Conservatism and Behavior

[Je suis Omar]

These findings are both revealing of society at large and even of the more microcosmic world found in discussion forums. Instead of the usual linear scale that represents the political spectrum, we have a circular scale, as if we drew the two ends of the linear together to create a circle.

What this reveals is that instead of the normal interpretation of extreme right wing and extreme left wing being far apart, they are more like peas in a pod.

Social Science Findings about Conservatism

Eric Zuesse

WHAT IS CONSERVATISM?

The great empirical social psychologist who specialized in studying bigotry, Bob Altemeyer, in his 1996 The Authoritarian Specter, and his other writings, reported his exhaustive empirical studies, of more than 50,000 individuals in many countries, demonstrating that bigotries against each and every minority group were the highest amongst the individuals who scored as being the most religious in any religion. In each religion, the more fundamentalist (believing in the inerrancy of some Scripture) one was, the more bigoted one tended to be, not just against non-believers, but against homosexuals, Blacks, and so forth. Religious belief, in other words, causes bigotry.

His studies also found that his scale for Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) or whats commonly called conservatism, was exhibited the most strongly by fundamentalists (and, in the Soviet Union, those fundamentalists took as their inerrant Scripture not the Bible, but instead Marxs Das Capital). Moreover, as one would expect from persons of faith (even of an atheistic one; i.e., belief in an atheistic inerrant Scripture), people of high RWA tended to make incorrect inferences from evidence, accept internal contradictions within their own beliefs, oppose constitutional guarantees of individual liberty, believe more strongly in sticks than in carrots to correct a persons behavior, and were closed-minded to criticism of themselves.

In 1992, Altemeyer had co-authored in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest, and Prejudice, which examined the relationships among right-wing authoritarianism, various indices of religious orientation, and prejudice. Measures of religious fundamentalism were good discriminators between prejudiced and unprejudiced persons.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/social-science-findings-about-conservatism.html

Edited June 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Freddy]

You know the saying right?

If you aren't liberal by 20 you have no hart.

If you're not conservative by 35 you have no brain.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ive never heard of that saying but, Id say though that the latter part of it applies if you are still conservative today.

[Canada_First]

It seems to me that anyone who is of a conservative nature isn't necessarily a bigot which is often portrayed today in the media. A lot of people whom I speak with regularly whom may sometimes describe themselves as conservative believe that government should control spending, be fiscally responsible and not go into debt at an alarming rate. I don't see anything wrong with being fiscally responsible. After all we all must be fiscally responsible in our own lives, Iis it really so out of line to expect the government to do the same?

Are their bigots who are conservatives? You bet their is but the same could be said of any political leaning. Bigots and racists are everywhere, in all walks of life, in all age groups in every demographic. I think it's unfair to point the finger at one small slice of the political spectrum and yell RACIST! BIGOT HOMOPHOBE, ISLAMOPHOBE! How is that helpful in furthering us as a society of well intentioned, good people? One is free to disagree with immigration, homosexuality and Islam without being a racist, homophobe or Islamophobe. We don't all have to agree and these names that slung around mostly by the left aren't helpful. It's akin to plugging ones ears and yelling LALALALALALA....not helpful to any constructive discourse at all.

[jacee]

I think it's unfair to point the finger at one small slice of the political spectrum and yell RACIST! BIGOT HOMOPHOBE, ISLAMOPHOBE! How is that helpful in furthering us as a society of well intentioned, good people? One is free to disagree with immigration, homosexuality and Islam without being a racist, homophobe or Islamophobe.

How does one "disagree" with homosexuality - I assume you mean believing that homosexuality is wrong? - without being homophobic?

I mean you are trampling all over their right to be who they are, passing judgements that aren't yours to make since you are not in their shoes, declaring yourself the great arbiter of right and wrong ... for other people.

Facts is, those who oppose homosexuality, immigration (of non-white people?) and Islam usually do have prejudices, usually are inclined to pass judgement on other people inappropriately.

.

[Topaz]

When debating this issue I think we have to debate the DIFFERENCE between PC and Conservative Parties, because several times I've heard present Tories say, they aren't the PC party, they are Conservative and I agree, because under a PC they would care more about the environment and not done so many schemes and scams and lies like this party. Could the PC return once Harper is gone???

[Argus]

These findings are both revealing of society at large and even of the more microcosmic world found in discussion forums. Instead of the usual linear scale that represents the political spectrum, we have a circular scale, as if we drew the two ends of the linear together to create a circle.

What this reveals is that instead of the normal interpretation of extreme right wing and extreme left wing being far apart, they are more like peas in a pod.

Extremists on both sides of the political spectrum are -- extremists. Hardly ground breaking material.

