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.

[ . . . ]

The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

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.

[ . . . ]

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, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

[ . . . ]

The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

[ . . . ]

This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

[ . . . ]

Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

[ . . . ]

Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."



whole article. (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml)

Sounds about right to me. Fear and aggression, which are basically a cause and effect, are typical of right-wingers. They're always on the attack because they're terrified of everything that they can't easily pigeonhole into simplistic sound bite ideas. Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity cause them to leap to ridiculous assumptions, becuase they would rather feel right than be right. Uncertainty avoidance ties right into that. They're afraid of not knowing, so they just grab the first thing they see and insist on it. That's why they're still scrambling for excuses for Iraq being a complete failure.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised." That's particularly true with the common conservative running around in the US today. They love those silly, simpleminded soundbites and steriotypes.

This might also answer Ironweed's thread (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88334). They're happy because they ignore reality.

Republicans and conservatives aren't the ones who launched, escaltaed, maintained and defended the Viet Nam war. It was the left and the Democratic party.

In 68' the Democratic covention in Chicago was a nightmare, because anti war protesters had launched a siege of the city which lasted for days. Democrats were accused of having blood on their hands, and were critcized publicly for not siezing upon the oppurtunity to end the war. That's what the fuss was all about, and instead of pulling out, they escalated the conflict dramatically.

Nixon also escalated bombing a few times, and went into Laos and Cambodia, but ultimately brought most of the hostilities to an end. But, he was no conservative. He was the most liberal Republican in history. kissinger was the most instrumental person in the peace talks, and it was he who really knucled down, stuck it out, and hashed out a peace agreement.

So that's one theory disproven.

As for accepting unequality, the Southern democrats were the most racist bunch of Politicians around, many were Klan members, and insitutionalized racism was widely accepted by the majority of them. It took a conservative Democrat (JFK) and his brother to really start putting the squeeze on southern racists, and prosecute without mercy those who were suspected of lynchings and other crimes.


Resistance to change isn't conservative. We have lots of ideas, for instance, privatizing the failed, bankrupt Ponzii scheme called social security. Democrats won't have any of it, and spent millions scaring seniors and others from even discussing the issue.

Conservatives also want to overhaul our lousy and complicated tax system, which could eliminate the need for the IRS all together, but lefties won't have that either. They salivate at the thought of having all of that money rolling in, as long as too much isn't put into defense spending.

As for the fear and agression issue, liberals have consistently been the louder, more in your face and radical group. The extreme left was going crazy in the 60's, and groups like the weather underground were engaging in domestic terrorism regularly. The American communist party was a huge problem, and it was two communists who stole the plans to the atomic bomb and passed it on the the Soviets.

The left tries to scare everyone from seniors to college students during every election cycle to gain votes. They claim that conservatives want grandma eating dog food and women in the back alley with coat hangers.

I could continue, but there's no need. Anyone who's been around for a while can see that this so called "study" is another partisan attack against the right, and doesn't hold a drop of water under a little scrutiny. It's meaningless and will change nothing whatsoever, so it was probably a huge waste of someones' research money.

Anyone could just as easily do a study on leftists and come up with similiar, if not worse conclusions.

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.

:rolleyes: The authors have no idea what they're talking about, if they equate Reagan to Hitler and Mussolini. It is akin to saying:


Disparate liberals embrace change mindlessly and make claims about inequality their actions belie, the authors said. Pol Pot , Josef Stalin, and former President Bill Clinton were individuals, but all were left-wing liberals because they preached a pie in the sky idealized future where any actions in the present, no matter how underhanded or evil, were condoned to achieve this future.


And I'm no fan of Reagan, personally. But neither of the above statements are correct. Both are irresponsible grandstanding. And gussying it up as research is simply a shell game for the author's of the study to attempt to hide their own biases. Which they only do very clumsily.

