John Haidt’s model asserts that the nation has made tremendous strides in overcoming various differences. Some of the key differences that have been overcome include North vs. South, Catholic vs. Protestant, and black vs. white differences. The only key difference that is currently threatening to tear the nation apart is left vs. right differences. It is worth noting that media, political class and political parties have changed greatly. For instance, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil could still meet for a drink for a private conversation amid excessively competitive politics. Psychologists have made a discovery that ideology plays a significant role in bringing about differences and disagreements in the world of politics. Ideology refers to a proper set of beliefs pertaining to the manner in which society can be governed to attain particular goals. Notably, ideology makes it difficult for individuals to respect, understand, and accept each other as they stand on different positions. Most political theorists before Marx reiterated that people chose ideologies with the aim of pursuing self-interests. However, this has been broken in modern times as both the rich and the poor go both ways. For instance, industrialists would take right, and technology billionaires would take left. Similarly, the rural poor would take right and the urban poor will take left. Blank-slate theories embraced by scientists in the 20th century indicate that most people would always take in ideologies from their parents or from programs watched on television. The studies of the twins indicated that genes are vital in contributing to the way individuals develop their personality. One can understand the origin of ideology effectively through taking a developmental perspective that starts with genes and ends with adult voting for a particular presidential candidate.
This essay analyzes Mitt Romney’s plan about cutting taxes for American millionaires in line with the key points made by John Haidt.
Mitt Romney’s plan of introducing tax cuts for American millionaires was a key political ideology he upheld. In line with Haidt’s definition of ideology, Mitt Romney believed that a cut on the taxes on millionaires in America would lead to the achievement of the required goals among Americans (Haidt 73). Romney’s ideology was geared toward ensuring that millionaires would pay less tax as this would encourage them invest more for the better of the American society. Additionally, he believed that tax cuts would help to develop the entire American economy as most of these millionaires plough back their revenues into investments. Mitt Romney’s ideology of cutting taxes for American millionaires for the prosperity of the economy could have emanated from his vast experience in the corporate world and the world of economics. He had a strong belief that things would automatically work out for the American economy and the entire society in cases where taxes were cut for the rich individuals in America. He reiterated the view that high taxes for millionaires in America negated the entire spirit of development and the implementation of the economic development goals in America. Therefore, Romney launched this ideology with the aim of gaining the favor of millionaires in America and to ensure that he claims the presidency. This could have worked to some extent as some American millionaires promoted his campaigns.
It is worth noting that Mitt Romney’s tax cuts for American millionaires did not reflect a progressive tax system that is desirable all over the globe. With his tax cuts, most middle class individuals would have been forced to pay higher taxes compared to those who make more incomes and revenues in the American society. That does not represent the principle of paying one’s fair share. Haidt’s model reiterates that a fair society built on the required levels of ideology would observe issues such as progressive taxation. Mitt Romney did not uphold the policy of progressive taxation when individuals are supposed to pay more in cases where they have more incomes. It is a key belief that most voters especially those in the middle class and the poor did not vote in Mitt Romney because of this ideology that was definitely going to affect their lives. This ideology did not reflect the components that make up a fair and a better society. Most middle class individuals perceived this ideology as unfair and thus, most of them could have decided to cast their votes for President Obama whom they believed had their best interests at heart. Therefore, Mitt Romney was not fair and did not put into consideration all individuals living in the American society. He only put into consideration the interests of the already rich millionaires in the American society.
Haidt’s model also indicates that the nation has made tremendous steps in trying to eliminate issues such as class differences in society (Haidt72). Mitt Romney’s ideology of promoting tax cuts for millionaires in America only perpetuates these differences, which everyone wants to forget about. America does not want to live as a country divided along major lines such as class differences. America wants to progress as one nation with a common origin and dream. Most voters could have resolved to elect President Obama instead of Mitt Romney because of the perpetuation of class difference ideologies. Most American voters always have a reason for voting for a particular candidate and most of them could may be not have selected Romney because of the belief that he may perpetuate the undesirable class differences through this kind of tax ideology. Most Americans were probably looking forward to a presidential candidate with progressive ideologies that would help alleviate class differences instead of widening them through reducing taxes for millionaires within society. This is a reflection of non-commitment of the presidential candidate to the interests of all Americans. Therefore, most voters were careful enough to avert a scenario whereby America would be divided more along class differences. They all voted based on fairness and desire for a reasonable tax system that would cater for everyone.
In conclusion, the ideology adopted by a particular political candidate plays a significant role in determining whether voters would vote for him or not. It is vital that candidates uphold the required moral standards as asserted by the Haidt’s model on moral values. Moreover, presidential candidates must move toward eliminating any difference they discover to exist within the country. They should move on with progressive ideologies that aim at benefitting everyone in society. For instance, Mitt Romney’s tax cut for millionaires was not a moral ideology because it aimed at serving the interests of the already rich millionaires in society. It did not put into consideration the interest of other individuals in society such as citizens from the middle class. This could have significantly determined the voting views and decisions among most Americans as they decided to give President Obama four years more.
Related Free Politics Essays
- Scotland Tourism Reform
- Death Penalty Analysis
- Corporate Governance and Ethics
- Military Conduct
- Strengths and Weaknesses of the UN as a Diplomatic Actor in Todays World
- United Nation Peace Keeping
- Winston S Churchill’s Speech
- Political Advertisements
- Democracy Now Analysis
- Annotated Bibliographies on US-Venezuela Relation