Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations
Copyright UC Regents
Original document can be found here. Actual report in black letters, snide comments in italicized maroon.
BERKELEY - Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War (By the way, professors, yes, it's safe to come back from Canada now) to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations? (There always must be "underlying motivations" anytime you're pro personal responsibility, but if you're for confiscation of money via third-party contracts without the consent of the third party, the motiviation is always assumed pure.)
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature (25 back issues of "Time", 13 "Life" magazines, a dog-eared copy of "The Chomsky Reader", and a phone conversation with Phil Donahue) about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality (Liberal Dictionary definition of inequality: "When people want to keep their own money"), and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression (Don't you love how they set you up so, if you react or disagree with this study, it obviously makes you a bad person. You're either afraid to face the results, or your debate will be an act of aggression)
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity (If you question somebody on, say, ambiguous research, you're intolerant. Why didn't I think of this first? It's evil genius!)
Uncertainty avoidance (When smart people get on an elevator, before stepping in, they first look down to make sure there's a floor there. This is 'uncertainty avoidance', and it's bad. They don't want you to look down, because their mangled ideas that plunged to the bottom of the elevator shaft want company.)
Need for cognitive closure (such as using this report to line the bottom of the cat's litter box, as I did. Cognitive closure sure does feel good!)
Terror management (before 9-11, this wouldn't have been in here, but now responding to a terrorist attack gets you equated with Hitler and Stalin by a bunch of self-serving campus stooges.)
"From our perspective (ivory tower, nearsighted, foggy day), 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". (for you teenagers, that's the one you grab off the magazine rack when you need something to put the copy of "Swank" inside of so nobody notices you're reading porn)
Assistant Professor Jack Glaser (who didn't have an easy childhood: 
)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 (all pictured below) at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.
The legendary "Berkeley Bunch", seen here demonstrating how they touch the Ouija board to summon the spirit of Karl Marx.
The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants (if there were indeed 22,818 right wingers studied, then 22,700 of them were Osmonds), 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 (Judy and Wapner), as well as experimental, field and survey studies. (sample "man on the street" question: "Have you stopped being a right-wing murderer? Answer only yes or no.")
Ten meta-analytic calculations (this involves Nina Totenberg and a slide rule) performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said. (Example of a common thread: all the subjects were being analyzed by dorks)
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. (Liberals are much more at ease with the unknown. They have to be in order to listen to themselves talk. They never know what's going to come out next.)
The terror management feature (self defense) 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. (you can tell these guys got beat up a lot in high school)
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.). (And frivolous reporting-- a view reflected on the Jerry Springer Show, Weekly World News magazine, and the study "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.")
Disparate conservatives (nothing in common except what these pinheads say they have in common, which is nothing, and that nothing is a common bond worth exploring) share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals (one actually was a pinata), but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past (when there were no heavily funded left-wing studies) and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way. (Still pissed about their failings in talk radio, aren't they?)
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 (so many words, so little meaning), 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. (I'm starting to think most of these guys have never even kissed a girl)
The researchers' analytical methods (coin toss: "Heads, Reagan's evil; tails, he's really evil!) 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 (not counting their underwear) than conservatives do.
As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality (off-campus free market system), 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. (This entire report was written for two reasons: 1) To discredit the right wing, and 2) to give Mao something to masturbate about in his grave.)
The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems (with the exception of shrink-wrapped left-wing psychologists), 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." (Just equates them with Hitler and Stalin)
They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental. (That goes without saying)
"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits (Birkenstock activism from 45-year-old college sophomores who still live in their parents' basement) 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," (to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin) the researchers wrote.
This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions (unless they think about baseball), and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised. (Such get a chuckle at the oxymoronic statement "Impartial Berkeley Researcher")
The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence (this is the first time I've thought of the word "intelligence" while reading this report) 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. (As he emerged from hiding under his desk)
"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. (Either people are really stupid, or it just makes more sense. With the exception of the people who wrote this study, I'd pick the latter)
Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise (just as Liza Minelli acknowledges that her soon to be ex husband may be viewed as gay). However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism. (all good criminals cover their trail)
The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, (Streisand, Glover, Moore, and Sheen) 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 (I'm starting to become distracted by shiny objects) 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. (Like Reagan was? Look, I just don't get this, guys.)
Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" (ah, that's why I don't get this!) than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded." (just evil)
Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual (liberal) hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said.
I'm starting to look like this guy: 
"They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said. (Not like the left, who look beyond black and white to a world where there are no racial quotas, and everyone's treated the same.)
He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy (If you're playing "Wacky Leftist Research: The Home Game", move your George W. Bush game piece to the country with the picture of Mussolini with his arm around G. Gordon Liddy at this point), 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." (What are they saying? That politicians would be much more successful if they would just tell us "what I believe is wrong". No wonder they're having trouble winning elected office.)
This concludes a study in idiocy. Hope you enjoyed it.