Someday the presidency of Donald Trump will be a subject for historians. Whatever historians say, I am sure that they will begin the story long before we thought of Trump’s bid for the presidency as anything more than a joke. The story will not begin with a review of his history of being a reality TV star, or with a review of his life as a playboy real estate developer who was involved in many shady deals that damaged many others as he made what he says was “billions.” Historians will go far upstream and write about the deep divisions in the country that existed long before Roger Stone, Ann Coulter or even Steve Bannon ever fantasized that Trump was “the one.” Trump is a distraction in the real story. The issue that explains Trump is the deep division in America that existed before him and will threaten the country after he is gone. That growing divide within the country between the conservative and liberal mind is the story that produced this moment and produced the unlikely reality of Trump’s presidency and that connection is worth a historian’s interest.
A dozen years before Trump was elected Thomas Frank wrote What’s The Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004). Frank focused on how voters in Kansas had their concerns shifted from their worries about their personal economics to cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage. As their focus shifted they felt more and more estranged from “liberal elites” on the coasts. They were more than the “heartland” or “flyover America” and probably were not amused by the famous 1976 cover on The New Yorker magazine that diminished most things beyond the Hudson River.
Earlier this year I reviewed Arlie Russell Hochschild’s book Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. Although it was published before the 2016 election, it was a study of people in Louisiana who could be described as victims of corporate greed who nevertheless consistently, willingly, and with enthusiasm voted against their own personal health and economic best interests. She documented that core values and cultural affiliations “trumped” economics and environmental threats that produced cancer.
I wish that I had discovered Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion long before last month. It was written in 2012. I doubt anyone in Hillary Clinton’s campaign ever read it, or if they did the message never got up the ladder. There has been a resurgence of interest in the book over the last year since the election. Haidt who is now Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business was at the University of Virginia when he wrote the book. He studies the psychology of morality and moral emotions. His research and his book are a mixture of some of my favorite subjects: evolutionary psychology, behavioral economics, sociology, anthropology, literature from all ages, and theology. His story arises from the wisdom of David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, E.O. Wilson, Jesus, Buddha, and Plato among many others that even include Dale Carnegie with his ideas about how to win friends and influence people.
He weaves his story and makes his point that we lead with our emotions and justify what we believe with facts that support our biases. We do not search for the truth. We search for confirmation of the truth that supports our convictions. If you want to invest 20 minutes, as many people have since the 2016, you can hear a YouTube presentation of a TED talk in which Haidt explains the Righteous Mind. Ironically the TED talk is dated November 8, 2016, the day Donald Trump was elected. I would also suggest that you read an excellent review of his book written in 2012 by the political journalist, William Saletan. You might also want to check out the website YourMorals.org where he states that the objective is to understand how the moral mind works.
It is upsetting to many that Haidt gives the strategic advantage to conservatives because of the way morality has evolved as a matrixed interaction between six fundamental “foundations” and culture. Those foundations are:
- Care/Harm
- Fairness/Cheating
- Loyalty/Betrayal
- Authority/Subversion
- Sanctity/Degradation
- Liberty/Oppression
He reviews the cultural differences in how the individual interacts with the group. Our genes that manage the emotional responses that flow from the moral issues covered in the “Foundations” evolved in response to the tension between the individual and the group. Much of the molding of our moral mind results from the necessity of positioning our reputation within our group for the respect that is necessary to survive. Some of the foundations evolved to protect us from the dangers of unsafe food and strangers that could harm us. The existence of the foundations of moral attitudes can be identified by asking people tough questions that challenge the “foundations” while doing functional MRIs and EEGs. He defines part of the problem that liberals have as the WEIRD syndrome: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic. Ironically, that acronym is a disadvantage to the liberal elite within the country just as it is an issue for all Americans outside the country except in Europe which is also WEIRD.
Saletan says in his review that if you have a big dose of WEIRD :
You’re smart. You’re liberal. You’re well informed. You think conservatives are narrow-minded. You can’t understand why working-class Americans vote Republican. You figure they’re being duped. You’re wrong.
