Conservative beliefs are rooted in fear, Liberal beliefs rooted in compassion.

[crescive]

I was researching liberal and conservative ideologies today and found something I thought was really interesting in regards to the psychological research on conservative values and the differences in conservative and liberal values. I'd like to invite conservatives and liberals alike to comment on this research as well as their opinions on either conservatives or liberals.

Psychological research increasingly suggests that ideologies reflect motivational processes, as opposed to the view that political convictions always reflect independent and unbiased thinking. Research in 2008 proposed that ideologies may function as prepackaged units of interpretation that spread because of basic human motives to understand the world, avoid existential threat, and maintain valued interpersonal relationships. The authors conclude that such motives may lead disproportionately to the adoption of system-justifying worldviews. Psychologists have generally found that personality traits, individual difference variables, needs, and ideological beliefs seem to have a common thread.

For instance, a meta-analysis by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway in 2003 analyzed 88 studies from 12 countries, with over 22,000 subjects, and found that death anxiety, intolerance of ambiguity, lack of openness to experience, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, need for personal structure, and threat of loss of position or self-esteem all contribute to the degree of one's overall political conservatism. The researchers suggest that these results show that political conservatives stress resistance to change and are motivated by needs that are aimed at reducing threat and uncertainty.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern liberals tend to see themselves in the context of their fellow man and woman and assume their rights and privileges are no greater than anyone else's, regardless of wealth or position. Key liberal values are empathy, compassion, trust, and cooperation. Liberalism is an empirical philosophy that attempts to make changes that will improve life even if those changes run contrary to previously accepted positions. Most tenets are not held with unquestioning conviction.

American liberalism claims to differ from competing political philosophies not only through different values or preferences but through different epistemologies. Liberalism is open to change and receptive to empiricism.

Modern liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heated debate...on your mark, get set, GO!

[Ecce Homo]

As a knee jerk inclusivist, I have a tendency to prejudge any political philosophy that automatically labels the other party as “fear based” as incorrect. These kinds of political judgments tend to demonize one party while lionizing the other, which doesn’t seem to be helpful when you’re trying to resolve the kind of long standing challenges facing our nation. Besides which, it just isn’t true, in my experience.

Take abortion for example. As a former religious conservative myself, I can say in all honesty that I was pro-life because I believed that abortion was murder. I didn’t believe that because of my “need for cognitive closure” or because I felt my self esteem was threatened. I really believed the pro-life arguments and the religious doctrines that went along with them. I had no desire to control women or criminalize sex and I didn’t see myself as trying to shove my views down anyone else’s throats. I truly thought that abortion was murder. I saw myself as wanting to protect babies. If I was afraid, it was for the life of those babies.

I no longer believe any of that now, but I bring it up to illustrate that I don’t buy the premise of the wiki-articles. It’s my observation that individual conservatives and liberals are much more complicated and interesting than that. Then again, I’m projecting. I could be completely wrong and the wiki-articles could be completely right.

[JMan]

I would propose that humans are driven by one of six motivators at any given time, three sets of opposites:

Fear vs. Faith
Despair vs. Hope
Hate vs. Love

These are also keys to manipulators. If someone is fearful, give them faith. If someone is desparate, give them hope. If someone is hateful, give them love.

I think anything you do or have done in life has a root connection to one of these six motivators.

[jeff3]

There's really a lot of info there,especially between the lines. I'd be curious to know the party affiliation of the people who put the Wikki article together, just for curiosity. Like they said, party choice is a reflection of the psyche, but the flaw with that notion is that we frequently (at least myself & friends) end up choosing the "closest match", rarely is anyone completely satisfied with one approach.

I still believe the 2 party system works, Liberalism run amok with no throttle could be the end of the USA, and quick, because, not all ideas are good ideas and quick implementaion of far reaching policies is hard to undo. The brake, in the form of the conservatives gives time to evaluate and compromise to better reflect the will of the people, which is what is supposed to prevail. The opposite end of that stick is nothing changes, ever. If either party had complete run of the affairs, you can guarantee that at least 50% of the population would have their needs and wants met, at the expense of the other 50%.

