The Six Pillars of Politics

If you asked me what political value or principle is most important to me, I'd say with no hesitation, liberty. However I recognize that tunnel vision blinds us to blind spots and the bigger picture. Yes liberty is very important, however there are other factors affecting nation and its people, and must be considered. At this point its relevant to draw upon Moral Foundations Theory and its proponent, Jonathan Haidt.1 The theory outlines six moral values which people value intuitively, rather than by reasoning. These are: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Sanctity and Liberty.

First lets address Care, which I will refer to as Security because the issues his conception of care involve are fundamentally interwoven with security from danger and financial security, and in line with this Haidt identifies care as the opposite of harm, which suggests security. Many people, left or right, would consider security to be the most important political principle. To many in the left, basic human dignity must must be secured for everyone, especially the vulnerable. To many conservatives, security is a requirement for maintaining a peaceful society with law and order, whereby people can flourish.

Fairness is another such value. Fairness in short is about everyone being treated proportionately, in accordance with the same rules. Often this principle manifests as desire for equality, for some of opportunity, and others of outcome.

Loyalty as a value is about identification with or loyalty to one's family, community, group or nation. For example, one might prioritize family above all else, or alternatively it could be identification with one's sports team, or even simply patriotism. The latter is typically more prevalent among Conservatives, however the value is also present in identity politics of all stripes.

Authority is another of these values, and involves submission to whatever is deemed legitimate authority. An obvious but extreme manifestation of this authoritarian reactionary ideology such as fascism. However in its mildest form it can be simply be deference to the law. Conservatives tend to value authority more than the left because they tend to be more conscientious and so view more authority or higher status in social hierarchies as something legitimately earned by hard work.3 The left is typically in favour of flattening or eliminating hierarchy. For example democratic socialism's advocacy of redistribution of wealth or the anarchist left's opposition to hierarchy altogether.

The last value Haidt outlines is Sanctity/Purity, which he defines as disgust or abhorrence of things, food or actions. The opposite to this is degradation, which explains how conservatives are more concerned with degradation or degeneracy than those on the left. It may seem strange in the contemporary west, however in the Middle Ages this was considered very important. It was a very traditional and religious society whereby avoidance of the impure was very important to people. Although it is worth noting that at the time there were more frequent dangers to health which would have triggered disgust, and therefore conservative attitude towards such things. A contemporary example of this is the Islamic world where pork is considered unclean, unhealthy and impure.

One may speculate that pork going off quicker in the Middle East compared to Europe, is a causal factor, and certainly it would fit the typical pattern of disgust sensibility, for scientists consider it to be rooted evolutionarily as an adaption for avoidance of feces and disease. Two interesting facts about disgust which Jordan Peterson and Haidt have referenced, are that Conservatives report higher levels of disgust than the left, and that psychologically conscientious people, who are more likely to feel higher levels of disgust. Therefore disgust, conscientiousness and social conservatism align statistically.4

Despite what one may think, the left is not without desire for purity. This can be seen with the popularity of vegetarianism and healthy eating on the left. Those least prone to disgust are Libertarians, Haidt shows.5 Although, due to the similarity of Libertarianism principles to those of Classical Liberalism, from which Libertarianism derives its roots. Additionally, its worth noting that Liberalism generally has its roots in Classical Liberalism.

There is a nuance to this however, since arguably, contemporary US 'liberals' largely hold to core values which have most in common with those of the left. Also they typically prioritize the values linked with Haidt's conceptualizations of Care (financial security also) and Fairness – which can be seen in concern for the plight of groups deemed to be oppressed, and inequality of outcome.

Therefore Liberalism is conceptualized here as concern with liberty and a live and let live attitude, and those among the left who are unconcerned with this, and rather with leftist understanding of Care and Fairness outlined above, will not be conceptualized as Liberals, even if they self-identify that way. However those on the left who do value Liberty and do have a live and let live attitude, are conceptualized here as Liberals – for Liberalism is not necessarily left or right. Therefore I argue that Liberalism is linked to relatively low levels of disgust.

Regarding the value of Liberty, conceptualized as opposition to coercion by a dominating power or person by Haidt,1 and generally aligning (I would argue) with the Negative Conception of Liberty – 'freedom from.'

Liberty is the most important to me of the values outlined here. Liberty can easily be taken away, by coercion, to be replaced by authoritarianism in the process – and authoritarianism gets in the way of human flourishing. One could survive with a lack of Liberty, but it would a wretched existence. The only way to limit or avoid the taking away of liberty is for Liberty to be actively upheld, and reduction of liberty actively opposed.

All the key values outlined here are important, however the extent varies. Even the purity/sanctity value, with its propensity towards backward traditionalism at times, is important to a degree. Nihilistic hedonism indulgence is detrimental to society if it goes too far (e.g. stds, single parenthood's links with developmental issues in children, and the like). Also disease and sanitation are certainly important for society's well-being.

However is excess focus on Purity can make society intolerant, suppressive and unfree. Similarly authority being valued can contribute to authority stripping liberty or autonomy away from people, but if Jordan Peterson can teach us anything its that we, like Lobsters, instinctively react to hierarchy and out place in it. Therefore while social mobility is certainly very important, we would be remiss to do away with concern with Authority or to advocate absolute equality – its not in our genes, nor realistic.

