lurkette

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...politics.shtml

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)

BERKELEY – 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.

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

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.

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, 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' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.

While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.

As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

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.

"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," the researchers wrote.

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.

The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

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.

The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

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

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

-------------------------

Saw this on Fark earlier this week and wondered:

1. whether the conservatives here agree with the characteristics listed here, and
2. what would be similar characteristics of liberals?

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

ninety09

Interesting, but as much as I'd like to agree with it, somehow it sounds a little biased.

Bill O'Rights

Yeah...it <b>is</b> written a bit tilted...however, clean it up a bit (and by that I mean change some of the verbage, not the intent) and I believe that it acurately describes most conservatives that I know.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Pennington

It's a political article from Berkely of all places, of course it's going to be biased.

Anyway, here's some of the conservative responses(Warning: Straw Men Ahead):
---------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...berg072403.asp
July 24, 2003, 12:30 p.m.
They Blinded Me with Science
Dissecting the conservative mind!

ow farts!

I'm sorry. I really wanted to say something incredibly clever about how dumb I think a new study from Berkeley is. I've been sitting here staring at my computer for over an hour trying to come up with some Simpsons quote or fresh joke that captures the gravity warping, oxygen-depriving, heart-palpitating idiocy of this thing. Instead, I feel like a three-year old on his first trip to FAO Schwarz — I keep dashing from one shiny plaything to another, incapable of concentrating on a single object for more than a moment. I feel like I could spend a lifetime peeling this thing like an onion — finding new layers of stupidity, fresh eye-watering spouts of acidic absurdity, all the while keeping in mind that each seemingly intelligent layer is actually paper thin, insubstantial, translucent.

But dangnabit all I can come up with is: Cow Farts!

That's what I kept thinking as I read this summary of a report (Full PDF version here) from a team of Berkeley scientists who've been cloistered away studying the psychological state of homo insipiens, or unthinking man. After scouring the academic literature — and no doubt laying their calipers to the craniums of whatever conservatives they could manage to tranquilize and tag (picture a squirrelly YAFer trying to break out of his restraints on a metal slab somewhere in the psych annex at Berkeley) — these scientists have concluded that the psychological factors which contribute to political conservatism are:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management

But first, what is it about this that makes me think of bovine flatulence? Well, everything. Scientists spend millions of taxpayer dollars studying the methane which comes out of the academic end of heifers, reportedly because such gaseous discharge contributes to global warming. Whatever their reasons, they think it's important work. They either don't mind that their research stinks — literally — or they think all of their efforts are worth the money poured into them. And while words like gassy, insubstantial, and malodorous certainly apply to the Berkeley study, there are two chief differences between the study of cow flatulence and this study of conservative psychology. First, the cow-scientists can claim that there's a legitimate purpose to their pursuits. Overblown or not, global warming is something scientists should study. Secondly, while the earth-sciences folks are primarily concerned with what rises up and away from the back end of a bull, these bozos at Berkeley are 100 percent committed to studying and disseminating what plunks to the ground when it leaves the same anatomical disembarkation area.

ME KONSERVATIVE, YOU MUCH SMART
I know, I know, some who look positively on this study might say I'm just proving the researchers' conclusions. After all, the scientists in question performed "ten meta-analytic calculations" to come to their conclusions while conservatives like me spend most of the day opening and closing the refrigerator door applauding when the happy-fun light magically turns on. Moreover, we conservatives need "cognitive closure" and we are "intolerant of ambiguity." When something complicated or unexpected happens we leap about the room shrieking like a chimp who didn't know the jack in the box would pop out or Alec Baldwin after learning that you shouldn't put your car keys in an electrical socket.

I'm sorry, but not since Professor Peter Singer explained that we should give as good as we get from dogs who hump our legs, have I been so exasperated with the way some academics think they can use their head for a colonoscopy and then crab-walk around expecting all the world to think their new hats make them look smart. And, as with Singer's efforts to get pet stores to carry Viagra, I have a very hard time taking this seriously and I'm not sure taking it seriously helps anybody. But I just know that if I don't address the "substance" of this study, I will hear from numerous silly liberals who think I'm afraid to deal with the ambiguity and that my scorn is just another attempt at "terror management." So, let me splash some cold water on my face and shake off the giggles.

