Contributors
Gary M. Galles - Contributor

Mr. Galles is a professor of econmics at Pepperdine University.

Conserve What? For Whom? From What?
A hit piece courtesy of Berkeley and the American Psychological Association...
[Gary M. Galles] 2/9/04

Last year, the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin published Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Supported with $1.2 million in federal money, it supposedly provided an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism. Since attacks on conservatism this election year will repeat those themes, they merit some attention.

The authors found resistance to change and tolerance for inequality at the core of political conservatism. While proclaiming their findings to be non-judgmental, they also concluded that conservatism was "significantly linked with mental rigidity and close-mindedness, increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, decreased cognitive complexity, decreased openness to experience, uncertainty avoidance, personal needs for order and structure, need for cognitive closure, lowered self-esteem; fear, anger, and aggression; pessimism, disgust, and contempt."

The researchers also equated Hitler and Mussolini with Ronald Reagan as "right-wing conservatives...because they all preached a return to an idealized past and favored or condoned inequality in some form." And the types of inequality conservatives supposedly favored included the Indian caste system, South African apartheid, and segregation in the U.S.

Of course, according to the study, that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled." But it does imply it.

Unfortunately, this hit piece overlooks important distinctions. "Conservative" and "liberal," as well as "progressive," are adjectives that have been converted into nouns. But adjectives are not absolute; they modify something else. The question is what is to be conserved, in what ways we are to be liberal, and what we consider progress.

Think of America's history. Our founding was radical, although it sought to conserve what the colonists considered their rights. America was liberal in trying to provide the broadest possible sweep of individual freedom against government coercion. It was tremendously progressive in its recognition of inalienable rights for all (a long way from the "conservative" divine right of kings). And it was united under a Constitution intended to conserve that vision, which was a beacon of hope to the world.

Trying to restore or conserve that vision does not logically categorize one with Hitler, or every politician who has sworn "to preserve, protect and defend (i.e., conserve) the Constitution of the United States" belongs in that category. America's past proves the folly of a study that makes no distinction between those desiring to conserve the power of governments that are massively abusive of its citizens (Hitler and Mussolini) and those seeking to conserve the ideal of a government that is not abusive, by returning to a prior approach where such abuses were off-limits (Ronald Reagan).

When such diametrically opposed positions are both given the same label, that label produces confusion, not insight.

In addition to equating political conservatism with some of history's most egregious abuses of human liberty, which are plainly inconsistent with conservatism's principles, the study employs sleight-of-hand to characterize conservatives as condoning inequality, while implying that others do not.

But given that all men are not equal in all ways, inequality is unavoidable. Inequality of results is unavoidable if people are treated equally under the law--the equality our founders defended. However, efforts to mandate more equal results are inconsistent with treating citizens equally. For the government to give to some requires taking from others without their consent, violating their rights to equal treatment. Yet the APA study simply ignores the inequality of treatment inherent in such policies, and so misrepresents conservatives as favoring inequality even when they are, in fact, combating government-imposed unequal treatment.

The study also denigrates conservatives for close-minded resistance to political change, presumably in contrast to more open-minded liberals. However, rather than closed-mindedness, hesitation to sweeping change might represent the frequently reinforced recognition of politically imposed changes' track record of failure. As economist Paul Heyne put it: "economic theory often treats proposals for reform of the economic system so unkindly...[it] calls attention to the unexamined consequences of proposals for change. It won't work out that way is the economist's standard response to many well-intentioned policy proposals. Realism is not necessarily conservatism, but it often looks quite similar."

America was founded to protect the freedoms of every citizen from government coercion. One need not be a genius to recognize the value of conserving that. But this Psychological Bulletin "research" missed that point entirely, by treating all resistance to change as equivalent, regardless of the value of what is being defended, and by misrepresenting American conservatives' views on inequality. Far from being an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism, it was just one more libel against it.

copyright 2004 Gary M. Galles

§