I would point out however, that the person you cite summarizes things in a ridiculously biased fashion.

His studies also found that his scale for Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) or whats commonly called conservatism,

They appear to be suggesting that 'far right wing authoritarians' is a synonym for conservatism, which is ludicrous on the face of it.

There are many strands, many levels of conservative just as there are of liberalism and even 'progressives'.

[Argus]

When debating this issue I think we have to debate the DIFFERENCE between PC and Conservative Parties, because several times I've heard present Tories say, they aren't the PC party, they are Conservative and I agree, because under a PC they would care more about the environment and not done so many schemes and scams and lies like this party. Could the PC return once Harper is gone???

Evidently you don't remember the Mulroney government. Otherwise you wouldn't write anything that dumb.

The PC party evaporated simply because it wasn't conservative in any way, shape or form. It was a party which had morphed to be a duplicate of the Liberal party. There was nothing it cared about but power, and it had no ideological or philosophical difference with the Liberals. It was also every bit as invested in using taxpayers' money to reward its friends and backers, not to mention its leaders. Once an actual conservative party materialized all the conservatives who had been backing the PCs for want of anything better, simply left.

[Bryan]

Evidently you don't remember the Mulroney government. Otherwise you wouldn't write anything that dumb.

The PC party evaporated simply because it wasn't conservative in any way, shape or form. It was a party which had morphed to be a duplicate of the Liberal party. There was nothing it cared about but power, and it had no ideological or philosophical difference with the Liberals. It was also every bit as invested in using taxpayers' money to reward its friends and backers, not to mention its leaders. Once an actual conservative party materialized all the conservatives who had been backing the PCs for want of anything better, simply left.

The PCs were just Liberals wearing blue suits.

[Argus]

How does one "disagree" with homosexuality - I assume you mean believing that homosexuality is wrong? - without being homophobic?

I mean you are trampling all over their right to be who they are, passing judgements that aren't yours to make since you are not in their shoes, declaring yourself the great arbiter of right and wrong ... for other people.

I have found that some people, mostly those who call themselves progressives, make something of a fetish of being 'non judgmental' even though they very clearly ARE extremely judgmental. They're simply judgmental about other things.

I certainly consider myself to be judgmental. I doubt anyone here would disagree. I bet you don't consider yourself to be, though, and I doubt you would find much support here given the vituperation of your postings.

As for homosexuals, I don't see how someone can help who they'e attracted to. I make no judgement on that. I don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle, or what you might think of as the gay 'culture', however. I don't approve of this desperate need to prove they're 'normal' when they clearly are not. The funny thing is a most of them would not want to be thought of as 'normal' as in 'ordinary', as in 'the same as everyone else' but at the same time want everyone to think their preference and lifestyles are 'normal'. By definition, if you're 2% of the population you are not the norm. Sorry bout that. But if it's any consolation I don't consider myself normal either.

Facts is, those who oppose homosexuality, immigration (of non-white people?) and Islam usually do have prejudices, usually

are inclined to pass judgement on other people inappropriately..

Really? There are no economic or social grounds to oppose immigration other than prejudice against non white people? There are no rational, thoughtful grounds to oppose Islam as it is practiced in most of the world today? Like its violent misogyny, for example? Would you say Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji are simply prejudiced?

[Argus]

Ive never heard of that saying but, Id say though that the latter part of it applies if you are still conservative today.

Honestly, how is it someone interested enough in politics to be here every day has never heard that before? It is attributed to Winston Churchill, by the way, though some have doubts.

I think it's generally rational in suggesting younger people tend to be more idealistic and have less of a base of knowledge and understanding of how the world works. They're enthusiastic about things but tend not to consider the consequences. You can also say they have a lot less experience in being heavily taxed and seeing their money frittered away by government.

[Argus]

The PCs were just Liberals wearing blue suits.

Exactly. What people, particularly progressives don't seem to get, however, is that the present Conservative party is not all that much further to the right than the PCs were. They seem to believe there is a gaping divide between the old PCs and the current Conservatives, and their just isn't. Harper has sublimated his conservative ideology to the pragmatism of the polls and whatever keeps him in power. I will say that the Harper government is considerably more honest in how it handles finances than the Mulroney (or Chretien) government.

[Mighty AC]

Once an actual conservative party materialized all the conservatives who had been backing the PCs for want of anything better, simply left.

As I remember it, the PC party was decimated by the introduction of the hated, but necessary, GST. The down and out party was swallowed by the Reformers before it could get back on its feet.

[Mighty AC]

Exactly. What people, particularly progressives don't seem to get, however, is that the present Conservative party is not all that much further to the right than the PCs were. They seem to believe there is a gaping divide between the old PCs and the current Conservatives, and their just isn't.