LOOKING FOR THE CAR KEYS
Okay. <snort> <chortle> Okay. <Giggle> I can do this.

Okay, first of all, the actual study is fractionally less outright stoopid than the summary released to the media. Still, the summary is what 99 percent of the media will read and it contains what the authors presumably want the public to know about their work. Here's the first problem: When asked that this might be seen as a "partisan exercise," Dr. Jack Glaser explained that they studied conservatism simply because there have been a great deal of studies on conservatives but not on liberals. Now, putting aside the fact that the authors included in their research numerous speeches by conservatives and judicial opinions by conservatives and the last time I checked there was no shortage of liberal speeches and liberal judicial opinions, I take them at their word that there have been few psychological studies of liberalism and many of conservatism.

But perhaps, just perhaps, this fact illuminates a certain bias in the profession. Look at it this way. I have no doubt there is no shortage of psychological studies of murderers, rapists, people who think they're Napoleon, and people who think Carrot Top is funny. But I suspect there's very little data on people who like to have cereal and orange juice in the morning. Why? Because the former category of people are considered abnormal. People who eat cereal and juice in the morning aren't particularly interesting because they aren't seen as particularly different. So it is with conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are strange creatures. They have strange views. They defend cruelty and inequality while liberals, well, they're baseline. They're like, well, me. How else to explain the vast stockpile of research on conservatives and the comparative dearth of data on liberals? And if that is part of the equation, then maybe the data is skewed because researchers found what they wanted to find. They were only looking for their car keys where the light is good.

The idea that the psychiatric-therapeutic establishment is politically biased is hardly new. In 1964, 1,189 psychiatrists asserted that even though they'd never met Barry Goldwater, never mind diagnosed him, he was still so mentally unstable and paranoid that in their scientific opinion he could not be trusted with the power of the presidency. So outrageous was this "petition" of psychiatrists launched by Fact magazine, that Goldwater actually won a libel suit, which is almost impossible for a politician.

In more recent times, we've seen a sharp rise in what I would call the left's medicalization of dissent. Today, on college campuses, liberal and left-wing students who burn newspapers, shout down opponents, accuse conservatives of racism, rape, whatever, are generally treated with dignity. Conservative students whose behavior falls far short of this sort of thing are often sent to counseling or therapy. My guess is that drugging conservatives will come next.

A couple quick examples: When a University of New Hampshire professor compared writing to sex — "You and the subject become one," he said — he was forced to apologize and seek counseling. When a law lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania said, "We have ex-slaves here who should know about the Thirteenth Amendment" and was also forced to get his brain checked out by an approved therapist.

The justification for this sort of thing is not merely that the "conservatives" — broadly defined to include anyone not up-to-speed on what constitutes insensitive language — need to get right in the head but that the liberal young men and women who feel "oppressed" by contrary views, nasty-sounding words, nude pictures in the classroom, "hate" words, etc. are right in the head. In other words, it's "normal" according to the reigning authorities of academia to have the self-esteem of a delicate soufflé, prone to imploding at the slightest discordant vibration, but it is abnormal to disagree with the prevailing worldview.

And that gets us to the heart of why this study is more bogus than a $6 dollar Rolex. Virtually all of the characteristics the authors attribute to the right can be equally laid at the feet of the left. If you think left-wingers have a high tolerance for ambiguity, tell one it's not clear that Head Start does any good at all. Talk to them about racial differences. Say: "Even if gay marriage were worth doing, there would be many devastating negative consequences." Mention that a factory closing can be a good thing. Tell them it's okay for economists to put a specific monetary value on a human life. Tell them intelligence tests measure intelligence. Tell them something can be simultaneously bad and constitutional. Indeed, don't get me started on the myopia of the left on constitutional questions; tell a campus liberal that Brown v. Board of Education had a good effect but was a terribly reasoned decision and they will look at you as if you'd said grobn gleebin grobbin grobin while standing on one foot. I've just watched my wife spend a year debating Title IX please don't tell me that feminists have a rich love of exchange and a gift for understanding nuance.