If anyone wants to know how Conservatives actually fared under the Nazi regime, you should read Diary Of A Man In Despair (http://www.johnsandoe.com/review_2277.htm), by Friedrich Reck-Malleczewen.


What makes these diaries so interesting - as Norman Stone points out in his introduction to the Duckworth edition - is the perspective of the author: born into the Prussian aristocracy, an intellectual, living in Bavaria, a Protestant with many Catholic friends, a passionate conservative - and a fierce opponent of the Nazis and everything they stood for.

Because we know the end for Reck-Malleczewen was a Genickschuss - a shot in the neck - in Dachau in early 1945, it is impossible not to feel sad that this clear-sighted and courageous individual should have perished as so many others did. On the other hand, it is encouraging to read evidence that there were people who never doubted what was really going on, who lamented the 'psychosis' that had overtaken those sections of the German population whose adoration of the Führer had led them, at the very least, to turn a blind eye to the crimes that were committed.

I'm getting tired of the American fixation to reduce all politics to a "conservative vs liberal" pissing match by people who have never attempted to understand other viewpoints in an open manner. The moment someone says that liberals are commies and conservatives are nazis, it's clear they have no clue what they're talking about.

Republicans and conservatives aren't the ones who launched, escaltaed, maintained and defended the Viet Nam war. It was the left and the Democratic party.

[ . . . ]

As for the fear and agression issue, liberals have consistently been the louder, more in your face and radical group. The extreme left was going crazy in the 60's


So the left was responsible for the war, and for the anti-war protests?


Republicans and conservatives aren't the ones who launched, escaltaed, maintained and defended the Viet Nam war. It was the left and the Democratic party.


No. The Republicans had the same outlook then as they do now with Iraq. They insisted that anyone who opposed it was a leftist who hates America. Nothing's changed.


As for accepting unequality, the Southern democrats were the most racist bunch of Politicians around, many were Klan members, and insitutionalized racism was widely accepted by the majority of them. It took a conservative Democrat (JFK) and his brother to really start putting the squeeze on southern racists, and prosecute without mercy those who were suspected of lynchings and other crimes.


Southern Democrats, or Dixiecrats, were conservative. You're the first person I've ever seen trying to pass JFK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fitzgerald_Kennedy) off as a conservative. That's actually the most bizarre thing I've seen in a while. He's the poster boy of American liberalism.


In 68' the Democratic covention in Chicago was a nightmare, because anti war protesters had launched a siege of the city which lasted for days. Democrats were accused of having blood on their hands, and were critcized publicly for not siezing upon the oppurtunity to end the war.


Criticized by whom? By the liberals in the anti-war movement.


Resistance to change isn't conservative. We have lots of ideas, for instance, privatizing the failed, bankrupt Ponzii scheme called social security. Democrats won't have any of it, and spent millions scaring seniors and others from even discussing the issue.

Conservatives also want to overhaul our lousy and complicated tax system, which could eliminate the need for the IRS all together, but lefties won't have that either. They salivate at the thought of having all of that money rolling in, as long as too much isn't put into defense spending.


That's reactionary policy. You guys aren't proposing anything new, but going back to something from the old day.


As for the fear and agression issue, liberals have consistently been the louder, more in your face and radical group. The extreme left was going crazy in the 60's, and groups like the weather underground were engaging in domestic terrorism regularly. The American communist party was a huge problem, and it was two communists who stole the plans to the atomic bomb and passed it on the the Soviets.


In your face like Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, TownHall, NewsMax, Fox?


The left tries to scare everyone from seniors to college students during every election cycle to gain votes. They claim that conservatives want grandma eating dog food and women in the back alley with coat hangers.


Unlike claiming that if you vote for Kerry, terrorists will kill you?

Come on. Trying to claim that Southern Democrats of the 50's and 60's were liberal, or that JFK was conservative, or that the Democrats were in favor of the VietNam war is just trying too hard to make a new reality.

