Conservative Psychology: Understanding the Right Wing

Intro to conservative psychology

Posted on December 13, 2011 by admin

It may be helpful to start with who this site is not about:

- This site is not about the entire Republican Party. Though we are concerned that much of the republican party is increasingly controlled by those who want to take advantage of conservative psychology (more later), we know that much of the party is not.

- This site is also not about fiscal conservatives, those who thoughtfully and insightfully understand economics and the financial world well enough to have adopted conservative views about how the government should manage its money, and/or who feel that the best solutions often lie in the private sector, rather than the public sector where things tend to be more expensive and perhaps less effective.

- Finally, this site is not about social conservatives, those who have arrived at their moral decisions based on an assessment of their own inner ideals and beliefs.

In other words, we respect and invite those with more traditional conservative views to join us, and we have contributors who have similar views.

This site is about those who seem driven not by informed philosophies that can be backed by specific knowledge and experience, but rather by a psychology that leaves them both inflexible and unable to back their opinions with anything more than generalities and exaggeration. These individuals have a need rather than a belief, and conservative thinking fulfills that need. Many of those who this site is about seem to be soothed by passing along the like-minded opinions of others and by hearing from only those they agree with in the media. Hearing opposing opinions is threatening to these individuals rather than an enjoyable and thoughtful pursuit.

These conservatives, who we call “entrenched conservatives” are driven by a strong need for order, closure, and predictability.

These entrenched conservatives prefer black and white thinking, and decisive leaders over “thinkers”. Thus the leaders they choose may tend to be inflexible and themselves unwilling to compromise. They often fear that a powerful entity will come along and create disorder and uncertainty. They feel comforted when another person agrees with them, and threatened when someone disagrees. We are not merely using conjecture here, conservative psychology research has borne out what we are saying.

The above psychological makeup in bold would not necessarily be a bad thing, and is likely shared to some degree by everyone on the political spectrum as we explore on our page about “The Conservative Pull“. However, our focus is on those conservatives who are so entrenched in this psychology that they are unable to think freely about political issues; Instead they are trapped within their need to maintain intrapersonal harmony. Sadly, we will also discuss how this group of right wing conservatives in no longer a fringe group, and may even become a majority of the Republican Party due to unique societal factors in the 21st century. Finally, we will discuss a conservative denial cycle that shows how some business and special interest groups are taking advantage of this psychology to push certain agendas, such as the denial of global warming.

Our concern is that this conservative psychology may be creating lasting harm by limiting debate and compromise. Entrenched conservatives are driving anti-science stances, rigid economic policies, and potentially overly aggressive foreign policy. Our hope is that republicans who are driven by reason and thoughtfulness will take back their party so that we can have honest debate and discussion no matter how strongly they feel about Republican ideals. The fact that the GOP is increasingly being controlled by special interests who are pumping money into election campaigns that manipulates the psychology of entrenched conservatives is bad for the party, and also bad for our country.

Conservative Republican Psychology

Conservative Psychology and judges

Posted on March 31, 2013 by admin

Some federal judges are conservative, some are liberal, and many fall somewhere in between. This, of course, would be expected considering that a wide variety of presidents have appointed these justices, most of whom serve for life. You can often tell immediately what orientation a judge has from her or his ruling – not necessarily the decision itself, but in the wording. But how can we boil down the difference between a conservative judge and others using theories of conservative psychology? It boils down to the Constitution and the judge’s opinion of its place.

Most judges would have you think that their opinion of the place of the Constitution in modern legal practice was arrived at after highly thoughtful contemplation. We disagree, especially when it comes to conservative judges, due to the aspect of conservative psychology that pulls for order, a lack of change, and predictability over time. For these judges the Constitution provides all three, and therefore satisfies those psychological needs. To them, the idea of the Constitution being a living document that could conceivably have different meanings or meanings that evolve as society changes and evolves goes against the psychological need for predictability.

So, as we would expect, conservative judges have taken to the idea of this important document being a static and unwavering guide to legal proceedings. They vehemently disagree with anyone who claims that the Founding Fathers would have expected that interpretations of the Constitution would change as society did over 200 years, and that the possibility exists that a document written that long ago would be something that could be followed in spirit but still slightly rethought for modern society.