How anybody could look at the anti-globalization movement or anti-genetically engineered food crowd and say that the left isn't dependent on "fear and aggression" is beyond me. The Naderites have mastered the art of scaring the bejesus out of people on a wide spectrum of issues. Your cars are killing you and the planet, multinational corporations want to install pain collars on all carbon-based life, genetically modifying crops will result in 50-foot-tall ears of corn which will crush cities and enslave mankind. Children are taught that if their parents don't recycle, they must be turned in to the appropriate authorities. Not too long ago feminists insisted it was unsafe for a woman to be alone in the room with a guy if the Super Bowl was on. We spent much of the 1990s listening to one liberal after another insist that if we didn't do X, Y or Z, the children would be "left behind," presumably in a scary place without recycling.

I have a file clogging my hard drive containing quotes from mainstream liberals who insisted that if conservatives had their way America would become a Fourth Reich. During the debates over the Contract with America, Rep. Major Owens of New York said of the Republicans, "These are people who are practicing genocide with a smile; they're worse than Hitler. Gingrich smiles . . . [and] says they're going to be our friend. We're going to have cocktail-party genocide." Charles Rangel concurred, saying of Republicans who favor small government, "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes'."

According to the summary, "This [conservative] intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes, the researchers advise." Good lord. Even to hint that the right has a monopoly on such tendencies is to lay the torch to the bonfire of absurdity. Liberalism in America is almost entirely reactionary. During the last presidential election, the Democratic rhetoric was all about "Stopping" Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big This and Big That. Al Gore promised to distribute lockboxes and to fight urban sprawl to calm the "quiet sadness" that plagues Americans. Leftwing magazines and activists brim with fear of technology in particular and change in general. And they pass on lies about how bad the environment is doing in order to terrorize their audience into action. Public policy in this country is crippled by the maddening psychological addiction of liberals to outdated ideas and downright antique bureaucracies.

Moreover, when someone questions liberal priorities the response is far more transparently psychological than rational. It is the Left which confuses politics for human worth; they are the ones who believe ideology is a window to the soul. Propose giving scholarships to black kids in the form of vouchers and in the bang-your-bottle-on-your-high-chair logic of the left you are "mean-spirited" and "declaring war on children." Talk about the need for a psychiatrist.

CONSERVING WHAT?
Meanwhile, conservatives are the ones demanding change. We want the Supreme Court to go back and fix its mistakes. We want the federal government to get out of the business of regulating political speech. We want Americans to make more of their own decisions, keep more of their own money, etc. We're even willing to say that not all of our changes will have only positive effects, unlike many on the left who suffer from the sort of cognitive closure and blindness to ambiguity which forces them to believe that only good things happen when good things are done.

And that brings us to the fundamental problem, identified most famously by Samuel Huntington in his 1957 essay "Conservatism as an Ideology." Conservatism in much of the world is situational. A conservative in Saudi Arabia or Russia wants to conserve something very different from what a conservative in America wants to conserve. A Saudi conservative wants to maintain State control of the economy, scoffs at civil liberties and wants to spread Wahhabbi Islam around the globe. Meanwhile, in America it's true that conservatives want to defend traditional arrangements but our traditional arrangements are defined by classically liberal institutions. This is why Hayek admired American conservatives even though he distrusted European ones — because American conservatives are determined to defend the institutions which keep us free. American liberals are determined to protect the "advances" they believe keep us "progressive."

And therein lies the debate, caliper boys. There are radicals and reactionaries — psychologically speaking — in all ideological camps. There are leftists and rightists afraid of change and in love of change. There are leftists and rightists who love ambiguity and there are those who hate it. But this study is classic scientific poppycock because it is confirmed by contradictory facts. When Stalin or Castro kill people it is because they are crypto-rightwingers when Hitler kills people, he's being consistent. In other words, conservatives are always the bad guys.

So, yes, conservatism is a temperament, but it is also an ideology. And that ideology is not dependent on the need for "cognitive closure" or a "fear of ambiguity" at all. In fact, most conservative thinkers see their project completely differently. The threat they see is from a statist elite which seeks to impose uniformity and cookie-cutter banality across the society. Conservatism, as Russell Kirk noted, is marked by an "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence." Indeed, if these authors had spent a bit more time reading Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind, they wouldn't have bollixed up their own depiction of the conservative mind so badly.

