The nature of conservatism

Postby Jack Roper » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:51 pm

The status quo may be a default position among right-wingers. This explains a great deal (from Miller McCune magazine through the Drudge Report today).

March 29, 2012

Is Conservatism Our Default Ideology?
New research provides evidence that, when under time pressure or otherwise cognitively impaired, people are more likely to express conservative views.

By Tom Jacobs

According to a recent Gallup poll, 40 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, while only 21 percent call themselves liberal. (Another 35 percent are self-identified moderates.)

This gap has long puzzled scholars. If left and right ideologies comprise a mutually dependent yin-yang system, reflecting different approaches to meeting our most basic needs, shouldn’t they be held by roughly the same proportion of people?

One possible explanation is that some “conservatives” wear the label quite loosely. Another points to the long-established link between right-wing attitudes and a tendency to perceive the world as threatening. In an era where the latest scare is constantly being hyped on television and the Internet, it stands to reason that conservatism would dominate.

Newly published research proposes a somewhat different, and quite provocative, answer.

A research team led by University of Arkansas psychologist Scott Eidelman argues that conservatism — which the researchers identify as “an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo” — may be our default ideology. If we don’t have the time or energy to give a matter sufficient thought, we tend to accept the conservative argument.

“When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient,” the researchers write in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. “These conditions promote conservative ideology.”

Eidelman and his colleagues’ paper will surely outrage many on the left (who will resist the notion of conservatism as somehow natural) and the right (who will take offense to the idea that their ideology is linked to low brainpower). The researchers do their best to preemptively answer such criticism.

“We do not assert that conservatives fail to engage in effortful, deliberate thought,” they insist. “We find that when effortful thought is disengaged, the first step people take tends to be in a conservative direction.”

The researchers describe four studies that provide evidence backing up their thesis. In each case, they used a different method to disrupt the process of deliberation, and found that doing so increased the odds of someone espousing conservative views.

Their first method was a time-tested one: inebriation. Researchers stood outside the exit of a busy New England tavern and offered to measure patrons’ blood alcohol level if they would fill out a short survey. Eighty-five drinkers agreed, expressing their opinions of 10 statements such as “production and trade should be free of government interference.”

“Bar patrons reported more conservative attitudes as their level of alcohol intoxication increased,” the researchers report.

A second experiment featured 38 University of Maine undergraduates who filled out a similar survey. Half did so while working on “a distraction task” that required them to listen closely to a tape of tones that varied in pitch.

Those who had to do two things at once, and were thus under a heavier “cognitive load,” were more likely than their peers to endorse conservative attitudes, and less likely to endorse liberal positions.

In a third experiment, participants under time pressure were more likely to endorse conservative viewpoints than those who were not. In a fourth experiment, those asked to “give your first, immediate response” were more likely to express support for words and phrases linked to conservatism (such as “law and order” and “authority”) than those who were instructed to “really put forth effort and consider the issue.”

Eidelman notes that this dynamic was found with different populations (college students and bar patrons) and in people from different parts of the country (three of the experiments were conducted in Maine, a fourth in Arkansas). He adds just one caveat: “Largely, our sample consisted of political centrists.”

“Ideology is multiply determined, coming from many sources, including values, experience, history and culture,” the researchers note. It’s unclear whether this rightward drift would occur in a population of strongly committed but cognitively overloaded liberals.

Similarly, it’s not certain whether die-hard right-wingers would express even more conservative views under these conditions. What does seem clear is that our first impulse tends to be to stick with the tried and true, and this attitude aligns better with conservative ideas than liberal ones.

“The bad news for liberals is we’re saying that conservatism has a certain psychological advantage,” Eidelman said. “The bad news for conservatives is that someone who has a knee-jerk conservative reaction may change their mind about an issue after giving it more thought.”

Of course, it’s an open question as to what percentage of the population genuinely ponders political issues, rather than simply going with their initial instincts. This suggests liberals face a significant challenge in converting people to their cause.

As Eidelman puts it: “It might take a little extra effort to convince yourself (to support a liberal position), and a little extra work to convince others.”

Sign up for the free Miller-McCune.com e-newsletter.