Of course the disagreements will come, but they almost always come with the notion that "they" know best what everyone needs or wants. Since this is the Pavlina forum I have to add that, "so and so has all the money and power" , "corporate this and corporate that" , "the poor need......." is not a great argument to use if you are a proponent of LAO and IM , either you are responsible for your own destiny or your not, if you are, then quit whining about the problems of other people and take care of your own business and if you aren't responsible for your own destiny then about 80% of this whole website is wasted space that could be used for naked ladies. If you want to help people, teach them how to fish by teaching IM, not giving them stuff or redistributing wealth. I choose 100% responsibility personally, it sucks when things are not going well and I can't blame Bush or Clinton or the weatherman, but those sweet moments when things go "just like I imagined" are worth the trade.

[Still Growing]

I know individual conservatives who have many more compassionate tendencies and liberals who have many more fear or hate tendencies. And of course vice versa.

If you said, on average there are more conservatives who a rooted in fear and on average there are more liberals rooted in compassion it could be true. Not overwhelmingly true but something like 60%-40% would be possible IMO.

I find it more interesting that conservatives try to stereotype liberals as being drug addicted, sinning non believers and that liberals try to stereotype all conservatives as judgemental, anti gay, prejudice people.

When we pass judgement on an entire group for being judgemental its .......uber hypocritical.

[Brutha]

A lot people hold the political believes that they hold not because of conscious choice but because of factors like peer pressure.

Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com is a nice summary of the effects that exist.

If you see conservatism that way a lot of vegans who focus on purety of nature and their foods are conservative. Rejecting cell phones because of electromagnetic waves is also a more conservative believe in that frame.
On the other hand people who are far on the left do those things.

The idea that you can label each political idea as either liberal or conservative is also a bit flawed.
The spead of possible political views is a lot greater.
It also completly ignores that there room for rational analysis where some people can make mistakes.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by JMan

I would propose that humans are driven by one of six motivators at any given time, three sets of opposites:

Fear vs. Faith
Despair vs. Hope
Hate vs. Love

These are also keys to manipulators. If someone is fearful, give them faith. If someone is desperate, give them hope. If someone is hateful, give them love.

I think anything you do or have done in life has a root connection to one of these six motivators.

I respectfully disagree.

The second two pairs might be opposites, but fear and faith may overlap (and perhaps both can tools to control others). What causes someone to have faith in supernatural forces? Fear of what happens at death, fear of scary natural forces we don't yet understand, or fear of new ideas. The very first religions were attempts to explain the supernatural, and once accepted, they became tools for those with religious power to control everyone else. It wasn't uncommon for early kings to insist they were gods. Right now the US is at war with some terrorists who are attacking us because their religion declared jihad.

Religion can create fear where none existed before. When I was young I went to Catholic school, and religion was used all the time to scare us into acting a certain way. Fear is what keeps people coming back to church. First we're reminded how scary death is. Then we're told if we do everything the church says, we'll have a paradise waiting for us after death.

There was a study done recently that found that how easily people scared ("startle" response) seemed to be correlated with how politically conservative the person is
Startle Response Linked to Politics - washingtonpost.com

So to me it's no surprise the most religious and conservative americans are the ones driven by fear of terrorists, fear of immigrants, fear of other religions, and fear of pretty much anything different.

[crescive]

Originally Posted by funchy

I respectfully disagree.
Religion can create fear where none existed before. When I was young I went to Catholic school, and religion was used all the time to scare us into acting a certain way. Fear is what keeps people coming back to church. First we're reminded how scary death is. Then we're told if we do everything the church says, we'll have a paradise waiting for us after death.

I totally agree with this! Isn't it interesting how the one phrase "God works in mysterious ways" is supposed to be a sufficient answer for all the problems and contradictions in religion? Religion absolutely uses fear, then they try to place a 'holy figure' for us to direct our love to, they have all the power, all the control! It's quite frightening.
Also, interesting link!

As far as generally what I've noticed about Liberalism and Conservatism, one seems to be more optimistic, more open-minded, and the other seems to be more pessimistic and close-minded. For instance, ideas about adopting new ideas, science, technology, social matters, liberals are open to them such as stem cell research, saving the environment, gay marriage, abortion...etc and sees them as generally positive things, that they will help more than they harm. Conservatives often see such issues as a waste of time or immoral for very limited reasons instead of looking to the bigger picture. Example: Abortion is bad because it kills babies instead of abortion could be beneficial for the greater majority because it prevents babies from being born into a family that didn't want it or weren't ready to take care of it, it might protect the mother, allow her to continue her job & education so that she can better provide for her family in future, etc...

