in a previous post the real difference between liberals and conservatives, i linked to a video from TEDtalks, which discussed the five basic psychological foundations of morality:  harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity.  basically, liberals are said to score strongest under harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, while conservatives score strongest under ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.  they’ve found that arguments between liberals and conservatives center especially around issues involving ingroup/loyalty and purity/sanctity.

as a continuation of that, i went to yourmorals.org and took their “moral foundations questionaire”.  my results were exactly as i would have expected. 

my results, liberals, conservatives

“Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we’re left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most.”

seen on the atheist media blog.

ahh.  finally someone articulates what it is that i’m feeling.  and they do so much better than i’m able to.  i am frustrated with politics, but unlike someone recently suggested to me—“yes, it’s frustrating when you just can’t get the idiots to like your candidate”—there is much, much more to it.  it isn’t a matter of these two candidates: obama and clinton.  the larger picture is still askew and it saddens me. 

The sorrow of which I speak flows not from the fact that liberation has not yet been achieved but from a fear that the possibility of liberation may be lost forever, that our world may have passed the point of no return, psychologically and ecologically. Such fears are not grounds for abandoning politics, however. If you believe there is something to what I’ve said, it suggests only that we should think more carefully about where we put our political energies. I believe that the last place we should be sinking our energy is into presidential politics. When the political leaders vying for our votes make it clear they are committed to systems and institutions that keep us locked in the death trajectory, why should we offer them anything that is precious to us?

The most common response I get to that challenge is the claim that these candidates actually have a more radical agenda but realize that they must keep it under wraps in order to get elected. Just wait, I’m told, until after an election victory. That is likely to be a long wait, for there is no historical precedent for such a development, and nothing in the biography of either candidate that suggests a break with history. This observation typically is dismissed as cynicism, but I am not cynical. I am simply trying to deal with reality.

If only a center/right candidate who p lays to the greed and delusional self-indulgence of the United States can win, that is more evidence that this empire cannot be transformed into a decent society in the time available and that it is time to say of conventional politics, simply, “game over.” If that is the case—and I believe it’s a reasonable account of our society—more than ever the work is not to turn over our time, energy, and resources to any political candidate but to build alternatives on the ground. That is a political response to a political problem. It isn’t a question of hope v. no hope. It’s a question of reality v. delusion. To believe that an unsustainable system can be sustained indefinitely—and to support political candidates who believe that—is a sign not of hope but of desperation and defeat. To be realistic and hopeful, one must be radical.

read the entire article: The sorrows of race and gender in the 2008 presidential election by Robert Jensen.