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby sarobah » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:53 pm

Thank you. That was fascinating.
Part of the problem with rational analysis of politics lies in terminology. To take an obvious example – the strange way in which the world “liberal” has mutated. I will restrict this to English-speaking countries. In the UK, from what I can gather, the word has “progressive” (i.e. slightly left-of-centre) connotations. In Australia, the Liberal Party (arguably Australia’s most successful party) is right-wing – the equivalent of the UK Conservatives (but somewhat more right-wing) and the US Republicans.
Those who are labelled “liberals” in the US come closest to the original meaning of the word – promoting rationalism, equality and freedom (including free enterprise). And yet the word is (bizarrely, in my opinion) equated with radical socialism, or at least liberals are lumped in with the left-wing. It’s especially weird because those people generally labelled “liberal” in the US are regarded as “moderate” and even “conservative” in Australia. (As an example... Obama is seen here as a conservative... and a bit of a wimp.)
“Conservative” also appears to be mutating. I can really only speak for Australia, but here the traditionally left-wing activist party, the Labor Party, is now seen as the conservative party, in the sense of conserving “old-fashioned values.” Whereas the Liberal Party – traditionally conservative – is the party advocating radical change, especially in the economy and education; and it is (in my opinion) identified with restricting basic rights, stifling free enterprise (inheritance seems to count for more than personal initiative), and the destruction of family values (i.e. working hard and earning money is regarded as more important than being with family).
Yet a lot of people still vote according to labels that have been obsolete for decades.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby Jason Toddman » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:16 pm

I have had the same problem with the word/label liberal that Sarobah cites. I am liberal in the sense that I am open-minded (as opposed to being close-mined like certain other people I could name), but am not liberal in the sense of being a socialist or other kind of radical. I am neither a left nor a right winger but simply in the middle, which IMO is the most open-minded position of all. I believe there is some good in either 'liberal' or 'conservative' viewpoints. Itr's the extremes, like many conservative or liberal political-minded people seem to espouse these days, that I find hateful... especially the conservative extreme which seems more noticeable these days than the liberal one. It is extremes in both directions that led, for instance, to the political chaos that created Nazi Germany and spread fascism throughout most of Central Europe in the 1930s; partially as a counter-point to Communism in Russia but largely due to the worldwide economic disaster of the Great Depression.
Though I don't consider the Tea Partyers to be (at least openly) quite as extreme as the Nazis or the fascists, IMO they could still well be a step taken once again in that direction if too few sensible people act to prevent it.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby Jack Roper » Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:29 pm

I agree Sarobah and Jason. Aurhoritarianism appears to be the default position of many rightward leaning folks, especially in times of apparent crisis. However, mass man (and woman) are easily swayed by mass media and propaganda--witness the German people after World War I. Liberalism appears to be the impetus behind much of modernity and the revolutions that have occurred in America and around the world. But most revolutions are not truly transformative in that the individuals don't change much nor does their consciousness, thus nation states revert back to the conservative staus quo or go into reactionary mode. The most profound change occurs within the so-called individual leading to compassion and empathy, the traits of a true liberal. I guess it would be possible for a small group of people to change the world. Indeed, that seems to be the only way it ever happens.

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby Jason Toddman » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:47 pm

Jack Roper wrote: The most profound change occurs within the so-called individual leading to compassion and empathy, the traits of a true liberal.

Now that is a definition of liberal I can identify with and be proud of adhering to. Unfortunately, in order to look good, many conservatives like to demonize liberalism and make them liberals look like nothing more than impractical, starry-eyed dreamers. It's the fact that Drawscore apparently likes to indulge in this crap himself that has made me lose almost all respect for him or his opinions.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby drawscore » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:03 am

Perhaps I lump liberals in with their most "notorious" members - like "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, Bill Ayers, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, and yes, Barack Obama. All of them wear the "liberal" or "progressive" label proudly.

>>>Unfortunately, in order to look good, many conservatives like to demonize liberalism and make them liberals look like nothing more than impractical, starry-eyed dreamers.<<<

And many liberals like to demonize conservatism and make conservatives look like nothing more than knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.

