Yes, it's from Berkeley. Feel free to dismiss on those grounds alone. I know some of you will, and that's fine. Might be of interest to others though. Have fun... http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_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."
This study must have been published on the heels of Yao Ming's research which defines what makes a midget. The simplest way to state it for me is that liberals favor the use of government for imposing what they consider to be their desired social outcome. Conservatives favor letting individuals outside of government determine this fate. Clearly there are numerous exceptions.
Nice. I'd like to follow that up with my report on how PMS makes women feel. Some people obviously have too much time on their hands.
Would you mind drawing out a few examples in the real world that T-J's conservatism is really what liberalism is all about? Or were you just pulling legs?
I was not pulling legs. To me, whatever I have read by T_J as far as economic questions are concerned is nothing but standpoints of classical liberalism (which I agree with). This is similar to the school of thought represented by the University of Chicago and, among others, Milton Friedman. Here's an excerpt from an article about him: Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman An Article Review by Lynda Herndon Last Update: September 18, 1996 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The article "Capitalism and Freedom," by Milton Friedman is actually a short excerpt from his book of the same name. In these few pages we find the strong sentiments of a man who has dedicated his life to preserving the ideals of freedom that drove the American revolution and eventually founded this country. His writing exerts a fundamental belief in the responsibility of the individual and the constitutionally-granted freedoms for all people through the unhampered exercise of our individual rights. He advocates a representative government that allows individual creativity while maintaining a minimal order and he suggests that the only way this can be accomplished is through capitalism and a free market economy. To understand the importance of this article and the defensive stand of Friedman, let me take you back to the early 1960's when it was written. After four strong years of Republican rule by Eisenhower and the defeat of Vice-President Nixon, (who Friedman served as an informal economic advisor to) a young Democratic Kennedy had stepped up to the top leadership seat in the nation. Immediately, his administration's first brush with foreign affairs was a disaster. The Kennedy directive to order the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was accompanied by his weak move not to provide U.S. air support to the affront which resulted in fiasco. Friedman, who believed in a limited government, felt that the major function of government was "to protect our freedom from the enemies outside our gates." (Theodoulos) Publicly, Kennedy's foreign affairs policy had got off to a very bad start and Friedman was worried with the new direction that this country was taking under democratic rule. Friedman's belief in a limited government is supported by his desires to restrict the scope of government's authority in the collective lives' of individuals and to decentralize the power base of government to prevent a person's unwanted entanglements with a federal bureaucracy. The political views he espouses are clearly rooted in the concept of early liberalism as found in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries. Early liberal thinking, quite different from the concept of today, considered individual freedom a natural right. It advocated, "expanding civil liberties and limiting autocratic political authority in favor of constitutional representative government." (Grolier) Friedman felt that political power would eventually corrupt even the best-intentioned person and that no one was immune from it ravenous charms. Rather than trust a few to wisely wield the political reigns he agreed with the early intention of a limited government with a separation of powers among the three different branches. After all, Friedman knew that we needed a government, but that there were many things that the government had no business doing. As a result, government was doing its fundamental job poorly because it was devoting too much time and too many resources to business it shouldn't be involved with in the first place. His is a traditional laissez-faire liberalism, a hands-off approach to government interference in the private market. The economic arena is the major area where Friedman felt government had NO right to intrude in the freedom of the collective or individual rights of its constituents. To understand his thought process here, it is important to look at his background. Milton Friedman received his B.A. from Rutgers, his M.A. from the University of Chicago and his Ph.D. from Columbia. Professor Friedman was the Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago and since 1977 has been Senior Research Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He has authored many books on economics and public policy, which stress "the importance of the quantity of money as an instrument of government policy" (Tomassin) while always emphasizing the importance of individual freedoms in the process. It shouldn't be a surprise that he won a Nobel Prize for Economics in 1976. Once again, classic liberalism plays an important part in the economic beliefs of Friedman. He is distinctly opposed to state intervention in the market economy. He is a proud student of the eighteenth century economist Adam Smith, who was known for urging a rapidly growing government to trust free markets and support capitalism. Again, I'll take you back to the post-war economic period of the late 1940's and early 1950's. Friedman, along with other economic scholars of the time, founded the Mont Pelerin Society to "promote a classical, liberal philosophy, that is, a free economy, a free society, socially, civilly, and in human rights. It provides a place where people of like mind could get together, discuss their problems, and resolve difficulties they had about both philosophy and policy." (Woodman) The publishing of Capitalism and Freedom in 1962 was an extension of his liberal economic views. A synopsis of this book goes on to tell us that Friedman used it as a platform to argue for a negative income tax or "guaranteed income, to supersede centralized bureaucratized social welfare services" (Friedman) which in his view are counterproductive to the priorities of individualism, human incentive and productivity. This book was originally a series of lectures that he gave at seminars throughout the 1950's. He wife, Rose, transcribed tapes of the lectures and reworked them to become Capitalism and Freedom. It is important to note the liberalism referred to here has nothing to do with the concepts and beliefs of what is labeled liberal today. Today's liberals advocate a theory that Friedman has fought hard to denounce. While he (Friedman) supports unfettered free markets and capitalism, they advocate regulation to deal with social and economic problems. Today's left-sided liberals support the idea that government can best promote individual freedoms through its direct intervention in the economy and by establishing a welfare state for those who cannot or do not want to work. These are ideas that run antithesis to Friedman's work. In fact, in today's light we tend to consider Friedman a conservative, a title he feels is to narrow to describe his theories. After looking at Friedman's views on cutting down the size of government, limiting its scope and simplifying its duties, one would almost expect him to be a card-carrying libertarian! Instead he considers himself to be a republican and although he has followed the libertarian movement closely over the years, he considers them to be "cultist in their theories, trying to invent something new, when he feels the old ways are best." (Doherty) He also feels that he has more to contribute to the Republican Philosophy.
