IGX

These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature. He compares them to cuisines. We acquire morality the same way we acquire food preferences: we start with what we’re given. If it tastes good, we stick with it. If it doesn’t, we reject it. People accept God, authority and karma because these ideas suit their moral taste buds. Haidt points to research showing that people punish cheaters, accept many hierarchies and don’t support equal distribution of benefits when contributions are unequal.

You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

This is where Haidt diverges from other psychologists who have analyzed the left’s electoral failures. The usual argument of these psycho-­pundits is that conservative politicians manipulate voters’ neural roots — playing on our craving for authority, for example — to trick people into voting against their interests. But Haidt treats electoral success as a kind of evolutionary fitness test. He figures that if voters like Republican messages, there’s something in Republican messages worth liking. He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

One of these interests is moral capital — norms, prac­tices and institutions, like religion and family values, that facilitate cooperation by constraining individualism. Toward this end, Haidt applauds the left for regulating corporate greed. But he worries that in other ways, liberals dissolve moral capital too recklessly. Welfare programs that substitute public aid for spousal and parental support undermine the ecology of the family. Education policies that let students sue teachers erode classroom authority. Multicultural education weakens the cultural glue of assimilation. Haidt agrees that old ways must sometimes be re-examined and changed. He just wants liberals to proceed with caution and protect the social pillars sustained by tradition.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:. . . If I read this correctly, he sees liberals as a necessary counterbalance to conservative extremes. I'd agree with that.

Unfortunately the non-family institutions that guide society: media, entertainment, education, and at least 1/2 of religion are disproportionately powerful and liberal.

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.

You don’t have to go abroad to see these ideas. You can find them in the Republican Party. Social conservatives see welfare and feminism as threats to responsibility and family stability. The Tea Party hates redistribution because it interferes with letting people reap what they earn. Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

dead man walking wrote: think about the power of business and financial institutions, which are predominantly conservative (i think). so the counterbalancing is essential.

further, but for liberals, we'd still own slaves, women couldn't vote, and children would be working in coal mines. hell, but for liberals, we still be bowing to the kind of england.

oh, and anal sex would be a crime.

dead man walking wrote: it's appears that you like yesterday's liberalism, not today's. i think that's what it means to be conservative.

WildGorillaMan wrote:This just in: People are stupid.

powerlifter54 wrote:

dead man walking wrote: it's appears that you like yesterday's liberalism, not today's. i think that's what it means to be conservative.

Hmmmm......That is an interesting take on things. Will do some reading and research and see if that holds water.

cleaner464 wrote:Southerners have always hated blacks. Didn't matter what party they were in and Tricky Dick exploited that fact. The current GOP carries on that "proud" tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy