Mobilizing the Public to Save the Public

Re-establishing the Public ethics of Care and Justice

I have come to recognize my duty, not simply as an American citizen, but as someone awoken to the immense complexity and seriousness of our current predicament, to give voice to my resolute dissent against the direction the nation has been and is currently being steered, in what seems to be a pivotal moment in American history. We clearly stand on a threshold that threatens all that we hold dear, for the current US Administration lies in wait to prove much worse than what it has promised. This first year has simply been one of solidifying their position and getting their operatives in place until they unleash their full agenda on a suspicious but largely unprepared public.

Clearly most would agree, the current Trump-led federal government represents perhaps the most unique in American history, for never before have so many wealthy elites been put in positions of great trust heading Federal Agencies and Departments, all of whom sharing express goals of stymying Agency programs and dismantling the hard-won regulatory safeguards protecting the public interest. Additionally, the Administration has defined itself by provocative rhetoric and action not of civility, diplomacy, and inclusion, but one of incivility, confrontation, and exclusion. From its opening salvo of immediate bans and increased hostility towards non-citizen families; its contempt towards programs caring for young children’s health, welfare and nourishment; its hostility towards affordable health-care; its negation of crucial environmental safeguards and denial of global climate change; its hostile provocations of military attack against stated enemies; to its provocative incitement of conflict in the delicate situation of the Middle East; this Administration has deliberately shown a lack of Care, in complete disregard to its Conservative Christian base’s morals.

Their rhetoric almost feels as if its carefully scripted theater designed not simply to provoke and incite enmity from their enemies, but also an incitement of hostility of its own supporters towards “the Other.” Beyond simply rhetoric, it is their hidden agenda, which has been decades in the making, of reducing the means with which the American public has to protect itself from through the legal means of democratic action. This goes far beyond the simple act of voting, of which they are already underway to further undermine, but extends to the dismantling of the federal bureaucracy and subversion of the federal legal system through ideological appointments. The recent denial of unacceptable legal candidates for judgeships is simply cover for a slate of lifetime judicial appointments to ideological cronies that could erase a century of progressive American jurisprudence for generations. To make matters worse, they seem to be unwilling to play fairly and cooperatively across the aisle, such as refusing judicial appointments for the past several years or sabotaging any compromises for further healthcare reform, or as with adversaries overseas, gutting of the diplomatic corps of the State Department to make future peace unlikely and aggression inevitable. And on this eve of the passing of a federal budget bill halving corporate tax rates while growing already bloated military expenditures by tens of billions, that act further increases economic disparity and the rationale for later social program cuts for those most in need.

These are truly dangerous precedents which presage a democratic struggle unlike any previous in American history. No matter their stated rationalizations, their rhetoric and policies will judged harshly in the future, and can hardly be judged to be moral at present, for they are deficient in Care and Justice.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) explains that moral judgments are largely implicit perceptions that appear as a type of intuition or gut feeling, which are then supported by arguments easily brought to mind, not through carefully invested reasoning, but as ready made ex post facto reasoning to justify one’s implicit intuition. Haidt has found these judgments fall into one of five general domains for evaluation of social situations, which at the level of general political worldview, cluster into one of four types. In the case of American political ideologies, MFT typically identifies three main US political worldview types — Conservatism, Liberalism and Libertarianism — although their additional data shows four clusters, each with a different “signature” set of moral foundational settings.

Four Cluster Moral Foundation Valuation — Source: Haidt, Graham & Joseph (20o9: 113)

Haidt likens the five moral foundations as similar to taste buds, in that one’s moral palette can have a stronger aversion for certain foundations while favoring others, and that these moral “tastes” contribute in different amounts to social judgment, blending like tastes to show the wide possible spectrum of variance across implicit moral judgment. The foundations are identified as protection from Harm (H), attention towards Fairness and against Cheating (F), valuing and promotion of Ingroup loyalty and punishment of betrayal (I), obedience towards Authority and punishment of subversion (A), and desire for behavioral, spiritual or group Purity or Sanctity (P). The foundations themselves cluster into two groupings, with Harm (H) and Fairness (F) forming an individual-focused grouping concerned with ideological concerns along an equality-inequality dimension, while Ingroup (I), Authority (A), and Purity/Sanctity (P) from a group-focused grouping with ideological concerns along a openness-conformity dimension.

It’s not that these five exhaust the foundations of all morality, but that they serve as a model to show that different moral logics exist and express themselves differently, particularly at the cultural worldview level. Violations across these domains produce mixtures of moral emotions such as disgust, righteous anger, and apathy, although the context in which and to whom they occur vary in the degree to which they trigger moral reactions. Similarly, the foundations “aren’t finished moralities”, but psychological components upon which individuals construct morality through development, dependent on the combination of one’s psychological dispositions (personality traits) and one’s experience in different contexts that evolve over a life history. The general clusters at the cultural worldview level represent recognizable types which people use to categorize socially and across which people may vary due to situations, contexts and the particular moment in one’s moral evolution.