I'm getting tired of the American fixation to reduce all politics to a "conservative vs liberal" pissing match by people who have never attempted to understand other viewpoints in an open manner. The moment someone says that liberals are commies and conservatives are nazis, it's clear they have no clue what they're talking about.

This was just a reply to the happy-happy joy-joy-conservatives-on-lithium thread posted yesterday.

This was just a reply to the happy-happy joy-joy-conservatives-on-lithium thread posted yesterday.

Well, I have doubts about all polls. Seen to many conservatives go on a DOOM AND GLOOM binge about America turning into Sodom and Gomorrah. How happy one is also means nothing about the correctness of one's ideas.

Southern Democrats, or Dixiecrats, were conservative. You're the first person I've ever seen trying to pass JFK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fitzgerald_Kennedy) off as a conservative. That's actually the most bizarre thing I've seen in a while. He's the poster boy of American liberalism.


While considered a liberal in his day, Kennedy would be considered a right wing conservative today. What accomplishments is he most remembered for?

1. Unilaterally blockading Cuba and facing down the USSR. No attempt at a diplomatic solution, no attempt to build a coalition, no attempt to obtain France's approval. He just did it.
2. Massive tax cuts. Have you ever heard his speech on tax cuts? He sounds like Reagan.

And what tragedy is he remembered for? Being killed by a communist, who apparently didn't think he was liberal enough. Face it, the liberalism of yesterday is NOT the liberalism of today.

1. Unilaterally blockading Cuba and facing down the USSR. No attempt at a diplomatic solution, no attempt to build a coalition, no attempt to obtain France's approval. He just did it.


He was engaged in diplomacy when the USSR sent missiles. You're wrong. Par for course.

Being killed by a communist, who apparently didn't think he was liberal enough.- But, but, communism tends to be about as anti-liberal as ideologies get :eek7: at least in practice

- But, but, communism tends to be about as anti-liberal as ideologies get :eek7:

Americans are confused about liberalism. :D

Liberalism ≠ Communism

Anyone that claims otherwise does not know jackshit about political ideology and this would include about half of the cons on this board

He was engaged in diplomacy when the USSR sent missiles. You're wrong. Par for course.

Did he behave like a conservative president or like a liberal president by setting up the blockade and staring down the USSR? You have also ignored his stand on taxes. Dare I say "par for the course"? Maybe you could explain how his pro tax relief stand reflects modern liberalism.

Did he behave like a conservative president or like a liberal president by setting up the blockade and staring down the USSR? You have also ignored his stand on taxes. Dare I say "par for the course"? Maybe you could explain how his pro tax relief stand reflects modern liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier

Again, you're dodging. You give me a link to an article about how he wanted to increase spending. That's certainly a liberal stance, but you're not addressing his stance on taxes, and that would doom him in any liberal party primary today, be it democrat or otherwise. In fact, today he would stand a much better chance running as a Republican than as a democrat.

While considered a liberal in his day, Kennedy would be considered a right wing conservative today. What accomplishments is he most remembered for?

1. Unilaterally blockading Cuba and facing down the USSR. No attempt at a diplomatic solution, no attempt to build a coalition, no attempt to obtain France's approval. He just did it.
2. Massive tax cuts. Have you ever heard his speech on tax cuts? He sounds like Reagan.

And what tragedy is he remembered for? Being killed by a communist, who apparently didn't think he was liberal enough. Face it, the liberalism of yesterday is NOT the liberalism of today.

