It is time to sit down to another political pageant, or the Third GOP Debate as some call it.
There are two fewer members in line this time, and their absence has spurred a slightly more in-depth look into the pressing political issues. However, the event was still nothing more than a political discomposure.
Instead of giving you the blow-by-blow and quip about professional blunders, I’d instead like to look at a specific candidate's point of view from a different lens.
In his TED Talk, Psychologist Jonathan Haidt talks about something known as a “moral matrix,” or the set of basic moral values and beliefs that all human beings base their decisions off of. Although there is some question pertaining whether politicians are considered human, I’d still like to look at this group from Haidt’s moral matrix.
The five basic morals Haidt discusses are Harm/Care, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity/Sanctity. He points out that liberal-minded individuals, who are typically Democrats, prioritize Harm/Care and Fairness when making their decisions. On the flip side, conservative people, often members of the Republican party, base their decisions off of all five values, while prioritizing In-Group Loyalty, Authority, and Purity/Sanctity before Harm/Care and Fairness.
I’d like to apply Haidt’s moral matrix to Donald Trump and his position on immigration. I’ve already outlined in a previous post Trumps' views on immigration, but just to reiterate:
Trump’s approach to this country’s immigration problems would be to deport all illegal immigrants from all over the country. He also plans on building a wall across the border with Mexico stating, “we need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly...we need to keep illegals out.”
Trump is of the strong belief that the majority of immigrants coming to America are from Mexico and other Central and South American countries and secondly, that these immigrants “are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.,”
During his 2016 announcement speech, Trump said:
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.
And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.
When we put Trump through the moral matrix, we see that his views towards immigration stem mainly from Purity/Sanctity and In-Group Loyalty. Trump believes that all of the “criminals” coming in from Mexico are ruining America’s purity and beauty. He also feels that Americans and their jobs deserve to be shared with each other, not random outsiders.
However coming from a more liberally-minded view, I feel that it is only fair that we give all people an equal chance for success as long as they aren’t causing any harm to others.
Next up is another Democratic debate, and I am itching to see if they are able to maintain the same level of composure present in their first debate, or if they deteriorate into a mirror of the Republicans. I’m also itching to apply this matrix to members of the opposite party.
There are two fewer members in line this time, and their absence has spurred a slightly more in-depth look into the pressing political issues. However, the event was still nothing more than a political discomposure.
Instead of giving you the blow-by-blow and quip about professional blunders, I’d instead like to look at a specific candidate's point of view from a different lens.
In his TED Talk, Psychologist Jonathan Haidt talks about something known as a “moral matrix,” or the set of basic moral values and beliefs that all human beings base their decisions off of. Although there is some question pertaining whether politicians are considered human, I’d still like to look at this group from Haidt’s moral matrix.
The five basic morals Haidt discusses are Harm/Care, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity/Sanctity. He points out that liberal-minded individuals, who are typically Democrats, prioritize Harm/Care and Fairness when making their decisions. On the flip side, conservative people, often members of the Republican party, base their decisions off of all five values, while prioritizing In-Group Loyalty, Authority, and Purity/Sanctity before Harm/Care and Fairness.
I’d like to apply Haidt’s moral matrix to Donald Trump and his position on immigration. I’ve already outlined in a previous post Trumps' views on immigration, but just to reiterate:
Trump’s approach to this country’s immigration problems would be to deport all illegal immigrants from all over the country. He also plans on building a wall across the border with Mexico stating, “we need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly...we need to keep illegals out.”
Trump is of the strong belief that the majority of immigrants coming to America are from Mexico and other Central and South American countries and secondly, that these immigrants “are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.,”
During his 2016 announcement speech, Trump said:
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.
And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.
When we put Trump through the moral matrix, we see that his views towards immigration stem mainly from Purity/Sanctity and In-Group Loyalty. Trump believes that all of the “criminals” coming in from Mexico are ruining America’s purity and beauty. He also feels that Americans and their jobs deserve to be shared with each other, not random outsiders.
However coming from a more liberally-minded view, I feel that it is only fair that we give all people an equal chance for success as long as they aren’t causing any harm to others.
Next up is another Democratic debate, and I am itching to see if they are able to maintain the same level of composure present in their first debate, or if they deteriorate into a mirror of the Republicans. I’m also itching to apply this matrix to members of the opposite party.