What Democrats can learn from Moral Psychology.
An author I've come to find very interesting over the past couple of years is Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at University of Virginia. His research examines the basis of human morality from a psychological perspective. He recently posted an article titled 'What Makes People Vote Republican' on the popular science website Edge.org in which he discusses the psychological basis for the apparent advantage Republicans have with voters when appealing to them on a visceral/gut level. Republicans have been able to appeal convincingly to a large number of people despite the articulate and reasoned arguments made by Democrats and liberals for their own policies or against Republican policies. His article offers insights into why candidates such as Sarah Palin and George Bush are so successful at convincing voters that they deserve to be in office despite their lack of substance. He also offers suggestions for how Democrats might successfully use similar strategies while communicating and maintaining their core values. While he is but one psychologist conducting work that is relevant to understanding the political mind, within my circle of contacts (many of whom are conservative evangelicals) Haidt's findings seem to hold true (at least anecdotally). I think the article is worth a look by anyone who has an interest in how religion and politics intersect in the US, and I would also recommend the Edge responses to the article since they come from several academicians and authors who also deal with moral, political, religious psychology.
- abonham1's blog
- Login or register to post comments












What makes people vote Republican?
This discussion on moral psychology relates directly to Steve's blog regarding how could anyone vote for McCain.
The article by Jonathan Haidt discusses first the idea of morality, which from his research he draws two basic conclusions. "First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare." He noted the philosopher David Hume's dictum that reason is "the slave of the passions, and can be pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them."
This lead him to formulate his first rule of moral psychology: Feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If a person wants to come to an irrational conclusion they will find "rational" reasons to support it.
What he was saying reminds me of the old Simon and Garfuckle lyrics from the song The Boxer which said, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
His second conclusion was "that the moral domain varies across cultures." He refers to anthropologist Richard Shweder's idea that the moral domain (not just specific rules) vary by culture. So Mr. Haidt says 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."
That's what Lakoff was saying, that the Republicans are dominated by the strict father model. The strict father God is punitive. Follow God's commandments as set forth in the Bible, of the dictates of the church, accepted social norms, do not question authority, and pay strict allegience to the party and revere the Flag.
Haidt cites Drew Westen's book, The Political Brain, as saying that "the Republicans have become the party of the sacred, appropriating not just the issues of God, faith and religion, but also the sacred symbols of the nation such as the Flag and the Military." Haidt goes on to say, that "The Democrats, in the process, have become the party of the profane--of secular life and material interests. Democrats often seem to think of voters as consumers; they rely on polls to set policy decisions that will convince 51% of the electorate to buy. Most Democrats don't seem to understand that politics is more like religion than it is like shopping."
IMO, this is why the selection of Gov. Palin has so energized the Republican conservative base, she's not about substance, she's about symbolism. "When gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare."
I hope the Obama campaign has gotten the message.
Cognitive Functioning and Politics
I like Thom Hartmann's explanation for Republican success, as it relates to cognitive functioning. We basically have three brains, Reptilian, Mammalian, and the Neo-Cortex. The Reptilian is the earliest development in evolution and it is just about fear and survival. It governs the flight or fight instinct we hear so much about. The Mammalian brain is about the heart and the gut. It is about emotions and feelings, loyalty, longings, etc. The Neo-Cortex part of the brain, or the last part developed in evolution, governs the higher functioning aspects of our minds and abstract reasoning.
The Republicans successfully appeal to the first two parts of the mind, the Reptilian and the Mammalian. They appeal to fear of others, foreigners, strangers, the future, communists, terrorists, etc. They also appeal to that old time religion, patriotism, guns, the frontier days when men were man and women were women, etc. The totally ignore the higher functioning part of the brain and almost never try to appeal to reason. They keep it simple and go straight for gut and the heart. Never mind the brain.The Democrats keep trying to get voters to be reasonable and vote intelligently for their interest and societies as a whole. Then they are baffled over why people vote against their own self interest. Obama has thankfully figured this out and tells stories that people can relate to.
The other dynamic is the quick sound bite that has become the standard for political advertising .Sound bites normally to go to the gut (the Mammalian brain) or the fearful, survivalist brain (Reptilian brain) and the Republicans are good at coming up with those sound bites.
It is unfortunate that politics has come to this, but that is what we are dealing with these days. Selling politicians is no different than selling cars or soaps or insurance plans.
So how does the correlate with Lakoff and Chopra?
Linda and Jim,
It seems like we have a pattern of comments emerging here. My offerings on Lakoff's strict father and nurturant parent relates to the comments you both make, the Republican are the strict father, do as I say side, while Obama is more of the nurturant parent.
Chopra's analysis of the shadow side of American politics applies here as well. Obama is the light, McCain and Palin the dark side, the shadow.
Clearly Karl Rove's advice to McCain et. al. is to distract attention from tha failed policies of the Bush administration, which, in reality, McCain will continue, by attacking Obama's character. Palin is simply a hired gun, the designated attack dog, appealing to the more base instincts of fear.
It's the old, "If you can't dazzle them with brillance, then baffle them with BS" sort of thing.
Rich
Hartmann, Chopra, and Lakoff
Chopra's interpretation is strictly mystical and psychological, very Jungian, and not particularly similar to what either Hartmann and Lakoff are saying. I don't know what else Chopra has to say about psycho-linguistics , but as far as the article goes that you presented, that would be my analysis.Being a M.D. though, I bet Chopra has a lot of opinions about the workings of the mind.
Hartmann and Lakoff don't seem to be all that dissimilar. Hartmann takes a step into the actual physical operation of the brain and gets into neuro-linguistic programming and Lakoff, while saying a lot of the same things, sticks to words and phraseology and as far as I know, doesn't go into physiology of the workings of the mind to any notable extent.
I think that's a great way of
I think that's a great way of understanding our cognitive functioning in this context! Hartmann's breakdown provides a good (and practical) summary of a lot of work done by social-cognitive researchers such as Haidt, and a much simpler explanation. I haven't heard of Thom Hartmann before, but I'll have to look him up. Thanks.
Thom Hartmann
Thom Hartmann is really an interesting fellow. He is on Air America radio from 12 to 3, Monday to Friday. He is the author of many books and has a spiritual side. He looks at issues from a spiritual, political, and psychological angle, so he resonates well with me.
His theories of language, especially communicating politically, are spelled out in "Cracking the Code".