Andrew Yang and Jonathan Haidt Show a New Way to do Politics, End Polarization? | TaraElla Report S8

Today, I want to talk about the recent conversation between Andrew Yang and Jonathan Haidt, one of my favorite contemporary political theorists, on Yang Speaks. Basically, as many of you may already be familiar with, Haidt is most famous for his view of how people have innate inclinations towards prioritizing certain moral values, which would naturally predispose them to certain politics. It's a view that I have found to be true based on my own observations, and one that I think more people should take seriously. It's really something that could help solve the polarization problem. I have been saying this for years, and I wish more people would listen. Which is why it's indeed a very good thing that Yang has brought Haidt onto his show.

Indeed, in a way, Yang's own campaign, his political messaging, provided further proof for Haidt's theory. That Yang, a progressive Democrat, was able to attract many Republican supporters, was because he pitched his policies in a way that would resonate with the moral foundations of conservatives, for example their strong emphasis on family. In turn, it's because he respects that people have those moral foundations, while some other progressives, especially in recent times, essentially hold contempt for conservative moral views. This is why Yang is so much better.

The fact is, if Haidt is right, then there really is no point in converting others to your particular values. Furthermore, as a Moral Libertarian, I believe in every individual having Equal Moral Agency, so it should be every leader's commitment to respect other people's strongly held moral views. Indeed, those who want to build a political movement or run a campaign rightly need to be able to appeal to people with different values and worldviews, respecting that this diversity is a fact of life. A culture of respect for diverse views and free speech naturally results from that, which is why the Yang Gang gets along well despite their differences. Yang was able to build a big tent precisely because he was able to respect people's moral foundations. I think it's a thing we should demand of our politicians and leaders, going forward. The world would be a much less polarized place.

I think one thing that wasn't explored in the conversation, is the role certain problematic ideas or theories are now distorting the way some people apply their moral foundations, with the result of making things even worse. Haidt's description of the different moral foundations of progressive-liberals and conservatives are based on what could be described as mainstream Democrats and Republicans, and these groups made up the whole political mainstream in most Western countries, at least up until 2010 or so. But the thing is, in the past 5 or 10 years, there has been a change.

For example, people on the left used to apply their concern for justice as fair treatment under the law, equal opportunity for everyone, and of course, an equal right to free speech. That's why, back when I was in college, the left was seen as more supportive of free speech. However, since postmodernism and critical theory went mainstream, some people on the left have started to apply their concern for justice using the lens of various critical theories, which end up justifying unequal treatment, unequal opportunity, and even taking away free speech, in some circumstances. This has actually caused a major rift in the left. However, since the critical theory people are well organized, they have had an upper hand culturally in recent years, with those uncomfortable with critical theory either staying silent or quietly leaving the left. Furthermore, given that critical theory is sometimes actively against things like family values, it would lead to people on the left increasingly unable to appeal to conservative morality. Indeed, Yang himself has been attacked by parts of the left for swimming against this tide.

This example shows that, the proliferation of faulty ideas could have an equally important impact on politics as people's natural moral inclinations, and the two can interact with each other. I wish Haidt would explore this more in his work.