-----------------

http://angryclam.blogspot.com/2003_0...92211736575479
Tuesday, July 22, 2003

I AM SO ASTOUNDINGLY PISSED OFF RIGHT NOW


BIGGEST UPDATE YET: Here's the actual paper, but make sure to read the press release below first. I'd like to quote from the first page, leaving citations off: "The practice of singling out political conservatives for special study began with Adorno....[it] was heavily criticized on methodological grounds, but it has withstood the relentless tests of time and empirical scrutiny." Yes, they begin by saying that Adorno, who was trying to prove that conservatism was a mental illness, was correct. So don't be fooled by anyone that says that the press release over-hyped this. The bullshit is real. END UPDATE

Just when I thought I couldn't take Berkeley too seriously anymore, something comes along that proves to me that I will not now, not ever donate money to that school. Take a look at this:

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
------
BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to ...


... believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."
-----
Your tax dollars at work. I am furious right now.

That flushing sound you hear is the value of my degree plummeting yet again.

UPDATE: Loweeel has a great retort, noting that leftists in Berkeley also have some great psychological problems, particularly Stockholm Syndrome.

UPDATE 2: Now that I've calmed down a bit (read: I've put the shotgun down, and put my car keys back on the table), I thought I'd include a "relaxation aid" at the end of this post to help calm down people who read that whole thing. Here's a photo from when Governor Ronald Reagan (remember, he's the guy the authors of this study compared to Hitler and Mussolini), ordered a tear gas airstrike on UC Berkeley's Sproul Plaza during an anti-war demonstration. It remains the only military airstike on an American University to this day. The best part is that we don't have to pine for an "idealized past." In the real past, lefty nutjobs at Berkeley really were heavily sprayed with teargas.



YET ANOTHER UPDATE: I just noticed that the article also contends that low self esteem is also a characteristic of the conservative mindset. I feel so worthless.
posted by The Angry Clam at 6:01 PM 70 Comments
---------------------------

I do think the above are good examples of the "fear and aggression" mentioned in the article.

I'll post my own response in a moment, it'll take some time to type up


[edit- Just wanted to toss in this little gem I just ordered off of amazon, recomended by both conservatives and liberals.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...19334?v=glance
A Conflict of Visions

by Thomas Sowell



This book identifies the “Ideological Origins of Political Struggles”—why some people are liberals and others are conservatives. Sowell explains that most people have one of two contrasting visions. Those visions are “constrained” and “unconstrained.” People holding the constrained vision find nature to be limited in its moral possibility and therefore caution against granting government wide scope of authority. They feel that reform is difficult and often dangerous. The indispensable bases of order, freedom, and prosperity are family, custom, law, and traditional institutions. Conversely, those holding the opposing vision, the “unconstrained,” deny the existence of a negative element in nature and argue that whole societies can be accomplished by removing environmental impediments such as family, property, and custom. ]

This is now officiallly the longest post I have ever made where I don't actually say anything constructive.

The_Dude

i agree with the study, especially the conservative attempt to hang on with the status quo.

as for liberal traits.....dunno

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Sparhawk

Interesting...

Are conservatives introspective enough to look within and find these traits in themselves? I doubt it.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

j8ear

Intolerant of ambiguity. I'll take that. Without issue. Intolerant is a loaded word (meant to imply something much more then it is), but I definitely do not accept ambiguity. Does this therefore mean the opposite: that those left of center 'embrace' ambiguity?

Fear and aggression. I think this more describes most who have a political bend and likes to proselytize it. Left or right.

The rest, well I don't really relate. I haven't seen any of them particularly prevalent in any 'flavor' of one who opines socio-politically. I've seen many (both flavors and characteristics) and have trouble using one to label the other.

out,

b

(begin unrelated aside>
I forgot to mention this from one of the rebuttals above:

"...the way some academics think they can use their head for a colonoscopy and then crab-walk around expecting all the world to think their new hats make them look smart."