The CPC has involved itself in social issues and has decimated environmental protections. The party opposed equal marriage while in opposition, Harper himself ended speeches with 'God bless Canada' and members have flirted with anti-abortion bills. Harper has certainly operated closer to the pragmatic PC position, but has paid lip service to the more extreme, former Reformer, membership. Harper has done a good job of shutting down free speech within the party and keeping the social cons quiet. However, the fact that a significant social con base exists and only kept from behaving like Republicans by a man whose only concern is power, not ethics, worries most of us.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Shady]

The CPC has involved itself in social issues and has decimated environmental protections. The party opposed equal marriage while in opposition, Harper himself ended speeches with 'God bless Canada' and members have flirted with anti-abortion bills. Harper has certainly operated closer to the pragmatic PC position, but has paid lip service to the more extreme, former Reformer, membership. Harper has done a good job of shutting down free speech within the party and keeping the social cons quiet. However, the fact that a significant social con base exists and only kept from behaving like Republicans by a man whose only concern is power, not ethics, worries most of us.

Which environmental protections have been decimated?

Ending speeches with "God Bless Canada"? Oh the horror, you mean like how Obama ends his speeches with God Bless America?

There is no such thing as "free speech" within political parties. Ask any pro-life Liberal or NDP.

You're entire post is hyperbolic cherry picking.

[Argus]

As I remember it, the PC party was decimated by the introduction of the hated, but necessary, GST. The down and out party was swallowed by the Reformers before it could get back on its feet.

People seem to forget the Conservatives went into that fateful election campaign in the lead. It was a catastrophically bad performance by candidate Kim Campbell (combined with leftover resentment of Mulroney) which decimated them. But support for the new Reform party had been rising and spreading east in the couple of years before the 1993 election, in large part because of conservatives disillusioned with the PCs. The terrible election performance was the proverbial straw, and conservatives abandoned Campbell's party in droves for the Reformers while more leftward leaning PCers jumped to Chretien.

[On Guard for Thee]

The CPC has involved itself in social issues and has decimated environmental protections. The party opposed equal marriage while in opposition, Harper himself ended speeches with 'God bless Canada' and members have flirted with anti-abortion bills. Harper has certainly operated closer to the pragmatic PC position, but has paid lip service to the more extreme, former Reformer, membership. Harper has done a good job of shutting down free speech within the party and keeping the social cons quiet. However, the fact that a significant social con base exists and only kept from behaving like Republicans by a man whose only concern is power, not ethics, worries most of us.

Speaking of his only concern being power, recall how he ordered the wording change from the Government of Canada to The Harper Government on communications within the civil service. I think in his wild attempt at rebranding, he forgot who these people actually work for.

[Shady]

Speaking of his only concern being power, recall how he ordered the wording change from the Government of Canada to The Harper Government on communications within the civil service. I think in his wild attempt at rebranding, he forgot who these people actually work for.

Yeah, it's almost like referring to the American government as the Obama administration. Rolls eyes.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yeah, it's almost like referring to the American government as the Obama administration. Rolls eyes.

I think they still refer to it as the US Government down there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, it's almost like referring to the American government as the Obama administration. Rolls eyes.

Must be a Canadian thing...as in "Harper government". President Obama's administration is only one branch of the American government.

[Freddy]

Honestly, how is it someone interested enough in politics to be here every day has never heard that before? It is attributed to Winston Churchill, by the way, though some have doubts.I think it's generally rational in suggesting younger people tend to be more idealistic and have less of a base of knowledge and understanding of how the world works. They're enthusiastic about things but tend not to consider the consequences. You can also say they have a lot less experience in being heavily taxed and seeing their money frittered away by government.

It's probably attributed to the fact that the OP is completely biased, and couldn't even take a second to understand for a minute why conservatives see the world differently.

We are looking at the world from a different angle, prioritizing different values. If he only took a minute and try to put himself in any conservatives shoes he would realize that we are not so evil like he likes to believe.

But how could he, when that would result in his whole world collapsing suddenly. He wouldn't have the balls to do it.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Freddy

[jacee]

Ending speeches with "God Bless Canada"?

Oh the horror, you mean like how Obama ends his speeches with God Bless America?

Ya, making Canada look like a pathetic wannabe copycat. :/

Really tacky.

.

[jacee]

Must be a Canadian thing...as in "Harper government". President Obama's administration is only one branch of the American government.

It's a Harper thing.

He'd like us to forget there is more to government than him.

Thank god for the SCC.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a Harper thing.

He'd like us to forget there is more to government than him.

Thank god for the SCC.

.

No, the term was used for Martin, Chretien, and others. It's definitely a Canadian thing.