The difference between conservatives and liberals can come down to the adage "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Liberals want to take the fish from those that catch them, and distribute them to those that don't. Conservatives want to teach them how to fish.

Drawscore

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:04 am

drawscore wrote:Perhaps I lump liberals in with their most "notorious" members - like "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, Bill Ayers, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Maher, and yes, Barack Obama. All of them wear the "liberal" or "progressive" label proudly.

>>>Unfortunately, in order to look good, many conservatives like to demonize liberalism and make them liberals look like nothing more than impractical, starry-eyed dreamers.<<<

And many liberals like to demonize conservatism and make conservatives look like nothing more than knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.

The difference between conservatives and liberals can come down to the adage "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Liberals want to take the fish from those that catch them, and distribute them to those that don't. Conservatives want to teach them how to fish.

Drawscore

Predicatably, you paint conservtives as 100% heroes and liberals as 100% villians... something I do NOT do except when it comes to extremes. And I don't make conservatives look like knuckle-dragging Neandethals; many of them do a perfectly good job of that all by themselves without any help by me. Rush, Newt, Perry, Bush, Cheney... probably much of FOX news but I can't be sure as I never watch it any more than I watch the liberal ones YOU like to cite... the list is endless.
Your definition of liberal above (Jane Fonda, etc.) is precisely why I objected to your calling me a liberal elsewhere. I am no more like that than I am like Rush Limbaugh. I am a liberal in the sense that I have an open mind, which is no more true of extreme liberals than it is of extreme conservatives (the biggest reason in fact I dislike extremes). But your views are so biased that you feel most people who aren't all conservative must be all liberal. You seem to recognize no middle ground (not in the way you talk anyway) and that's just not how most people are (though you seem to want to paint yourself as a conservative exception).
How do you expect me (I can't speak for anyone else) to want to have a discussion with you (and not lose all patience attempting to do so) when you keep saying patently offensive and inaccurate garbage like "Liberals want to take the fish from those who catch them", and so forth? One can't come up with an intelligent civilized response to such an utterly biased statement such as this. It's as bad as the circular logic held by Bible believers who claim evolution is a hoax (using the same arguments they used long ago to declare the earth was flat and that it was the center of the univewrse with the sun, planmets, and stars all orbiting around it).
If this is your idea of debate, then you can keep it.
Gawd, it's so wonder so many Europeans are confused by Americans.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby drawscore » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:50 pm

You have to consider that what and who we are, is largely defined by two things: Upbringing and environment. My father and two of my uncles were career military. Growing up, most of my friends were military brats like me; my teachers in overseas schools were DODDS (Department of Defense Dependent Schools) employees, and we were naturally proud of what our parents did. I did three years in the Army, and learned my profession (public relations) there.

I would imagine that if I grew up surrounded by Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright types, my outlook would be much different.

Drawscore

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:51 pm

drawscore wrote:I would imagine that if I grew up surrounded by Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright types, my outlook would be much different.

Drawscore

I wouldn't know; I never met these people myself, nor do my beliefs even vaguely resemble theirs in any important particular. Kindly do not insult me by claiming otherwise.
And I spent four years in the military myself (Air Force though, not Army). I was, in fact, considerably more conversative at the time. But life among more ordinary folks than career military personnel soon changed that.
But you're right; environment does play a critical role in what we believe. In fact I used to be a regular Fundamentalist at one time, until I realized that I didn't like most of the people I was going to church with and that their views were in toom much conflict with what I knew about science and with my notions of decency and common sense.
And you were trained in Public Relations? Hmmm.... that's.... interesting. :?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby drawscore » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:29 pm

One of the standing jokes about PR people, is that they can call you an idiot in a dozen different ways, and do it so you'll never even realize that you've been insulted. Another way of putting it, is that they can tell you to "go to hell," and do it in such a way that you can't wait to get home and pack for the trip.

Anyone can be rude and crude, and say "He has his head up his ass." But if you say "He suffers from a terminal case of cranial-rectal inversion." then you get "Huh? What? Did he just say what I think he said?"

It's fun to know the language, and bamboozle 'em with big words. And the very first thing you learn in PR, is "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit." After that, you learn that "Bullshit is an art. To become proficient, one must practice. Constantly. (After all, why do you think we are called 'artists?')"

