OT: A Little Light on The Nasty Ones
- From: Anonymous-Remailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Harold Norske)
- Date: 30 Jun 2006 14:59:25 -0000
Well, we always knew there was something wrong with them.
A study, funded jointly by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and
National Institute of Mental Health at the National Institute of Health
(NIH) examined a mindset that the authors were polite enough to refer to
as political conservatism. That was something of a euphemism. What they
were really studying were the right wing whacks who took over the GOP
and threaten to turn America into a third-rate fourth Reich. The paper,
titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" has raised
a predictable storm among right wingers, most of whom are yowling and
spitting in rage and frustration and throwing their feces, furious that
anyone would imply they were emotionally unstable.
A second paper by the same researchers, entitled "Exceptions That Prove
the Rule?Using a Theory of Motivated Social Cognition to Account for
Ideological Incongruities and Political Anomalies: Reply to Greenberg
and Jonas (2003)" is being printed in the APA?s peer-reviewed
Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 383?393
According to the authors:
"?[W]e consider evidence for and against 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;
(5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social
and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social
system. We have argued that these motives are in fact related to one
another psychologically, and our motivated social?cognitive perspective
helps to integrate them. We now offer an integrative, meta-analytic
review of research on epistemic, existential, and ideological bases of
conservatism."
?Pg. 352; John T. Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of
Business; Jack Glaser of University of California, Berkeley; Arie W.
Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park; Frank J.
Sulloway of University of California, Berkeley.
Generally speaking, they find for the evidence. Hope I didn?t spoil the
plot for you.
Right wingers proved the researchers right by promptly losing their
minds and screaming for the hides of the perpetrators. Right wing radio
hosts howled and gibbered that an investigation should be made
immediately into the funding these researchers get, and they were
accused, in no particular order, and according to no rhyme or reason, of
being anti-American and anti-Christian and probably for gay rights and
gun control.
The researchers, sensing that this paper might cause a slight discomfort
among the more sensitive of our conservative brethren (Really. They went
up like rabid baboons with bottle rockets stuffed up their asses!) went
to great lengths to reassure one and all that they weren?t calling the
right wingers a bunch of psychotic, destructive nuts. Obviously, they
weren?t studying the right wingers we see most often on the Internet.
The authors wrote, "Our first assumption, too, is that conservative
ideologies ? like virtually all other belief systems ? are adopted in
part because they satisfy some psychological needs. This does not mean
that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are
necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."
OK, Forget Tom DeLay and Pat Robertson for a minute. There are
conservatives who aren?t vicious amoral anti-social whacks. In real
life, I know some. I even have conservative friends, although I plan to
warn my daughters about them.
But what the researchers were looking at were the group that I?ve been
referring to for years as "secular fundamentalists." The political
variant of these critters tends to be reactionary, paranoid,
authoritarian, intolerant, contemptuous of rules that don?t suit them
and overbearing in their observance on behalf of others of rules that do
suit them. While there are left wing examples (David Horowitz was a good
example in his time) they generally gravitate toward fascism and call it
conservatism, even though it?s usually better described as radical
reactionaryism.
The authors define the two core principles of conservatism as resistance
to change, and acceptance of social inequality. Conservatives, they
argue, cling tightly to a status quo, real or imagined, and regard
society as hierarchical. Unsurprisingly, they tend to believe they have
inherited and/or merited preferential positions in this hierarchy.
The authors address what they call the "conservative paradox" of radical
reactionaryism (e.g, Hitler, Mussolini or Pinochet) by pointing out that
their calls for extreme inequality in the social order were juxtaposed
with promises to lead the country back to an ideal past, one in
which "traditional values and morality" prevailed. It occurs to me a
good catchphrase for the mawkish and hollow babble that usually
accompanies this fraud is "morning in America." Our present-day radical
reactionaries continuously harken back to a traditional America that
never existed, one where everyone was a god fearing generic protestant,
people with accents lived in the poor part of town and never bothered
folks, and women and blacks knew their place.
This matches what I consider a hallmark of the fundamentalist mindset:
the ability to completely invert a philosophy to suit personal needs. In
religion, for example, you have Christianity and Islam, religions that
both place high premiums on respect for one?s fellow humans, peace, and
personal integrity. Yet fundamentalists are frequently the most violent,
dishonest and intolerant people around, and use their religion to
completely rationalize this abhorrent behavior. In conservatism you see
people who champion the Bill of Rights, unobtrusive government, and a
laissez faire approach to industry cheering loudly for the Patriot Act
and the tariffs Putsch has placed on steel and timber. This emotional
and intellectual dichotomy is how conservatives can condemn dishonest
and immoral behavior on Clinton?s part while phlegmatically accepting
that Putsch lied his way into a war that does not benefit America while
declaring that he is opposed to "nation building." It?s how Republicans
can damn Democrats as being fiscally irresponsible even while they
ignore Putsch?s disastrous fiscal policies that are driving the nation
to new and insane levels of debt. One need only watch conservatives in
California vilify Grey Davis for a $38 billion deficit that he didn?t
cause while ignoring Putsch?s $600 billion deficit, much of which was
fueled by his reckless tax cuts.
One of the more interesting references in the paper is "The Theory of
RWA," in which the authors consider the Authoritarian Personality. They
state, "harsh parenting styles brought on by economic hardship led
entire generations to repress hostility toward authority figures and to
replace it with an exaggerated deference and idealization of authority
and tendencies to blame society scapegoats and punish deviants."
Angry, repressed, passive-aggressive with a desire to punish those who
don?t conform.
Yup, that?s our boys. It could be the platform of the GOP.
For those who are interested, the papers are available at the APA
website, and a Google search for "Political Conservatism as Motivated
Social Cognition" and "Exceptions That Prove the Rule?Using a Theory of
Motivated Social Cognition to Account for Ideological Incongruities and
Political Anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003)" (Oh, for
Pete?s Sake: use cut and paste: highlight, control-C and then control-V
into the Google search box) will turn up the PDFs in good order. While
the papers are highly academic, the psychobabble remains at reasonable
levels, and the papers are quite readable.
Right wingers hate them, of course. But it?s hard to see why. The paper
won?t stop people from growing up to be right wingers. Many people can
no more choose to be conservative than they can choose to be gay.
Political Conservatism
Medical science is still seeking a cure
by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
08/16/03
http://www.zeppscommentaries/Science&Environment/rightwing.htm
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: A Little Light on The Nasty Ones
- From: Lone Haranguer
- Re: OT: A Little Light on The Nasty Ones
- From: Rick Onanian
- Re: OT: A Little Light on The Nasty Ones
- Prev by Date: Re: Ice/Ice Substitutes
- Next by Date: Re: Towing 5th Wheel vs Travel Trailer
- Previous by thread: Portland, OR Fire
- Next by thread: Re: OT: A Little Light on The Nasty Ones
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
