I generally liked Joshua Greene's Moral Tribes. He is one of those characters I want to like, even when he causes me to sigh. He is a liberal who clearly tries to understand conservatives, and sometimes gets it. His political leaning were clear even in the introduction, where he constructs an extended metaphor on northerly, easterly, southerly, and westerly tribes, with the northerly being more competitive/capitalist and the southerly being more redistributive. He fails to notice that in western societies, the capitalist tribes are already nearly as redistributive as the southerly, the remaining questions not being either-or but increase-decrease our redistribution. His example of the opinions of the Northern Herders, as he calls them, is not merely Ron Paul in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, but people shouting out from the crowd in that interview. He gives an example of misrepresentation and deception in the run-up to the ACA of the opponent's claim of Death Panels (which is actually not entirely false), but allows that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor also turned out to be deceptive. Well, thanks. I wish you had done better, though Joshua. there was more material to work with there.
So even though he didn't acknowledge his own leanings until a fair bit later, I kinda guessed already.
When I hit this point in most books, I no longer push on without checking. Life is too short. To the index! The index actually turned out to be encouraging. In particular, his comments about Jonathan Haidt, who I like, were approving and seemed to be reciprocated. His last chapter is a comparison with Haidt's ideas and why he likes his better. That's fair. He writes a good deal about the ubiquity of bias; Marx, Rousseau, and communism get no mention; Aristotle comes in big in the end. So I tried again. I put the book down a few times, shaking my head, but I thought there was value anyway. He tries really hard to be even-handed to the people he disagrees with, and sometimes even succeeds. Usually not, but I've seen worse (far worse), and I haven't seen many conservatives make as much effort on their side to do the same.
What he arrives at is something he calls Deep Pragmatism. My summary version of this would be Utilitarianism Informed By Virtue Ethics. Not attractive to me as a rule for living, but not a bad way to run a government.