American partisanship is never more evident than during election season. As mutual mistrust and contempt grow on both sides, year after year, we must ask ourselves why. Why are American liberals and conservatives seemingly unable – or at least unwilling – to understand each other?

Relying heavily on caricatures of their opponents, conservatives view liberals as selfish, lazy, and self-righteous, while liberals see conservatives as small-minded, unintelligent, and prejudiced. Cancel culture sees people cutting off their friends, families, and even spouses over political differences.

But these choices do nothing to heal the political divide; indeed, refusing to listen to the opposite side will do nothing but guarantee that left and right do not understand each other, nor do they wish to do so.

At the same time, both major political parties remain convinced of their own virtue: We are the good guys, they are the bad guys. But how can members of the same country, the same broad culture, and the same political environment disagree so vehemently about right and wrong?

Why Do Conservatives and Liberals Come to Different Conclusions About Right and Wrong?

This is one of the key questions that social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explores in his 2012 book “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.” The answer lies in two fundamentally different understandings of what makes an action moral or immoral.

In order to understand this distinction, we must acknowledge the uniqueness of American politics and culture. America’s social climate is based on an individualistic model inspired by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke. Locke believed that every individual is a blank slate at birth, ready to have the rules and morals of his society inscribed upon his brain, and that government is based upon a social contract between individual men and those who rule. Both these ideas view society as an aggregate of individuals who form larger social groups but remain separate and autonomous. Thus, American political philosophy is founded primarily upon upholding the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Morality Is Individual

Because Americans tend to understand morality in terms of the individual, Western liberals and libertarians believe that the ultimate arbiter of morality is whether an action does or does not cause harm to an individual. When addressing politically contentious issues like abortion, gay marriage, or the ability to transition to another gender, the left’s common refrain is, “It doesn’t hurt you, so why do you care?”

To many on the American left, no one ought to inhibit someone’s right to enter a civil union with a same-sex partner, for example, because the liberal framework prioritizes individual freedoms. They view restrictions on these (often intensely personal) decisions as a violation of individual rights. Indeed, this view is true to the original meaning of the word “liberal” in the political sphere, namely, a free person.

“When you put individuals first, before society, then any rule or social practice that limits personal freedom can be questioned,” Haidt writes. “If it doesn’t protect somebody from harm, then it can’t be morally justified.” Progressives regard the old taboo against same-sex marriage as limiting personal freedom; therefore, to them, it is un-American.

Morality Is Social

It may surprise many Americans, however, that the view of morality as a purely individual experience is neither old nor common; it only emerged because of the Enlightenment some 250 years ago, existing primarily in the West.

For most humans, morality is based on a sociocentric rather than an individualistic model, prioritizing the needs and unity of groups over individuals. Most cultures have a much broader view of morality, seeing right and wrong as far more objective than as a choice of an individual.

While the broad viewpoint of American conservatives certainly leans more individualistic than sociocentric, conservatives have more in common with this opinion than liberals. They tend to view morality in broader, more objective terms than harm to the individual; in other words, an action can affect no one but the doer and still be morally wrong.

Liberals often regard social conventions as nothing more than norms that hold no moral weight and can change at any time. But conservatives, and particularly religious conservatives, are more likely to moralize social norms even when they do not harm others. Think, for example, of the modesty norms in America; while liberals might champion “wear whatever you want, wherever you want,” conservatives might argue that it is not only contrary to social conventions, but objectively wrong to wear revealing clothes in a place of worship. Conservative views of right and wrong often come from religion, tradition, or custom, and are more sociocentric than individual.

Understanding the different foundations for making conclusions about morality is not enough to bridge the political gap in America. Yet perhaps this insight could lead both sides to increased compassion for one another. The average conservative is not evil or malicious, nor is the average liberal.

American liberals and conservatives approach morality with fundamentally different moral frameworks, so it’s no wonder that we disagree. But it is also important to remember that vitriol is no way to change someone’s moral foundation; it often does nothing but reinforce it. Whether you believe in an objective and universal code of morality or not, it is invaluable to acknowledge that most people are trying to do the right thing. We owe each other some grace.

—

The publication of this article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News.

Image credit: Unsplash