SJC, I think TJ was referring to the modern liberal, which, as you quoted and even bolded, is very different from Friedman and "classis liberalism".
Liberals don't favor the use of govt. to decide who can get married to each other. Conservatives do. Liberals aren't in favor of the govt. legislating what kind of activities take place inside the bedroom of consenting adults, while conservatives do. The examples go on and on.
It is somewhat funny to hear someone like Jack Kemp or Larry Kudlow or the like speak on economic policy and invoke Friedman, et al since the speaker will refer to it as classical liberal policy taking great pains to stress the "little l" in liberal. Some conservatives having made "liberal" such a dirty word. But that goes around to this study. A conservative philosophy may not be a republican philosophy or even what many conservatives see themselves as. There are many of us who are republicans who don't carry what would be considered conservative social opinions. There is a certain irony, too, in stating that a tolerance of inequality is a hallmark of conservativism since one could state that inequality is a a not-insignificant part of the democratic party platform. Whether you agree with wanting diversity or making up for past sins or whatever, affirmative action policies, set-asides and whatnot is a form of inequality. For that matter, so is a graduated tax system. It may well be inequality that helps different people, but it's still not equal. Not saying that's right or wrong, but I don't know how one could say that inequality is not also a hallmark of liberal thinking.
Technically, you are right. The conservatives want to maintain the satus quo while the liberals need the governement to change the status quo. Since the above examples are regulated by law, the government is de facto involved.
The point I bolded sounds curiously like some of my posts here. http://www.calpatriot.org/july03/072703abramyan.html UC Berkeley Republicans demand apology from university officials By Hovannes Abramyan July 27, 2003 BERKELEY -- The Berkeley College Republicans demanded an apology Friday for a July 22nd press release published on the University of California—Berkeley’s website. The controversial press release announced the completion of a research study focused upon defining the psychology of political conservatism. Among the traits attributed to conservatives are “fear and aggression”, “resistance to change”, “tolerance for inequality”, and less “integrative complexity” than their liberal counterparts according to the published statement. The press release, written by Kathleen Maclay of the university’s Media Relations department, has met a great deal of criticism since its original publication. Its link has been removed from the homepage and the article has been revised. Berkeley College Republicans president Andrea Irvin described the study as an example of the university’s bias. “We are demanding an apology from the University for attempting to promote political bias in their press release and misrepresenting the study. Rather than constructively addressing the issues, they attempt to offend their opponents through rhetorical spin.” The press release is also under fire because of correlations drawn between political figures such as Adolf Hitler, former United States president Ronald Reagan and Talk Show host Rush Limbaugh who were never mentioned in the study. According to the official release, “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.).” However, Senator Thurmond is not mentioned in the study. The researchers stress that their findings are not condemnatory. They state 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.’” However, in the press release, the researchers advise that the conservative intolerance of ambiguity “can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes.” One of the researchers, assistance professor Jack Glaser, went on to attribute the conservative lack of “integrative complexity” to current president George W. Bush, citing a statement he made in 2002 to a British reporter that, “My job isn’t a nuisance.” Many are seeing this comparison, which was also not in the published study, as another attempt by the university to push a liberal agenda. The press release comes not long after an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle by university Chancellor Robert Berdhal in which he expressed his stance against the current administration for its war efforts in Iraq. The Bay Area Chairman of the California College Republicans Amaury Gallais stated, “This release is a political tool by the university. No conservative values are respected, only criticized.” “Conservatives are about freedom, liberty, equality of opportunity, respect for the individual. The use of taxpayer money for this partisan use is ridiculous. Especially at a time when California universities are facing massive budget cuts,” Gallais concluded.
I mean these people are at Berkely, in one of the most liberal campuses and areas in the whole country. What do you expect them to do......say conservatives are great guys? I imagine if conservatives at a university did a similar "study" (I think their reasoning is dreadful and untrue) on liberals, the media would have picked it up and ran with it like Barry Sanders down the sidelines. Their logic has more holes in it than a collander.
I guess maybe I am a conservative: Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity: Definitely. Uncertainty avoidance: Mostly. Need for cognitive closure: Don't know what they're talking about, but that might be due to my not being as "integratively complex" as others, whatever that is. Fear and aggression: Well no, which might be why I could never figure out if I was conservative or not. If anything, I usually advocate giving up my own stuff to achieve a consistency within my dogmatism.
All I really can say to that survey is no. Seriously, no, no, and oh wait, no. I guess I'm just addicted to inequality. Why don't they study something real at that school?
It's hard not to dismiss it when you hear Pat Robertson trying to describe the psychology behind liberalism. DD, My posts usually kill threads. So I'm taking the honor back from you.
Can't a guy get back from class? I don't see why they are b****ing about being compared to Hitler, it's not like Liberals got off easy, we were compared to Stalin, Khrushchev, and Castro. Hitler and the rest of the guys I mentioned are examples of what happens when you take your ideaolagy to the extreme edge of the spectrum and then jump off into the the depths of insanity. Even though I really don't like him, it was wrong to put Reagan in the same list with such bastards as Hitler, Mussolini, and Limbaugh.
