Summer Reading: The Righteous Mind I

Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Pantheon, 2012) is a book that does not, from its title, appear to have much value for government ethics. But Haidt's approach to morality, and his look at how people approach morality, provides a lot of food for thought about government ethics, enough to fill nine blog posts.

Moral Systems
You can see the value immediately through Haidt's definition of morality in terms of "moral systems":

Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible.

This is an unusual, but both excellent and useful definition, with one exception, which Haidt recognizes. Because the definition is focused on what morality does rather than what its contents are, it includes both "good" and "bad" moralities. In terms of government ethics, it includes both a healthy ethics environment and a very poor ethics environment.

This is, however, a useful way to look at ethics, because in a poor ethics environment there are values, norms, practices, identities, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that make its ethics what they are. Such an environment cannot be improved unless all of these things are recognized, generally acknowledged, and dealt with. Loyalties must be recognized as misplaced. Much of what is considered confidential must be recognized as a kind of secrecy, and replaced with openness. Special "courtesies" and other unwritten rules that favor officials' associates must be openly discussed, criticized, and replaced with written rules that are fair. Fiefdoms and machines must be recognized for what they are so that they can be changed and, with respect to fiefdoms, effectively overseen. And blind spots must be dealt with through training, independent advice, and ongoing discussion of ethics matters.

One of the things we can learn from Haidt's view of morality is that one moral system must be replaced by another. Chipping away will do little more than make common practices go underground. No matter what is done, there will be a moral system. No institution can exist without one. But the moral system spoken of in public is not necessarily the one that exists in reality. The more different they are, the worse the ethics environment. This is why it is so important to have open discussion of ethics issues. Only in this way can the real values, norms, and practices become known to the public. As long as they are hidden and denied, they cannot change, any more than an alcoholic in denial can change.

Real norms and practices will not become public unless people inside and outside government feel safe. The misuse of power to intimidate is the most damaging practice in a poor ethics environment, because it enables all the rest. It is the bad flip side of moral courage, which is what enables all good, open conduct and the reporting of misconduct (see the relevant subsection of my book Local Government Ethics Programs).

Self-Righteousness
"Righteousness" was originally a positive word, referring to a quality of goodness. But it is a word that is now rarely used outside a Christian religious context. The word "righteous" is used primarily in the negative sense, in the word "self-righteous," that is, holier than thou, acting in a way that is judgmental of others (like I do too often in this blog).

The difference between these two words is reflected in the difference between "moral" and "moralistic." And it is no accident that the negative words are used more often, because, as Haidt wrote, "human nature ... is intrinsically moralistic, critical, and judgmental." We naturally form groups that are critical of and antagonistic to other groups, whether they are nations, religions, races, universities, political parties, or even local governments. Each group is self-righteous, considering itself better than the others. And "better" means better in terms of the values the group happens to value most.

Entrepreneurs value success, and look down on laziness. An oppressed minority values martyrdom, and looks down on oppressors. Liberals value compassion, and look down on those who appear to act without compassion. Conservatives value tradition, patriotism, and hard work, and look down on those who seek change, criticize the nation, and live off the government.

But what about local governments? Those with a good ethics environment value openness, fairness, citizen participation, and the responsible handling of conflicts of interest. They look down on unprofessional officials who are in it for themselves, who engage in favoritism and nepotism, who try to keep things secret and intimidate people from speaking out or participating in the government.

Local governments with a poor ethics environment value loyalty, secrecy, and the misuse of office for the benefit of officials and those with whom they have special relationships. They look down on those who betray the organization by reporting misconduct or making information public. Sometimes they even look down on citizens who don't want to go along with the government's common practices, who demand oversight and accountability, or simply want to know how their money is being spent.

What is worth recognizing here is that the same mechanism that has allowed mankind to prosper through the creation of groups whose members trust each other is also behind the creation of city machines, agency fiefdoms, old boy networks, racial and ethnic conflict, and partisan discord. And this is only at the local level. Most serious of all the results of the group trust mechanism is war.

Trust is central to government ethics. And yet the dynamics of trust among individuals in a government organization sometimes contributes to the undermining of the public's trust in their local government. The problem here is that a local government organization in a democracy is not supposed to be like other groups. It is not supposed to be opposed to any other organization or look down on anyone. It is supposed to embody, manage, and represent a community. Its values and norms are supposed to be not the values and norms of the community, although these are important, but rather the values and norms of our democracy:  fairness, responsibility, openness.

If the community is divided, that doesn't mean the government should support the divisions. It should bring people together. If the community consists of haves and have-nots, that doesn't mean the government should help the haves and let the have-nots take care of themselves. But, most important for government ethics, the trust that a local government values should not be the trust among its officials, although this is valuable, but the trust of the community in its officials. If this is given priority, there will be no closed, exclusive government group with values inimical to democracy. There will be an open government that is inclusive, responsible, and fair.

Continue with the second post on this book.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---