|
Edited on Thu Nov-04-04 04:40 PM by HereSince1628
_Interpreting Kerry’s loss to political conservatism as motivated social cognition._
The appeal of conservative values to the uneducated may have lost us the presidential election...
(The concepts I address in this post refer to a paper by Jost et al “Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.” Psychological Bulletin vol 129, pp 339-375. You can find copies of that paper on the web, but I have included my summary of the main points at the end of this post.)
It is amazing to all DU’ers that this administration, whose ineptness and mendacity place it so high on the list of worst administrations ever in western civilization, could succeed in a re-election attempt. But they did. It is worth considering what might have happened. Here is my attempt, I would appreciate constructive comments...
The two most fundamental or core dimensions of conservatism identified by a panel of international caliber psychologists are 1) Opposition to Change and 2) Acceptance of Inequality. “Opposition to change” is the most obvious conservative trait and is inherent in the word conservative itself. But it is important to remember that opposition to change not only privileges the _status quo_ it also urges a return to idealized old state. On the one hand this is why the Reagan years are so venerated, and why the time before FDR’s new deal is seen as a golden era for conservatives.
On the otherhand returning to an idealized state could include the dream of restoring a time before 9/11 when America was unassailable. Most Americans unquestionably wish to return the United States to a condition of security. It is relatively easy to grasp conceptually that this desire is never going to be too far from an ideation for some “safer time.”
My point here is pretty simple... 911 created a social context which biased the population toward an attitude typically voiced by conservatives. Adoption of that attitude is nothing less than the preparation of the mind for the mendacity and audacity that we witnessed from the Bush administration. I fear, though I cannot prove, that adoption of a desire to return to a safer time actually resulted in the willing suspension of disbelief in many Americans including a majority of mass media outlets. While I cannot prove there were no conspiracies to mislead the American people, I suspect that the human desire for security prejudiced both the producers and consumers of mass media.
The second core value of conservatism -Acceptance of inequality- plays not only into the minds of those who are achieving wealth and favored status, but more importantly for democrats and progressives, it also plays into the minds of the working class and poor who must in one way or another rationalize their less than priviledged state. As a consequence the wealthy or soon expecting to be wealthy and the despondent working class and poor (who believe nothing better can come their way) _both_ find psychic relief in the conservative attitude that inequality is not only common but acceptable. Both groups are able to legitimize their positions as acceptable asymmetries of status and wealth.
A variety of socio-psychological theories have been proposed that may be useful in interpreting the dimensions that contributed to conservative appeal to voters (and conversely our party’s election loss).
Personality Theories–
-Authoritarianism, a philosophy that exploits status inequalities for decision/rule making, and includes acquiescence to authority. The priviledged (like Bush, Cheney and the Neocon intelligencia) feel it is their place in society to make decisions of which others are incapable. Cheney on several occasions stated that Kerry just couldn’t get his head around this. Powerless people who are in no position to challenge their status are likely to accept such statements because these expressions tend to support beliefs that rationalize personal low status just as much as they appeal to those expecting recognition and reward for achieving high status (even if that is through birth into a wealthy or well positioned family, gender or ethnicity)
-Dogmatism, a perspective that promotes reliance on tried solutions (and consequently appeal to successful states of the past). The Bush/Cheney administration has been nothing if not “retro.” Their positions could be taken from various position papers written in the early Nixon administration if not that of Eisenhower.
For the uneducated, an appeal to some previous solution has obvious advantages. It provides something that worked. Of course, in the past 4 years there has been precious little attempt to consider whether the problem (such as rogue states with intercontinental ballistic missles)actually exists.
Going back to the “same old shit” that worked before is reassuring. _In this way “War is OK, look we did it in WW1 and WW2 and we came through GREATER than we were before we started. We did it before and we can do it again, etc.”
-Intolerance to ambiguity, is a psychological trait associated with conservativism. Properly expressed this trait provides clear boundaries, but overdeveloped it tends to not only emphasize on the boundaries and distinctions necessary for inequitable treatment of others but it also leads to Manicheism...the oversimplification of reality into camps of absolute good and absolute evil. In this way, ANY and ALL groups with different values are evil. "You are with us or against us," as Bush said to the international community.
"They" might represent a militant terrorist faction inside another religion, but the whole religion gets painted with the broad brush. "They" might represent a political party in a nation who support some dictator, but who also have physical features that we associate with some wanted criminal, and the population as a whole gets painted with the same brush. They might be come "He," who is a presidential candidate from a Northeastern state who is identified as being an enemy, a liberal snob, because of his party affiliation, even though his positions promote the welfare of other classes and geographic regions.
Critical Needs Theories
-The desperate need for Closure...to provide release from ambiguity and to promote action on an available theory (even if it is wrong). What can I say? This is a pretty good explanation for why 40% of the American population still accepts that Saddam Hussein had WMD,
was associated with Al Qeda and consequently a perfectly good target for retaliation for 911
In the same way the rather useless creation of a new bureaucracy to deal with Homeland Security was a “fix” whether it works or not is less important.
-The need to focus on social regulation. On its face this not only preserves an accepted status quo but it also rationalizes things like the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. The rapid creation of a set of rules (that nonetheless undermine civil liberty) as a solution to a poorly understood and badly justified need is preferable to acting slowly albeit with deliberation. (Of course, the conservative belied in social asymmetries places some people above the rules for other more common citizens).