Example:

How Harper’s Reform party pushed Chretien government to recognize 50% plus one in 1995 Quebec referendum

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/how-harpers-reform-party-pushed-chretien-government-to-recognize-50-plus-one-in-1995-quebec-referendum

[Mighty AC]

Which environmental protections have been decimated?

Seriously? His attacks on the environment, science, evidence and data are world renowned. Not only does Canada have the worst climate policy in the developed world, Harper has also gutted environmental protections, environmental testing, research and reporting mechanisms.

Here are some of the items from the Omnibus Budget Bill C-38 which altered 70 different environmental laws

(http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/05/10/Bill-C38/)

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ditched. Repealed and replaced with a completely new act. "Environmental effects" under the new CEAA will be limited to effects on fish, aquatic species under the Species at Risk Act, migratory birds. A broader view of impacts is limited to federal lands, Aboriginal peoples, and changes to the environment "directly linked or necessarily incidental" to federal approval. 


Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency seriously weakened. The agency will have 45 days after receiving an application to decide if an assessment is required. Environmental assessments are no longer required for projects involving federal money. The minister is given wide discretion to decide. New "substitution" rules allow Ottawa to download EAs to the provinces; "comprehensive" studies are eliminated. Cabinet will be able to over-rule decisions. A retroactive section sets the clock at July 2010 for existing projects.


Canadian Environmental Protection Act undercut. The present one-year limit to permits for disposing waste at sea can now be renewed four times. The three and five-year time limits protecting species at risk from industrial harm will now be open-ended.


Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act killed. This legislation, which required government accountability and results reporting on climate change policies, is being repealed.


Fisheries Act seriously weakened. Fish habitat provisions will be changed to protect only fish of "commercial, Aboriginal, and recreational" value and even those habitat protections are weakened. The new provisions create an incentive to drain a lake and kill all the fish, if not in a fishery, in order to fill a dry hole with mining tailings.


Navigable Waters Protection Act hampered. Pipelines and power lines will be exempt from the provisions of this act. Also, the National Energy Board absorbs the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) whenever a pipeline crosses navigable waters. The NWPA is amended to say a pipeline is not a "work" within that act.


Energy Board Act neutered. National Energy Board reviews will be limited to two years -- and then its decisions can be reversed by the cabinet, including the present Northern Gateway Pipeline review.


Species at Risk Act hamstrung. This is being amended to exempt the National Energy Board from having to impose conditions to protect critical habitat on projects it approves. Also, companies won't have to renew permits on projects threatening critical habitat.


Parks Canada Agency Act trimmed, staff cut. Reporting requirements are being reduced, including the annual report. Six hundred and thirty eight of the nearly 3,000 Parks Canada workers will be cut. Environmental monitoring and ecological restoration in the Gulf Islands National Park are being cut.


Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act made more industry friendly. This will be changed to exempt pipelines from the Navigational Waters Act.


Coasting Trade Act made more offshore drilling friendly. This will be changed to promote seismic testing allowing increased off-shore drilling.


Nuclear Safety Control Act undermined. Environmental assessments will be moved to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is a licensing body not an assessing body -- so there is a built-in conflict.


Canada Seeds Act inspections privatized. This is being revamped so the job of inspecting seed crops is transferred from Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors to "authorized service providers," the private sector.


Agriculture affected. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, publicly-owned grasslands have acted as community pastures under federal management, leasing grazing rights to farmers so they could devote their good land to crops, not livestock. This will end. Also, the Centre for Plant Health in Sidney, B.C., an important site for quarantine and virus-testing on plant stock strategically located across the Salish Sea to protect B.C.'s primary agricultural regions, will be moved to the heart of B.C.'s fruit and wine industries.


National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy killed. The NRTEE brought industry leaders, environmentalists, First Nations, labour, and policy makers together to provide non-partisan research and advice on federal policies. Its demise will leave a policy vacuum in relation to Canada's economic development.


More attacks on environmental groups funded. The charities sections now preclude gifts which may result in political activity. The $8 million new money to harass charities is unjustified.


Water programs cut. Environment Canada is cutting several water-related programs and others will be cut severely, including some aimed at promoting or monitoring water-use efficiency. 


Wastewater survey cut. The Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey, the only national study of water consumption habits, is being cut after being in place since 1983. 


Monitoring effluent cut. Environment Canada's Environmental Effects Monitoring Program, a systematic method for measuring the quality of effluent discharge, including from mines and pulp mills, will be cut by 20 per cent. 


Here are some additional links:

An Open Letter to the World on the Governmental Destruction of the Environment in Canada

ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION, ECOCIDE, AND THE PERVERSION OF DEMOCRACY

Crimes Against Ecology: Is the Harper government guilty? You be the judge.

Canada's Climate Policy Worst In Developed World: Report