Conservative Psychology – An Expert Rebuts
Posted By John Moore on July 23, 2003
Many bloggers have commented on the recent Berkeley “scientific study” which purports to prove just what the left has believed all along: we conservatives are nuts – we’re scared, dogmatic, intolerant, and scared… oh, and terrified.
Now, a leading expert and prolific blogger, John J Ray, who has published many peer-reviewed articles on exactly this subject, debunks this pseudo-scientific propaganda…
From the Berkeley press release (naturally, they are proud of this nonsense):
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 John Ray:
The latest Berkeley rehash is remarkable for its quantity versus quality approach. They seem to agree with the dictum of Dr. Goebbels that if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will believe it. In the Berkeley case the fact that almost all psychologists have been saying the same thing about conservatives seems to be taken as good proof that what they are saying is correct. A survey taken in Galileo’s day would have concluded with equal vehemence that the earth is flat. The Berkeley group seem to have given little or no weight to the fact that psychologists are overwhelmingly Leftist and so lean over backwards to find fault with conservatives. In other words, a survey of biased “science” has just produced more biased “science”!
For John’s full refutation, and references to his many scientific papers, see this excellent article.
Why is the article not valid? Sure it is generalized, but on the other hand it sure is closer to the point than labelling everyone that doesn’t agree as liberals. Most people don’t even know exactly what that means. I find that conservative acquantainces are most the time the most hateful, fearful people I know. Guess I might be a bit guilty of stereotyping what a conservative is, but one thing I know. The more I hear the dissing of “liberal”, the better I feel about myself.
History reveals the truth and the conservative mind is small, oh so very very small, or should I say, self-minded.
Well, Mel, it’s fairly clear that you would prefer your biases to the facts. For example, did you the link to Jon Ray’s stuff? He happens to be the most widely published psychologist on the subject.
But hey, your a liberal, so don’t let the facts hit you in the rear on your way out to the party.
How thin-skinned can you be ?
My problem with this ’study’ is just obvious the conclusions are. Adorno proved all this in the late 1940’s with ex-Nazi party members.
And don’t give me that bull that Fascism is really different from Conservatism. Name a single significant German conservative party or individual which did not enthusiastically endorse Hitler.
as their German predecessors There is nothing in the psychology of Bush’s American conservatives that would not do the same as their German predecessors if faced with the same choice.
If we go through the main attributes this study gives to Conservatives how could anyone disagree?
* Fear and aggression
How can anyone dispute that Conservative Americans reacted with excessive fear and excessive aggresion after 9/11?
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Conservative Americans pretend to believe in literal truth of the Bible in terror of the uncertain amiguity of real life .
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
Bush’s America pretends to believe they ‘knew’ about WMD and they ‘knew’ about Hussein links to Al Queda. Better be certain of lie than admit gaps in knowledge.
* Terror management
Conservative Americans see all the rest of the world as an exercise in terror management. America attacked Iraq because they pretended they were ‘afraid’ of it. Funny none of Iraq’s neighbours were actually afraid of Iraq. This is just a childish way of dealing with fear, pick a weaker enemy, pretend it is stronger, attack and beat it . Like a school-yard bully. Adorno memorably said the Nazi party member was nothing more than the school-yard bully in long trousers.
Tim, let’s analyze your points one by one:
The issue of German conservative party members really has nothing to do with modern conservativism – especially American conservativism. Your assertion about “Bush’s American conservatives,” as if Bush owned us, is simply wrong. Support for Hitler was very strong from the left in the US during the time of the German/Russian pact, for example. And how do you know how American conservatives would react given the “same circumstances?” How do you know how the left would react? What do you know about the psychology of conservatives, other than the old Adorno study?
Fear and aggression. Yes, 9/11 induced fear. Excessive fear? Please define excessive, and then please show how this corresponded more to conservatives than the left. Excessive aggression – I suppose by that you mean that conservatives were more likely to support defeating somebody who had declared war on us. Yes, we dead. Excessive? Definition please?
Dogmatism? Hey, you are the one sticking to an ancient study and dogmatically sticking to false stereotypes. The idea that “conservative Americans pretend to believe in literal truth of the Bible in terror…” is absurd. Yes, there are some Biblical literalists in America, and they tend to be conservative. But they are not all conservatives nor are they representative of the conservative movement. Furthermore, your statement is self contradictory… if they pretend to believe, then they are not in terror. If they are in terror and believe as a result, they are not pretending!
