Having written recently about moral authority and values, I was quite interested to read a study that was just published in the American Journal of Political Science. The study explores the relationship between morality and political ideology. I suspect that if I put this subject to any particular group of like-minded individuals the answers would be predictable. It might go like this: those of a strongly conservative view would describe liberals as hand-wringing apologists that are willing to cry over human rights issues but defend abortion, to give just one example, while those with a liberal perspective would label conservatives as soulless extremists that place economic gain above the despoiling of our planet.
I am not here to condemn or condone either group—readers of this blog already know my position on these and other subjects. Rather I want to share the results of the study and surprising observations about how people arrive at their views. One might suppose that morality drives political ideology, but it turns out it isn’t quite that simple. According to the authors of the study, “the key difference between liberals and conservatives is that in making right/wrong evaluations, liberals instinctually over-weight the concerns of the individual (whether someone is harmed and/or treated fairly), while conservatives instinctually place comparably more weight on group concerns such as loyalty, authority, and deference to group norms or taboos”.
I can think of few statements that so perfectly encapsulate the current political environment and the dangers of assuming that one or the other group holds the moral high ground. Balancing the rights and concerns of individuals against those of humanity as a whole is the singular challenge of politics, and morality. It is the point of tension that tests our faith, laws, and our Constitution. It divides us and informs our stance on every issue. But, in the eyes of the beholder, how we
see each other so rarely brings this divide into focus.
Do the rights of one outweigh those of the group? How do we reconcile the fact that both so-called liberals and conservatives can find themselves twisted around in a political debate, taking sides that are inherently in contradiction with their moral stance? The answer I think rests largely on the tendency of both to allow extremist views to polarize the debate. The evident rancor and denigration of opposing views by those who cling to ideology over morality—regardless of their political persuasion gives agency to increasingly contorted arguments driving the middle towards one extreme or the other. We should know better. Polls, surveys and common sense tell us that the overwhelming majority of people, left to their own devices do not gravitate toward either end of the political spectrum, and in fact genuinely wrestle on an almost daily basis with the practical if not moral quandary of individual vs societal needs and concerns.
What we do not do so often is to start from the morality and work back to the ideology. If we did so it would be clear what we are wrestling with. Rather than engaging in a war of labels, that demonize economics and mask the underlying issues, we might start by asking what our responsibilities are each to the other? Absent tautological theater, that discussion, as difficult as it might be, is likely to engender more agreement than endless arguments about any other political position one might care to name.
I confess, though some may think me naïve, that most of us could have this important conversation in earnest and without thinking less of one another. But first we need to stop giving license to those who wish to drag us into their ideological holy war. We can disobey the instinct to take up sides and quietly but persistently turn the conversation to the neutral ground on which we can agree. Human life is sacred. That’s a good place to begin. Will it silence the extremists, no. Let them gather in the corner to continue their diatribes, while the rest of us let our respect for one another govern our behavior.
Will this solve everything, of course not. It is a starting place and yes, I know we will reach points where the answers are not clear, where civil and respectful dialog notwithstanding we cannot resolve every difference. We can disagree, but we need not shamble into our ideological retreats and arm ourselves for the next confrontation. We can do what humans have done from the beginning—find a position, however imperfect, that serves humanity and live with the fragile compromise.