Not long after the Boston Marathon bombing culprits were caught or killed, The New York Times ran a feature article about the brothers with the title "Far From War-Torn Homeland, Trying to Fit in" which portrayed them in a rather sympathetic light. The article seeks to trigger the Care foundation in the reader. Why would a liberal newspaper do this? Because the Care foundation has become so dominant in liberal minds that they have almost no other options. It has become their default response to moral issues.
So, try a little experiment, allow yourself to accept the NYT slant on this and look at that photo with your perceptions affected by Care and feel your elephant lean towards him: do you see a slightly baby-faced young man looking hounded and vulnerable, his eyes suggesting sadness?
Now, try taking a different emotional view. This young man is steeped in Jihadist ideas and ambitions. He fully supports the killing of non-believers in accordance with his prophet's teachings and example; he feels hatred towards the liberals he sees as he walks around Boston because however much kindness they may show towards him they are in the last analysis non-believers and as his prophet said, "O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends" (Koran 5:54); "Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another" (Koran 48:25). Now look at the picture. Has your perception changed slightly? Do you now see hatred in his eyes instead of sadness? This is a small change but our attitudes are formed and maintained by thousands of tiny things like this. These tiny psychological events are like the microscopic level of the psychological and cultural worlds we inhabit, they are like the small drops of water that form the rivulets up in the hills which then form the streams and brooks, then the raging rivers below. When it comes to unlocking the liberal mind, even the smallest things, acting like a conspiracy of ants, can still hold them prisoner.
The Liberal Triad restricts the liberal's range of possible moral responses to Care, Fairness, Non-oppression. So this is why we get these absurd pronouncements from them. Remember that the moral foundations are emotional/intuitive, they create the rapid reflexive attitude which the rational mind then attempts to justify. This has proven to be very difficult in the context of the Boston bombings because a lot of the usual props are missing or point in the opposite direction (e.g. the race of the perpetrators is Caucasian rather than Arab or Asian; the target was a liberal sporting event not a bank, military, or government entity). The rationalisations offered have therefore sounded particularly desperate and inept. "We should have done more to make these immigrants feel more welcome." "They felt alienated and excluded." And that justifies killing innocent people? How low can these liberals sink?
But of course in their own eyes they are being scrupulously fair and compassionate and could never be accused of making "oppressive" demands on anyone, least of all a poor, misunderstood jihadist.
This also shows again the reflexive way that liberals stand up for out-groups in accordance with the Liberal Template. Their thinking is locked into this framework and they cannot think outside of it. We've all heard the expression "thinking outside the box". Well, liberals cannot think outside of their box.
Given the welcome, the financial support and the educational provision lavished on the Tzarnaev family (estimates put the welfare bill alone at $100,000), the citizens of Boston, and America more generally, should not be beating themselves up over whether they did enough to "include" the Tzarnaev family, what they should really be doing is looking at how they have been Betrayed. Betrayed not just by the bombers but also by the media which continues to evade the issues and whitewash events.
To focus on this Betrayal might trigger this moral foundation in many more people and lead to a widespread revulsion at the attitudes of the bombers and their cheerleaders; and, a greater awareness of the conflict between the generosity of the in-group (America) and the unyielding hostility of the out-group (Islam). This is also where liberals are extremely weak and it would create opportunities and gains for conservatives.