It seems like it's harder for conservatives to understand that there are people who aren't like them. It's harder for them to accept differences and they seem to see black and white only. They also seem to think that because they don't agree with it, nobody should be allowed to do it.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Brutha

A lot people hold the political believes that they hold not because of conscious choice but because of factors like peer pressure.

Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com is a nice summary of the effects that exist.

If you see conservatism that way a lot of vegans who focus on purety of nature and their foods are conservative. Rejecting cell phones because of electromagnetic waves is also a more conservative believe in that frame.
On the other hand people who are far on the left do those things.

The idea that you can label each political idea as either liberal or conservative is also a bit flawed.
The spead of possible political views is a lot greater.
It also completly ignores that there room for rational analysis where some people can make mistakes.

That's a great Ted talk, there's so much there.

[Marco Polo]

At this point there should be bells ringing in everyone's head. Is this study biased? I think we know the answer. Yet again, it looks like liberal academia is attacking approximately half the world's population. How cute of them. Every time a study like this comes up, I recommend to my liberal friends an interesting article at edge.org. The author is Jonathan Haidt, a left-leaning thinker whom I happen to respect very much. Make sure you read past the second paragraph, or you won't understand why I'm posting this:

Edge: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt

Mr. Haidt summarizes conservatism using three words: ingroup, authority, and purity. I think he makes good points, and the read is worthwhile.

If you'd like a critique of a similar study to the one quoted in the OP, try this:

A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans (Commentary)

The author (who is, admittedly, at least fiscally conservative) basically questions the intellectual integrity of liberal academia in the US. And does so very elaborately, I might add.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

In defense of conservatism...

Define conservatism? Is conservatism spending $10B / month in Iraq instead of domestically? Is conservatism letting Bankers steal $700B of taxpayers money? Is conservatism choosing teen pregnancy over teaching teenagers about birth control? Is it banning Harry Potter books? Is it cutting funding for the sciences because scientific findings tend to interfere with religious beliefs?

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

ingroup, authority, and purity.

These qualities sounds like they would add up to some very myopic groupthink policy making. E.g. You're only pure if you don't question the group's authority.

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Define conservatism?

In this context we're basically discussing conservatism as a cognitive profile.

These qualities sounds like they would add up to some very myopic groupthink policy making. E.g. You're only pure if you don't question the group's authority.

Is it safe to assume you didn't read the article?

[Dan.Linehan]

I've read the article, and I've seen the TED talk on it too. I just don't think the values you mentioned are used quite so innocently in reality.

[Marco Polo]

Funny video.

I agree it's always a shame when good intentions lead to unfortunate consequences. Regardless, would you care to explain why lefties have a monopoly on innocence? To be honest, I think it's pretty much a tie.

Anyway, before this turns into a tit-for-tat "x is more evil than y" argument, I actually want to respond to some of the things more closely related to the OP.

Originally Posted by funchy

There was a study done recently that found that how easily people scared ("startle" response) seemed to be correlated with how politically conservative the person is

I skimmed through your article, and the most interesting sentences to me were the following:

"We could spin a story saying it is bad to be so jumpy, but you can also spin a story saying it is bad to be naive about threats".

"From an evolutionary point of view, an organism needs to respond to a threat or it won't be around for very long. We are not saying one response is more normal than another."

Indeed. Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by crescive

It's harder for them to accept differences and they seem to see black and white only."

I think you have a point. Many conservatives are bad at detecting nuance.

Originally Posted by crescive

conservatives stress resistance to change

It would seem to contradict the very term "conservative", but I'm not sure if this is true. Most conservatives favor or resist change, depending on the circumstances. Take American conservatives. Many of them favor abolishing the IRS, while liberals resist this change. Conservatives favor more private school vouchers, liberals resist. Whatever you want to say about those particular policies, it shows that the right doesn't always want to preserve the status quo. In fact, conservatism has been described by a famous German thinker as "the ideology which seeks to create things that are worth preserving".

