Why the right-wing have the intellectual and moral high ground
A curious thing happened in the world of academia. Jonathan Haidt a moral and social psychologist, and, at the time, a strongly partisan Democrat Liberal, discovered the underlying premises and roots of moral thinking. To his surprise – and perhaps to the dismay of his academic colleagues and his normative Jewish self – Haidt, documented and propounded in The Righteous Mind, that right-wing thinking encapsulates more pillars underpinning morality in moral thought than left–wing thinking. In short: right-wing moral thought is profoundly more moral and comprehensive than left-wing thought at the foundational level. Haidt’s discovery instantly reversed decades of academic thought which has tried to explain away or pathologize right-wing thought as irrational, authoritarian or personality mis-development. This discovery has revealed the overwhelming hostility and denouncement of the right-wing personality to be an egregious cognitive error perpetuated by politically prejudiced social psychologists. The Left had embarked on a campaign of slander and disinformation to delegitimise right-wing interests. Consequently, Haidt has all but renounced his Leftism, academically (and spends most of his time trying to explain to self-righteous Leftists that Rightists have many good moral factors underpinning their moral thought – even if it’s not evident or obvious to the ‘muh’ feelings of Leftists.
Conservative thought, essentially, embodies and encapsulates liberal thought to the extent that the liberal thought on moral issues is a merely a severely truncated version of conservative thought. The Leftist only takes in account the individual, but the Conservative accounts for the individual and the group in their moral formulations. Haidt, obviously, does not state these conclusions in The Righteous Mind, asking for a balanced consideration of both moral spheres, but it is implicit throughout the best-seller, of the superiority of right-wing moral thought. It is hard not draw this conclusion.
Haidt’s actions suggest so, and they speak louder than any anodyne non-committal bi-partisanship; Haidt is constantly arguing in favour of right-wing views – their logical nature and motivations – while deriding the leftist madness on college campuses. Haidt goes to great lengths to emphasise to the Left that their views are, in fact, narrow-minded and irrational. They are, despite their own election of moral superiority, supremely prejudiced and narrow-minded. Of course,Haidt does this diplomatically and in a nuanced fashion, lest he lose his reputation and TED audience and face the wrath of the lobotomised anger of self-righteous liberal moral thought, but Haidt has not been quiet in the face that SJW’s and their demands are severely destroying education in America.
For too long have people on the Right conceded the moral high ground to the Left, thankfully, Trump and the Alt-Right are attempting to put anend to this, with the refusal to comply with Leftist demands or to take seriously their litany of complaints or their schema of reality. Rightists, by demographic necessity, are no longer willing to be cowed by accusations of ‘racism’ or ‘sexism’ or ‘islamophobia, as their cities burn through a combination of Black rioting and Islamic terrorism. Haidt’s work shows us that it is the Leftist demands that are unreasonable and irrational, with their sacred victim groups and their refusal to face reality in the eye. Haidt has tried to bring the Left to task for their denial of individual, racial and gender differences. These denials are far more dangerous than denying climate change or historical events, because they daily affect our lives, whether, to name just two serious consequences, it be job dismissal for a truthful, red-pill remark or as a victim to racial violence. Some of us are free of these consequences, others are not.
Before we discuss temperamental differences between left-wing and right-wing brains, it will be illustrative to visit the five moral foundations Johnathan Haidt discovered. These are not just moral foundations, but instinctive human needs that need satiating.
The evolutionary moral trigger of this foundation is the suffering of your own child. This emotional trigger was, obviously, adaptive to meet the challenge of protecting and caring for your child’s needs. There has to be a response mechanismtriggered in the brain to elicit the brain signalling to care for your child, whether it be love or attachment, or whatever.
