Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

I think Cobalt's list is ridiculous, as if you can accurately assign a huge and diverse group of people such infantile "good" and "bad" labels. This sounds like it was preordained deep inside the He Man Women Haters Club circa 1930 or something. It still amazes me that the group that thinks they lead the charge against bigotry and stereotypical thinking spew bile like this. No offense intended toward cobalt.

And, dlowen's wrong, at least about me, when it comes to 'setting unattractive attributes' that are intended to define a large group. Most reasonable people wouldn't do that.

As for this statement--
People - is anyone denying that political beliefs are, to some extent, based on psychological motives? Is anyone saying that political beliefs are purely rational?
--------
I do think there are some people-- GOD, I HOPE SO-- who look at policies of people running for office, and select their party or politician, based on what they feel is the best way to run this country. What dlowen seems to imply here is that people just glom on to a political party, based on their 'irrational psychological make-up.

0 Replies

cobalt wrote:

Quote:
Cobalt--
Its unfair to say conservatives are basically intolerant. Every demographic and political group has intolerants in their number.

I did not say that. I said this:
"I think that "tolerance for inequality" is quite an understatement.

Part of my appreciation of this as an understatement is the word "tolerance". I sincerely doubt most conservatives can argue strongly that their position does not tend towards social Darwinism.

And now, for something different:
Rush Limbaughtomy
http://rushlimbaughtomy.blogspot.com/
Post today, following Kennedy quote

LIBERALS___________Vs.__________CONSERVATIVES

Expansive______________________ Reductive
Inclusive_______________________ Exclusive
Educate _______________________ Imprison
Head Start _____________________ Juvenile Home
Privacy ________________________ Invasive
Pro Choice _____________________ No Choice
All the ships rise_________________ Zero Sum Game
Generous ______________________ Greedy
Love __________________________ Fear
Find Solution ____________________ Assess Blame
Share _________________________ Hoard
Community _____________________ Individual
Consensus _____________________ My Way or the Highway
Compromise ____________________ Strong Arm
Environmentalism_________________Corporatism
Spiritual________________________ Dogmatic
Tolerant________________________ Intolerant
Co-operate______________________Dominate
Placate_________________________Aggravate
Welfare________________________ Warfare
Serve__________________________ Protect
Defend_________________________ Prosecute
Elevate_________________________Persecute
Uplift __________________________ Hold Back
Assist__________________________ Impede
Compassionate __________________Vindictive
Permissive______________________ Controlling
Boundless_______________________Restrictive
Humanist________________________Eliteist
Diversity________________________Conformity

I am surprised that with the above list didn't include:

Good ___________________________Evil
Smart___________________________Stupid
Skinny__________________________Fat
Thick Hair________________________Bald
Pretty___________________________Ugly

My point is that it is full of crap. Labels like this are used only to demean one person while praising another. They are useless and pointless.

0 Replies

DO spell my name right, Sofia, when mis-representing me!

Sofia says: "I do think there are some people-- GOD, I HOPE SO-- who look at policies of people running for office, and select their party or politician, based on what they feel is the best way to run this country. What dlowen seems to imply here is that people just glom on to a political party, based on their 'irrational psychological make-up."

I was, in fact, quite clearly saying that I believe psychological factors to be a PART of our decisions about political affiliation - I personally believe that a belief that such decisions - especially when we are strong adherents to a particular political philosophy - are entirely due to rational factors within our conscious control is rather dim-sighted.

I might add that I am mis-using rational here somewhat, which has helped you to construct your exaggeration, because I cannot think of a precise word to say what I mean (it is way late here) - psychological processes, in my view, (assuming them to exist) are not, in fact IR-rational - they have a consistent rationality of their own - it is just a different sort of rationality from what we usually mean when we discuss rationality.

You talk about "based on what they feel is the best way to run this country" - do you see your feelings about this as absolutely exclusive of any factors which have shaped your personality, and completely independent of your personality?

I have no idea what you mean by this:

"And, dlowen's wrong, at least about me, when it comes to 'setting unattractive attributes' that are intended to define a large group. Most reasonable people wouldn't do that. "

Can you explain what you mean by "setting unattractive attributes etc."? - it bears no relationship to anything I said, and I find it unfathomable.