Originally Posted by crescive

avoid existential threat

Many conservatives appear paranoid because they actually enjoy fighting enemies. Some will even make enemies of friends, just to be fighting someone. This is not an aspect of conservatism I'm particularly fond of. However, the opposite of this (which is never fighting the enemy even when hes fighting you) is equally disturbing.

Originally Posted by crescive

death anxiety"

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not anxious about death. I'm not overly excited about it, either. In fact, I'm pretty much neutral on most things that I can't control. I think it's true that some religious people have a more genuine fear of death.

Originally Posted by crescive

need for cognitive closure

Sure, we could call this a weakness. But let's turn the argument on its head. What is the opposite of cognitive closure? Not having distinct thoughts in the first place, never finding conclusive answers, and never following through on choices. Is this preferable? I think not.

I would also retort that conservatives are, on average, happier than liberals. Most studies give some bogus explanation about conservatives rationalizing social inequality, but personally I think it's because conservatives are more in touch with their primal instincts (the survival instinct, the religious impulse etc.) than their liberal counterparts.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

Funny video.

Sure, who doesn't think prejudice and bigotry being taught to children is funny.

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

Regardless, would you care to explain why lefties have a monopoly on innocence?

Where did I say that?

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

To be honest, I think it's pretty much a tie.

LOL. I don't think so. You should watch No End in Sight and check out the casualties of the Iraq war.

See also, "fiscal conservative" deficit spending.

[Dan.Linehan]

One last thing. Rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the rich is hardly Marxism, if that's what you are trying to allude to.

What a blatantly false analogy.

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Where did I say that?

[...]

One last thing. Rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the rich is hardly Marxism, if that's what you are trying to allude to.

No, I'm pointing out that the revolution in 1917 was the horrifying consequence of a left leaning ideology, just like you were saying proposition 8 is a horrifying consequence of conservatism. I'm no fan of Bush, by the way.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

LOL. I don't think so. You should watch No End in Sight and check out the casualties of the Iraq war.

OK, you should check out the casualties of the Russian revolution. Or how the 1968 revolts led to these wonderful liberal immigration policies being applied throughout Western Europe. It looks like French immigrants are really enjoying those compassionate Banlieus.

Not that I think a person's cognitive profile justifies any type of immorality.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

No, I'm pointing out that the revolution in 1917 was the horrifying consequence of a left leaning ideology, just like you were saying proposition 8 is a horrifying consequence of conservatism. I'm no fan of Bush, by the way.

Honestly, prop 8 is not nearly as horrifying to me as the half million Iraqis who are dead. Or nearly as horrifying as the recently doubled $10T deficit.

Originally Posted by Marco Polo

OK, you should check out the casualties of the Russian revolution. Or how the 1968 revolts led to these wonderful liberal immigration policies being applied throughout Western Europe. It looks like French immigrants are really enjoying those compassionate Banlieus.

So, you see it as tie because Western Europe in the sixties was liberal?

[Brutha]

I agree it's always a shame when good intentions lead to unfortunate consequences.

The workers movement that lead to the revolution in Russia very much based itself on the idea of group loyality.
Marxism is a ideology that focuses on purity of ideals.
It's also based on authority.

In todays America the only people who have sizeable influence who call themselves marxists are neoconservatives like Francis Fukuyama (who is a member of the "Project for a New American Century").

It really amazing how much Americans are mentally traped in their frame where they can only distinguish between the left and the right but not between different ideas.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Brutha

In todays America the only people who have sizeable influence who call themselves marxists are neoconservatives like Francis Fukuyama (who is a member of the "Project for a New American Century").

Exactly. The group who basically pushed and pushed for America to invade Iraq.

[coollikeme]

Conservatives and Liberals don't find a way to work together the USA will get even worse. Why is there such a battle, instead of trying fix problems. We attack each other and it is slowly destroying are country.

[Marco Polo]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Marxism is a ideology that focuses on purity of ideals.
It's also based on authority.