Haidt’s objective is not to undermine liberal causes, issues, or candidates but to hold up a mirror that allows us to make progress narrowing the deep divide between liberals and conservatives. You do not narrow the gap by calling conservatives “a basket of deplorables” as Hillary Clinton did, or by claiming that 47% of the population does not work as Mitt Romney did in one of the few comments that ever estranged a Republican candidate from the conservative moral mind. I think that Haidt’s message is very important for those of us who seek to promote equity in healthcare and are concerned about the impact of economic inequity on the social determinants of health. Many of us know from personal experience that we never make progress in head to head arguments with our friends, colleagues, and even family members whose mindset places them on the other side of the political divide. We must understand the mind of those whom we want to influence and see the world from the point of view of their moral sentiments if we are ever going to negotiate a way forward.
I have heard many of my liberal friends describe a strategy for future political success or dominance based on winning elections and controlling both house of Congress, plus gaining a filibuster proof Senate majority and the presidency. Obama discovered in 2010 that such an advantage is not a permanent fixture. Jimmy Carter was elected in the aftermath of Nixon’s crimes, but Reagan brought the party back in only four years because of his ability to speak to the sense of morality of a majority. He hit hard on all the Foundations and was so effective that he attracted the moral minds of many “Democrats for Reagan.” Dominance is not an effective strategy for embedding improvements and programs in our social and political structures that run against deeply held moral opinions and feelings.
As Saletan describes in his review:
Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature. … Haidt argues that people are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. If you want to persuade others, you have to appeal to their sentiments. But Haidt is looking for more than victory. He’s looking for wisdom…Politics isn’t just about manipulating people who disagree with you. It’s about learning from them.
To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn’t the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they’ve decided…The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours…If you follow Haidt through the tunnel of cynicism, you’ll find that what he’s really after is enlightenment. He wants to open your mind to the moral intuitions of other people.
Haidt points out that conservatives deeply believe in “karma” and the authority of God to judge us. You are due what you earn. Behave badly and life should not go well for you. They believe in the basic issues of private property and to take resources from someone who “has earned” what he has and give it to someone who “is lazy” is just wrong. Their sense of loyalty to family and tribe is expressed in their objections to globalization and immigration. Haidt may frustrate some liberals by pointing out that Republicans pay attention to all six Foundations of Morality but Liberals focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression.
Saletan sums up Haidt’s observations:
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.”
When I review my own ideas about healthcare and the issues that we call the social determinants of health and feel my blood boil when I think about Paul Ryan’s efforts to undermine entitlement programs, I see that Haidt’s been reading my mind. I see the recent tax “reform” as organized theft that is oppressive to many, lacks fundamental fairness and caring for the underserved, and is an expression of greed that I must resist. I am not offended by same sex marriage and I do not find myself willing to deny a woman’s right to control her reproductive life because her choice to have an abortion might offend my sense of the sanctity of life. I also understand that people who are diametrically opposed to my point of view on every issue may be wrong from my point of view, but they are just as comfortable with their own sense of righteousness as I am with mine.
The path toward future progress that might bring us back to more productive conversations that mends our divided country requires us to search for a larger shared view that encompasses even more that we can learn to share. The alternative to trying to understand one another is to experience more loss and disappointment. It’s not about Donald Trump. He has just had the genius or luck to capitalize on our growing disrespect for one another for his personal gain and to satisfy his craving for attention.
The Triple Aim is a perfect example of a concept built on the moral foundation of caring for all people and overcoming oppression that appeals to the liberal mind. The challenge is for us who long to see the fullfilment of the Triple Aim to demonstrate to more conservative minds how our intentions strengthen the nation and contribute to their own security while not violating their moral minds. We will still disagree about many issues, but we could agree to continue to search for ways to move forward together realizing our differences while preserving civility. This is much easier to say than to imagine doing, but one fact that Haidt returns to many times is our ability to modify our cultures, adapt to changes beyond our personal control, and to move forward together as social beings. That is how we made it past caves and campfires after we came down from the trees. It just takes a little time, but can be faster than you think as our moral minds continue to evolve.
