I just read Strange Bedfellows: The Alliance Theory of Political Belief Systems by David Pinsof, David Sears and Martie Haselton. I’m still processing the authors’ arguments, but they feel right, validating what I’ve long suspected: the moral foundation of political beliefs has long been overstated. Take that, Jonathan Haidt!
In this series I’ll be inching through Strange Bedfellows, in the hope of strengthening my understanding of the authors’ arguments and opening paths to explore further.
Brief Summary of the Alliance Theory of Political Belief Systems
What is the moral thread that ties all political beliefs together? For the most part, there is none. Moral standards primarily serve a strategic function: to mobilize support for a specific political ally or mobilize opposition to a specific political rival. The more heterogeneous one’s allies and rivals, the more heterogeneous one’s political beliefs will be. Political belief systems are not so much “philosophies” as collections of ad hoc justifications, rationalizations, moralizations, embellishments, and rhetorical tactics designed to advance the interests of complex political alliances in competition with their rivals. As succinctly put by Pinsof et al:
“Moral principles are not so principled. Core values are not so core. Ideological worldviews are not designed to literally view the world but to serve strategic functions like signaling allegiance or mobilizing support.”
Example: Egalitarianism
When people think about “equality”, they are likely to call to mind specific political issues (e.g., racism, sexism), as opposed to “equality” as an abstract concept.
Egalitarian rhetoric is most often employed in political discourse to mobilize support for African Americans, feminists, gay people, liberals, and Democrats. Use of this rhetoric may therefore reflect allegiance to that particular set of groups, as opposed to an impartial moral preference that cuts across group identities. If this is the case, then many widely used measures of egalitarianism may be confounded with political and social allegiances.
Studies have found a striking consensus among Americans in their support for egalitarian principles and ideals such as equal opportunity and treatment, but substantial disagreement about whether promoting the equal rights of some groups (and not others) is warranted, e.g., women, African Americans, white men, conservatives. Here’s an example from Pinsof et al:
“If liberals only support equality to defend their allies, then their support for equality will depend on whether their allies are at a disadvantage. Consistent with this prediction, [in one study] when participants evaluated an insurance policy that resulted in larger premiums for a high-risk neighborhood (resulting in unequal pricing), participants’ opposition to the policy strongly depended on the demographics of the disadvantaged neighborhood.”
The evidence suggests that egalitarianism is not a stable, pre-existing moral principle, but a flexible tactic designed to support oneself and one’s allies. Abstractions don’t motivate; allegiances do.
—
Reference:
Pinsof, D., Sears, D. O., & Haselton, M. G. (2023). Strange Bedfellows: The Alliance Theory of Political Belief Systems. Psychological Inquiry, 34(3), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2274433