The end result of Marxism is anarchy (not lawlessness, but the political ideology anarchy). So unless you mean the intermediate stage where the proletariat itself takes authority, I'm not sure if this is true. I'm guessing your point is that the world is more complicated than a left-right dichotomy? If so, I agree. I wish liberal academia would consider this instead of questioning the mental health of the people they disagree with.

neoconservatives like Francis Fukuyama (who is a member of the "Project for a New American Century").

This is a think tank which is really harmful, because they assume it's strategically good forAmerica to police the world. As a consequence their actions now will be an inconvenience down the road when America is no longer as powerful relative to the world. As for Fukuyama, I can't respect anyone thinks there's such a thing as "the end of history". History is always on the march.

It really amazing how much Americans are mentally traped in their frame where they can only distinguish between the left and the right but not between different ideas.

It also annoys me how they think America is the epicenter of the world. I would like to speak about more than the stupidest of their conservatives, but whenever I try, it's all like DEFICIT DEFICIT BUSH IRAQ DEFICIT.

[Brutha]

The end result of Marxism is anarchy (not lawlessness, but the political ideology anarchy).

The "end result" is the authority, the same way God is the authority for a Christian.
You don't have an absolute authority in liberal political ideologies. Liberals use relative moral frameworks.

Whether you believe that God is the ultimate authority, the constiution is the ultimate authority or the end of history is the ultimate authority you still believe in authority.

Liberal multiculturism doesn't judge some tribe in Afrika for not believing in marxist principles.
Liberals rather say: Hey, they have their own morals and we shouldn't interfer, there nothing wrong when those people believe in animal spirits.
A marxist on the other hand doesn't want that people believe in animal spirits, because he doesn't see that belief as congruent with the end state.
As a result Stalin did things to religion in Russia with aren't liberal.

As for Fukuyama, I can't respect anyone thinks there's such a thing as "the end of history". History is always on the march.

The question is not so much, whether you respect him, but whether he is conservative or liberal.

I would like to speak about more than the stupidest of their conservatives, but whenever I try, it's all like DEFICIT DEFICIT BUSH IRAQ DEFICIT.

I also think that reducing an argument like this to Bush doesn't help much.

I wish liberal academia would consider this instead of questioning the mental health of the people they disagree with.

I don't think that those studies do question the mental health.
I think it's more the media who likes to make controversial headlines. Or people like George Lakoff which I wouldn't call academics.

[Marco Polo]

The "end result" is the authority, the same way God is the authority for a Christian.

[...]

Liberal multiculturism doesn't judge some tribe in Afrika for not believing in marxist principles.

[...]


As a result Stalin did things to religion in Russia with aren't liberal.

This is partly semantics. You're discussing classical liberalism which ranges from basic individual "rights", to confidence in the spontaneous order of free markets. This is not the same as how most people in this thread are defining liberal. We can't say this is the principle of German SPD or American Democrats. To me, cultural relativism it's almost interchangable with nihilism. It's the type of paradox where we say "our core principle is that we have no core principles, except the one that says we have no core principles". I'm not sure this paradigm is useful. Anyway, you can't eliminate authority with liberalism (from the Latin word "freedom"), since the idea of liberalism itself would be the authority. What keeps the system in place? If I broke the principle of non-coercion, the system falls apart. And who would stop me, if there is no authority?

The question is not so much, whether you respect him, but whether he is conservative or liberal.

It's hard to place him. Since 2002 he distanced himself from neoconservatism, but still supports ideas of Leo Strauss. He seems intent on fighting political Islam, but he wants to work through the UN. I haven't heard him call himself Marxist, but if that's true then I guess we'll have to say he's left-leaning.

I don't think that those studies do question the mental health.

I don't think this applies to you, but there is a significant group that believe conservatives are by definition cognitively inferior. Consider the wording of this sentence: "[there is] a clear tendency for conservatives to score higher on measures of dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for order, structure, and closure and to be lower in openness to experience and integrative complexity than [are] moderates and liberals” (Jost, 2006, p. 662)

Have you ever seen a converse study, where instead of saying "conservatives are 'intolerant' of ambiguity" they say "liberals are intolerant to making firm choices or distinctions". Maybe they exist, but I haven't been able to find them.

[Brutha]

I don't think this applies to you, but there is a significant group that believe conservatives are by definition cognitively inferior.

I don't disagree that a group like this exists (especially people like George Lakoff), but you also claimed that the authors of the study are members of that group.

