A critique of “WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?”: A look at morality
October 16, 2008I came across this article by Jonathan Haidt during some perusing:
What Makes People Vote Republican?
The concept seemed interesting enough in the summary at the top of the article:
The second rule of moral psychology is that 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.
I wanted to see where the author was going with his concept, and I thought I could stomach some of the blatant attacks and misconceptions at the beginning of the article.
However, it’s not just the start. His whole article is rife with ridiculous premises and attacks. He tries to tell a story of how he went from his “elitist” mindset towards an approach of objectivity, but it’s hardly objective to look at Republican voters like an enlightened anthropologist taking notes on a lost Amazon tribe. And that isn’t even discussing his presumptions that Republicans are “anti-progress” and fear driven. I would expect someone like him to realize fear of change is a pretty general human trait and isn’t localized to one group of people.
That aside, if he wants to reduce Republicans to a bunch of value voters who are “tricked” into voting a certain way, I still disagree with his whole theory and I think he misses an important part of the morality divide:
Here’s my alternative definition: morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.
His whole definition doesn’t work when what constitutes “selfishness” itself is a moral question. It is akin to using the word you are trying to define in the definition. He has the system sort of backwards by saying morality regulates selfishness, where in actuality morality defines selfishness and a moral code is used to regulate it.
The “moral divide” is really more about the source of the morality. “Religious” voters have a definitive sense that morality stems from something above humanity, whereas, I would argue, secular morality ends at human intellect and reason. And that is where the problem lies, since the religious voter sees morality, as well as notions of selfishness and fairness, as concepts that arise out of both supernatural and natural order, and a moral code is presented through that lens.
On the flip side, if human reason and intellect is the source of morality, then humanity is the pinnacle of said morality. And, along with that source, the moral code with its regulations of selfishness and fairness would also need to be passed from humanity. This is usually the source of the “elitist” jab, because, if you subscribe to this secular morality belief, then you are simultaneously saying that those in political power are the pinnacle of disbursing moral judgment because they are the ones legislating what is selfish and what is fair. It may seem perfectly correct for someone that subscribes to a secular morality, but for those that do not agree, it sure seems to fit the highest form of elitism that you (meaning people such as politicians) are the source of morality.
The author’s definition of morality also insinuates notions of moral relativism, which is another point of contention. To the value voter, morality isn’t “any system,” it is “the system.” Injecting the idea that several systems of morality can exist at the same time, often times diametrically opposed to one another, doesn’t make sense. It is much like the relativistic claim that there is no truth, which is inherently a paradox because for that statement to be correct then there would have to indeed be an ultimate truth. This is also why the author misses the point, because if humanity is the source of morality, then morality can change at the drop of a hat at the whims of those who are dispensing it.
I digress. He tries really hard to help liberals understand what makes the Republican voter tick, but I still think he misses the mark.
On a side note, if you want a real study about voter habits, morality, and psychology, I would suggest the author take a look at the inner cities. Some of the areas with the biggest issues, such as Detroit, haven’t elected a Republican mayor for, in some cases, between 50 and 100 years. There is a definite sociological and psychological phenomenon there. I would suggest that he go back to the civil rights movement and see why people like Martin Luther King, Jr. were Republicans and try to pinpoint the shift in voter habits.
