The Political Mind
The science and psychology of politics
Navigation
  • About
  • Mind&Politics
  • G Scott Blakley
  • I. A. Grea
You are here: Home › Commentary › More on Three-Dimensional Conservatism
← Austrian Economics: Scholasticism, Calvinism, and an Arbitrary God
Evolutionary Group Selection and the Risks of Climate Change →

More on Three-Dimensional Conservatism

May 27, 2012 | Filed under: Commentary and tagged with: E.J. DIonne, Jonathan Haidt, libertarians, neoconservatives, Patrick Allitt, three-dimensional conservatism, traditional conservatives

E. J. Dionne, in Conservatives used to care about community. What happened?, comments on several divergent elements in conservative thought and practice. He begins by lamenting that conservative Republicans “have abandoned American conservatism’s most attractive features: prudence, caution and a sense that change should be gradual.” This description of conservatism follows closely with what Patrick Allitt, in the course I’ve written about earlier, refers to as traditional conservatism, in the mold of Russell Kirk and going back to Edmund Burke. Dionne further laments that conservatives no longer care about community, instead concentrating on ‘the heroic and disconnected individual — or the “job creator.”‘ This is more closely allied with the libertarian strand of conservatism.

Professor Allitt’s course discussed various strands of conservative thought and practice; what stands out in American conservatism are three strands, traditional conservatism, libertarianism, and neoconservatism. While we tend to think of conservatism/liberalism on a continuum, this three-fold division of conservative thought can be more productively thought of as intersecting planes or areas, making it three-dimensional conservatism.

I’ve been reading Jonathan Haidt’s new book, The Righteous Mind. He, too, imagines individuals in a single-dimension as being more or less conservative, more or less liberal. But he uses his six moral foundations to plot a graph of this movement from liberalism to conservatism, or conservatism to liberalism. Those six foundations are:

  • care/harm
  • fairness/cheating
  • liberty/oppression
  • loyalty/betrayal
  • authority/subversion
  • sanctity/degradation

Moral responses of liberals are heavily weighted toward the care, fairness, and liberty foundations, while conservatives respond with a more even mix of all six.

When I saw the graph, I was struck by the sense that it was pigeon-holing individuals onto this single dimension, more or less conservative or liberal. But since the graph used the six moral foundations to plot this information, it seemed more meaningful to think of our moral/political belief system in many dimensions. It seems that each foundation is a line, or a plane, or even an area, which intersect and diverge from each other in various ways in a three-dimensional space, giving us three-dimensional conservatism, or liberalism, or moral foundations.

With E.J. Dionne we have an analysis of conservatism from the point of view of contemporary political commentary; with Patrick Allitt the same from the point of view of historical investigation and analysis; and with Jonathan Haidt, from the point of view of the moral bases of conservative/liberal thought. I hope I can, with continued investigation, come up with a better multi-dimensional model of conservative/liberal/political thought which can accommodate the nuances in all of these positions, but also their affinities with each other.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Did you like this article? Share it with your friends!

Tweet

Written by Jacob Jefferson Jakes

← Austrian Economics: Scholasticism, Calvinism, and an Arbitrary God
Evolutionary Group Selection and the Risks of Climate Change →

RSS Jonathan Haidt

  • Why The Righteous Mind may be the best common reading for incoming college students February 19, 2017 Jonathan Haidt

RSS George Lakoff

RSS Corey Robin

Jacob Jefferson Jakes

The Political Mind

  • View Jacob-Jefferson-Jakes-127488407357719’s profile on Facebook
  • View JacobJJakes’s profile on Twitter
  • View 118350928673473455810’s profile on Google+

Mind&Politics

  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Facebook
  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Twitter
  • View 107647165319384338834’s profile on Google+

Recent Posts

  • The Truth Behind the Curtain: Ken Ham, Antonin Scalia, and Milton Friedman find it February 20, 2017
  • “I Support Trump” July 31, 2016
  • GOP Media Warfare, Hierarchy, and Agriculture November 28, 2015
  • To the Heart of an Idea, Conservative and Liberal October 25, 2015
  • State Sovereignty and Constitutionally-limited Government September 7, 2015
  • “…of the United States…”: Creating a Nation July 27, 2014
  • I Would Not Throw the Fat Man Off the Bridge and onto the Trolley Tracks July 13, 2014
  • Shit Happens and Big Data July 12, 2014
  • Wittgenstein, Identity-Protection Cognition, and Understanding Rather than Persuading June 1, 2014
  • What if Piketty is Right? April 27, 2014

Recent Comments

    Archives

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org

    Categories

    Tags

    1% abortion Adam Smith anti-federalist Articles of Confederation climate change conservatism conservative conservative boredom conservative enthusiasm constitution Daniel Kahneman David Brooks democracy Edmund Burke Elvin Lim federalist federal taxes gay rights George Lakoff hobby lobby income inequality Jonathan Haidt karma liberal libertarians Mitt Romney moral politics natural law neoconservatives Newt GIngrich nurturant parent Occupy Wall Street Patrick Allitt pro-life racism robert reich strict father strict father model tax policy tax quintiles Tea Party The Lovers Quarrel Thomas Pangle virtue of muddling through

    © 2025 The Political Mind

    Powered by Esplanade Theme by One Designs and WordPress