|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Crompsin
Would it be funnier if I said it?
No, wait... I can do trackball jokes!
|
Time and again, it is evident that no discussion is possible. Why is that? Isn't this a "POLITICAL DISCUSSION" forum?
My research.... has unearthed this comparatively recent work. I think the crux of it is that "the right" is committed to the defense of the status quo to the point that it evolves into a police state, and when that happens, it crushes "the left", because it is the perceived threat to the status quo that "the left" evolves to deliver, that justifies the move to a repressive, "individual rights reducing", police state.
I think that this orientation motivated such a backlash against dksuddeth's OP, which compared to the burgeoning "penal colony" and "Power Elite" prioritized entrenchment that defines (overwhelms?) the US today, is but a fruit fly when compared to the "800 lbs. gorilla" that is American conservatism in late 2007. Two right oriented political parties and a bunched up "center" that, along with the right dominated parties, are ardent defenders of the "status quo".
Quote:
http://www.wam.umd.edu/%7Ehannahk/reply.pdf
Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 383–393 0033-2909/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.383
Exceptions That Prove the Rule—Using a Theory of Motivated Social
Cognition to Account for Ideological Incongruities and Political
Anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003)
<i>A meta-analysis by J. T. Jost, J. Glaser, A. W. Kruglanski, and F. J. Sulloway (2003) concluded that
political conservatism is partially motivated by the management of uncertainty and threat. In this reply
to J. Greenberg and E. Jonas (2003), conceptual issues are clarified, numerous political anomalies are
explained, and alleged counterexamples are incorporated with a dynamic model that takes into account
differences between “young” and “old” movements. Studies directly pitting the rigidity-of-the-right
hypothesis against the ideological extremity hypothesis demonstrate strong support for the former.
Medium to large effect sizes describe relations between political conservatism and dogmatism and
intolerance of ambiguity; lack of openness to experience; uncertainty avoidance; personal needs for
order, structure, and closure; fear of death; and system threat.</i>
387
Greenberg and Jonas (2003) claimed that Altemeyer’s definition
of right-wing authoritarianism “applies well to people supporting
left-wing communist ideology” (p. 379). However, Altemeyer’s
(1998) own meticulous research program led him to conclude that
in the general population <h3>“‘authoritarianism on the left’ has been
as scarce as hens’ teeth” (p. 71).</h3> They also insisted that “left-wing
ideologies serve these motives [i.e., to reduce fear, anxiety, and
uncertainty] just as well as right-wing ones” (Greenberg & Jonas,
2003, p. 378), but both reason and evidence are very much against
them. Breaking down existing hierarchies is inherently more unsettling
and necessarily raises uncertainty and ambiguity. And the
available evidence, which we highlight again here, strongly supports
the directional rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis as against
nondirectional alternatives such as the ideological extremity hypothesis.
390
....Accounting for Political Anomalies
In our original article (Jost et al., 2003), we argued that political
conservatism is associated with a specific constellation of epistemic
and existential motives pertaining to the management of
uncertainty and threat. In disputing this conclusion, Greenberg and
Jonas underestimated the strength of the available evidence and
generated a list of counterexamples that are readily accountable for
by our framework. They also offered a number of flattering self-
391
characterizations offered by contemporary conservatives to explain
the motivations for their opinions. For example, in elaborating
on their thesis that liberals are just as rigid as conservatives,
they noted that “conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh
and Michael Savage paint liberals as antifreedom advocates
of ‘political correctness’ and ‘big government’” (Greenberg &
Jonas, 2003, p. 377). There are several ironies here. First, Greenberg
and Jonas failed to consider why there are dozens of extreme
right-wing commentators occupying the American radio waves
and virtually no left-wing equivalents. This is at least one naturalistic
measure that suggests that right-wing dogmatism is generally
more prevalent. Second, their reference to the specter of political
correctness (PC) is telling. Has anyone ever defended PC norms
with as much vitriol as they have been attacked? And third, it is
true that conservatives often push for a smaller government (especially
shorter tax codes and less complicated market regulations),
but insofar as smaller is simpler, this is consistent with our
account.....
....Our theory of conservatism as the motivation to preserve the
status quo against various forms of threat and to rationalize inequality
helps to understand not only why conservatives generally
embrace capitalism but also why strong support for capitalism
would entail other, ostensibly unrelated right-wing attitudes. For
example, Sidanius and Pratto (1993) found that in both the United
States and Sweden, pro-capitalist attitudes were associated with
racism and social dominance orientation. Although Greenberg and
Jonas noted that political liberals in Eastern Europe have advocated
capitalist reforms, their account (in terms of the openmindedness
of free market ideology) would be hard-pressed to
explain how seamlessly some pro-capitalist political parties, such
as the FIDESZ party in Hungary, have embraced anti-Semitism,
nationalism, official Christianity, and a host of other traditional
right-wing causes.
We now take it for granted in the United States that political
conservatives tend to be for law and order but not gun control,
against welfare but generous to corporations, protective of cultural
traditions but antagonistic toward contemporary art and music, and
wary of government but eager to weaken the separation of church
and state. They are committed to freedom and individualism but
perennially opposed to extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged
minorities, especially gay men and lesbians and others who
blur traditional boundaries. <h3>There is no obvious political thread
that runs through these diverse positions (or through their liberal
counterparts) and no logical principle that renders them all consistent.
Their cooccurrence may be explained just as well with
psychological theory as with political theory. Conservative opinions
acquire coherence by virtue of the fact that they minimize
uncertainty and threat while pursuing continuity with the past (i.e.,
the status quo) and rationalizing inequality in society.</h3> Basic social,
cognitive, and motivational differences may also explain why
extreme right-wing movements are typically obsessed with purity,
cleanliness, hygiene, structure, and order—things that would otherwise
have little to do with political positions per se—and why
religious fundamentalism is so attractive to right-wing parties and
their followers in just about every nation stretching from North
America to the Middle East.
Permeating the commentary of Greenberg and Jonas (2003) was
the worry that we (Jost et al., 2003) were attaching value and
preference to one end of the psychological—ideological spectrum.
To be clear, we never argued that it is intrinsically good to be
392
tolerant of uncertainty or ambiguity, low on the need for cognitive
closure, or even high in cognitive complexity. In many cases,
including mass politics, “liberal” traits may be liabilities, and
being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low
in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally
valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering
loyalty. Furthermore, ruling large societies may be easier and more
successful to the extent that a leader uses simple and unambiguous
rhetoric, eschews equivocation, and generally acts in a clear and
decisive way. For a variety of psychological reasons, then, rightwing
populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing
populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability. The
psychological appeal of conservatism may add a practical as well
as theoretical justification for our asymmetrical focus on the motives
of right-wing conservatives: At a time when communism and
leftist extremism are disappearing from the planet, right-wing
extremism seems to be on the rise again....
|
|