Tom Jacobs has a great piece over at Pacific Standard that analyzes a recent study on just how conservative and liberal people are these days.
In three experiments described in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, researchers found “a systematic bias among young adults to perceive themselves as somewhat more conservative than they actually are.”
And the reasoning behind this is simply that the word "conservative" brands better than the world liberal. I've often thought this because when you really start asking people, who self-identify as conservative, where they stand on issues, they really aren't that far right at all. They just don't like the word liberal and are embarrassed to label themselves as such. This is largely due to the immensely successful job the Right has done at negatively marketing that word.
In the first group, “liberal Democrats significantly overestimated their liberalism,” the researchers report. “However, moderate Democrats, Independents, and Republicans significantly underestimated their liberalism.”
A very similar pattern was found in the other groups, with an underestimation of one’s liberalism “more pronounced” among self-described conservatives.
Here is the quiz that was taken. How did you do?
4 comments:
Part of the reason that many people self-identify as 'conservative' is that they are conservative in the real sense of word.
Real conservatives are careful and cautious. They don't make radical changes on a whim. They conserve resources, both natural and economic. They work to ensure that their descendants will have access to the same things they treasure for all time to come. They don't sacrifice quality of life of future generations for temporary economic gain. They make sure that their expenditures do not outstrip their incomes, increasing taxes when natural calamities and wars occur, and reducing them in good times. They don't jump into wars for glory, to improve their chances for reelection, to prove their economic theories about "free enterprise zones," or to control other countries' oil fields. They don't trample other people's basic rights and lord over them with their own political and religious ideology.
Real conservatives don't believe the government knows better what the people's needs are and write their own religious beliefs into law, or have the government force women to undergo invasive ultrasound procedures in order to coerce them to bear unwanted children who may ultimately wind up on government assistance.
Real conservatives conserve: they don't profligately waste natural resources or money on pointless wars, or drive gigantic gas-hogs that intentionally waste fuel to show how rich and successful they are.
Right-wing ideologues have appropriated the term conservative, but they are really just mouthpieces for radical right-wing theocrats and corporate oligarchs. They want to radically change the way American society operates, moving away from consensus-based democracy to a dictatorship by a minority of wealthy, white Christians.
In short, they want a return to the antebellum south, when slaves and poor white trash knew their places. A time when plantation owners, mine owners and railroad barons could run roughshod over everyone else in their lust for ever more carloads of cash.
That was an evil time in American history, one that hearkened back to medieval feudalism rather than the new American Way that the America Revolution promised.
And that's the difference between the liberals and the so-called conservatives: the liberals believe in the ideals of the Revolution, which are based on constant progress and growth of this nation, while the right-wing radicals want to become mired in the racist concrete of the antebellum South where nothing ever changes.
Not particularly interested in their test. I am generally more liberal on social issues than most progressives. For example, you support a slightly kinder and gentler War on Drugs and I think we should declare victory, have a parade and consign it to history's dustbin.
I not only have no problem with gay marriage, I have no problem with plural marriage. It shouldn't be up to the state to decide who may and who may not marry.
I not only have no problem with gay marriage, I have no problem with plural marriage. It shouldn't be up to the state to decide who may and who may not marry.
I go a bit different route.
The state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. A marriage is a religious act. The state, properly, should be in the contract business. Any persons who wish to enter into a contract should be able to do so.
I agree with every single word of Guard Duck's comment. Mark this date in history:)
Post a Comment