Uncertainty avoidance. Guess what. Uncertainty avoidance is a common human trait. Now, how are conservatives avoiding it? I would say the left, with it’s *belief* in pseudo-science is more into uncertainty avoidance. As far as WMD and links about Hussein… Hey, again you are self contradictory! You imply they were lying. If they were lying, they weren’t avoiding uncertainty – they were lying about uncertainty. But of course you have no support for these lies, whereas there is a lot of evidence about Saddam’s WMD’s. Perhaps you, an enlightened non-conservative, can explain why Saddam persisted for 12 years in actions that kept him under UN sanctions if he didn’t have WMDs. Perhaps you can explain the actions of his intelligence agent in Pakistan whose job was to interface with Al Quaeda, or the tolerance by this totalitarian dictator of an Al Quaeda training camp and 1000 strong group in the NE of his country.
Terror management. Your arguments there are truly foolish. “None of Iraq’s enemies were afraid of it.” I am not going to bother to rebut that, because it is so absurd on its face.
But thanks for comparing us to Nazis. It reminds us of the mindlessness and evil of many in the left whom we face, who when they get their way create true Fascist dictatorships like the Soviet Union or North Korea.
point by point.
How do I know how the left would react to Hitler?
I know how they did oppose him , when liberals, conservatives and Catholic parties voted for him for chancellor. Prominent leftists went to concentration camps. Nice conservatives were happy to take their jobs and apartments and did not give them back to the few survivors. I know many American conservatives were very pleased with Hitler, JFK’s father siding with Hitler almost to the end. European conservatives where fascists held power , simply meleted into a fascist mainsteam. You may believe American conservatives would have behaved deifferent. We will never know.
What do I know about conservatives? I am from Ireland , arguably more conservative than Thatcherite Britain or Bush’s America.
Iraq declared war on you. In which paralell universe? The group you refer to in NE Iraq were not Al Queda and were not Baathists.
Excessive fear? American international air travel plummetted after 9/11. Europeans continued toi fly to America , Americans stopped flying t Europe, though obviously the risk would be identical. There is something in the American puritan culture that demands to see the devil everywhere. I’d say Americans are cowardly but we have to be PC here. We know how upset you got about the words used in the Berkely study.
‘Some literalists’? Study after study have shown that 35% of Americans do not believe in evolution, so the vast majority of American conservatives peretnd to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. You can’t have it both ways. If you want to prance about the place pretending to belive in Adam and Eve you can’t expect the sane world to respect you as well.
Excessive aggession.? Tens of thousands of inncoents have been killed in revenge for 9/11, none of them Saudis, who were the actual perpetrators.
“None of Iraq’s enemies were afraid of it.” I am not going to bother to rebut that, because it is so absurd on its face.” ????
I wrote ‘none of Iraq’s neighbours” were afraid of Sadam but the mighty USA, thousands of miles away, pretended it was afraid. Do pay attention.
So you are still equating modern American conservatives with German conservatives of the 1930’s? Not much of an argument.
JFK’s father was not an American conservative, BTW. He was an American criminal and an appointee of our most successful leftist president, Franklin Roosevelt. So why don’t you pay attention when you cite history, eh?
And you ignored my argument about how American leftists supported Hitler during the Ribbentrop-Malenkov pact period. Just ignored it. How convenient.
Did you know that political terms in Europe and America do not have the same meaning? Did you know that they especially don’t when you compare 1930 terms with 2000 terms?
So you are from Ireland. So that makes you qualified to commend on American conservatives. Sorry, but Ireland isn’t American (even if we do have 40% Irish descent, including myself).
Iraq didn’t declare war on US. I never said they did. But they were dealing with folks who did (yeah, I know, you will deny that). Besides, declaring war is a canard. We are out to prevent proliferaton of WMD’s, because there is every reason to believe that rogue nations would provide them to the terrorists who did indeed declare war on us. Iraq was an appropriate SECOND target (after Afghanistan).
The group in NE Iraq WERE Al Quaeda, whether you want to believe it or not. Al Quaeda doesn’t exactly issue identity cards and meeting in the same pub every week! That they were not Baathists is irrelevant. Who cares? There was also a high ranking Al Quaeda member who was captured in Baghdad. There were papers found in Iraqi intelligence offices, not by the US government, but by journalists, which described the links between Al Quaeda and Iraq and named the key Iraqi intelligent agent (in Pakistan) responsible for the interface.
