Why Don't They Analyze Liberalism?

Another study that tries to answer for liberals -"Are conservatives crazy, and if so, why?" has been published and given some press. We've seen it before, but I find it curious that the question is never asked of liberalism...I guess it's because they see themselves as the normal and enlightened ones. Iron Shrink simply demolishes the study. It was pitifully easy to do.
First he looks at how the study defines "Conservative." They used a 1958 Websters dictionary to affirm a common liberal propaganda point that conservatives "resist change," and accept as gospel the Marxist dogma that "equality" must refer to outcomes, not opportunity, as conservatives see it. Since the good doctors are clearly liberal, they have no problem seeing a fundamental ideological difference as evidence of a pathology!

The authors’ dictionary states that conservatism “stresses the disposition and tendency to preserve what is established” and “the disposition in politics to maintain the existing order” (p. 342). That’s the first of their two-part definition of conservatism.
The second part concerns equality. Turning to the sentiments of others who have written about conservatives, the authors endorse opinions such as, “the left favours greater equality, while the right sees society as inevitably hierarchical” (p. 342).
Resistance to change and acceptance of inequality. That’s the study’s definition of conservatism. It provides the foundation for the research they sought out and the hypotheses they sought to confirm. Let’s look at each of “the two core aspects of conservatism” (p. 343).

Do liberals NEED examples of what conservatives would like to CHANGE?

One example of change favored by conservatives is the Fair Tax initiative. American conservatives tend to support the abolition of the IRS in favor of a system that would change the face of federal funding. It is perhaps the most profound change initiative in the public arena, and it is liberals who resist it.
It’s a complex world and sometimes we all want to rearrange the furniture.
Another example is public school vouchers. Conservatives would like to upend the administration of public education. Liberals vehemently resist this change.

And then of course, who are the subject populations?

Nevertheless, they say, “we have made a special effort to seek out and incorporate results obtained in 12 different countries, including those with historical influences of socialism or communism,” including Sweden, Poland, East Germany, West Germany, Italy, England, Canada, and Israel. All of these, despite their “historical influences” are currently pleasant, peaceful, productive countries. If you are an American liberal, this is your comparison group.
In their search for examples of right-leaning populations, the authors turn to Hitler’s Germany [4], Stalin’s Russia, and Pinochet’s Chile. If you are an American conservative, your comparison group contains the likes of Dr. Mengele. In a separate article, Jost (2006, p. 658) painted what most people consider to be mainstream, thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, and Barry Goldwater as right-wing “fringe activists.”

If you're nice and peaceful, you're a leftie. If you are not nice, you are a right winger.

Let’s review the ideological assumptions that underlie the study’s sample selection: left wing societies are best represented by contemporary Sweden, while right-wing societies are exemplified by Nazi Germany. Joseph Stalin – the same Stalin who murdered tens of thousands under the banner of Karl Marx – is a conservative, while Milton Friedman – who earned the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on consumption analysis – is a right-wing fringe activist. Meanwhile, authoritarianism does not exist on the left, or at least it can’t be located because there are no records of such things. Mao? Castro? Lenin? Guevara? Chávaz? Pol Pot? Never heard of ‘em.

This is how the language of psychological academia gets called "psycho-babble." Iron Shrink goes on and on in an interesting but lengthy article...

Take the example of Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) theory, which figures prominently in the study and is held up as an unquestioned explanation for conservative ideology. RWA theory was advanced by the Frankfurt School and seeks to explain the development of fascist cultures. According to RWA theory,

Any real scientist would be embarrassed.

Beneath such rhetorical excess is a thinly veiled contempt for those who hold conservative beliefs. In a discussion concerning System Justification Theory (one of the lead author’s pet projects), the authors note that the theory is “especially well suited to address relatively puzzling cases of conservatism and right-wing allegiance among members of low-status groups, such as women and members of the working class” (p. 350).
The authors are “puzzled” as to why a woman or someone with a job (both of whom they consider low-status) would disagree with their viewpoint. Could it be that the woman or the worker weighed the evidence and simply arrived at a different conclusion than the authors? Impossible. Commoners can’t be trusted with such things.
I won’t take it upon myself to apologize to conservatives on behalf of my industry (that seems presumptuous), but I am embarrassed by the methodology in this study and I am deeply troubled by the response from the psychology community. This study is being held up as exemplary when it is better suited to the editorial pages of Mother Jones than a peer-reviewed journal.

S H O W N

espresso beans to Michelle Malkin