A non-conservative judge takes a very thoughtful approach, but we would argue that any judge caught up in conservative psychology is taking an approach dictated by that psychology and not necessarily careful consideration.

A Second Example of a Self-Soothing Report

Posted on July 31, 2012 by admin

Imagine if every time you took a test the recommended answers were printed above each question. Now imagine of you found out that scientists who were studying something highly important were using surveys that did the same thing, and giving these surveys to people who had a vested interest – including large sums of cash – in getting the answers right. Rationally, you would probably conclude that these scientific studies were biased and should be thrown out. We expect science to be independent and unbiased.

It is amazing then how a widely publicized report from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) has been embraced by entrenched conservatives. This study concludes that hydraulic fracking, which some contend can cause huge environmental problems including dramatic air and water pollution, is completely safe and very much within EPA guidelines. This is comforting to the entrenched conservative who for one has been made skeptical of science to begin with by systematic corporate PR (see our Conservative Denial Cycle page), and who also wants very much to believe the conservative party line.

The problem: this study would dramatically fail any basic peer-review required to get it published in a scientific journal. Why? Because the 20 oil and gas corporations who were given the surveys were also provided the suggested answers to the questions. They were basically told what answers the surveyors needed to be sure that the end result would be that the companies were under EPA emission guidelines and therefore would not be regulated or fined.

So this report certainly helped sooth entrenched conservatives, and as a byproduct may have also deepened their skepticism about scientists because it is likely that some conservative commentators and others who received corporate cash likely pointed out that scientists had published “hysterical” reports in the past that contradict this one. But in truth this report was flawed and merely designed to play its role in the conservative denial cycle, just like many other places where corporations who have a lot to gain from the psychology of entrenched conservatives throw their financial weight.

An Example of a Self-Soothing Report

Posted on July 23, 2012 by admin

Science is supposed to be unbiased and independent. When a study is done there are supposed to be controls in place that prevent the opinion of the researcher or his or her desired outcome from having any effect on the process. This enhances the public trust in the results, and of course makes the results more accurate. Here at Conservative Psychology we’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon when it comes to some political research studies on the right: Some conservative groups defy these rules of ensuring independence and lack of bias in order to ensure that the results will be as expected. They want results that will sooth and motivate their entrenched conservative base.

Recently we saw an example of this in a report by Ernst & Young who prepared the report on behalf of, among others, the S Corporation Association, and the United States Chamber of Commerce, both of which are heavily invested in seeing the conservative side of the political spectrum win this November. The report detailed all sorts of problems that would occur if President Obama’s tax plan went into effect, and it was reaffirming in a soothing way to those who oppose the president, stating what they fear once again about job losses and the economy contracting. As terrible as these numbers were, conservative psychology would suggest that entrenched conservatives were likely soothed by this study, feeling good about hearing information that backs their view. Conservative psychology would also suggest that they would not take any time to look into whether the study was factual or done scientifically – the power of the soothing nature of the information would overwhelm the need to fact check it.

But let’s go ahead and see what happens is we pull back the curtain on step two of the Conservative Denial Cycle in this case. The study was commissioned by groups who have a huge stake in the result, wanting it to show that the President’s policies would hurt the economy. In addition, the company that did it is know to be a conservative contributor. Those facts alone would not be a problem, but when we see that the study completely ignored any and all effects of the president’s tax proposals on short-term growth and long-term deficit reduction, something that is so simple that economics 101 would suggest that at least some effect would take place, we begin to wonder. Then when we see that this particular study contradicts many other studies, including both the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) but also, quite surprisingly, the Bush Administration’s Treasury Department, it makes us truly wonder.

Then again, the study served it’s purpose, fulfilling step two of the conservative denial cycle and soothing entrenched conservatives.

The Conservative Relentless Search for Purity: Destroying bipartisanship?

Posted on May 9, 2012 by admin

At the time of this post, Senator Lugar of Indiana was defeated by a tea party-backed highly conservative candidate in the primary. In a way, this was not incredibly surprising, given that there is an anti-incumbent wave in this country right now. That said, Senator Lugar was actually a solid conservative, at least in the ways that we define those conservatives who take a rational approach to financial, social, and foreign affair issues. He was not, however, a “deep conservative”, in that at times he would thoughtfully work with democrats and was not psychologically threatened by compromise for the greater good. He seemed reliably conservative, but also willing to think through issues so that he would not be a knee jerk reactor.