I also find Cobalt's list unfathomable, by the way, and I do not think it bears any relation to the intent or content of the article which begins this thread.

0 Replies

All I was doing, Sofia, was to ask what people thought of the analysis in the article and the idea of political affiliations reflecting certain personality traits, (as opposed to arguing about conservative/progressive takes on things like defence and other policies which have been well argued elsewhere) - and attempting to facilitate such a discussion by defusing some of the emotion caused by the fact that it happened to be an analysis of conservatives' personality attributes. I was saying that, had it analysed progressives' personality attributes instead, progressive people would have found much to complain about too - just different things. This is the nature of that kind of analysis.

0 Replies

Looks like that discussion ain't gonna happen though - sigh.

0 Replies

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9981&highlight=

The article I built the above thread around might be an interesting point in this discussion.

0 Replies

I think dlowan is on the right track when she looks for psychological traits, be them individual or collective.

And, while Cobalt's list is inaccurate and biased (yes, almost as "good and evil"), I still find some traits as characteristic, specially the Serve - Protect and Community - Individual dichotomies.

While social compassion moves most left wingers, individual protection moves most right wingers.

All too often we see liberals who do not care enough about individual protection and conservatives with no sense of social compassion.

It is of no wonder that many people who are left wing in their youth, become more conservative at older age. When you're young you throw yourself into society, you see unfairness and you boldly want to change it. The raising of a family builds into you the sense of protection of what you have; makes you assess risk with a different attitude.

(We have a saying -I think it's worldwide-: "If you're 20 and you're not left wing, you have not a heart; if you're 40 and you're still left wing, you have not a brain". I don't really agree with the brain part, but it helps to deliver this view; like saying "you're not being responsible").

I find that the article that originated this thread puts the finger on the wound when it says that fear is at the origin of Conservatism, as an ideology.

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

It is of no wonder that many people who are left wing in their youth, become more conservative at older age. When you're young you throw yourself into society, you see unfairness and you boldly want to change it. The raising of a family builds into you the sense of protection of what you have; makes you assess risk with a different attitude.

(We have a saying -I think it's worldwide-: "If you're 20 and you're not left wing, you have not a heart; if you're 40 and you're still left wing, you have not a brain". I don't really agree with the brain part, but it helps to deliver this view; like saying "you're not being responsible").

That's the reallest thing I evah read from ya.

0 Replies

And to the people who are rejecting the use of the word "fear" remember that it is not always a bad thing. It's a survival instinct.

0 Replies

I like the Wabbit's assessment, and Fbaezer's as well. The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides demonstrates that more than two thousand years ago, the dynamics of group attitudes and individual ambition moved politics, often violently to the same extent as is the case today. I believe that when organizing principles began to be employed to the greater benefit of small groups--hunting groups which became warrior societies and began marauding, or agricultural groups which established the first temple societies--there arose a phenomenon which has been with us ever since. Those with responsibility and control within such groups, military leaders, priests or civil administrators of some kind (Kings, Emperors, Aristocracy, the Mandarins) were, for obvious reasons, conservative. They wished to enshrine their power, and the message of fear which was promulgated has been employed ever since. This does not mean that i consider all conservatives to be fear-mongering manipulators. Fbaezer points to the issue of how one's perspective changes with the establishment of a family. One then wishes to protect the things which one has, and the fear is of losing those things. A great many complex processes begin to play, as generations succeed one another, and younger men and women want a share, or a bigger share of the economic and social pie; as newcomers expand a community and want to get their "fair share" of that pie; as competition from other groups impinges in the environment of a "shrinking world." The impulse to associate for mutual protection doubtless stretches back through the millenia to the earliest family groups. How very unremarkable is the thought that this would occur in the larger and more "sophisticated" groups into which humanity now forms. At the heart of successful economies are people and procedures for negotiation. The political climate would be a good deal clearer and healthier if conservative and liberal acknowledged their differences, acknowledged one another to be largely people of good will--and got down to the business of constantly negotiating and re-negotiating the social contract in the attempt to balance the fears and desires of both groups.