You are equating the invasion of a country that was no threat to the US to the blockade of a country that had nuclear weapons just off shore?
1.No diplomatic solution: They were engaged in a diplomatic solution via the telephone and telegram. Russia wanted a quid pro quo of the US withdrawing Nukes from Turkey, JFK ignored the telegram. The blockade was to stop more nukes from coming in, while diplomatic solutions were looked for. He did not invade, he did not bomb (although General Curtis Le May - now there's a conservative - wanted to Nuke them). Russia blinked first.
2.No coalition: What did he need a coalition for? Who else is going to blockade Cuba other than the US Navy? The Polish fleet?
3. Didn't ask France: On October 21st, ExComm, and President Kennedy decided that a quarantine was the best course of action. The administration called it a quarantine, because the term "blockade" would symbolize war. Then they began the rigorous task of alerting U.S. allies of the White House’s decision. Dean Acheson, the former Secretary of State, was sent to inform Charles De Gaulle, the leader of France. When Acheson offered to show De Gaulle the photographs of the missile sites, the French leader brushed them aside and said, "A great country such as yours does not act without evidence. You may tell your President that France will support him".
http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/


He cut taxes! Wow, only conservatives do that. Annual Growth of Tax Collections by President (1)

President Tax Growth
----------------------
Roosevelt 121.3%
Truman 3.7
Eisenhower 2.4
Kennedy 4.8
L Johnson 6.9
Nixon 0.3
Ford 6.4
Carter 3.0
Reagan 2.4
Bush 0.0

Ford (conservative), taxes went up. Carter (woosey liberal to you) dropped them. Kennedy (your wannabe conservative): taxes went up.
Bush's dad. Well I guess he has to be another liberal republican.
"The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again. And I'll say to them: 'Read my lips -- No. New. Taxes.'"
After Bush won the election, of course he raised taxes. He always knew he was going to have to do it -- it was inevitable. In fact, Bush signed the largest tax increase in history. Nevertheless, millions of Republican voters felt they had been doublecrossed.

He cut taxes! Wow, only conservatives do that.
Ford (conservative), taxes went up. Carter (woosey liberal to you) dropped them. Kennedy (your wannabe conservative): taxes went up.
Bush's dad. Well I guess he has to be another liberal republican.

Apples to oranges, dude. Check your quote and note the word Collections. That's not tax rates, which today's liberals won't reduce. And yes, Bush Sr. IS a liberal Republican. Have I ever stated otherwise? In fact, Bush Jr. is not a real fiscal conservative. Have I disappointed you? Fact is, JFK was more of a fiscal conservative than was Carter, Ford, Bush Sr. and Clinton, none of whom made a serious effort at tax relief. Bush Jr. has cut taxes, but has increased spending, making him a mixed fiscal bag. BTW, what makes you think Ford was a conservative? Seriously, are you simply looking at his party affiliation? That's not a good indicator when it comes to Republicans.

Apples to oranges, dude. Check your quote and note the word Collections. That's not tax rates, which today's liberals won't reduce. And yes, Bush Sr. IS a liberal Republican. Have I ever stated otherwise? In fact, Bush Jr. is not a real fiscal conservative. Have I disappointed you? Fact is, JFK was more of a fiscal conservative than was Carter, Ford, Bush Sr. and Clinton, none of whom made a serious effort at tax relief. Bush Jr. has cut taxes, but has increased spending, making him a mixed fiscal bag. BTW, what makes you think Ford was a conservative? Seriously, are you simply looking at his party affiliation? That's not a good indicator when it comes to Republicans.

Good points, and they're right on. Nixon, Ford, and both Bush's are all liberal republicans; especially Nixon. He ran as a conservative and governed center to left.

JFK was an old school, conservative democrat. He definitely makes the current president look like a lib. For the left to hold him up as a poster boy in line with modern day liberalism is a joke. Thgere's no way he would have been pro abortion or pro radical feminist, and he never would have gone along with cutting defense at every oppurtunity the way modern day liberals love to.

He was a serious anti communist, radical cold warrior (remember the Bay of Pigs?), and would have nuked the Soviets had he been pushed much farther. He was a supply sider, and was a strong supporter of the gold and silver standard. It was Lyndon Johnson who after "promising" that our silver coins and certificates would always be here, turned around and got rid of them in 64'. That one move alone guaranteed perpetual inflation, and JFK probably rolled in his grave when it happened.