While the graph shows seemingly great disparities in valuation between the the HF and IAP foundation groupings among Secular Liberals and Libertarians, for the Religious Left and Social Conservatives clusters, the two foundation groupings are much closer in valuation. MFT characterizes the Social Conservative cluster as having a balance of five foundations, while the others undervalue the IAP foundations in comparison. However, this seems to point out that Secular Liberals and Libertarians represent Autonomy oriented worldviews, separated from the traditional group structures that characterize human experience for the vast time of human history, while the right two clusters represent Community oriented worldviews. What’s more is that all clusters do value (H)arm and (F)airness, which translate to moralities of Care and Justice.

And yet, despite the differences found in the weight paid to different foundations in general moral judgments, and despite the degree of political partisanship and polarization in our current situation, what is striking that the American public is overwhelmingly in agreement across a multitude of issues, whether Liberal or Conservative, yet who face stiff policies to undermine their shared sentiment. Consider the public support for the following issues:

>60% — Reality of Global Warming
>80% — For Net Neutrality
>80% — Safeguarding Social Security
>60% — Government Ensuring Health Care
>70% — Improving Public Education

Policies directly going against strong public sentiment for these issues has greatly intensified under this Administration, greatly increasing public Fears, Anger, Apathy or Indifference. This is not simply a problem of the seeming illiberal immorality of President Trump, but the overall mindset of a political system corrupted by wealthy self-interest, neglect of longstanding democratic principles and an almost unprecedented step backwards in the orientation towards care for our fellow citizens and shared common interests. All of these policies involve matters important towards Care and Justice.

And while we can use MFT to understand how different persons morally judge the world differently, we cannot begin to blame each other for the radical policies of the current Administration, or past ones for that matter. For people are far more than their political opinions, which are influenced by the groups with which they identify, the political forces seeking to influence and shape their political perception, as well as very powerful and largely invisible social constraints on behavior. Whatever is in store for the American public, we cannot begin the blame game against each other for our common interests are threatened. Blame already consumes much of the cacophony in the social media universe and much of the mainstream media. Instead, the public must come to an understanding of how to overcome political polarization, public apathy and the lack of open public action to protect our shared commons.

Even with MFT’s explanation of differences in moral judgments across clusters, how can extremely unpopular policies be implemented without unprecedented public action and dissent? What causes the public to not openly express their dissent in public?

While plenty of dissent exists in the cyberworld, there remains a vast silence in the everyday world of the here and now. Apathy and disengagement are the direct result of the continued assault by the political class going against public sentiment. And yet, most of us appear visibly unconcerned and largely silent despite our private dissent, which reinforces the misjudgment that a majority supports what is happening. Social psychology has found that simply witnessing others not jumping to action leads to inaction in everyone, as the simple perception of everyone normally going about their business reinforces the notion that somebody else will respond, sometimes termed Diffusion of Responsibility.

This dynamic also explains issues from decades ago in the late 1960’s, when for example, the public was overwhelmingly against the unpopular discrimination, where only 18% of Whites approved of segregation, yet at the same time Whites overestimated (47%) how many others supported segregation. Oftentimes public opinion of its own opinion becomes skewed by the lack of acknowledgement in the here and now. The phenomena of social inaction due to the misperception of others not sharing one’s private dissent stifles our ability to understand our own collective wisdom.

This misperception is largely propagated when the climate of opinion expressed by the media diverges from public opinion. It is not that media and entertainment industries cause the public to change its attitudes and opinions, but that they influence misjudgment of the public’s own estimation of its attitudes and opinions through omission of dissenting voices and the normalization of unpopular norms. Over time, the lack of media recognition of the public’s true opinion leads to the lack of common knowledge that dissent existed in the first place.

Yet, today the media landscape has changed with the rise of social media as well as the proliferation of news sources through the Internet. Social media has greatly intensified the degree to which segments of the population are unaware of the amount of open public dissent or support, as we have largely herded ourselves into media silos that give us news which confirms our own basic beliefs. The echo chamber is amplified within these silos and enhanced by the number of sources which simply repeat the news. It has created an illusory and confusing cacophony of information which makes it difficult for much of the public to gauge a sense of its own public opinion.

An additional social dynamic which also serves to skew the public’s conception of its own opinion, termed “False Enforcement,” describes the propensity of those who don’t believe in a norm to actually engage in its enforcement when it seems a majority support the norm. This false enforcement serves to bolster conformity for unpopular norms, since those whom hold dissenting views may not be willing to risk social embarrassment or group exclusion to express deviant opinions. This is especially true for those who are susceptible to group influence and social conformity. They may even express extreme forms of enforcement, to mask their own disbelief in the norm and cement their own standing within the group.