-The need to manage fear of death and terror...this not only privileges religious voices (whose comfort comes from the belief in life after death), it also places the “need to do something” in a special position.
The variously colored Homeland Secutirty alerts not only create fear, they represent a response to it. Manipulation of this system put the Bush administration in a powerful position to influence to attitudes and perspectives of the entire population because to some extent _everyone_ expresses these conservative traits.
Attacking Iraq is better than “doing nothing.”
Ideological Rationalization–
-Social dominance hypotheses...in this sytem legitimizing myths are promoted (such as being a divinely chosen people) that support personal or group hegemony.
Yes, this is about the appeal of the National Security Strategy.
It is also about Abu Graib. Social dominance enables and endorses identification and punishment of “them”--the deviants, minorities, or enemies of “us.”
-System justification theory resolves conflicts, so called dissonance, about personal status/treatment by rationalization of the system’s worth. This theory explains how individuals promote defense of the system against threats even at high social or personal cost–as required for justifying death in war.
Under this systems mechanisms patriotic souls are urged to die for a cause not of their chosing in an oil rich land far from home.
Once again this theory helps account for why the poor and working class would support the re-election of someone like GW Bush.
The support of the poor for Bush makes little sense. It is an act that promotes the class structure and limited opportunity that keeps them poor. But it does satisfy their hunger, because it justifies their difference in dietary opportunity.
'Yes, I eat only potatos or pasta, but if I was succesful I would eat meat..."
"Poor people are an inevitable part of existence (the new testament of Christians even says so)."
"The American system promises success to everyone who tries (well not really, but then that is the conflict this theory resolves)."
Ok, so I haven’t been all that coherent. My point is that things that appeal to the conservative mindsets are also comforting to many of our fellow citizens, who we otherwise might expect to be liberal democrats, and whom we would like to have our message reach.
In 2004, Kerry and Edwards seem to have been unable to have their message reach and overcome the promise of comforts that appeal to conservative traits expressed to some extent in every single one of us.
- - - - - - - - - -
Here on is my summary of the paper by Jost et al... obviously they didn’t approve my interpretation and I accept that my own limitations may result in something of a biased summary of their paper.
(Parenthetical remarks are mine)
The authors (Jost et al) reviewed the work of 19 authors (historians, journalists, and political scientists) concerning the ideology of conservatism. From the review, Jost et al derived two features that represent persistent features of conservatism regardless of its geopolitical, or temporal context. They used these to describe the core dimensions that characterize conservative principles:
1. Opposition to change (privileges status quo or urges return to idealized old state)
2. Acceptance of inequality (legitimizes asymmetries of wealth and status).
Other dimensions of conservatism are context dependent and are considered peripheral dimensions. Because of the influence of historic circumstance at any given time what is considered conservative may not be deemed so at another time, and it would seem at times some of these may play more significant roles than others.
(The principle at work here seems to be that peripheral aspects of political conservatism reflect responses to problems that create a psychological need to manage personal or social variables that distress an individuals’ relationships with core dimensions. Such need(s) motivates conservative individuals toward social attitudes whose predictable manifestation characterize day-to-day political conservatism.)
Various theories postulate explanatory correlations between social-psychological variables and conservatism. (Consequently, the paper presents an interesting summary of behavioral and attitudinal orientation that characterize the peripheral dimensions of conservatism. It should be noted that Jost et al don’t fully discriminate right wing from conservative politics.).
Personality Theories–
-Authoritarianism (exploits status inequalities for decision/rule making, and includes acquiescence to authority)
-Dogmatism (opposes new explanation/interpretive models, promotes reliance on tried
solutions)
-Intolerance to Ambiguity (emphasizes boundaries/distinctions ,
literal interpretation of rules. This makes conservatives vulnerable to Manicheism–the
division of reality into absolute good and absolute evil.)
Existential Needs Theories–
-Closure (provides release from anxiety of ambiguity, promotes adoption of available solutions above wrestling with uncertainty and confusion )
-Regulatory focus (emphasizes stability , promotes cravings for security)
-Terror management/Fear of Death (promotes and protects systems that provide avenues of death denial/transcendence)
Ideological Rationalization–
-Social dominance (promotes legitimizing myths (such as divinely chosen people) that support personal or group hegemony and enables/endorses identification and punishment of deviants/minorities)
-System justification (resolves conflicts about personal status/treatment by rationalization of the system’s worth, promotes defense of the system against threats even at high social or personal cost–as required for justifying death in war)
The authors evaluated 88 published studies (some of these are European so the paper is not only about conservatism in the US) to determine if correlations between political conservatism and expectations derived from the theories...they found the following correlations:
death anxiety ( r =50)
system stability (.47) (not surprising since opposition to change is a core dimension)
dogmatism/intolerance to ambiguity (.34)
openness to experience (-.32)
uncertainty tolerance (-.27)
needs for order/structure/closure (.26)
integrative complexity (-.20)
fear of threat and/or loss (.18)
self-esteem (-.09)
(Consequently, these correlates represent how political conservatives orient to some social/psychological variables that had been previously successfully used to characterize the peripheral dimensions of conservatism. Sorry, comparison of political liberals and political conservatives along these same variables is hampered by the lack of studies of political liberalism.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