This thoughtfulness and willingness to seek compromise when otherwise neither side would get anything out of certain bills proved incredibly threatening to deep conservatives. Any threat to the purity of thought they are looking for in a candidate is perceived as a threat to certainty and order, and this is horribly disconcerting. In fact, even though this vote is likely to give the democrats a better chance to retain control of the Senate – something Republicans and rational conservatives fear most – deep conservatives could not psychologically reconcile themselves to vote for a candidate who was not pure.

Once agin we see that deep conservatives, controlled by inner psychological needs, are willing to go against anyone who does not provide certainty through purity. This suggests that bipartisanship will become harder and harder in Washington and many state houses, as long as a large number of Republican voters cannot vote for anyone who will work with the other side. We are seeing moderates fall away in the GOP at a much faster pace than they are among Democrats, and the more this happens, the more we will have gridlock, divisiveness, and anger.

Conservative Views on Science: More skeptical the ever before

Posted on March 31, 2012 by admin

Over the past four decades, conservatives’ views of science have become increasing distrustful, even as moderates and liberals have basically remained trusting of the scientific community. At first glance some might say this is because the conservative tent has widened and has included more people for whom conservatism is more about religion than finance and therefore may be less educated. However, a recent study showed that the most educated conservatives have actually become most skeptical.

The likely reason for this move is that conservative thought has shifted toward being increasingly concerned and skeptical of big government – with fears of government over control and overreach dominating the conservative thinking. Unfortunately, scientific exploration over the past 40 years has often discovered ways that humans are causing harm to the earth and each other through development and industrialization, and in these cases scientists have called for increased regulations. That is where things go wrong in the conservative view: If science pushes regulations, which are a natural outcrop of government (who will be charged with enforcing them), and conservative thinking is that more government is bad, then somehow science itself must also be treated with skepticism.

Many non-deep conservatives, even some in the republican party, feel that regulations that science should at least be openly debated on their merits, and at the same time they are able to realize that the scientific community is just doing its job by suggesting them. To the deep conservative however, the issue becomes wrapped up in more of a fearful and nervous stance about science and government being somehow wrapped up together. Thus even scientists who use proper and indisputable scientific methods are met with skepticism because of these deep, yet sometimes irrational, conservative fears.

The Conservative Search for Candidate “Purity”

Posted on March 20, 2012 by admin

The middle is getting increasing squeezed out of the debate in national politics which infuriates those of us who are open to debate, feel that compromise can exist, and don’t believe that there are only two solutions two any problem. One of the reason for this has to do with Conservative Psychology, and in particular the desire of deep conservatives to find candidates who are pure in their conservative thinking. Thoughtfulness on issues, wavering in the past as their opinion has evolved, or flip-flopping depending on conditions in the national or local environment are perceived as weaknesses and threats to the conservative view.

It is against that backdrop that we examine the 2012 republican primary season. Moderates such as Governor Pataki of New York declined to enter the GOP race, Major Rudy Giuliani also did not enter, and Governor Jon Huntsman of Utah trailed by so much that he dropped out. These candidates would have brought a different view in some areas, and forced a debate of some issues that all the current candidates agree unwaveringly on. Yet they are great examples of candidates who while perhaps very much poised to actually win the election and govern with a republican and conservative focus, were not deeply and purely conservative enough..

Even though many on the GOP are less conservative than these candidates, and not the deep conservatives we talk about here, the primary season maginfies the effect of conservative psychology. Unfortunately this, in turn, excludes the middle and alienates many people at a time when open debate might have actually helped people understand and perhaps move toward the overall republican platform in the general election.

The Rich-Poor Disparity Explained by Conservative Psychology

Posted on March 10, 2012 by admin

yesterday the government released a study based on census data that showed quite convincingly that the disparities between those with and without money was greatest in a large region of the country dominated by “red” or Republican states, including Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia.

This report is not surprising for its outcome – since most observers were not surprised – but rather because it brought to the surface something that has befuddled many in both parties. Democrats often can’t understand why more states with large numbers of poor who they would think would be resentful of the income disparities in their states do not favor them, since often they govern more favorably with regard to entitlements and tax policies that help the poor. On the other hand, Republicans sometimes question why some blue states don’t favor them more because more of their citizens might do well under republican policies.