Excessive fear? Note that you didn’t say “conservative air travel plummetted” – you said “American air travel plummetted.” So what is your point? I thought we are talking about conservatives here, but now you are calling “Americans” cowards. European air travel also plummetted. Oh, and one reason we fly less to Europe is we are tired of supporting people who think like you do. I think your own hate is showing through. Perhaps you should examine your own psychology – There is a guide to leftist psychology here.
What you fail to mention in your polemic is that many of those same 35% who do not believe in educationare also not religious – they are just plain ignorant. Furthermore, why do you think that 35% is conservative? Your cite is hardly proof of Biblical literalism of American conservatives. As a reader of most of the major conservative journals, I can tell you that no serious conservative is a biblical literalist.
Excessive aggression? Tens of thousands of innocents?
Well, first of all, the “tens of thousands” is utter crap. Second, unlike you apparently, we got to war to protect ourselves, rather than just for revenge. Thus we go after the source of potential trouble rather than just those who caused trouble in the past.
It is called prudence. This also means we ignore simplistic feel-good solutions if they are not appropriate. You say “the Saudi’s” are the real perpetrator. I thought that over-generalization was a conservative characteristic! Should we nuke Riyadh? Would that be justified in your mind? After all, it is full of Saudis!
Next you take an obvious typo and ignore the meaning.
Iraq’s neighbors were afraid of Iraq. Very afraid. Do you think Kuwait let us base our invasion there out of friendship? They knew about the dangers of Iraq, first hand! The same is true of other gulf nations.
Were we afraid of Iraq? Not particularly. Rather, Iraq was an appropriate point to strike against the proliferation of WMD’s, and against Islamist terrorism, which we rightly do fear.
You may not know much about radical Islam, not being a conservative, but we do. It is a very broad movement and its goal is to convert or destroy all infidels. That means us. And it also means you. If you think that this is a paranoid fantasy, then you need to find out a little bit more about it, or travel to the middle east and ask a few questions (as my family has done).
What makes radical Islam especially dangerous is that it combines the Marxist oppression meme (which always appeals to the unhappy) with a radical religious cultism. The latter justifies any behavior, and encourages suicidal attacks, which are much harder to defend against.
Now, you may sit there fat and happy in Ireland and know that they won’t come for you for a long time, because, after all, Ireland isn’t very important. But they have come after us a number of times, at grievous cost, and they have announced they will do it again. Furthermore they have sought to acquire WMD’s, and have no qualms about employing them about us.
Now if you think that protecting ourself against such blatant threats (backed by historical action) is some conservative psychological disorder, you are confused. If you think that conservatives are more likely to clearly perceive threats of violence than the left, you are right. If you think we are more pragmatic, willing to use violence if necessary, you are also right.
Finally, did you bother to check the references on the article? Did you read any of Jon Ray’s articles? He is more widely published (in peer reviewed journals) on the field of psychology of political ideology than any other scientist, and he agrees with my characterization of the Berkeley study, and has said so on his blog (and in personal correspondence).
Just to finish this off, Jon Ray informs me that Adorno did NOT study ex-Nazis – he studied Californians. Also, the German Socialists voted WITH the Nazi’s to give Hitler absolute power.
But this will never, ever convince the left that conservatives are not National Socialists (Nazi’s) in disguise, nor will they ever accept that Naziism was a form of socialism, just as was the tyranny of the Union of Soviet Socialist States!
Nothing can be allowed to interfere with their fantasies and paranoias.
I have studied and read widely in the area of political psychology since I took it in college in 1975. I have never heard of John Roy.
Conservative has the same meaning everywhere in the world.
JFKs father was not a leftist and was despised by Rooseveldt. He bought the ambasadorhip to Britain in the good old American way.
We watch American TV here. ( What American ever watches European TV ?) . We are very familiar with all varieties of American conservative, Robertson, Falwell, The Neo-Cons and all that.
Why would anyone who wasn’t religious reject evolution? You are just being silly. Why won’t state your own position on this?
Christian fundamentalism is the main reason that American conservatives are despised and ridiculed throughout the world. It was the main reason American conservative crusade against Islamic fundamentalists looks so hypocritical to the rest of us. I suspect you despise them as much as we do. But they are ‘useful idiots’ for your cause.
German Socialists voted for Hitler?????? Everybody in centre and right in the Reichstag voted for Hitler for Chancellor,( Nazis , Conservative nationalists , Liberals and the Catholic Party ). Socialists and Communists did not. This is the kind of fact you shouldn’t even have to check. No one who understands anything about psychology , politics or history could possibly imagine that the German Social Democratic Party could possibly have voted for Hitler.