This helps to explain how the many people whom are against wars bend to the social pressure exerted by so called “Superpatriots,” those who uncritically follow their leaders in foreign policy matters and aggressively question the patriotism of anyone who dares question those policies. Superpatriotism can be thought of as an extreme social form which triggers a small social force to stifle the rest of the group, usually through their unstated threat of aggression or violence against anyone who questions unwise and unskillful foreign policies that lead to militarism and use of force. Their brand of patriotism often includes xenophobia, bigotry, and glorification of war, while having ignorance of the history of our inglorious uses of violence across the world and in whose interest it is used. Under Authoritarian regimes, these Superpatriots are often sponsored and encouraged to target anyone who dissents against unpopular rulers.

And yet, false enforcement doesn’t only apply to bolster unpopular norms having to do with the use of Power. So too are norms for the veneration of Status in the form of wealth accumulation, conspicuous consumption and pursuit of the almighty dollar above concern for one’s fellow humans. The Status game oriented in a society which neglects the multitude whom struggle to simply survive economically, help to reinforce false enforcement for norms which encourage consumption and self-interest. It also promotes toleration of policies which benefit those of highest status at the expense of those with the least social and economic status.

And yet, everyone is susceptible to some degree of these social dynamics of conformism and false enforcement, for the feeling of social exclusion and public embarrassment for deviation from the group is so strongly negative that it leads to these very social phenomena. The produce unintended consequences such as moral panics, downward spirals, or in extreme cases, willingness to allow radical pogroms against minority groups, such as the cases in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. This is especially true of social environments when people already feel isolated and separated as well as economically and politically threatened. The antidote to these dynamics is a renewed civic sense where people shed social fear of dissent and voice their well mannered concerns in public. The simple display of those willing to risk social sanction for engaging in dissent helps to break the spell of consensus trance.

To challenge the coming radical changes to American society the current Administration has in store, the public must come to awareness of the its own strength through presence. Showing up in numbers alone can offer a sense of the public’s collective power to stop the downward descent along which we’re headed. We must stand on firm ground, publicly, and see our vast numbers, of which the women’s march provided but a glimpse. We cannot rely on expressing our public opinion through the prism of a manipulatable social media universe in which we’ve been herded, where dissent can be simulated and stage-managed by private interests managing 10’s of thousands of accounts, an illusion difficult to counteract in cyberspace. It is only in the light of day, collectively assembled, that the public can see the degree to which we are in agreement.

In a sense, the problems we face are not external, not inherent in the people willing to steer American policies towards self- and class-interest, for there will always exist those whom will sell their souls for self-gain and corporate profit at the expense of society. The problem lies with us, a public who have lost the ethic of Care, which not only is valued across all clusters of MFT, but also venerated by all wisdom traditions. Care has fallen off since it is largely dependent on our connection with each other in the here and now, all to easily avoided or forgotten due to the ever increasing amount of distraction and separation from each other. When we engage in care towards each other, it lessens the degree to which we are caught in threat reaction, which prevents us from using self-reflective reasoning rather than the implicit reasoning that binds us to stereotyped cultural worldview reasoning.

When we show care towards others, as we would for our children when they are upset, we can help one another regulate difficult emotions of fear, anger and apathy. We can wish for enlightened leaders who show that same care, and that will manifest when the public embraces Care beyond just with intimates, but towards everyone. To show care towards someone with different political views or worldviews is a powerful thing. It is what makes us truly human, that capacity to show care in each other’s presence. It simply is not the same in the cyberworld.

Like Neo, our time to awaken from our cybernetic dream is now. It’s our duty to disconnect the cord screwed into the base of our necks, detaching from the illusory world of cyberspace, where dissent is co-opted by twitter bots, special interest, and fake news, and reconnect in the real world. And our public presence needn’t be an angry, Debbie Downer type of event, but can in fact be what everyone is really, in their heart of hearts, searching for — connection with others, free from the political.

The public presence must become sustained and should include revelry, music, dance & song, for we needn’t wallow in despair but seek to attract and expand the circle in connection with each other. In fact, we must think outside of the box and invent new social forms in the real world beyond simply protest, which can bring people together to cure apathy which is half the battle. New forms which combine that which we all love in a socially open setting create possibilities for expanding solidarity without the artificial divisiveness of the political. We are all far more interesting than our political opinions. And expanding the reach of cooperation and inclusivity adds to the potential growth of solidarity, public realization of our deep interconnectedness, and chances for increasing Care in society, which in turn will result in more Justice. It is in the here and now that we can eclipse the perceptual constraints which reign in our ability to accurately perceive the vastness of our common agreement instead of hyper-focusing on our differences, which is largely a production of our own minds.

It’s imperative that we take a deep breath and recognize the seriousness of the situation because we are running out of time. Every day the public waits to combine speech and action to demand policy be shaped towards Care and Justice extends the amount of time it will take to undo the damage inflicted on those most vulnerable in society, as well as to restore the environmental commons, the rule of law, and the moral standing of American democracy.

We may have on the order of weeks to untether and get it together.