Jump to navigation Jump to search

posted on Nextdoor

left politics and "purity"

So there's this psychology professor, Jonathan Haidt, who put forth a theory about a decade ago which holds that there are five basic tenets, or "pillars", of morality and that the main difference between "conservative" and "liberal" ideologies is that liberals only care about two of them ("care" and "fairness") while conservatives -- being, of course, more broad-minded and well-balanced philosophically -- care about all five:

  1. Harm/Care
  2. Fairness/Reciprocity
  3. Ingroup/Loyalty
  4. Authority/Respect
  5. Purity/Sanctity

This has always seemed quite sus to me, but I keep seeing it cited as fact(ish) by people who want to appear liberal-affirming.

I'd like to submit to the court as Exhibit A the following link:

2022-03-28 About half of US water ‘too polluted’ for swimming, fishing or drinking, report finds (h/t)

Purity of environmental water has been and continues to be a thing about which the Left has been quite concerned while the Right, as far as I can tell, has not been seen to give measurable quantities of fig about it.

I can only think that Haidt is talking about some more *specific* kind of purity. (...and I don't think I need to spell it out, either, though I'll be happy to elaborate if asked.)

Furthermore, seeing the behavior of the most devoted Rightists on Nextdoor, I think it's also safe to say that their fig-levels when it comes to authority and respect are generally lower than those on the Left.

To wit: yes, we will engage in name-calling when we discuss certain figures on the Right (45 comes to mind), but we're always prepared to defend those positions -- to explain *why* the targets of our derision are fully deserving of said derision, using objective evidence and reason... while folks on the Right will just do the name-calling and other derogation about figures on the Left (Brandon, senility, etc.) without any mitigating justification, often complaining loudly when asked politely to produce it.

And finally: can we pause a moment to acknowledge the level to which 45 has displayed "loyalty" and "respect" to his staff, to the people he hired as a businessman, and even to members of his own family? And yet he's *still* widely loved, even today, by self-identified "conservatives".

Perhaps there are examples of other right-wing pols displaying loyalty and respect, but it's not something I've noticed as being particularly characteristic of them. What *I* see is respect only for *power* -- being respectful to people who can significantly help or hurt you, while throwing everyone else under the bus as needed (which fits in nicely with the whole "reward the strong / punish the weak / might makes right" authoritarian thing).

Am I wrong here? Discuss!