I was ROFLMFAO when I read that.
<end unrelated aside>

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

prb

One notable difference between conservatives and liberals: If someone takes a clearly conservative position on one current hot issue (i. e. thinks abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, teachers should be allowed to lead children in prayer, liberals control the media, etc.), you can usually accurately predict what position they will take on any other political issue. The same cannot be said of liberals. Conservatives generally gravitate in their opinions in a very predictible direction toward a very "black-and-white" answer. There is no uncertainty. Everything for them is clear. Liberals are more suspicious of "easy" answers and are less likely to see all issues

prb

(continuing) in terms of black-and -white and capable of easy solution. Liberals, therefore, are much less predictible. So, I agree somewhat with the Berkeley study. Conservatives don't seem to like uncertainty or ambiguity and generally are dogmatic in the opinions they hold. Or, to put it simply, conservatives are simple.

Rodney

This is kind of a non-starter, because there can be a lot of variance in what you mean by the term "conservative."

A lot of the people running around in Washington today being called "conservative" would have been called "ultra-right wing wackos" in my youth. when real conservatives believed in small business, isolationism (the cold war was a Democratic invention), a balanced budget, self-reliance, and no gov't interference. Whereas today's presidential administration believes in large business, empire-building, deficits (they say otherwise, but....), and serious interference in the rights of individuals and states _in those areas where it has political interests._

I miss the old conservatives, the old Main Street conservatives. I'm a liberal, but I knew a lot of them and respected most of them. They talked the talk of self-reliance and community volunteerism, and they walked the walk with campaigns to fix up schools, help the hungry in the community, help fund free clinics, and so on. I think that this approach is an incomplete one to the nation's problems, but they were sincere and community-minded. They're still around, but they're not in power anymore.

After my dad died, my mother married a very conservative old gentleman named Lloyd. Lloyd has a portrait of Ronald Reagan on the wall -- which he painted himself. He's has a master's in education and is a skilled furniture maker and upholsterer, and for many years ran a nonprofit school which trained the unemployed in upholstery. He never took a dime of government money, because "then you've got to do it their way." On the side, he bought, fixed up, and sold houses to pay for his retirement. Lloyd and I disagree on a great many things, but he has a ready mind and is willing to consider a different point of view, if not accept it. That's the kind of conservative I admire. And like I said, I don't see a lot of those in power today.

Phaenx

Oh, that's easy, just ask Ann Coulter. Then we'll be even!

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Moonduck

"One notable difference between conservatives and liberals: If someone takes a clearly conservative position on one current hot issue (i. e. thinks abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, teachers should be allowed to lead children in prayer, liberals control the media, etc.), you can usually accurately predict what position they will take on any other political issue."

Okay, let's see my opinions, and I do consider myself a Conservative.

Gun Control - pointless, stupid, and will have the opposite effect of the stated intent (ie crime control).

Right, typical Conservative position. Let's continue.

Abortion - I find it abhorrent, but I see no good reason or precedent supporting the govt banning abortion. It is your body. Just make damned sure that it happens early in the pregnancy. If the foetus can survive independent of the mother (including with medical assistance like a preemie), it becomes murder in my eyes.

Conservative leaning, but ultimately pro-choice. We'll say moderate.

Gay marriage - whatever. I think it is silly to want what amounts to a straight and generally Christian appelation applied to your relationship, but govt has no place legislating such things.

Hmm, not Republican at least. Not in line with Bush.

Drug war - complete stupid, pointless waste of money. Legalise it, don't criticize it. Then funnel some of the drug war money into support programs. Much more effective. Drug use, by itself, is a victimless 'crime', and should be immediately decriminalized.

Hmm, pretty much a liberal point of view.

Prostitution - Whatever. See above for thoughts on victimless crimes.

'Nother liberal view.

I could go on, but the post will get way too lengthy. My point has been made though - don't be so fast as to assume that all conservatives are the same. Sure, my examples are purely anecdotal, but I know quite a few fellow conservatives that don't toe the party line.

I will also add that your assertion that liberals don't toe the party line is terribly amusing.

lurkette

Actually, you sound more libertarian to me.

Quote:

I will also add that your assertion that liberals don't toe the party line is terribly amusing.