0 Replies

fbaezer
fbaezer, you and I had the same reaction to the thread leading article. However, I would add to your quote "I find that the article that originated this thread puts the finger on the wound when it says that fear is at the origin of Conservatism, as an ideology."

I would include as a major definer from the article: "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." We see another example of this characteristic in stock market participation, which I assume is dominated by those of conservative bent.

These two fears are linked in the personalities of most of the many conservatives I've known well over many years. There are many others, but these seem the penultimate examples under the number one most annoying conservative trait, which I find to be: "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."

In my own world, I find more gray areas than black and white.

---BumbleBeeBoogie

0 Replies

Conservatism as mental illness. What a breakthrough! Of course, I will be waiting to read their research on what makes someone a liberal. No doubt they will find only positive associations there.

And for myself, I disagree with their claim that conservatives want to maintain the status quo. The status quo includes welfare programs that I would change or get rid of. The status quo involves federal intrusion into myriad activities I would get them out of. It has nothing to do with the "status quo". I am not interested in keeping us where we are, just like liberals, I am interested in taking us where I think we should be. The fact that the destination I have in mind is very different from the one liberals might choose does not mean I am advocating no change.

Of course, I don't claim to be the prototypical conservative, but from my point of view the "study" seems like a load of rubbish.

0 Replies

BBB:

I was about to contend what I perceived as a generalization (liberals seeing shades vs. conservatives seeing black & white), but then along came Scrat to support your argument.

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

I was about to contend what I perceived as a generalization (liberals seeing shades vs. conservatives seeing black & white), but then along came Scrat to support your argument.

How precisely did I do that? What I believe I wrote was that I do not favor clinging to the status quo, that I believe I share this trait with liberals and conservatives alike, and that the real difference is what change we desire, not whether we desire change.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Conservatism as mental illness. What a breakthrough! Of course, I will be waiting to read their research on what makes someone a liberal. No doubt they will find only positive associations there.

from my point of view the "study" seems like a load of rubbish.

There you go.

0 Replies

Scrat, conservatives do see value in the status quo. As an example I point to the recent decision by our conservative Supreme Court on Affirmative Action. My thought is that a majority probably would not favor AA as we have it today: however, they recognize it to be an existing mode of working with a current problem. Whatever its faults, it works, at least after a fashion, so the court, which is conservative, let it stand.

I think this is the classical conservative attitude at work.

0 Replies

I don't know why we can't agree that both parties want the best country we can muster-- they just have different ideas about how to get us there.

If I were to make a negative generalization about liberal policies, it would be in line with the quote from fbaezer--
(We have a saying -I think it's worldwide-: "If you're 20 and you're not left wing, you have not a heart; if you're 40 and you're still left wing, you have not a brain". I don't really agree with the brain part, but it helps to deliver this view; like saying "you're not being responsible").

Liberal policies sound great (benevolent), but in practice, are short-sighted, and lead to other problems. Conservative policies take into consideraton the long-term effect, so they don't seem benevolent in the short-term, but they are more reasoned and sustainable. My opinion, anyway.

0 Replies

It's hillarious to see liberals and conservatives defining the opposing party's policies.

It always sounds like this:

"See, they can be nice guys and all, but we are right and they are stupid."

0 Replies

Well, I happen to believe the US needs and benefits from the two parties, offsetting one another's excesses.

0 Replies

I agree with dlowan that our psychological make up in most cases largely determines our political philosophy.

We are psychological creatures long before we learn political philosophy. The philosophy that appeals to each of us as an individual will depend on attitudes and ideas and feelings that we developed before we encountered ideologies.

As a young, non-political , man, I was given two books to read. One explaining the Liberal and the other the Conservative political positions. Upon reading these two books, I knew instinctively that I was a Liberal, and so I have remained for over 50 years (I guess, Craven, I have no brains). Note that both the Liberal and Conservative positions are rational in that they accept as true certain premises and argue logically from there. So what causes us to choose one rational system of thought over another? I say irrational psychological factors!

0 Replies

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know