The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s David Haynes has decided after the election that our politics are too fractious:

Fresh off the election, one of my Twitterati sent me this greeting:

@DavidDHaynes nice try to knock off Walker, again, you socialist a——. Hahahaha.

I thank him for his comments. But a small correction: I’m actually a lot closer to an Eisenhower Republican than I am to a socialist. And I’ll leave it to my friends and co-workers to decide whether I’m an a——.

Passions run hot during any campaign, but messages such as that didn’t used to be so common. They are now. And they’re just as likely to come from liberals as conservatives. But if people understood that both sides of the political divide are driven by values and then tried to find ways to accommodate those disparate values, could we change the tune being played in Madison and Washington, D.C.?

Jonathan Haidt believes we could. He’s a social psychologist who teaches ethical leadership at the Stern School of Business at New York University and the author of “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.”

Before I get to his ideas, though, it’s important to understand the polarization that grips Wisconsin. I see the anecdotal evidence every day washing up in my in-box, of course, but the Journal Sentinel’s Craig Gilbert proved it. In a terrific reporting project earlier this year, Gilbert found that the Milwaukee area is arguably the most polarized metro area in the nation. I don’t doubt it for one moment.

This state is deeply divided over voter ID, abortion, the minimum wage, the role of government, immigration, guns. Urban vs. rural. Black vs. white. Rich vs. poor. Men vs. women. Young vs. old. Our politics is divided by education and perceptions of where the country is headed, by whether we go to church on Sunday and even whether we’re married or not.

In an exit poll on Tuesday, voters were asked: “Compared to four years ago, is the job situation in your area better today, worse today or about the same?”

Sixty-six percent of voters for Republican Gov. Scott Walker said it was “better today” compared with only 15% of voters for Democratic candidate Mary Burke. And that’s on a question that has a quantifiable answer.

We simply do not agree. But the question I’ve been asking is this: Do we have to be so disagreeable about it?

Haidt doesn’t believe that we do. But he says for that to happen, we need to take time out from demonizing one another to try to understand one another.

He argues that we can learn from our political foes. As a liberal, he has disappointed his brethren by asserting that the reason Republicans win elections has a lot to with their understanding of “moral psychology,” which Democrats either don’t get or don’t try to get. Conservatives, Haidt writes, have a broader set of moral tastes and thus more ways to reach the public.

His research found that there are certain core ideas upon which all cultures base their moral foundations: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. All Americans are moved by these ideas, but depending on your spot on the political spectrum, you are moved by some more than others.

Liberals care more, Haidt found. Conservatives are more moved by fairness, by the idea that people get what they deserve. Both value liberty. But conservatives value the other three moral foundations more than liberals and thus have a bigger vocabulary to draw on when they discuss them. Conservatives can offer a wider selection of food for thought at the ideas cafeteria.

That’s why it’s wrong to assume that Republican politicians somehow dupe voters into casting ballots against their own economic self-interest, which was the thesis of the 2004 book by Thomas Frank “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Haidt writes that “rural and working-class voters were in fact voting for their moral interests.”

Both sides are driven by their values. “Everyone cares about fairness, but there are two major kinds,” he writes. “On the left, fairness often implies equality, but on the right it means proportionality — people should be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, even if that guarantees unequal outcomes.”

Conservatives can learn from liberals as well — recognizing the effect of special interests on politics and government might be one example.

“The first step we all need to take is to understand that the other side is not crazy, they are not holding their positions because they’ve been bribed, because they are racist or whatever evil motive you want to attribute,” Haidt told talk show host Bill Moyers earlier this year.

Haidt is part of a group of academics that founded Civil Politics, a nonprofit that hopes to educate the public about research on improving relations across divisions. I poked around the site recently and found ideas for how individuals can improve political discussion and insights into the pressure points for change (hint: blue state Republicans might be one).

But I wonder if Haidt’s ideas are practical. The value of the spoils that go to the victor in winner-take-all politics makes compromise and civil discourse very difficult. And unlikely. In the Moyers interview, Haidt pointed out that those Eisenhower Republicans and Stevenson Democrats were all members of the Greatest Generation who were bound together against common enemies: the Great Depression and fascism. Their children, the baby boomers, cut their eye teeth on conflict — whether their country was evil or not. They grew up differently.

