Okay, I’m just being a dick. Seriously though, TBOGG links to this interesting article about the psychological factors behind political conservatism :
- Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
- Fear and aggression
- Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
- Uncertainty avoidance
- Need for cognitive closure
- Terror management
“From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination,” the researchers wrote in an article, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” recently published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin.
. . .
Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material – which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups – yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.
The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought – the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.
The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.
Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism – an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).
Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way.
I’d like to see a similar survey done for liberal values as well. In the meantime, I’m sure this will just add fuel to the fire regarding conservative complaints over the liberal bias on college campuses. It’s too bad really, because these guys make some interesting points.
Conservative adherence to tradition really is a half-assed attempt to cling to an idealized vision of the “good old days” that never existed in the first place. For every good thing about the past (taxing the hell out of the rich, a working social safety net, a general sense of pride and responsibility) there’s something even worse (rampant sexism and racism, xenophobia, lower life expectancy). In short, Conservatives don’t want to return us to the real past, but only a past that they’ve invented.
Conservatives want all of the things about the past that will benefit them directly (less regulation over industry) but none of the stuff that would prevent them from making boatloads of money (general sense of community and civic pride). It’s hard to imagine the sterotypical 50′s era businessman laying off a factory full of workers so he can move the company overseas to save money on workers salaries and paying any taxes.
For all their talk about “traditional values” the one I don’t ever hear espoused by conservatives is an obligation towards the interests of the community over the generation of profits. These days, the accumulation of wealth is the most important value, more important than civic pride, family values, or patriotism. Back in “the day”, screwing over people by doing anything that’s legally possible to make money was virtually unthinkable. These days, it’s just par for the course.