East is East and West is West
Chances polar opposites will meet approaches zero, but perhaps we can find a way they can overlap.
For better than a decade, I have been fascinated with Jonathan Haidt’s research into the roles of intuition and reason as a basis for morality. In his Moral Foundations Theory, he tries to explain the differences between liberals (progressives) and conservatives (classical liberals).
According to Haidt, the six foundations of his theory are:
Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.
Liberty: freedom from oppression
In response to the need to differentiate between proportionality fairness and the objections he had received from conservatives and libertarians, Haidt acknowledges that there is likely a 6th - Liberty (opposite of oppression).
Haidt has proposed that the left and right cannot get together because while classical liberals place almost equal value on all six values, progressives focus on caring and fairness to the exclusion of all the rest. Haidt explains the differences this way:
“Liberals [progressives] speak for the weak and oppressed; want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos”.
Speaking of conservatives, he says:
“Conservatives [classical liberals] speak for institutions and traditions; want order even at the cost to those at the bottom.”
Based on my observations of the different approaches to problem solving, I would note the following:
Progressives favor actions that relieve pain in the near term regardless of whether they are effective in resolving the problem in the long term. They prefer immediate action to alleviate symptoms of the problem when the continuation of similar actions has been proven to extend the problem and perhaps even make it worse. Their prescriptions often seem emotional in nature, preferring instant gratification over long term success, almost childlike behavior.
Classical liberals prefer deliberate action that may not provide immediate relief, but at least has a chance to work in the long term. This perspective makes classical liberals seem slow, selfish, callous, and unduly harsh, almost psychopathically so. Images of pushing granny in her wheelchair off a cliff or letting the poor starve in the streets is the common imagery used by opponents.
For example, if you do not agree that immediately pumping billions of dollars into Ukraine without accountability or a plan for success is necessary, you are evil. Classical liberals would say that doing such without accountability or a plan is the real evil. One position ignores the drain on the American economy and taxpayer, the other ignores the immediacy of the threat.
Which is correct? Both, neither?
Dale Carnegie, while being noted for the business value of his “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, also delving deeply into moral psychology when he proposed that we never reach people by telling them they are wrong, it begins by seeing the issue from the other person’s side.
Haidt’s research also indicated that when making a moral decision, intuition comes first, reasoning comes second. We tend to base our judgement on our intuitions, and then try to reason why the intuition is correct – but over the longer term, our intuitions are changed by events witnessed as we move through time.
It is hard to see the other side these days. When one begins with such extreme polarization, reaching the point where both sides make the moral judgment that the other is literally evil, finding middle ground is impossible.
East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet; one supposes but perhaps they can overlap for the good of all.
I liken the difference between progressive approach to moral reasoning and that of the classical liberal to trying to navigate by a map showing only longitude and latitude to using one that has not only longitude and latitude but also elevation contours, rivers and water bodies, roads and shadings for towns, parks and special structures.
However what I have seen is that progressives not only lack the other four dimensions but often actively oppose them. So loyalty in the form of patriotism is disparaged as “nationalism.” The boundaries of the sacred and of tradition are actively attacked, as Michael Lind addressed in his article on transgressionism in The Tablet. And progressives have disdain for the notion of ordered liberty.
Their intentions and our intentions are not the same. They want, and this is not stated outright in many cases, for this system to be destroyed. They are motivated by destruction. If you came up with a solution to one of their cherished problems but it left this system intact they would not want it.