Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt Discusses the Moral Psychology of Political Polarization at Event Sponsored by Honors Program and Psychology Department What is the most serious problem facing the United States today? According to Dr. Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business, the answer is “hyper-partisanship,” the extreme, unprecedented polarization between Democrats and Republicans that Haidt says has been escalating since the 1980s and 1990s. Haidt considers this growing gap—between politicians and citizens alike—a “national crisis.”

NYU Professor Jonathan Haidt speaks about how morality varies across cultures, religions and political groups.

Haidt, a leading researcher of moral psychology and how morality varies across cultures—including American liberals, conservatives and libertarians—spoke to a packed Wilf Campus lecture hall on September 16, at an event titled “The Moral Psychology of Political Polarization and Paralysis,” co-sponsored by the Yeshiva College Department of Psychology and the Jay and Jeanie Schottenstein Honors Program. Hyper-partisanship, explained Haidt, the New York Times bestselling author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, “turns politics into a zero-sum game: if the other side fails, you win.” Hyper-partisanship manifests itself in a variety of ways. “In 1991, if you knew the party of the president who had appointed each justice, could you tell the way they ruled?” asked Haidt, a self-described nonpartisan. “No, not at all. But today, if you know the party of the president who appointed each judge, you can tell how they ruled.” According to Haidt, multiple historical factors converged to cause the current crisis. For example, during the Reagan administration, liberals and conservatives got “sorted” into different factions; all liberals grouped into one camp and all conservatives into another. This situation prevents productive overlap between the two parties and fosters the illusion among party adherents, surrounded by like minds, that their way represents absolute truth and the other side is the enemy. Similarly, changes in Congress initiated by Newt Gingrich in 1995 reduced the residencies (and thereby cross-party friendships) of Congress members and their families in Washington, D.C. Another important turning point, said Haidt, was the “generational changing of the guard” of the 1990s, which saw Baby Boomers finish replacing the older generation of politicians. The previous generation, who experienced the unifying effects of World War II during their formative teenage and early adult years, were “Great Americans” above all else, capable of compromise despite political differences. Conversely, Baby Boomers’ formative experiences involved the internally divisive, morally cogent events surrounding the Vietnam War and civil rights struggles of the 1960s and 1970s; they tend to see their political opponents as moral enemies. Furthermore, the end of the Cold War in 1989 meant the loss of a common enemy against which to unite. Meanwhile, stressed Haidt, we all believe what we want to believe—an important aspect of moral psychology. “We gullibly accept claims that support our partisan prejudices, and use all our powers to reject disconfirming information,” he said. “If you want to believe something, you say, ‘Can I believe it? Do I have permission to believe it?’” he explained. “If you find any piece of justification, you’re done. Conversely, if you ask, ‘Must I believe it?’ then you find one piece of contradicting data, and you’re done.” For example: “When the NSA spying program came to light, Democrats supported it much more than Republicans,” observed Haidt. “When Bush was doing it, it was the reverse.” According to Haidt, American liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral values. Haidt identifies the major moral categories as: care vs. harm; fairness vs. cheating; liberty vs. oppression; loyalty vs. betrayal; authority vs. subversion; and sanctity vs. degradation. While “the left builds primarily on the care foundation; the right builds on all of them,” he said. “Most think not just that the other side is wrong, but that they’re traitors,” elaborated Haidt. “What you get is a psychology of demonization.” “Haidt has been among the most influential scholars in the psychology of morality over the last 15 years,” said event organizer Ariel Malka, assistant professor of psychology at Yeshiva College. “[His] visit was great for YU students and faculty because he is an influential public intellectual who has a gift for explaining how the psychology of morality might apply to contemporary American political conflict in an engaging and clear way.” Although he does not expect positive changes within the next 10 to 15 years, Haidt believes that citizens can, ultimately, make a difference. Educating high school students about the need for cross-partisan respect and cooperation could lead to improvements in the next 20 or 30 years, especially as less-political Millennials take the reins from the Baby Boomers. Interpersonal interactions are also important. “Commit to civility,” advised Haidt. “Understand how easy it is to demonize the other side. As soon as you start demonizing people, you’re part of the problem. Spread the idea that this is a national emergency, as important as the issues of racism in the 1960s and 70s. Find friends on the other side; when your heart changes, it changes your mind.” Students appreciated Haidt’s message. “I don’t really have so many political arguments with people, but it’s something to keep in mind whenever I do,” said Asher Finkelstein ’17YC. “It was interesting to present an issue that many people are aware of in the abstract, but aren’t really aware of in terms of the practical effects and inefficiencies that result from a lack of communication,” said Abraham Gross’18YC.