The overwhelming nature of this trigger indisputably explains why females are overwhelmingly left-wing. They are biologically determined to react with overwhelming emotion to this trigger. Men, also, to an extent react to this trigger – as the graph below details – but it is not the only trigger they care about. Thus, men are naturally right – wing. The idea of a child not receiving the best care or facing violence triggers an evolutionary adaptive response in a female, rendering other foundations of morality meaningless, whether it’s their own child or not, because it could have been their child. This is why leftist thought is only concerned about two triggers out of a possible of five (the triggers are listed in the subsections of this article). It was not the female’s role to care or make decisions about the group. Therefore, left-wing feeling is explicitly attached to the individual and not the group. Males, then, who are liberal, are more explicitly ‘’feminine males,’’ normally drawn to the arts and academia, as per genetic canalization. Left-wing morality, then, is explicitly emotional, or more so than right – wing thinking.
Liberals, for instance, intuitively signal their membership with an overwhelming desire to protect perceived innocent victims, such as save Palestine and save Darfur. Anybody on the right-wing, of course, doesn’t really give a shit (rightly so) because it’s not part of their in-group, even if we deplore intellectually the injustices and violence bequeathed to others, because the Care/Harm axis doesn’t overwhelm our group moral instincts. For Liberals, this trigger legitimises their hatred towards anyone who thinks opposingly. They emotionally feel that we are harming children or the vulnerable if we disagree with them, or if our policies promote group welfare ahead of any individual, degenerate or otherwise. It also accounts for why the Left care so much about perceived victim and minority groups. This is why Leftist reaction to right – wing thought is so emotional and infantile, as it is an emotional and infantile response by people who should not be making group decisions. Leftist thought has been characterised as ‘’Save the Children. Save the children!’’
The Fairness/Cheating axis evolved as an adaptive mechanism of reaping the rewards of cooperation without being exploited. Human groups succeeded tribally if their group was the most cohesive, cooperative and mutually beneficial. Directional selection, then, favoured groups of people that were agreeable and conscientious, and this gave rise to groups of people and a morality that was cooperative enough to build civilization. Altruism and mutual cooperation, then, is a big deal in the psyche, and we rightly feel anger if we have been exploited or not rewarded mutually for our efforts and sacrifices. We (causcasians?) have a natural tribal and individual inclination to naturally loath and distrust free-riders and cheaters. The right naturally adheres to a morality that evolved to punish cheaters and free-riders, as being detrimental to the group and the individual. Hence the utter disdain on the Right for the Welfare state. We Consider those who reap the benefits of the groups hard work as ‘’leeches’’ and ‘’lazy.’’ The psychology of males is that a male should be rewarded proportionally for his bravery, courage, nobility or self-sacrifice.
On the Left, for instance, fairness concerns equality, and especially equality of outcome. Fairness for the Left is social justice and making sure nobody is ‘’oppressed’’ by the dominant group or by making sure the poor and needy are not ‘’exploited’’ by the rich and powerful. A common complaint on the Left is that the rich do not pay their ‘’fair share’’ of taxes. Fairness also concerns the idea that all individuals have ‘’rights,’’ and therefore nobody – the poor, the homeless and the hungry – should go without.
Fairness on the left means equality, while on the Right it means proportionally, on merit. People should be rewarded in proportion to their merit, even if this leads to an inequality and an unequal outcome.
The male mind is instinctively tribal, structured to advance group loyalty and group cohesiveness. Men instinctively enjoy doing activities which lead to greater group loyalty and greater group cohesion. Obviously important as warfare has accompanied the human since time immemorial, and we are a result of tribes that were instinctively loyal and cohesive to one another. Groups that were not loyal but individualist were eradicated and picked off in warfare. Loyalty is a natural and adaptive mechanism to meet and adapt to the challenges of competing tribal groups. A group must know which man is trustworthy and which man is likely to betray through treachery or cowardice.
The left’s desire for universalism directs undercuts man’s natural desire for group cohesion and loyalty. A man must feel like he is part of something, as directly contributing to the success of a group or endeavour. On the Right, nationalism directly satiates the need for group cohesion and group loyalty. Universalism is unnatural because it cuts the ties that the group loyalty and cohesion of Nationalism binds.
