A Shallow Intellect is a Sure Recipe for a Shallow Morality

Published 11/28/04

Asheville Citizen-Times

Recently these pages have included many thoughtful commentaries on the “moral values” explanation for the outcome of the presidential election. Contributors have been AC-T editors and citizens from both the left and right.

One of the clearest and most succinct explanations for what happened this fall was stated on Good Morning America: “Democrats feel intellectually superior; Republicans feel morally superior.”

In other words, Republicans “get it.” And the commentator was wondering when Democrats will realize that Americans vote their sense of morality more than their intellect.

This seems beyond dispute. Republicans have won seven of the last ten presidential elections. When thinking about how we want to be governed, American voters want morality over intellect.

Let’s take a closer look at this by considering the nature of human intellect and morality. Both develop from our experience, but they operate differently; when, like the transmission of a car, they are put into gear.

Human intellect is a beautiful gift from our Creator. When embodied in a free individual, our intellect conceives of and creates many things, including the technological advances that have brought us our high standard of living. This is good, right? Maybe.

Questions about what is “good” are questions of morality. Our moral sense of good and evil restrains the intellect. Science fiction plots, going back to Frankenstein, have often portrayed the catastrophes that can be caused by unchecked intellect.

So, the intellect is like the drive gear on the car. When we shift into “drive,” the automobile carries us to our destination, which is the purpose of the car. Similarly, engaging our intellect corresponds to our purpose for living – to understand, question, marvel, and wonder at our experience.

Our sense of morality corresponds to the neutral gear. Mechanics put the car in neutral to diagnose the engine, just as we engage our sense of morality to diagnose whether the intellect is pointing us toward good or evil.

What does this have to do with politics and the recent election? Democrats get it wrong because they appeal to our intellect. But those who believe Republican presidential victories portray us as a moral society get it wrong, too. At least they get it wrong if they believe we are a deeply moral society. We are not.

Deep political morality emerges from a deep understanding of the candidates’ positions related to moral issues – the contradictions embodied in them, the motivations behind them, and the legislative initiatives that would result. Is this the American voter?

Most of us can agree that shallow intellectualism describes the American electorate. Because of this, our morality is shallow. How could it be otherwise? It matters little whether morality is guided by the Bible or Koran, the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, Confucius, or Buddha. Individuals must take responsibility for thinking deeply about moral issues, or their morality lacks depth.

Recent evidence that the American electorate is both intellectually and morally shallow can be found in the following situations.

First, an AC-T story (11/12/04) clarified the conditions under which moral values were key issues to voters. It turns out that, “when voters were just asked to name the issue most important in their vote for president – without being given a list of answers -- moral values trailed the War in Iraq, and the economy.”

Apparently, moral values were not on the minds of voters, unless they were prompted to consider them. Either voters were not as concerned about moral values as originally reported, or their concerns were too shallow to be mentioned without prompting.

A second piece of evidence can be found in voter reactions to negative political advertising. Voter naiveté explains why these ads are effective.

Voters believe the purpose of these ads is to persuade them to vote a certain way. A deeper understanding, however, reveals that the effect of the ad is a favorable vote. The purpose of these ads is to distort the truth.

John Boyle (AC-T, 10/25/04) quoted UNCA political science professor Bill Sabo as saying, “it’s a logical strategy for candidates to try to shatter the trust people might have for their opponent.” In other words, each campaign intentionally lies to cast the opponent in the most unfavorable light, possible -- the bigger the lie, the more effective the ad.

The negative television ads during the Taylor-Keever congressional race, provide an example of this purpose and effect. A memorable ad portrayed Patsy Keever -- a mother of three, a long-time Buncombe County Commissioner, and a public school teacher for more than 20 years -- as a protector of pornography.

If voters understood that the purpose of this ad was to distort the truth, their moral outrage would render the ad ineffective. Instead, Professor Sabo says, “All the empirical evidence indicates that attack ads work.”

Maybe Taylor won because his campaign distorted Keever’s character and political positions. American voters not only tolerate ignoble political campaigns, we reward them.

The bad news is that shallow intellect leads to shallow morality, but the good news is that we can easily deepen both. The first step is to realize that our intellect drives our sense of morality. We should drive the car before we ask the mechanic to check it out.

The second step is to realize that no additional education or special insight is needed to deepen the intellect. Being intellectual does not involve stating facts, reading books, and explaining ideas to others. It involves asking questions, learning from experience, listening to others, and developing a sense of inquisitiveness and wonder.

It is our moral responsibility to leave the world a better place than we found it. To do this we begin by shifting the car into drive.