Authority

Haidt believes that respect for authority will be the most difficult value for liberals because it is the only one we are directly hostile to, as opposed to merely indifferent.  He recommends being very wary of being "soft on crime," and treating the criminal justice system as sacred, though with a less punitive focus than conservatives have.  The trouble is that being tough on crime all too often means looking the other way when police engage in criminality of their own.  Liberal calls to "question authority" are based on the assumption that power tends to be abused which, after all, it does.

At the same time, let me, as a liberal, clearly and unequivocally state that I think respect for authority is an important value.  Authority is how society maintains order.  Without authority, there can be no order.  Haidt’s description of Occupy Wall Street (as well as many news accounts of them) vividly illustrates this.  Authority can maintain order by respect, or by force.  If people stop respecting authority, then order rests on nothing more than pure, brute force.  And no one, I trust, wants that.  So, then, if we want to avoid a resort to brute force, respect for authority must be inculcated.

 Furthermore, unlike sanctity, I think liberals and conservatives have considerable overlap in which authorities we want to see respected.  Parents are one.  Teachers are another.  Employers, I think, can fairly make the list.  And the police and courts are a biggie. 

The difference is in how liberals and conservatives believe these authorities should be respected.  Conservatives may focus more on respect in the form of obedience and outward signs of deference.  Liberals focus more on respecting authority figures because they have earned our respect.  Thus parents should be respected for their greater experience and wisdom, teachers for their knowledge, employers for their managerial competence, and police as the upholders of law.  Superficially, such an approach may seem less respectful. But I do not think it violates people’s basic moral intuitions.  Haidt emphasizes that authority plays a major role in traditional societies, and that most interactions are not among equals.  But inequality is not the same as irresponsibility.  Authority figures’ demands for obedience and deference are matched by duties to protect and provide for their subordinates.  Obligations are unequal, but mutual and reciprocal.  Authority figures who demand obedience and deference but shirk their duties find that respect for them weakens.  This is part of our basic moral intuition of justice.

So I suppose my own advice as a liberal is to emphasize respect for authority in the form of respect for law and, above all, respect for moral authority.  One good place to start would be to recognize and commend Americans as an orderly, law-abiding people with deep respect for authority (especially in the form of law), because really we are.  I read a fascinating comments thread on another blog [alas, unable to find!] about what the outstanding characteristics of Americans are to other people, and our strict honesty was one of them.  Several commenters remarked that restaurants can put condiments out on tables unwatched and not worry about having them stolen.  Another remarked that, for all our carping about authority, stores can put displays of pumpkins and firewood out in front of the building and count on most customers can be counted on to carry them in an pay for them.  Well, good, let’s give the American people the credit they deserve.  Let’s emphasize how much our society is built on trust, and how well most people live up to that. 

A strong enough emphasis on law, I think, and the duty of everyone, great and small, to obey it, will make it easier to call out police (and other authority figures) when they break the law.  But it can’t be treated just as cover to call out police for abuses.  First and foremost, respect for law must be just that – an obligation on everyone, with police to be respected as agents of the law.*

More troubling are the times when liberals and conservatives disagree on whose authority must be respected.  Conservatives are more likely to include husbands, preachers, generals (often to the exclusion of civilian authority) and chambers of commerce on their list.  Liberals are more likely to include people whose claim to authority is based on claims of knowledge, expertise, and objectivity – people like scientists, professors, or journalists.  Conservatives these days are notable disrespectful of any authority based on claims to superior knowledge, and to dismiss any such claims as mere artifacts of liberal bias.  I have discussed this before and don’t have any very good answers, other than for people who base their claim of authority on knowledge and expertise to emphasize how hard they worked to assemble the knowledge they have, and how they would like some respect for all the effort they put into it.  I don’t know if that will work, but at least it will be an attempt to appeal to conservatives on the basis of their concepts of justice.

 In the end, it is neither sanctity nor authority I see as the biggest stumbling block, but in-group loyalty.  More on that in my next post.

_________________________________________
*At this point there is no escaping the thorny issue of illegal immigration.  Illegal immigration is a sort of triple whammy for a lot of conservatives.  Admitting cultural aliens undermines our in-group cohesion.  Allowing people who come here illegally to stay rewards law breaking, which attacks the values of both authority and justice.  So what can we do?  Ineffective as psychologists assure us it is, I think this is one we are just going to have to fight with facts – by explaining just how dysfunctional the law is right now and how unworkable to follow.  I think a lot of people don’t fully appreciate that.