This is partly semantics.

It is as much semantics as God is semantics.
The difference between atheists and theists lies in a few words.

I'm not sure this paradigm is useful.

You don't have to find liberalism good.
But liberalism really does exist.
Just because you don't agree with some political ideas doesn't mean that those ideas are not hold by other people.
This reminds me of those Christians who don't believe in the existence of real atheists.

What keeps the system in place?

There no moral imperative that the system has to stay in place, it's free to change.
If enough (that doesn't necessarily mean 51%) people want a different system and vote in elections in favor of that system, let them.

It's hard to place him. Since 2002 he distanced himself from neoconservatism, but still supports ideas of Leo Strauss. He seems intent on fighting political Islam, but he wants to work through the UN. I haven't heard him call himself Marxist, but if that's true then I guess we'll have to say he's left-leaning.

A bit about Marxism:
In the early 19th century Hegel "invented" history. One generation later, Marx gets the idea that the abolishment of slavery and the growing number of rights of the average man fall into a pattern.
As history progresses that pattern continues to play out.
Since Marx doesn't believe in God and he wants to have some directions for his moral judgements he gets the idea that this pattern of history will progress till it ends somewhere in the end of history.
Now Marx analyses the pattern and finds that the end of history will look a certain way.
One example would be that everyone will be an atheists. Another example would be that there is no capital and every worker gets paid the same amount of money for his work.
For a Marxist, everything that lets history progress to that state of the end of history is moral imperative.

Fukuyama basically says, that Marx is right with his philosophical basis of the idea of the end of history but Marx got his analysis about the pattern of history wrong:
The end of history is western democracy.
Fukuyama thinks that the end of the cold war is evidence for the claim that western democracy is the end of history.
Fukuyama now wants to go around the world and spread western democracy to other countries.
Fukuyama however thinks that the Iraq war was a stupid idea, because it's ineffective at spreading democracy around the world.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

These qualities sounds like they would add up to some very myopic groupthink policy making. E.g. You're only pure if you don't question the group's authority.

You mean like if I am against gay marriage, abortion, gun control or the welfare state? I might be questioning group authority. I'd probably be considered an unenlighented zealot patriarchal fascist. And that's before they find out that I am a white male. Then we can add neo-nazi on to the list.

Liberals and conservatives play the same game. I think it shows that the political spectrum is really a mobius strip. Go too far right and you get Hitler. Go too far left and you get Stalin. What's the real difference?

[Brutha]

Liberals and conservatives play the same game. I think it shows that the political spectrum is really a mobius strip. Go too far right and you get Hitler. Go too far left and you get Stalin. What's the real difference?

Politics is about more than pinning down a position of a one dimensional line.
You can be extremely left by being a multiculturist or you can be extremely left by being like Stalin.
The multiculturist is liberal while Stalin isn't.

[Marco Polo]

It is as much semantics as God is semantics.
The difference between atheists and theists lies in a few words.

I'm saying we seem to be alternating between different definitions. Usually, you seem to define liberal as a non-coercive, relativist position. Are you talking at all about classical liberalism? Then you should consider that classical liberalism also emphasizes free markets, and individual liberty. The state is preferably something marginal. I think when most people talk about liberals, they mean people who prefer a large public sector, and actively increase "diversity", instead of simply tolerating it.

You don't have to find liberalism good.
But liberalism really does exist.
Just because you don't agree with some political ideas doesn't mean that those ideas are not hold by other people.

Using the last definition in my previous paragraph, I agree liberalism exists. It was forced upon the populations of Western Europe, America and Australia. We were never really consulted by our elites on mass immigration, or multiculturalism. What we currently have is one way multiculturalism, where the West (and only the West) is subject to a risky social experiment. If liberalism is really working, why is immigration still high in for example England, when at least 63% are against it? [source]

I don't disagree that a group like this exists (especially people like George Lakoff), but you also claimed that the authors of the study are members of that group.

I think John T. Jost's (the author of the study) choice of words is suspect. However, I have to admit I haven't been able to verify his political leaning. He's a professor of psychology at New York university though, which says something by itself.

A bit about Marxism:

[...]


