Beyond Reason: Instincts, Morality, and the Political Divide
“How on Earth can anyone vote for [fill in the blank]?”
This year, this question seems to echo louder than ever as political divisions in the US reach new extremes. As we search for explanations, we often blame the media, misinformation or political tactics. But what if the answer is simpler, and more fundamental than we think? What if the heart of this divide lies in something deeper, something more instinctive?
By stepping beyond the usual explanations, I will explore how deeply held moral beliefs, guided by instinct rather than reasoning, shape our political preferences – and reveal how understanding these forces might hold the key to bridging our divides.
Distorted Realities: How Misperceptions Drive Political Divides
This is where we find ourselves today: Liberals and Conservatives report increasing levels of "affective polarization", a term used to describe animosity two opposing sides feel towards one another (Abramowitz & McCoy, 2019).
The Perception Gap, a year-long project launched by More in Common in late 2018, aims to better understand the forces that drive political polarization and tribalism in the US. In this study, Americans were asked to estimate both their own beliefs and those of the opposing political side on issues such as climate change, patriotism, sexual assault, and political conduct. The conclusions? A deeply distorted understanding of each other.
Democrats and Republicans drastically overestimate the extremism of the opposite side, believing that nearly 55% of their opponents hold extreme views when, in reality, the (self-reported) proportion was roughly 30% This means that for every 10 people you assume hold extreme views, 4-5 likely don’t. These misperceptions take different forms across various groups and yield, counterintuitively, higher levels of education amplify misconceptions rather than mitigate them. In fact, the study reports that people with a postgraduate degree, particularly those affiliated with the Democratic Party, are three times more inaccurate in their estimations than those who “only” obtained a high school diploma.
Furthermore, it shows that a key factor that contributes to this trend is the lack of diversity in friend groups: highly educated Democrats are more likely to report that most of their friends share their political beliefs, which in turn reinforces the echo chamber effect.
Why does this matter? Perceiving political opponents as extreme or threatening nurtures distrust and hostility. This growing divide makes it increasingly difficult to reach common ground, and further hinders productive discourse.
What Morality Brings to the Table: The Role of Instinct and Reasoning
Media consumption, algorithm-driven echo chambers, and partisan rhetoric are often at the forefront of discussions that attempt to unpack the many factors that might explain political polarization. While these factors undeniably play a significant role, shifting the focus to a field that has been explored far less extensively may hold the key to understanding the mechanisms at play: Moral Psychology.
Unlike the usual toolbox often used by political scientists and economists to predict how an individual will decide on election day, this field delves into our deep-seated instincts and intuitions that shape our values and beliefs. New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has been at the forefront of this research and builds on insights from evolution, neuroscience, and social psychology to uncover the interplay between our instinctive and rational minds. In his book “The Righteous Mind”, he uses “The Elephant and The Rider” as a compelling metaphor to illustrate this dynamic. The elephant represents our intuitions: emotional, shaped by genetic predispositions, neural wiring, and cultural influences. Meanwhile, the rider symbolizes our analytical, rational side that attempts to steer the elephant. Often, this attempt is limited to justifying decisions already made by the elephant. But does this metaphor hold under scientific analysis?
A study conducted by Joshua Greene and colleagues (Greene et al., 2001) demonstrated that emotionally charged moral dilemmas activate brain regions associated with intuition, preceding the activation of areas tied to deliberative reasoning. These insights also bear a striking resemblance to the Dual-Process Model of Thinking by Kahneman and Tversky. Their Nobel Prize-winning work on cognitive biases proposes that our decision-making processes are governed by System 1, our intuitive, automatic thinking, and System 2, which involves slower and more deliberate thoughts (Kahneman & Tversky, 2011). Often, we like to think of our rational minds (the rider) as controlling the direction of our moral choices, but in reality, our intuitions (the elephant) tend to call the shots.
Elephants, by nature, are inherently stubborn and prefer to stick with what is familiar. This very much resembles the observations of the previously mentioned study on misperceptions, which shows that humans, more often than not, surround themselves with like-minded people.
