“Comprehensive immigration reform will grow our economy and keep families together — and it's the right thing to do.”
These words, spoken by Hillary Clinton at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, seem fairly unremarkable at first glance. The phrase seems to typify the usual, focus-group tested words of politicians — but it contains one glaring mistake that likely went unnoticed even by professional pundits and political commentators.
The sentence begins with an economic argument which, although debatable, is a statement grounded in fact. One could easily enumerate the economic reasons to allow an increase in immigration. And, although it certainly contains an implicit emotional appeal, one could build a factual case that maintaining family units has economic benefits.
But the third portion of Clinton’s argument contains the mistake — a mistake that was characteristic of not only her campaign, but the rhetoric found in most of mainstream politics. She moralized the issue.
Research in political science, including work by UNC professor Tim Ryan, has shown that as political issues are moralized, the likelihood of compromise on those issues decreases dramatically. That means that political polarization not only becomes stronger, but it becomes nearly impossible to overcome.
Furthermore, once an issue has been moralized, individuals are far less able to engage in cost-benefit analysis, meaning that the types of economic arguments that one could make about economic growth resulting from an influx of immigration, for example, are rendered effectively useless.
Now, one could make the argument that these findings do not suggest we should abandon moral arguments altogether, but rather that we should rely on moral frames that appeal to people of all political persuasions. But, research in psychology suggests that this may be far more difficult than it seems.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has developed what he calls the “moral foundations theory,” which seeks to explain apparent moral differences between conservatives and liberals. His work suggests that not only does the extent to which politics are perceived as moral differ between these two groups, but those on the left and right conceptualize morality in entirely different ways.
Haidt’s work suggests that there are five moral foundations: fairness, sensitivity to caring for and not harming others, loyalty to one’s group, respect for authority and awareness of purity/sanctity. Of these, liberals typically emphasize only fairness and harm sensitivity, whereas conservatives emphasize all five.