Fairness is laudable, however if interpreted in terms of equality of outcome, there are problems. Firstly, for the state to bring about more of it interference ultimately backed by violent imposition, to the detriment of liberty. Secondly it creates a dangerous association in people's minds of state authority being associated as the source of fairness – which can make us complacent about how vulnerable we are to authoritarianism. Thirdly, fairness interpreted as equality of outcome flies in the face of Rule of Law – and Rule of Law is preferable by far to the alternative – the authoritarianism of arbitrary decision making by individuals with excessive discretion. It is consistent application of justice, without illiberal, unfree discrimination, is essential. This valuable point was first made by the renowned economist Friedrich von Hayek in his book The Constitution of Liberty.6

Loyalty is fine and good as long as its not overly collectivist, to the detriment of the individual, and as long as group identification is not too tribal or intolerant of other perspectives – a common problem in these increasingly polarised times. Think civil nationalism, vs ethnic nationalism, and civil discussion rather than personal attacks.

You can picture these values as six key pillars of politics, which must not be held in too low or high regard regard in society, if society is to have a healthy and flourishing balance. However, note that its a mistake to deem each of these as equal in importance. For society to be tolerant, civilised, prosperous and pleasant to live in at all, Liberty must be held in high regard. Therefore I would place Liberty as the top priority among the six values.

Next comes Security/Care, for if you picture Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, if your basic needs are lacking or feel under threat, Liberty will feel like a luxury. If this is to happen on too large a scale, many would disregard the importance of Liberty. Therefore for the majority of people are to properly value Liberty, they must have their Security provided for to a sufficient extent. Liberty and Security are by a significant margin, the most important of the six, since they have so much more impact on reduction or exacerbation of misery, wellbeing, and prosperity – however importance the other four is not to be underestimated.

Third place goes to Fairness, due to the importance of Rule of Law and equality before the law (as opposed to discriminatory and arbitrary governance, which is unjust). It is worth noting that the prominence of the detrimental and economically unfeasible principle of equality of outcome, in action, really drags down the Fairness as a value, relative to the top two.

Closely behind, in fourth place, is Authority. Authority, like hierarchy, which it overlaps with, can't be avoided – they are a fundamental and inevitable part of the human social fabric and the human condition. Any metric for deciding upon who has positions of authority and who succeeds, is a hierarchy of competence. Competence here, is understood as whatever rewards you with success in a hierarchy, based on whatever the value the hierarchy rewards, is.7 However, if not held in it's valuable but modest place, authoritarianism is soon to follow, for I would argue that no authority is more prominent or better placed to take our liberty away than the state.

Last place goes to Purity/Sanctity. This is due in great part to its strong psychological links with baseless traditionalism and disgust. Also, disgust towards non-conformist individuals leads to prejudice towards them, which is harmful to those treated poorly as a result. Proper and healthy judgement of individuals must be based upon reason, and not gut emotional reactions. However there is no doubting its importance as a value, for despite these issues, it is in our rational self-interest to heed our instinctive aversions to feces, disease and genuinely anti-social and harmful outcomes of actions, in society. It has its role, certainly, it is a key pillar and value of importance to society. However, like Authority, it is of lower importance. In fact due to the problems it can entail, it is in last place. Still, we must not let this blind us to the beneficial yet modest role it plays.

In order for both Liberty and Security to be put into practice effectively, sufficient provision of public services must be provided so that people can pay proper attention to liberty. A constitution which protects liberty sufficiently is also important. This applies to all nations, for without it there is far less likelihood that liberty will be safeguarded.

In order for liberty and fairness to have proper considerations it's important that Rule of Law and equality before the law are upheld, and that equality be seen in terms of opportunity, not outcome. Attention must be paid to free market insights, primarily those of the Austrian School of Economics, which informs us about the limits of state planning, of intervention in the economy, how it contributes to market crashes, and much else. Also the negative impact of intervention in the economy and how it harms liberty, let alone the economy, must be understood. Nevertheless this should not get to the point of neglecting security, because it would undermine public concern for liberty.

The realities of hierarchy and Authority must be heeded – purist conformity to a political philosophy creates blind spots, not even libertarianism is exempt from this. I understand that balance, of sorts, or more accurately a certain 'just right' distribution of concern for each of the six key values. Also, policy must focus on enhancing social mobility so that members of society can feel they can succeed based on hard work and ability. This is because if people can feel that way, they will as a result, deem the social rules and laws as fair, worth abiding by and worth investing in. Furthermore this would reduce criminality because I would argue that at least a portion of criminality is due to perpetrators feeling that the social rules and laws aren't with following or investing in, and people being able to succeed based on hard work and ability would result in less people being inclined to commit crimes.

Lastly, we must not let valid concern for sanitation and healthy living, say, from blinding us to the dangers of unquestioned disgust towards people's behaviour, among conservative people and conscientious people. It would be beneficial for them to watch their disgust carefully and try not to let it become too much of a bias towards people due to it.

As a finishing note, we should uphold each of these six pillars properly, yet not disproportionately either. Relative concern for each would preferably be in a beneficial distribution. It would be greatly beneficial for society and the economy, if the right balance were to be found and implemented.

I hope you enjoyed the read.

References

1Haidt, Jonathan (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon.

2Hirsh, J.B., DeYoung, C.G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J.B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 655–664.

3

4

5Iyer R, Koleva S, Graham J, Ditto P, Haidt J (2012). Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

6Hayek, F (2006). The Constitution of Liberty. Routledge Classics 2006. Abingdon, Oxon.

7Peterson, J (2018). 12 Rules for Life, an Antidote to Chaos. Allen Lane, Penguin Random House.