Fukuyama however thinks that the Iraq war was a stupid idea, because it's ineffective at spreading democracy around the world.

Thanks for that clarification.

[Brutha]

Are you talking at all about classical liberalism?

I'm here talking about it the way it's defined in the Ted talk: Not drawing moral legitimation from authority, purity or loyality to the common group.

If liberalism is really working, why is immigration still high in for example England, when at least 63% are against it?

Firstly I don't think that liberalism and democracy are the same thing.
From a liberal perspective you balance the small harm that a lot of people who wants tighter immigrations laws suffer to the large harm that those people who would be denied getting into the UK suffer.

I think John T. Jost's (the author of the study) choice of words is suspect. However, I have to admit I haven't been able to verify his political leaning.

My main point was that, you don't necessarily know what the study actually said. To me it seemed like you have only read what Wikipedia said about the study (and maybe a few news articles).
The media usually strips out every "further research is needed to determine", when reporting about scientific papers.
That makes it almost impossible to judge whether some researcher is based on media echo.

[Foresta Gump]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

As a knee jerk inclusivist, I have a tendency to prejudge any political philosophy that automatically labels the other party as “fear based” as incorrect. These kinds of political judgments tend to demonize one party while lionizing the other, which doesn’t seem to be helpful when you’re trying to resolve the kind of long standing challenges facing our nation. Besides which, it just isn’t true, in my experience.

Take abortion for example. As a former religious conservative myself, I can say in all honesty that I was pro-life because I believed that abortion was murder. I didn’t believe that because of my “need for cognitive closure” or because I felt my self esteem was threatened. I really believed the pro-life arguments and the religious doctrines that went along with them. I had no desire to control women or criminalize sex and I didn’t see myself as trying to shove my views down anyone else’s throats. I truly thought that abortion was murder. I saw myself as wanting to protect babies. If I was afraid, it was for the life of those babies.

I no longer believe any of that now, but I bring it up to illustrate that I don’t buy the premise of the wiki-articles. It’s my observation that individual conservatives and liberals are much more complicated and interesting than that. Then again, I’m projecting. I could be completely wrong and the wiki-articles could be completely right.

Hello

"If I was afraid, it was for the life of those babies... I no longer believe any of that now"

No antagonistic or combative intention ever, just purely conversational speak.

You were afraid for very good reason, for the life of those innocent embryos, my concern is why do you no longer believe any of that now?

Can you honestly say and mean it, that you don't believe in "those babies lives"? you did a flip, from one mind-set to another, which can be seen as one aspect of enlightenment. You've allowed and opened up your mind to seeing a subject from more than one angle, you've experienced one part to enlightenment.

We are never to be judgemental of anyone, only Jesus will judge!

Enlightenment is more than insightful and oneness with God, it is unique and distinguished, separate from mediocrity. It is the highest state a human being can reach as oneness with the almighty God, and theirselves.

You speak well, continue to follow your desire, as long as it hurts no one.

At one time we didn't dare speak of who we believed in regarding politics, it was all hush hush. Being a conservative myself, I appreciate when I have the opportunity to speak with another conservative.

And being a published writer I welcome intelligent conversation with the like-minded, not necessarily meaning they have to be writers, but the intelligence part is what grabs my attention.

Our intelligence is spreading like wild fire throughout the universe, gaining great heights of recognition to this fact, and why do you suppose this is, could it be maybe that the Bible is factual stuff, or don't you believe in the Bible? It's better to believe in something than second guessing right!

The Bible is the most rejected book, but in the end everyone will be given a last chance.

If I offend anyone in talking about the Bible, I'm sorry for you, but, I cannot deny my Lord and Heavenly Father, just bare with me, and maybe I'll change your mind.

Jesus wants us to have fellowship, that doesn't mean we must go to church, it just means once you've been baptised, that you speak of your Lord with others. As Jesus loves your praises, as he does you.

I'm no Jesus thumper, I only speak of my Lord and Heavenly Father when he impresses me to do so. Right now is that time.

The Lord gives me insight, and others say I'm influential, that's for reader's and those who know me to decide. I've even been told I'm humble, life is what you make it, you can either follow your dreams or ignor them.

I must end my speaking now, as interuptions sometimes plague me.

Foresta Gump