Enter Conservative Psychology, at least to help explain why some in the deep south seem on the surface to be voting against their own self interest. Basically, it’s not tax policies or entitlement issues that captures the attention of these voters on election day. Instead, the psychology that we explore here pulls some (see disclaimer) conservatives to vote according to social issues that tap into their conservative beliefs. These voters, despite knowing that perhaps a democrat might help them personally somehow, worry that the democratic party might somehow lead to a loss of control (too much government intrusion or not enough backing of defense policies for example), or social policies that would not be pure with regard to their beliefs, or the potential for too much change of opinion because the candidate was not black and white enough about his or her policy statements.

One way or another, Conservative Psychology drives many voters to vote in a way that would seem to be against their own interests in many ways, taking away the potential for the voting process to be a thoughtful and thorough consideration of each candidate.

The role of religion in conservative psychology

Posted on March 1, 2012 by admin

There are quite a few reasons people turn to religion. For many, their religious beliefs represent a deep reconciliation of how they feel spiritually and what they believe about a power greater than them that created and perhaps oversees the world we live in. For those who come to these beliefs out of a calm desire to understand and participate in this spirituality, and who welcome others to do the same, this post is not about you.

However, for those who come to their religious beliefs out of a need for control, a psychological drive to be ensured that if they follow certain rules laid down by religious tenets everything will somehow be okay, and a fear that those who do not follow these same rules are destined for problems, we draw a parallel with conservative psychology. Many of these religious individuals are also deep conservatives in the other ways we describe them here, and for them religion becomes a tool of intolerance (if one does not follow the roles outlined by their own religious beliefs) rather than tolerance, as well as a driver of a powerful fear of the repercussions of not following rules rather than the joy of participating in religious rituals.

As with the differences we point out here between the psychology of the “deep conservatives” that we talk about here and other types of conservatives who come to their beliefs rationally and are open to honest debate and discussion, there are great differences between people who come to their religious beliefs out of a calm desire to be a part of something spiritual and those who pursue religion due to a powerful unfulfilled need.

Our sister site: Climate Change Journal

Posted on January 7, 2012 by admin

Sometimes the easiest way to explain a scientific theory is to use a compelling real-world example. This is why we have our sister site called “The Climate Change Journal”. There we explore the relationship between the drive for corporate profits and conservative psychology when it comes to the issue of global warming. The site has a section that describes the science that has proven that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity, but is not really there to debate that point. What the Climate Change Journal is designed to do is to show how companies and others with a stake in a powerful and important issue can use effective psychological campaigns to manipulate people into denial and skepticism.

The Climate Change Journal takes things a step further and describes some common sense solutions that might be acceptable to corporations and would provide a path to motivating those who want to deny its existence to look at this issue more squarely. In another section the Climate Change Journal sets out to describe the role of corporations in promoting denial – basically how they tap into conservative psychology in order to get people to find comfort in being skeptical.

Finally, the Climate Change Journal has a section dedicated to holding the people and groups who are promoting global warming denial responsible for their actions. The hope is that as this problem becomes even more clear and obvious, and fewer and fewer people can deny its existence and impact, that those who fell into the carefully laid PR traps set by corporate and political PR campaigns will see their cognitive weakness. In that way we might avoid a repeat of this kind of problem – a problem created when companies and political groups can use psychological methods to manipulate.

Our pages about Conservative Psychology

Posted on December 25, 2011 by admin

We will be building our site to have the latest news and commentary on conservative psychology. You will soon find pages including:

“Conservative Psychology Research” will cover the information uncovered by independent and scientific studies about conservative psychology and thinking

“The Conservative Pull” is a powerful theory that helps explain why everyone, even liberals, often feels an internal pull toward conservative beliefs

“Conservative Psychology and Campaigns” will describe how politicians and political parties, as well as corporations who have PR and ad campaigns, can and do use conservative psychology to manipulate people into voting one way or another

“Conservative Psychology and Leadership Styles” will describe the types of political leader that deep conservatives require given their unique psychology

“The Conservative Denial Cycle” presents a theory about why deep conservatives are prone to following corporate and other special interest PR without thoughtfully exploring the claims made

These pages provide more in-depth information about conservative psychology and the effect of this thinking, while this front page will always have the latest political news and views related to conservative psychology.