Our Political Taste Buds
How does this relate to morality? Haidt argues that certain “moral foundations” shape the way we view the world and allow us to share emotionally compelling worldviews we can easily justify and defend against an “outgroup”. These moral foundations serve as our political “taste buds”, similar to how our actual taste buds influence our culinary preferences. Rather than simply labeling something as “good” or “bad”, they allow us to experience a distinct flavor, such as sweet, sour, salt, or bitter. Haidt’s Moral Foundation Theory maps out these moral “taste buds” by identifying five key pillars:
The moral foundation of Care/Harm evolved in response to the adaptive challenges of caring for vulnerable children and explains why we are sensitive to signs of suffering and need. Similarly, Fairness/Cheating plays a crucial role in economics and social matters and concerns the need for fairness and justice. The Authority/Subversion foundation stems from the need for societal order, where a leader and followers establish a group’s stability for the sake of the group’s survival. Further, Loyalty/Betrayal is grounded in the need to protect one’s group and is deeply tied to the concept of loyalty to one’s family, community, and nation. Lastly, Sanctity/Degradation is rooted in our need to avoid disease and contamination, making us sensitive to ideas or behavior which are deemed morally or physically “impure”.
How then, do these moral foundations help explain the way we view the world around us? To measure people’s use of the outlined moral foundations, Haidt and colleagues (Graham, Haidt & Nosek, 2009) showed that Liberals and Conservatives differ in the emphasis they place on each of these foundations: While the liberal worldview addresses the “Harm” and “Fairness” pillars in almost all their discussions, conservative discourse touches on all five foundations somewhat equally (see chart below).
Painting the Bigger Picture: Moral Foundations and Political Polarization
This divergence becomes visible in how both parties communicate their values: while both parties address the Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating foundations, they do so in varying degrees and frame these issues in distinct ways.
Below, I break down how each side frames these issues:
Care/Harm Foundation:
Liberals
Focus on moral obligation to care for those in need.
Example: “Healthcare is a right, not a privilege” (Sanders, 2016).
Conservatives
Acknowledge the importance of care, but emphasize personal responsibility and limited government intervention.
Example: “Individual choice and freedom, not of government mandates, should determine healthcare” (Cruz, 2023).
Fairness/Cheating Foundation:
Liberals
Define fairness primarily through equality, and advocate for policies like progressive taxation and wealth distribution.
Example: “The rich should pay their fair share” (Clinton, 2016).
Conservatives
Define fairness through the lens of proportionality and emphasize the need to reward hard work and personal effort, rather than redistributing wealth
Example: “We don’t want to have a system where people are just given things without earning it” (Trump, 2020).
The results of this year’s election demonstrated that Republicans have mastered the art of “talking to the elephant”. They connected with voters on an intuitive, emotional level across a broader range of moral values. For example, during his 2024 campaign, Trump focused on reducing government dependency and promoting policies that should empower individuals to succeed through hard work, rather than relying on government support. For example, his tax cuts and opposition to universal healthcare reflected his belief in self-sufficiency. By tapping into these foundational moral concerns, he was able to maintain a strong base, particularly among working-class voters. In contrast, the Democratic Party has yet to replicate this approach. In an era dominated by identity-driven politics, Donald Trump’s victory has shown that the ability to speak to voters’ gut-level instincts has become more crucial than ever.
A Call to Expand Our Palates
How can these insights now help us to find common ground? There is, indeed, reason for optimism. Jonathan Haidt’s research suggests that our moral foundations can be refined through experience. Despite the differences in beliefs across political divides, the underlying moral frameworks we all draw from share common roots. Recognizing this allows us to see past the prevalent divisions and helps us understand that many disagreements are based on varying interpretations of the same fundamental principles.
A stable and thriving society requires both liberal and conservative viewpoints. The polarization we see today can be bridged if we focus on the deeper, shared moral foundations. which are more unifying than diverse.
I advocate for acknowledging that the beliefs of others often emerge from deeply rooted, intuitive places. Rather than trying to be the rider on someone else’s elephant, we should strive to listen, understand, and respect the motivations behind individuals’ views. By doing so, we create space for fruitful interactions, meaningful dialogue, and a path towards common understanding.
Comments