For those of you who read this blog, you'll perhaps know that two of the things I struggle with most are entrenched dogma, and certain people's inability to deal with the myriad grey areas in politics (
nuance, in other words), and any corresponding, yet apparently contradictory, principles which claim to underpin those politics (bizarrely, those who claim to be 'principled', in reality, turn out to be some of the most flagrantly unprincipled people you're likely to come across) - and notably, these being two aspects for which the the Right, in both the UK and US, can invariably be relied upon to display a supreme comfort.
And whilst perhaps they don't see it in those specific terms, the reason
why these personal traits irritate other people is simple: unbeknownst to them, dogma, intolerance and inflexibility were created to confuse and confound their proponents and practitioners - and hence catch them in the web of their own self-donning contradictions. And, frankly, that's where the fun starts as, let's face it, if you ever get the opportunity to de-bag a blinkered-by-choice merchant, it takes a strong person not to want to go for gold!
So, imagine my feelings of
manna from heaven when I was sent, via Twitter, the
Guardian article, below, from an ex-pat Austrian lady who's been living and settled in the US since 1987 (thank you
Irene!)
And as you'll see in just a second: there is a delicious irony here...
This study - by Stanford and UC Berkeley researchers - was conducted in 2003, when president
Gump Bush jnr was
poste restante in the White House; so it's not like it can simply be tossed-off or dismissed in one of their rote claims of it being a 'leftist trick', or propaganda. Although, true to form, they do manage to carp about the source of funding for the research.
So, whilst no doubt a number of us have had our suspicions over the years, and schoolboy smirks aside, it's somehow reaffirming to have those suspicions confirmed once in a while; and to find that being a conservative/Republican is actually a known condition: and that condition a suitable case for treatment.
Now, one final test: when you read what follows, try and
avoid picturing any of those toxic individuals in the above picture. I'll be honest: I couldn't.
Enjoy!
Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve
* Julian Borger in Washington
* The Guardian, Wednesday 13 August 2003 02.33 BST
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.
All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".
Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".
Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."
But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."
Further reading:
Study: The Full Measure of Republican Neuroses
For those of you who read this blog, you'll perhaps know that two of the things I struggle with most are entrenched dogma, and certain people's inability to deal with the myriad grey areas in politics (nuance, in other words), and any corresponding, yet apparently contradictory, principles which claim to underpin those politics (bizarrely, those who claim to be 'principled', in reality, turn out to be some of the most flagrantly unprincipled people you're likely to come across) - and notably, these being two aspects for which the the Right, in both the UK and US, can invariably be relied upon to display a supreme comfort.
Posts
