There was a white paper that came out a few years ago that explains this concept. If anyone is interested, I can probably find it again if I looked hard enough.
Basically what I got out of it is that conservatives tend to place more emphasis on group morality than liberals. Liberals believe more strongly in personal morality than group morality. In other words, conservatives believe that if they belong to a group that has a set of moral codes, morality is bestowed upon them by virtue of identifying with that group and they are relieved of the responsibility of doing so. Liberals take more personal responsibility in determining morality. In other words, they don't just accept something as moral just because the group approves. This is why liberals believe more in social justice than conservatives. That's why conservatives are more prone to believing in religious hocus pocus and are more prone to nationalism, demagoguery, and so forth.
It's been a while since I've read it, but one of the examples I remember was that let's say your neighbor put up a sign that said, "Cable TV is destroying society". You ask the neighbor to explain it and they say the cable is transmitting dangerous electronic waves that are making people sterile. You try to explain to your neighbor that their idea isn't based on any scientific evidence and just isn't true. They ignore you and there is no point in trying to reason with them. Naturally you think your neighbor is fucking crazy and delusional and there is sound basis for this. However, let's say you have another neighbor that puts up a sign that says, "Gay marriage is destroying society." You ask your neighbor to explain it and they say gay marriage is against god's will. You try to explain them the harm to society that this attitude creates, but they ignore you and there is no point in trying to reason with them. You don't think your neighbor is fucking crazy because a lot of other people believe this.
It's easy to see in this example the moral pitfall that conservatives easily fall into, however the article you published demonstrates a moral pitfall that liberals are prone to fall into. Liberals more commonly equate equal outcomes to equal opportunity. So issues like the gender wage gap issue become important because when there is obvious unequal outcomes, there must be unequal opportunity, even though there may be many rational reasons for unequal outcome. Commonly a liberal will reject reason given this belief. Conservatives are more likely to reject the idea of equal outcomes reflecting equal opportunity. The problem is that quite often unequal outcomes do mean unequal opportunity. If you consider the case of disadvantaged minorities, liberals point to unequal outcomes which do actually reflect unequal opportunity. While a conservative will point to some minorities who have "made it" and say, "There's all the evidence I need, minorities are just lazy and don't try hard enough."
I think Obama understands at least some of these concepts. If you listen to him closely, he says things like he doesn't fault rich people for being rich, he just wants them to play on a level playing field with the rest of us. This appeals more to the mind of a conservative.
= new reply since forum marked as read