Politicians prey on divisions and exploit them; the hands of neither side are clean. Think of how liberals score points when Medicare reform is raised. Or how conservatives pounce whenever a liberal talks about gun control. The media (that includes me) often feeds partisan appetites by focusing on extremes. And the media is fractured: Voters have dozens of outlets for their opinions on talk radio, social media, newspapers and websites. More channels mean more division into like-minded enclaves. We’ve even self-sorted ourselves into neighborhoods where we all agree with one another. And I continue to think that a languid economy has left us all in a surly mood.

We certainly need to know and understand our fellow citizens better, and legislators of every stripe need to get to know one another. That once happened. It happens far less often now, and that’s too bad, because out of knowing can come understanding, and out of understanding can spring compromise and progress.

This prompted George Mitchell to reply:

During the 2011 hysteria in Madison over Act 10 I sent an email to Journal Sentinel Managing Editor George Stanley.  I observed to Stanley (and others) that opponents of Governor Scott Walker hurt their cause by resorting to thuggish behavior (death threats, nails in driveways, obscene graffiti, comparisons of Walker to Hitler, etc.).Stanley responded that “both sides” were guilty.  When I asked, “Are you suggesting that the behavior of Walker supporters is comparable to that of his opponents?”  Stanley responded, in part, “I prefer honesty to bulls—.”  After I sought clarification of that comment, he wrote, “…[Y]ou’re just full of s—, that’s all I’m saying.”

Stanley wasn’t finished.  For good measure, he recommended I consider “turning honest…I like to think that every soul can be saved.” …

There is much irony in such a theme being advanced by a leading editor at the Journal Sentinel. Apart from Stanley’s decidedly uncivil exchange with me, has Haynes not read some of the caustic emails Stanley sent this year to readers who objected to the paper’s John Doe coverage?

In light of its recent track record, the Journal Sentinel surely should think long and hard before casting aspersions about a lack of “civility.”  Indeed, the paper itself has contributed to the divisive climate that Haynes decries.

Nothing illustrates this better than the paper’s four-year stretch of reporting on John Doe investigations involving Governor Walker. During that time the paper has trashed many principles of journalistic fairness.

For example, in the early years of the John Doe Journal Sentinel reporting relied heavily on sources who transmitted illegally leaked information.  Stories cast many individuals in a negative light, including people who were legally prohibited from comment.  The people portrayed unfavorably in the Journal Sentinel didn’t know who had spread negative information to the paper.  For legal and practical reasons, they could not effectively respond. Consequently, readers received a sliver of information — the opposite of transparency and balance (or journalistic “civility”).

The paper’s stream of damaging innuendo was a key ingredient of the decidedly uncivil stew that contaminated the recall election campaign that Walker faced in 2012.  Relying on Journal Sentinel coverage, Walker opponent Tom Barrett urged the Governor to “come clean.”  Following Walker’s recall election victory, Democratic Party Chair Mike Tate predicted that because of the John Doe Walker would see the “inside of a jail.”

Was there an overriding public purpose that justified setting aside the traditional journalistic principles of transparency, balance, and fairness? None whatsoever. To the contrary, relying on the unlawful release of selective information corrupted and eroded concepts central to our justice system.  This was anything but “civil.”

Fast forward to the current phase of the John Doe investigation, one premised on a “criminal theory” that is at direct odds with federal constitutional jurisprudence.  Haynes’ editorial board and Stanley’s newsroom are sympathetic to this theory.  The result? A series of articles and editorials that cast a dark cloud over activity that two judges have found to be legal.  The Journal Sentinel’s reporting and commentary have led several national media outlets to put Governor Scott Walker at the center of a “scandal.”  This dogged Walker throughout his successful re-election campaign.   Yet Haynes now positions himself apart from — and distinctly above — the rancor and divisiveness spawned in part by the Journal Sentinel.

Near the end of the recent campaign Haynes personally fell off the civility wagon.  A week prior to the election, an online media outlet (The Wisconsin Reporter) quoted a former longtime executive at Trek Bicycle Company as claiming Mary Burke had been fired from the firm.  A day later another former Trek executive effectively confirmed this story, thus exposing the media’s failure to examine thoroughly the portion of Burke’s resume central to her campaign.  Haynes responded with a lengthy editorial under the mantra “consider the source.”  Because the executives have conservative political leanings, the paper judged them suspect.  In an attempt to paper over its failure to vet Burke, Haynes and the Journal Sentinel effectively framed the news as a last-minute smear.