Hierarchy is an innate function of groups, as it serves an evolutionary adaptive purpose. It is not inherently exploitative or coercive. Those higher in the hierarchy, for their deference, for the respect bestowed upon them, take on a larger responsibility for their subordinates, declaring to maintain order and to maintain justice. It also, more importantly, creates a moral order, as it helps us forge relationships which will benefit us in a social hierarchy. It also creates incentives for the individual to rise in social status and to take on larger and larger amounts of responsibility. When order is subverted, we instinctively feel a moral revulsion. Hierarchy and authority was created to maintain order and to starve off chaos. We feel moral revulsion, then, for any show of disrespect, disobedience and rebellion. This trigger extends to values, institutions and figures of authority which provide stability. We are sensitive, then, to status, ranks and behaviour proper to social and hierarchical position.
On the contrary, Liberals see hierarchy as power that equals exploitation, which is evil, and opposes the moral foundation of authority with its railing against power, inequality and hierarchy. Essentially opposing the civilization moral foundation of respect for authority. Individual feelings take precedence over group and national cohesion.
The sanctity/degradation foundation evolved initially in a response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore’s dilemma, and then to the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. It includes the behavioural immune system, which can make us wary of a diverse array of symbolic objects and threats. It makes possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values – both positive and negative – which are important for binding groups together. Sacralising objects or ideas with inordinate value helps bind individuals into moral communities.
As the top graph graph demonstrates, Liberals only take in account two of the five pillars underpinning the foundation of moral thinking: The Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating pillars. But to the extent that Liberals sacralise these two pillars, Conservative are only just slightly less appealing to these two axes. Conservatives, then, take in account the autonomy of the individual nearly or just as much as Liberals. Furthermore, Conservatives consider three other moral values giving their moral thinking breadth and depth. Liberals think only of the individual, while conservatives think of the individual and the group. It’s not that Conservatives only think more in breadth and depth, it is that the foundational underpinnings of left-wing thought are blind to the other pillars underpinning a more comprehensive morality.
This graph actually explains a lot. It explains why, for instance, Liberals rioted for days en masse after the election victory of Donald Trump and why Conservatives did not riot when Obama was elected twice. Liberals do not recognise authority and it takes no place in their moral thinking, while Conservatives, even if they’re feeling bad, respect the authority of the elections and show behavioural restraint.
This leads us in to another fascinating discussion. What are the differences between left-wing and right-wing brains? This is an important question because political attitudes are heritable and therefore are determined by genes and brain structure, substantially more than environment. Because cognition and the interpretative mechanisms are unconscious and biological, political temperament and orientation is a window into a person’s unconscious, biological processes. That said – and this applies more particularly to females – a person can espouse left-wing and liberal views, as per ignorance and moral fashion, but be temperamentally right-wing. This is emphasised by a person’s conduct, normally emphasised by behavioural restraint, traditionalism, and conservative social and sexual views. A person’s culture and the environment they craft for themselves is a result of their biological, genetic inheritance.
This may be a supposition, but my dealings with left-wing people – and especially in the dating world – left-wing people prioritise how and what they are feeling above every single consideration, as the graph and the explanations of leftist morality show. Whether this is because their feeling is overwhelming or because it is a result of unconscious cognitive processes orientating in that direction is unknown, but their feelings colour and legitimise every consideration. Most people with a left – wing temperament, for instance, explicitly deny racial and individual differences, despite the overwhelming data. They don’t deny this because it is scientifically inaccurate, they deny it because it could cause harm. I don’t think it takes a Rocketmensch to understand such the logical deficiencies of this moralistic fallacy - ''because something ''ought to be,'' it doesn't mean ''it is''. More than anything rational, it is a cognitive error propelled by emotion and unconscious cognitive interpretation.