Written by Byron York, 1 August 2003
The “Conservatives Are Crazy” Study: Paid For by Taxpayers
Congressional investigators call for a new look at funding academic research.
n academic study of conservatism that lumped together Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Ronald Reagan, and Rush Limbaugh was funded by federal grants, according to congressional investigators.
The study, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," was written by John T. Jost, a professor at Stanford University, Jack Glaser and Frank J. Sulloway, professors at the University of California, Berkeley, and Arie W. Kruglanski, a professor at the University of Maryland. It was published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
Congressional investigators have found that the study was financed by $1.2 million in federal funds. According to the House Republican Study Committee, Kruglanski received National Institute of Mental Health grants totaling $976,762, Glaser received National Institute of Mental Health grants totaling $48,464, and Jost and Kruglanski together received an estimated $213,800 from the National Science Foundation.
The authors describe their work as an examination of "the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including (a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) personal needs for order and structure, and (f) need for cognitive closure; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt....We have argued that these motives are in fact related to one another psychologically, and our motivated social-cognitive perspective helps to integrate them."
One of the more controversial assertions in the federally funded work is the authors' argument that Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh share common traits as conservatives. "One is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives," the authors write in a published adjunct to the study, "not because they share an opposition to 'big government' or a mythical, romanticized view of Aryan purity — they did not share these specific attitudes — but because they all preached a return to an idealized past and favored or condoned inequality in some form."
Among the sources cited by the scholars in support of their conclusions are the works of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. For example, the authors write, "It has been observed that Republicans are far more single-mindedly and unambiguously aggressive in pursuing Democratic scandals (e.g. Whitewater, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair) than Democrats have been in pursuing Republican scandals (e.g. Iran Contra, Bush-Harken Energy, Halliburton). In commenting on the Republican 'scandal machine,' Krugman argued that, 'there is a level of anger and hatred on the right that has at best a faint echo in the anti-globalization left, and none at all in mainstream liberalism. Indeed, all the liberals I know generally seem unwilling to face up to the nastiness of contemporary politics.'"
On another occasion, the authors cite Krugman on the legacy of Ronald Reagan. "[Reagan's] chief accomplishment," they write, "in effect, was to roll back both the New Deal era and the 1960s, which was also the goal of former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and many other neo-conservatives often regarded as advocates of change. As Krugman observed in the context of current debates concerning the privatization of social security, 'hard-line conservatives are determined to build a bridge back to the 1920s.'"
In an interview with National Review Online, Florida Republican Rep. Tom Feeney, who looked into the study and its funding, called the project "outrageous."
"Taxpayers shouldn't be required to pay for these things," Feeney said. "If private universities, privately funded, want to study ridiculous hypotheses for political agendas, they have a right to do so, but when you are basically confiscating money from taxpayers to fund left-wing rhetoric and dress it up as scientific study, I think you have a real problem with credibility."
au, I don't know where you live, but according to my observations, hobit sees very cleary what most Americans fail to see; the overthrow of our government and country by radicals. I would only suggest that you study the Patriot Act and understand fully what Constitutional Rights are being 'stolen' from us. Check into what Constitutional Rights the Arab-Americans lost during the past two years, and what the Patriot Act authorizes this administration to do in the name of national security. Many people just can't see the robbery, because they fail to understand what is happening.
I like the closing paragraph, mama, at least:
mamajuana wrote:Written by Byron York, 1 August 2003
In an interview with National Review Online, Florida Republican Rep. Tom Feeney, who looked into the study and its funding, called the project "outrageous."
"Taxpayers shouldn't be required to pay for these things," Feeney said. "If private universities, privately funded, want to study ridiculous hypotheses for political agendas, they have a right to do so, but when you are basically confiscating money from taxpayers to fund left-wing rhetoric and dress it up as scientific study, I think you have a real problem with credibility."
That's a laugh! Many branches of our government spends millions (if not billions) every year on useless studies. I bet a search on Google will get over a thousand hits. LOL
Well, of course you do, cjhsa. But then again, it was considered important enough to be funded, wasn't it? Feeney has been questioned himself in Florida on some of his alleged misuse of taxpayer money. So I guess it all depends on which way you're riding the horse.
Ooops! I grossly underestimated the number of "waste by government research." Got 1,280,000 hits. Results 1-10 of about 1,280,000
I can assure you I am riding the horse correctly.
Actually ci, the 10th hit was "Amount of Radioactive waste in Australia". But that's OK, I get your point, and I agree with you.
Can't remember the last time I was on a horse - wait, I do. It was on the beach.
(I'm not sure where that expression came from - it just popped into my head.)
A lot of government "wasted" funding is spent on collegiate studies and experiments. As long as the student learns something about how to properly do a study or experiment, how to apply logic and the scientific method, so that they can move forward and be a more productive member of society, then I don't see the money as being completely wasted. I would look at it as as investment.
cjh, But ya still gotta admit, some of those studies are stupid and not even worth the student's time and effort.
Cicerone Imposter complains about the Patriot Act.
I have talked to many who fear the intrusion of this Act's provision into their private lives unnecessarily.
However, it was pointed out to me that the Patriot Act was passed 98-1 in the Senate with Senator Finegold being the sole negative vote.
What were Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, Graham, Lieberman and Byrd thinking about when they added their names to the Yes column for this bill?
They've been in Washington DC too long. Their ability to think has long ago disappeared.
Italgato, one thing you need to understand is that A2K is inhabited by a large number of "progressives". This is a relatively new political term that is meant to put a friendly sounding face on a bunch of really nasty leftists.
When they start ganging up in here, they forget they are actually a fringe group.
cjh, The real "fringe group" now resides in Washington DC. They actually do the damage; we only talk about it.
cjhsa wrote:Italgato, one thing you need to understand is that A2K is inhabited by a large number of "progressives". This is a relatively new political term that is meant to put a friendly sounding face on a bunch of really nasty leftists.
When they start ganging up in here, they forget they are actually a fringe group.
A conservative calling liberals nasty.
That's like a wart hog calling a swan an ugly animal.
And the conservative is calling liberals nasty because they say bad things about a president.
Were you asleep during the Clinton years?
They weren't just asleep, they were in utter denial. A denial that's rolled over into the Bush years with the weird idea that Dubya can't make a mistake, or worse yet that his overt and hidden agenda is okay beause it's a means to an end.
This is the second thread I've found today in which the left has been accused of vile and nasty "Bush Bashing"
I got off of Abuzz in part because of the invective that was being thrown, and most of it from individuals that I would regard as on the right politically.
There seems to be a developing trend which I would attribute to the up coming presidential election. After years of political mud slinging misrepresentation and down right folly in replace of policy, the Republicans, particularly their radical wing are now attempting to draw attention away from their actions by claiming to be the victim of political slander.