I agree. I think you'll find...er...line-toers on both sides of the political spectrum. It's universally tempting to turn off your brain and nod and smile.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

prb

Moonduck, you can call yourself a conservative if you wish - - that doesn't necessarily make you one. Your positions on some hot-topic issues are really entirely too reasonable for me to consider you a conservative. In any event, I thought I made it clear that I was making a generalization - - and making it lightly, not in all seriousness. I consider myself a moderate (although compared to most talk-radio hosts and all Fox news commentators I would probably appear socialistic), and yet I agree with your position on every issue in your post except gun control: I think there should be reasonable controls on the sale and ownership of guns - - I don't think conservatives should be allowed to buy or own them. :-)

Macheath

I agree with Rodney's thoughts about the dearth of old-school conservatives. I read of some of these types looking at the current Bush administration with a critical eye.

Clearly, the "right wing" (being empire-builders, cold warriors, demagogues, fundamentalists, proselytizers and formerly liberal neo-conservatives) as it is today fits a number of the descriptions in the Berkeley study and I think calling them conservatives is done because it is currently hard to find a unifying ideology that binds them. I'm seeing a few "classic" conservatives starting to become libertarians and I think this is part of the same trend.

I thought the references to an "idealized past" were interesting; hinting at the role of mythology in politics. The increasing emergence of <a href="http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/05/24/dispensational/index.html">dispensationalism</a> could eventually offer up a whole, clearly identifiable political ideology to be studied.

Ultimately, I'm sure a study of liberals would make them sound kooky too. That's what psychologists do...make us all seem nuts.

Bill O'Rights

Check it out, Moonduck. I do believe that you are a *gasp*Libertarian. [whispers] Pssst. That's O.K.....I'm one too.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Bill O'Rights

[Stamps foot] Dammit, lurkette, must you always beat me to it?

JK

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

lurkette

BUWAHAHAHAHA! You'll never catch me!!!

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Moonduck

Well, I've been called a Libertarian before. I would likely call myself one but for certain absolutely inane policies they cling to like open borders and laissez-faire foreign policy. Isolationism bought us a war with an enemy that we had wildly inadequate intelligence on (Japan, blaming the lack of intel on Isolationism, not the war). I think the LP would go far if they made a more world-involved foreign policy, cut back on the open borders crap-ola, and gave Harry Browne the boot.

Make those changes and I'd sign right up. Until then, I'm content to act like a Libertarian on most issues, call myself a conservative, and vote my conscience with no regard to party on election day.

As an aside, conservative and Libertarian are not mutually exclusive.

FastShark85

When I was in college, taking one of my political science classes, the professor asked his run-of-the-mill line, "Are there any questions?"

Completely off the subject, I raised my hand and asked, "Are there any conservatives in the political science department?"

The professor, caught a bit off guard, composed himself and smiled. "What do you mean by 'conservative'?"

I responded, "Are there any capitalists in the department?"

"No."

Despite being educated by liberals (the professor admitted to being a Socialist), both in undergraduate and law school, my conservatism became more embedded. It was almost as a reaction to what I felt was an overwhelming, unspoken support for liberal agendas.

So what if I'm averse to fencing-sitting? I see value in reaching solutions and closure on issues. Otherwise, it's the Socratic method: endless debate that leads to nothing other than more debate. No action.

It's entirely too predictable to watch my younger friends and relatives, who have little or no opinion of politics, economics or other similar topics head off to college, only to return home for break having accepted, with little thought, the liberal ideologies spoon-fed to them on so many campuses. They come home criticizing Republicans because....well, they don't know why for sure whenever I ask them to defend their criticisms.

I have no problem with people who can articulate their views and defend them intelligently. It irritates me whenever someone takes up a cause because it's "hip" or "trendy" on their campus. Most college students don't have a clue what the real world is like, except for what their professors tell them. My real education came after my formal one. I understand what it's like to pay ridiculous taxes while seeing first hand the corruption involved in entitlement programs. I feel the frustration when I pay so much in taxes and work so many hours, just to see a neighbor down the street get fired again (and go back to welfare/unemployment at my expense) because she slept in again or called in sick agian because she didn't feel like working. I see the irony in someone who believes that the government should redistribute wealth because he skipped grad school and don't make as much as the so-called "rich" people earning more than him. I understand what it's like to want to come down hard on criminals after acquiring property and having children that I want to protect.