Haynes’ essay describes a time when “we [knew] and [understood] our fellow citizens better, and legislators of every stripe [got] to know one another.”  Set aside, for a moment, that this amounts to an airbrushing of actual history in Wisconsin and nationally.  To the extent Haynes is correct about bygone days, he also might have referenced an earlier era in Milwaukee journalism.  For example, I recall well the 1960s and 1970s, when I was a journalism student, a reporter, and later an official in state government.  The Milwaukee Journal of that period, led by editors such as the late Dick Leonard, was a model for the kind of discourse Haynes advocates.  Leonard would not have resorted to the kind of epithets that Stanley now throws around.

I have met neither Haynes nor Stanley. I therefore can’t say if Haynes is an a——. I heard Stanley hang up on Charlie Sykes on the air, which was dumb for Stanley to do, so perhaps Stanley is an a——. Remember this: Anyone whose title includes the word “editor” is by design an a——. (Me too, you ask? Especially me.) And as someone who has lost his temper with members of my audience (something I’m not proud of doing), I think someone above Stanley should tell him that he needs to not express his inner a—— with his employers — that is, Journal Sentinel readers — or find another workplace in which to be an a——.

As for the John Doe: It apparently is illegal to leak information from an investigation, though I don’t believe it is illegal for the Journal Sentinel to print said information. The Journal Sentinel didn’t do anything to vet the accuracy of their information, and spent not a second questioning the motives of their leakers, which is an odd lack of cynicism from what should be a cynical organization. Conversely, the Journal Sentinel decided the last-week revelations about Burke’s role, or lack thereof, at Trek Bicycle had to be politically motivated, without finding out if they were correct. The Journal Sentinel also couldn’t be bothered to investigate why Democratic Gov. James Doyle extended Indian tribal gaming compacts to perpetuity, something that, regardless of the politics involved, failed Negotiations 101.

Haidt certainly has the most interesting insight in these two pieces about “moral interest.” One of the worst features of today’s liberals is their condescension, seen last week in all those Wisconsin Democrats who believe that voters for Republicans are stupid. Since voting began people have wanted to have their opinions reflected in their elected officials. That may be why a majority of voters were willing to give Walker a pass for not reaching his 250,000-jobs goal. And maybe for 52 to 53 percent of Wisconsin voters for the past four years, Walker represents their moral views better than Tom Barrett or Mary Burke did.

Neither piece really explores the root cause of all of this. The root cause of political nastiness is the excessively high stakes in politics today. Statewide elected officials and members of Congress make salaries far higher than the average Wisconsinite, and even state legislators make more money by themselves than the median family. When was the last time you saw a state- or federal-level politician exit office poorer than when he or she got elected? There is also serious money to be made as a lobbyist or consultant. And of course the media benefits by having something to report, along with money for campaign advertising.

More importantly, politicians at every level, regardless of party label or lack thereof, have too much power over our lives. Haynes’ observation about winner-take-all politics didn’t go far enough; it’s actually zero-sum politics — one side wins, therefore the other side loses. Part of this is, to be candid, because of us — for instance, a homeowner complaining to his or her alderman about the condition of the house across the street — and our inability or disinterest in dealing with problems ourselves. The media is embedded into government because media people cover government. Too many reporters sit at meetings and report on what a city council or school board does without asking whether whatever happened really needed to happen.

Haynes’ observation about the difference between his parents’ generation and his (and those that follow) demonstrate how the civility genie will never be put back in the bottle. For one thing, the Journal Sentinel is the only print newspaper in Milwaukee and the largest in Wisconsin, so no more can liberals write (or complain) to the Journal and conservatives do the same to the Sentinel. It’s sort of a paradox that thanks to social media opinions are easier than ever to express, and yet people today are more prickly and quicker to take offense to, well, anything, ranging from an opinion with which they disagree to being stuck in a line or having an unsatisfactory customer service experience.

What would make people become more civil to each other? Nothing that is likely to happen.