Socially, he leaned left on several issues, but his views weren't even close to those of his brothers, and he was politically astute to the point where he didn't want to rock the boat by being too radical.

Fear and aggression, which are basically a cause and effect, are typical of right-wingers. They're always on the attack because they're terrified of everything that they can't easily pigeonhole into simplistic sound bite ideas.
Many pundits have commented on how the Republicans adopted a vicious "tearing others down" approach when they were in the minority, when it might arguably have been an appropriate tactic, but seem unable to shed it even now that they're the majority and it's clearly counterproductive. There has to be an Enemy, whether it's al Qaeda or the Democratic party. As much as they like to lie about being the "party of ideas" their only real idea seems to be to undo every social advance since about 1800 and put anybody who doesn't go along (including anyone with an education or an interest in science) in camps. Seriously, if they spent half as much energy pursuing al Qaeda as they do pursuing liberals the War on Terror would be over.
This might also answer Ironweed's thread (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88334). They're happy because they ignore reality.
That's similar to something I meant to say in the "conservatives are blissed out" thread, but I never got the chance because of all the tantrums they were having when everything didn't go their way. Someone said Republicans are all rich and greedy, but I don't agree. I think most Republicans act and speak as they do out of a sincere (though incorrect) belief that their way is better for everyone, not out of self-interest. I was also kidding when I made my "ignorance is bliss" remark (hence the smiley) but deliberately turning a blind eye to problems is pretty close. Feenix actually came pretty close to the mark when he said that conservatives are happier because they don't see the problems that liberals do, but somehow failed to consider whether the problems are real or at least worth considering. If they are, then all that happiness is based on self-delusion. No soma (http://www.huxley.net/soma/somaquote.html) for me, thanks. I'd rather be a little less happy with my eyes on reality than ecstatic but trapped in fantasy. "Join us, be happy" seems to be part of the narrative they're trying to sell, but I'm not buying it.

I'm getting tired of the American fixation to reduce all politics to a "conservative vs liberal" pissing match by people who have never attempted to understand other viewpoints in an open manner. The moment someone says that liberals are commies and conservatives are nazis, it's clear they have no clue what they're talking about.

Hear hear.

Especially since those two words have been used in such a way to make them pretty much meaningless...

When Nixon, Bush and Bush are liberals, and JFK is a conservative, then liberal and conservative don't mean anything any more.

[quote]Seriously, are you simply looking at his party affiliation? That's not a good indicator when it comes to Republicans.

So Republicans should vote for Democrats if they want a conservative?

[QUOTE=hadit]

So Republicans should vote for Democrats if they want a conservative?

Conservatives should carefully review the actions and positions of each candidate and choose the one that is most advantageous to his agenda instead of lazily checking off GOP. I'm getting very close to the idea that the party system should be abolished.

Conservatives should carefully review the actions and positions of each candidate and choose the one that is most advantageous to his agenda instead of lazily checking off GOP.


It seems like most of them just vote for whomever is being pushed by the pundits. The same people who put Bush in office, and then back into office, are now claiming he's a "liberal". (I think they just use the words "liberal" and "leftist" to discribe anyone they don't like.)

There are conservatives who have been disillusioned with Bush from the start.

There are conservatives who have been disillusioned with Bush from the start.

There's a whole planet who's been disillusioned with Bush from the start. But the people who voted to renominate and reelect him should really be ashamed of themselves. It's not like they didn't have 4 years of people explaining to them, in painful detail, with sources, exactly what was wrong with him.

There are conservatives who have been disillusioned with Bush from the start.
Yeah, and all of a sudden there seem to be a lot more of them than there were before. Where were they before? I seem to remember how a couple of years ago everyone was a Patriots fan, and somehow had always been Patriot fans even though nobody had ever seen them at a Patriots game before and they still had recently-worn Rams jerseys in their closets. Riiiiight. Everyone loves a bandwagon.