Did the Berkely study mention anything about how ignorant American Conservatives are ?
Did you bother to look up Jon Ray? I gave you the links.
Conservative does not have the same meaning everywhere. Your assertion does not make it so.
You watch American TV. That’s rich! That makes you an expert on American conservativism? Hah! Considering that most American TV is run (not owned, so don’t give that tired argument) by leftists, it is not surprising that you have such a distorted idea of Conservatives. Robertson and Falwell are a disgrace, and represent only one wing of the conservative movement. Did you know that conservatives in the US are represented by talk radio, not TV. Talk radio arose because conservatives consistently found their views being terribly misrepresented by TV, and we wanted an alternative. So if you watch American TV, you definitely get a badly skewed view of America!
You ask if I watch European TV. Yes, at times. I have lived in Europe, and spent a lot more time travelling there. I spent the first gulf war in France. Have you lived here? Do you have ANY ideas about America except those from left-wing academics and biased anti-american TV. American conservatives, many of whom travel widely, are well aware of the misrepresentations of America that take place around the world, most recently in Europe.
We understand that Europeans, used to being the center of the world, are upset that they are no longer relevant, and respond by attacking us. But it is a shame.
Can you define Neo-Con?
Evolution? Of course, evolution is the best, by far, hypothesis. It is one of the best proven theories in all of science. In simple but unscientific terms, evolution is a fact. Are you aware that the Catholic church, which represents many Americans, teaches that? In fact, modern biology would be badly hobbled without the constant use of evolutionary reasoning.
Can you explain why the USSR, that great LEFTIST bastion, officially made Lysenko genetics the only allowable “scientific” position? Do you know the relationship between that position and the fall of Krushchev? Do you even know what it is? Do you know WHY it was the official position?
Do you even acknowledge that the USSR existed? That it was supported by almost all the leftists in the world until it fell? What does that say about leftist psychology? Why did leftists constantly deny the pathological nature of the Soviet regime until it became impossible after the fall? Why is it that conservative understood that nature of the regime for almost all of the 20th century, while the left didn’t realize that the USSR was an evil dictatorship until the 1990s, and many still make excuses for it?
How about Cambodia? How do you explain the leftist behavior there? How about the cultural revolution in China? That event alone killed more people that the Nazi Holocaust.
Are you aware that Communists countries killed at least 60,000,000 of their own citizens in the 20th century? What is it in leftist psychology that caused that? While Nazi Germany was a horrible manifestation of evil, Stalin’s Russia was worse in total numbers, percentages, and the extent of totalitarianism (except that they didn’t focus as tightly on Jews as Hitler did).
Are you aware that a number of French intellectuals, of diverse political opinions, undertook an attempt to document the history of Communists governments after most had fallen? Did you know that they were so horrified at what they found that even the left-most of them (who were far more surprised than the right-most) agreed to unconditionally condemn communism, and state in the preface that every single communist government ever created was murderous and tyrannical? Did you know that as a result they named their work “The Black Book of Communism?”
So much for the ACTUAL ACTS of the left.
But we know that the left doesn’t care about the consequences of its acts. That is one of the cognitive disorders of the left. Rather, it is more important to act out of proper ideology than to create positive results for real human beings.
Again, your assertion that 35% of Americans reject evolution on religious grounds is wrong, since 35% of Americans are NOT members of the religious groups that reject evolution. And even so, not all of those Americans are Republicans. Did you know that the strongest correlation between acceptance of evolution is amount of education, not religion? Did you know that only 60% of non-religious Americans accept evolution? Did you know that Biblical Literalism has declined from 65% in 1963 to 27% in 2001?
Here is a from a left wing organization:”Over two-thirds of Americans are quite firm in the belief that Evolution can co-exist with the belief in God and the belief in a Divine role in human development.”
You are exhibiting stereotypical thinking, reinforced by a lack of adequate information. Sounds like part of typical left wing psychology to me.
If Christian fundamentalism is the main reason that American conservatives are despised and ridiculed throughout the world, then the world is rather confused, since most conservatives are not Christian fundamentalists. For example, George Bush is neither a fundamentalist or a Biblical literalist. Did you know that?
As far as the SDP in the crucial enabling vote, you are correct. I took only one source and failed to cross check it.
BTW… do you have any idea how ignorant YOU are about American conservativism? After reading the responses, you may get some clues. Now, no more of this until you go read Jon Ray’s academic articles. Then come back and tell me about how correct the Berkeley study was.
