After the Election, Fear Is Our Only Chance at Unity THE voters have spoken. So, what now? How will our still divided government deal with our mounting threats and challenges? Shared fear can help. A Bedouin proverb says, "Me against my brother, my brothers and me against my cousins, then my cousins and me against strangers." Human beings are pretty good at uniting to fight at whatever level is most important at a given moment. This is why every story about a team of warriors or superheroes features an internal rivalry, but all hatchets are buried just before the climactic final battle in which the team vanquishes the external enemy. A national election focuses our attention on a single level of competition - political party versus political party. Let's call that "me and my brother against our cousin." But after that, it's time for our national team to come together to fight the many threats and enemies that confront us. Let's unite with our cousins to fight the stranger! Except that we didn't do it four years ago, when things looked even grimmer, and there's no sign that we're going to do it now. Since the 1990s we've been stuck at one level - party versus party. Partisanship is not a bad thing. We need multiple teams to develop competing visions for voters to choose among. But when so many of our leaders can't even occasionally place national interest before party interest, we've crossed over into hyperpartisanship. And that's a very bad thing, because it amplifies other problems like the debt crisis, the absence of a rational immigration policy and our aging infrastructure. We the people bear some of the blame for what's happened in Congress, for we, too, have become more angrily partisan. So what can we do to pull ourselves up to that higher level? How can we unite not just with our brothers and sisters, but with our cousins? One way is to focus on common threats, rather than on common ground, just as the Bedouin proverb suggests. It's only the threat of the stranger that brings the extended family together. A physical attack by outsiders - like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 - binds people together like nothing else. But what if there is no such attack? Can trade competition with China do it? What about a threat we created ourselves? Well, that depends. A basic principle of moral psychology is that "morality binds and blinds." In many pre-agricultural societies, groups achieved trust and unity by circling around sacred objects. In modern societies, much larger groups bind themselves together by treating certain books, flags, leaders or ideals as sacred and by symbolically circling around them. But if your team circles too fast, you lose the ability to see clearly or think for yourself. You go blind to evidence that contradicts your group's moral consensus, and you become enraged at teammates who suggest that the other side is not entirely bad (as New Jersey's governor, Chris Christie, is now finding out). Unlike a foreign attack, a problem that threatens only one side's sacred values can therefore divide us, rather than unite us. It's as though a giant asteroid is headed for the Earth. One side sees it coming and screams, but the louder it screams, the more stubbornly the other side covers its ears and averts its eyes. Here are a few of the asteroids hurtling toward us, which half of us can already see with our naked eyes: Rising temperatures. The left has been raising the alarm about global warming since the 1990s. It's a threat to the environment and to poor people around the world - sacred values for liberals - but the right largely denies the scientific consensus, in part because many of the remedies would require limits on industry and intervention into markets (which would violate sacred values for some conservatives). Hurricane Sandy gave us a small taste of what's likely to happen more frequently. Jonathan Haidt, a professor of business ethics at the New York University Stern School of Business, is the author, most recently, of "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion."