies and welfare queens of his day and constantly challenged the religious and political authorities. For Jewish people, this correlates to being a "Pesach Jew." (More on Purim vs. Pesach in another post.)
Both Lakoff and Haidt seem to agree that every group is its own “moral matrix,” which plays on the title and theme of the Keanu Reeves film. Built into the matrix is everything you need to prove the correctness of your moral universe, and everything you need to disprove all the counterclaims. At a point, it becomes impossible to think beyond it if you’re in it.
That’s why it is so hard for us to understand others who live in a different moral matrix. We just spin facts at each other that further prove how right we are and how wrong you are. Liberals think conservatives are absolutely insane and vice versa, because – look at all the evidence! You’d have to be crazy/stupid/racist/socialist/un-American to believe X, Y, or Z! It’s gotten even worse now that each side has its own brand of media to drum up all the facts and numbers each side needs for its arguments.
The key is to try to understand each other’s matrix by looking at Haidt’s moral foundations. When we think specifically about the issue of whether or not to suspend Syrian refugee resettlement in the wake of the Paris attacks, this understanding of the moral matrix can help us see why we disagree so passionately. In the conservative moral universe, to be moral means to protect the group from outsiders and potential invaders. In the liberal universe, to be moral means to open the group to people in need.
Most importantly, we can note from Haidt’s work that liberals and conservatives have two values in common: fairness and compassion. This will always be the bridge between the conservative and liberal moral matrices, and it’s where we need to start. If liberals want to persuade conservatives to be open to Syrian refugees, they might be successful if they lead with the heartbreaking stories of the refugees. The Humans of New York Facebook page featured some really emotional accounts when the photographer was interviewing refugees who just arrived in Europe. I think that was back in August or so.
Conservative people, if they have a compassionate bone in their bodies, won’t be able to totally ignore the stories of refugees. But liberals won’t ultimately be successful until they seriously address the security concerns voiced by conservatives. It’s not prudent for liberals to try to stick conservatives as heartless racists. Conservatives have heart, but they are much more skeptical on the issue of security and need to be fully assured.
Even though the US government is quite transparent about how refugees are vetted (see this link for example), the Obama administration would do well to explain how this actually works on the ground, taking us through the steps from Syria to the United States. I’ve also heard a fear from conservatives that the vetting agencies are understaffed for the increase in refugees to be resettled. They fear this will lead to shortcuts and lack of thoroughness in the process. The administration should be transparent about how this will be addressed.
I would guess the applicable information about refugee vetting is out there already, but as with any controversial policy, one has to sell it. You sell it by speaking prominently to the values of the group, not just by putting information on a government website.
If I were President Obama, I would sell this idea to the public by describing the story of one refugee family (compassion), then talk about how this family is “doing it the right way” (fairness) by going through our secure vetting process. I would explain who is doing the vetting and why that process is secure (authority), then talk about the great contributions refugees and immigrants have made to this country (loyalty). I would end by touching on the American values of liberty and compassion as expressed by the Statue of Liberty.
To read some more interesting liberal vs. conservative analysis from Haidt’s talk, check out this blog post.