I am not surprised you haven’t encountered him. His views are not popular among leftists, and most universities are dominated by leftists.
Furthermore, you continue to ignore my points, even though I deal with yours point by point. That is the tactic of someone trying to win a hopeless argument, rather than an honest debate.
Tim:
“Conservative has the same meaning everywhere in the world. ”
Patently untrue. It has several different meanings in america alone. Hence National Review devoting a cover story to exposing the treacherous behavior of the paleocons (know what those are?). Furthermore, even if it WAS true, it certainly would not follow that conservative has the same meaning that it always has forever and ever.
“We watch American TV here. ( What American ever watches European TV ?) . We are very familiar with all varieties of American conservative, Robertson, Falwell, The Neo-Cons and all that. ”
You’ve gotta be kidding me. So, if I watched European TV I would be very familiar with European politics? Gimme a break! I read European print media, and I don’t consider myself “very familiar with all varities” of ANY european political ideology. And if you think american conservativism is limited to robertson, falwell, and the neocons, you’re quite frankly too ignorant to hold a position of any merit at all on the issue. Come back when you are “very familiar” with paleocons, classical liberals, libertarians, Randians, and Burkeans. All of these are, for some bizarre reason, labelled “conservative” in American politics, and none of them are within miles of Falwell, Robertson, or the neocons.
You’ve also managed to throw all sorts of weird distracting volleys without once responding to the points made by mssrs Moore and Ray against the Berkely study. I would make some kind of crack about leftist psychology, but some of us don’t assume that those who disagree with us are motivated by psychological demons.
It is highly advisable to look up cultural relativism at this point(at any point for that matter). Cultures do not go from A to B, nor start or end in a certain “desirable” place or scenario. More to the point, no one has monopoly on truth, and, even persons promoting this point, fail to realize their own arrogance and blindness when they profess right from wrong. It is this chaotic world that the “conservatives” fear, and perhaps rightly so… However, out of chaos comes the possibility of order. In what form or shape? Who knows. Will there be security problems? Mmmm, indeed… Willpower(people and government) and cooperation(security, economic) are possible key ingredients…The alternative is a World Republic spearheaded by the U.S(ie, fast forwarding indefinitely)..??? And those are my 2 cents.
Cultural relativism is crap. The idea that truth or goodness is relative is simply incorrect. Some things are wrong, and some cultures are wrong.
Conservatives understand that the world is a dangerous place with many bad ideas and evil people in it. Relativists believe that all ideas or cultures are equally valid (except anti-Relativism).
In a word: they are wrong.
“Cultural relativism is crap. The idea that truth or goodness is relative is simply incorrect. Some things are wrong, and some cultures are wrong.”
‘All right thinking people are wrong’ – Monty Python.
All this gobbledeegook just makes me very glad I’m not an american.
Sim,
You had better thank your lucky stars that America is here to protect you. Canadians have been free riding for quite a while now.
Back before you guys became too decadent, you were a proud country with an outstanding military.
That was then. This is now.
So Mr. Moore, who is the USA protecting Canada from?
Please, name one group that has attacked Canada in the past ten years.
I read the John Ray article hoping for additional insight into an academic field outside my own. Unfortunately, John Ray provides very little actual rebuttal content in his article. Given this lack of substance, his credibility as an expert becomes central to my believing (as someone without a grounding in the field) that the Berkeley study is flawed.
In this respect, a Medline search of Ray JJ turns up 21 articles, the majority of them published before 1991. Your expert has either not been doing much lately or has been publishing in some pretty low-ranked (ie. unindexed) journals. Publishing in these journals may have indeed made him the “most widely published psychologist on the subject” (and I unfortunately do not have time right now to confirm/affirm this), but if those publications were in unindexed journals, then they’re likely not worth the paper they’re written on, and would thus call into question his credibility as an expert. A far better measure of his worth as an expert would be a cumulative citation index. So I am left unconvinced…
Jack Spratt
We protected Canada from the Russians. The last 10 years, as you know, have been a time when there have been few enemies, until Al Qaeda.
Of course, we don’t protect you from them. You guys don’t need protection since you let them in on the flimsiest pretense.
As far as the study goes, Dr. Ray is retired, which is why he doesn’t publish any more.
America is ruled by two different sets of liberals. There is noting conservative about the Neconservatives – they`re Trotskyite world revolutionaries who desire to spread the American model of liberalism around the globe. It is surely not for no reason that the neonservative cause is supported by many prominent leftist intellectuals.