On the more serious side, you learn that "Bad news is like bad wine. It does not improve with age." The other adage is "If there is an embarrassing incident, the reportage of that incident, timely, honestly, and factually, will not cause anywhere near the damage that will be caused by trying to cover it up and being unsuccessful."

Drawscore

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:41 am

drawscore wrote: One of the standing jokes about PR people, is that they can call you an idiot in a dozen different ways, and do it so you'll never even realize that you've been insulted. Another way of putting it, is that they can tell you to "go to hell," and do it in such a way that you can't wait to get home and pack for the trip.

That might work with most other folks, but I have an excellent English vocabulary and would probably know exactly what was said to me unless you used a foreign language.

Anyone can be rude and crude, and say "He has his head up his ass." But if you say "He suffers from a terminal case of cranial-rectal inversion." then you get "Huh? What? Did he just say what I think he saying? [/quote]
drawscore wrote: Yes, I get it. I have in fact used big words in such ways myself. By the time I was 13 I could actually even understand everything the Professor said on Gilligan's Island, and could tell actual terms from techno babble on Star Trek the Next Generation with ease when the show came out (Those I watched that with would actually ask me to translate the techno babble / tech terms into English for them :big: ) More often than not it was pure babble and I'd just simply boil it down to its simplest sensible elements (they're going to blow shit up; they're about to escape the trap, that attack was 10,000 times stronger than the previous one, and so forth).

drawscore wrote: It's fun to know the language, and bamboozle 'em with big words. And the very first thing you learn in PR, is "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

I once saw a poster with a cheese-eating-grinning Snoopy on it that said this, posted in an officer's office in the Air Force. But he was in charge of computer programming, not (directly anyway) human relations.

drawscore wrote: After that, you learn that "Bullshit is an art. To become proficient, one must practice. Constantly. (After all, why do you think we are called 'artists?')"

There are other kinds of artists, thank God. The kind you are talking about are also known as politicians and diplomats. I can do such things as a sideline but I wouldn't be too proud of myself making it my specialty. Not my style.

drawscore wrote: On the more serious side, you learn that "Bad news is like bad wine. It does not improve with age." The other adage is "If there is an embarrassing incident, the reportage of that incident, timely, honestly, and factually, will not cause anywhere near the damage that will be caused by trying to cover it up and being unsuccessful."

Nixon should have understood this with Watergate.
Of course, all of this is off topic, but Oh well.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby drawscore » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:29 pm

"A triumvirate of optically deficient rodents.
Observe how they perambulate.
They all perambulated after the horticulturist's spouse,
Who removed their posterior appendages with a culinary instrument.
Have you ever observed such an optical phenomenon in your entire metabolic existence
As a triumvirate of optically deficient rodents?"

("Three Blind Mice" translated for lawyers, bureaucrats, senators, congressmen, district, appeals, and supreme court judges and justices, and college professors.) :)

Drawscore

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:27 pm

Besides showing off, is there a point to this?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby ebascoray » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:26 pm

Perhaps, Mr. Toddman, it is to show, that you can take the simple "Three Blind Mice", and make it more complicated than it really is, with way toooooo much verbiage. Verbiage that would make lawyers and politicians pleased! But, anyway, to Drawscore: Since you have identified yourself as being a person who is conservative, there is something that I'd like to ask you, if you don't mind. And, it's something that I've been wanting to ask conservative people for quite some time. The question is this: Just what is it, that you want to---quote-unquote---conserve? Please, clarify this for me, enlighten me. I welcome your comments. Another thing that I would like to ask, and it's for my own understanding only---what is your age? Myself, I am 58, having just turned 58 in February. Oh yes, one more thing---it was interesting what you stated in a previous comment that "you have to consider that what and who we are, is largely defined by two things: Upbringing and environment." Yes, that is most probably very true. But, I would add something to that---The sum total of one's personal experiences in life. I think that is a major contributing factor to what we turn out to be. I could say that the "sum total" of my 58 years of life have shaped me into what I am today. Thanks for reading.

