This paper applies moral foundations theory to understand the roots of political gridlock between liberals and conservatives in the United States. Using research by Graham, Haidt, and Nosek, the author argues that while conservatives and liberals share commitment to harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, conservatives additionally emphasize authority/respect, ingroup/loyalty, and purity/sanctity—creating internal contradictions and cultural conflict. The paper explores specific policy disagreements (government size, marriage equality, gun control) as expressions of differing moral foundations and suggests that identifying shared moral values, particularly fairness and reciprocity, offers a pathway toward more productive political dialogue and responsive governance.
Political gridlock in the United States is nothing new, but it can be helpful to review the current state of affairs under a new theoretical rubric: that of moral foundations theory. Moral foundations theory focuses on the moral underpinnings of political values, political philosophies, and political behaviors such as voting and lawmaking. The gulf between liberals and conservatives in the United States may be insurmountable, but it would be helpful to gain understanding of the underpinnings of core arguments in order to create a more effective and responsive system of government.
As Graham, Haidt & Nosek (2009) point out, liberals and conservatives clash because they do not share the same vision for America. Yet diversity is inevitable, and even desirable in America. Therefore, to resolve political and cultural gridlock and promote shared values and ideals, it is imperative to discover and capitalize on the points of convergence in divergent moral foundations.
The moral foundations of liberals and conservatives find their common ground in two dyads: harm/care and fairness/reciprocity (Graham, Haidt & Nosek, 2009). As Graham, Haidt & Nosek (2009) point out, conservatives tend to ground their moral foundations in additional competing dyads such as ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The result is a political platform that remains untenable under logical scrutiny, but which holds powerful emotional sway over conservatives.
Rozin et al. (1999) found that emotions are indeed a better predictor of moral judgment than reasoning. One possible solution to the problem of political gridlock is a more concerted effort to eliminate emotions from debates and revert to reason. An understanding of the conservative worldview can, however, illuminate some of the inconsistencies in their political platforms. For one, conservatives cry out against "big government" because of their "positional ideology" that challenges the authority of institutions (Graham, Haidt & Nosek, 2009). At the same time, conservatives demand greater government intervention in specifically moral issues such as marriage equality or teaching religion in schools.
Two interrelated paradoxes exist within conservative inconsistencies. One is the predilection toward authority and hierarchical systems, coupled with a simultaneous and contradictory aversion to governmental institutions. Another is the aversion for government regulation of big business, coupled with a simultaneous and contradictory demand for more government regulation of the private lives of Americans—for example, regarding gay marriage.
Graham, Haidt & Nosek (2009) would note that the reason for these contradictions lies in the conservative view of human nature. Conservatives are pessimistic and believe that people do not have the potential to make sound moral judgments themselves. Therefore, they believe government should guide their moral actions, functioning somewhat like a moral guardian. For liberals as well, government should safeguard institutions and ensure the common welfare. However, liberals believe that government should protect citizens from businesses that act only in their interests while destroying the environment or violating key moral codes related to social justice and fairness. The minimum wage issue and environmental protection are points of divergence between conservatives and liberals for this reason.
Unlike liberals, who by definition rally for a strong separation of church and state, most conservatives who espouse the viewpoint that government should serve as moral guardian impose a Christian moral code onto a secular society. The desire for a theocracy is certainly strong among some conservatives who value the importance of sanctity and purity in their moral reasoning, as well as authority/respect and ingroup/loyalty. Conservatives are also contradictory in their views toward gun control. While harboring a pessimistic view of human nature, it seems contradictory to demand that all human beings have the right to bear arms at any cost.
It is possible, if not likely, that current gridlock is due more to repressed racism than to any other moral issue. Racism is in part rooted in the moral emotion of contempt (Rozin et al., 1999). Contempt is linked closely with social hierarchy, directed toward a group deemed inferior. Considering the fact that Graham, Haidt, and Nosek (2009) found that conservative Americans tend to value authority/respect as well as ingroup/loyalty dyads more than liberal Americans, it would make sense that racist tendencies might brew beneath the surface of much Republican rhetoric. Moreover, conservative Americans also operate within the moral foundation of purity and sanctity. Purity and sanctity might underpin hostility or contempt toward other races.
The purity and sanctity dimension certainly accounts for conservative hostility toward marriage equality. Liberal Americans have no problem with marriage equality because issues related to purity and sanctity are less important than matters related to harm/care or fairness/reciprocity. Regarding marriage equality, fairness/reciprocity is the prevailing moral foundation. Finding common ground on the issue of marriage equality would require a shift in focus in Republican reasoning toward fairness/reciprocity. Given that conservatives do on some level value fairness/reciprocity, it may only require a solid rhetorician to reframe the issue.
"Path toward productive dialogue and responsive governance"
You’re 90% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.