Someone once said, every liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.

winsecure

Berkeley releasing a (presumably unbiased) study on conservatism is nearly as laughable as Saddam's regime heading up the UN Human rights commission.

ctembreull

Actually, the study was a joint effort between researchers at Berkeley, Stanford, and the University of Maryland.

It just so happens that the write-up was posted at a berkeley site. Perhaps you should try reading the study instead of automatically gainsaying it on specious reasoning, such as its supposed source, hmm?

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

FastShark85

How many of you would be surprised to find out a report advancing a conservative ideology originated from Berkeley faculty?

I sure as hell would. Give winsecure a break. His assumption was fair, even if not completely correct.

j8ear

Well that certainly makes it balanced.

~snicker~

smooth

Three ad hominem attacks. Since that's all you can muster it would appear as though the study is fairly accurate...

EDIT: "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."

j8ear

What is someone who has no clue what an ad hominem attack is alex?

Can't speak for everyone...but personally I was fucking around...hoping others might see the irony of including the University of Maryland and Stanford on the research list, and therefore concluding that the biased assertion is false. NOTHING Ad Hominem about it.

Lighten up mi amigo...

FastShark85

I sure as hell wasn't making an ad hominem attack. I was suggesting that ctembruell cut winsecure some slack because I believe that even LIBERALS agree that Berkeley is known for it's liberalism.

If it was such an attack, it would have taken a jab at ctembruell, which it did not.

*sighs*

smooth

You two should take your own advice and actually learn the definition of ad hominem.

Both of you cast aspersions on the study based on the claim that the researchers are liberal rather than refuting its substance.

j8ear, I quoted you along with two other posters and followed your assertions with a quote from the study. There doesn't seem to be anything for me to lighten up about--evidently the study's conclusions touched a nerve.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

Posters lacking grammatical comprehension. Next question for $500, please.

ctembreull

In principle, yes. However, you may not know that Berkeley has a rather well-known conservative movement that has gained much traction of late. David Brock, the author of the right-wing smears against Anita Hill, was part of that movement.

At any rate, Berkeley may be "liberal", but Stanford and Maryland much, much less so. At any rate, how does Berkeley's involvement in a study invalidate it? Aside from the fact that Berkeley is "liberal", I mean.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

FastShark85

Re-read my responses. I've not contested the study nor have I invalidated it. My response about winsecure was simply to cut him some slack. It's understandable that someone could assume that Berkeley is a liberal institution.

As far as understanding what an ad hominem attack is, I can suggest to you that I understand its roots, specifically, its true Latin translation.

Linguam annis quattor studebam.

j8ear

I MADE absolutely zero assertions about the validity of the study...ZERO.

I will not debate the definition of ad hominem fallacies or grammer with you. I will inform you that ad hominem is attacking the character of your opponent. The study of your opponent or the author of your opponent's study is another fallacy all together. Pointing out the fallaciousness of someone's arguement is not ad hominem (even if sarcastically so). Sorry.

As for grammatical errors. I am an english as a second language cat and quite proud of what i am able to do with this convaluted language, thank you.

I asserted that adding UofM and Stanford to a statement the concludes unbiased is rediculous. I stand by that assertion, and challenge you to refute it. The fact that the study is published at Berkley's web site...does not make it biased. The fact that it's researchers include staff from Stanford and the UofM does not make it unbiased.

I still suggest you lighten up. I am not attcking anyone. I am poking fun at the methods used to draw conclusions in this thread. It's all light hearted to me. Please don't take it personally.

Read my original posting re: this thread...see if you still think it ~touched~ a nerve. I conceded when challenged, and questioned when unclear. Nothing more.

peace and good will to all, especially you smooth

-bear-

ctembreull

I never said you did. I said that any assumption that a study was invalid simply because of its source is flawed and faulty reasoning. Winsecure, however, did make that mistake - and I don't find it "understandable" at all.

Argumentum ad hominem: "Argument against the man." Literally, attacking the source of the argument instead of the argument itself. And it's rather ironic that Winsecure really did offer an argumentum ad scholam (though my grammar's probably a bit off).


That's cool; I preferred to devote my own linguistic study to "living" languages. French, German, and Russian specifically. But I can understand Latin well enough for a non-lawyer, non-doctor.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!