Ebascoray

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby Jason Toddman » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:59 pm

ebascoray wrote:Perhaps, Mr. Toddman, it is to show, that you can take the simple "Three Blind Mice", and make it more complicated than it really is, with way toooooo much verbiage. Verbiage that would make lawyers and politicians pleased! Ebascoray

Thanks, but I figured out that much for myself; as probably did anyone with at least a double-digit IQ who read it. What I actually wanted to know is what it had to do with the topic at hand beyond my reaction to his statement about public relations.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby drawscore » Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:34 pm

>>>to Drawscore: Since you have identified yourself as being a person who is conservative, there is something that I'd like to ask you, if you don't mind. And, it's something that I've been wanting to ask conservative people for quite some time. The question is this: Just what is it, that you want to---quote-unquote---conserve? Please, clarify this for me, enlighten me. I welcome your comments. Another thing that I would like to ask, and it's for my own understanding only---what is your age? Myself, I am 58, having just turned 58 in February. Oh yes, one more thing---it was interesting what you stated in a previous comment that "you have to consider that what and who we are, is largely defined by two things: Upbringing and environment." Yes, that is most probably very true. But, I would add something to that---The sum total of one's personal experiences in life. I think that is a major contributing factor to what we turn out to be. I could say that the "sum total" of my 58 years of life have shaped me into what I am today. Thanks for reading.<<<

I think the catch all phrase would be "traditional values." The US is traditionally a religious country, and I'm not exactly thrilled when atheists and agnostics demand that the majority of us, accommodate them, by removing "In God We Trust" from our coinage and currency, and "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. We have freedom OF religion in this country, not freedom FROM religion.

Our Constitution should be interpreted as it is written. It clearly delineates the rights and duties of the federal government and the state governments. Of course, it has to be adapted to keep up with changing times, but the one amendment that people seem to be woefully ignorant of, is the tenth. It's quite short: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Our lawmakers have done some boneheaded things, and some things that were somewhat intelligent, but I'll concentrate on boneheaded things: The 18th Amendment, for one. You know, the one that gave us Prohibition. (1920) It was such a failure, the 21st Amendment had to be passed to repeal it. (1933)

Another one that should be repealed, is the 17th. That one provided for the direct election of senators. My reasoning, is that originally, the House of Representatives was intended to represent the people, and the senate, intended to represent the states. The people elected the representatives; the governors appointed the senators. That changed when the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1912, and went into effect in 1913.

Although not written in to the Constitution except for the President (22nd Amendment), I think term limits for senators and representatives would be a good idea, and that a proposed 28th Amendment - "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives, and shall make no law that applies to the senators and/or representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens." - should have been passed yesterday. Did you know that congress exempted itself from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and from ObamaCare? (and from several other laws they passed for the rest of us?)

My age? Let's just say I'm old enough to have missed Vietnam by the skin of my teeth.

And the "sum total of your life's experiences" would be your environment. It's what goes on around you, and the people with whom you interact. Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

I hope this has given you some insight into how I think. I can't speak for other conservatives, or for conservatism as a whole. But this is what I think. Not all conservatives agree with me, and there are probably some liberals that do, at least on some points.

Drawscore

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:20 am

Moderates may agree too... on some points. :big: It would be nice if you conservatives would recognize moderate as its own valid belief system.
If you just missed being old enough to serve in Viet Nam, then you and I must be just about the same age. If however you meant you are just old enough to miss being born while the war took place, then you must be somewhat younger than I thought.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby ebascoray » Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:37 am

To Drawscore: Just wanted to let you know that your response to my comments have been read, and...well...pondered! Didn't want to let you think that your writing & response was in vain. Now then, having stated that, on a completely different note, just wanted to say thanks for YOUR contributions of stories in the Fictional TUGs Section. Your stories have been very interesting.

Ebascoray

Re: The nature of conservatism

Postby drawscore » Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:38 pm

Thank you for the complement.

As for my thoughts and beliefs, I don't ask anyone to agree with me. I'll try and present an argument in an effort to convince them they should, and that they should consider what I say, rather than dismissing it out of hand. I'm not going to win any friends by calling someone "stupid," or otherwise being insulting in an open forum. Besides, the mods would frown on such behavior.

Drawscore