Up The Mainstream

Which brings me to the body of the second part of “Why do Conservatives Hate our Freedom?” Recently I came upon an article in the UC Berkeley News, published in 2003, about a study entitled, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” Published in the American Psychological Association’s “Psychological Bulletin.”

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Although some folks might dismiss the credibility of anything with the name “Berkeley” attached to it as lacking the veracity of a big foot sighting reported by the Daily Kos, I beg your countenance to read the article, it‘s very interesting and it isn’t some, “wacko liberal hit piece from planet Berkeley.”

The study, according to the article, is based on, “50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism,” and concludes that, “at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure and terror management.” That’s all quite a bit to try and wrap around, so for my purpose I’ll focus on the “resistance to change,” and the “tolerance of inequality.”

As the cliché states, “9/11 changed everything.” After effectively stealing the 2000 election, 9/11 actually provided a goldmine of opportunity for the, “compassionate conservatives,” to steer the country away from a moderate political and economic course into an ideological hard turn to the right. We were attacked. People were angry and afraid. The analogy to Pearl Harbor, however ludicrous, was fueled by the mainstream media and dominated popular rhetoric and anyone who disagreed was framed as being supporters of the enemy.

So what about conservatives’, “resistance to change?” This is where the study seems to get it wrong, or at least failed to get it completely right. Turns out it could be, “resistance to some kinds of change,” or maybe even, “resistance to anything but reactionary change.” I think it has much more to do with, “tolerance for inequality,” being the trump concept for conservatives. Evidence for this is steeped in the Neo-Conservative “Project for a New American Century,” and the concept of “American Exceptionalism.” It’s just not that tough of a stretch to blame about every bad thing that is happening in this country in the last seven years, from our slide to plutocracy to the imminent recession, and most anything else you can think of, on this core conservative characteristic of “tolerance for inequality.”

In a response to part one of my posts on this subject, Rainman provided his take on liberals and justification for conservative tolerance for inequality, “Most modern liberals, on the other hand, have focused liberalism down to the fervent pursuit of equality above all other things. There can be no higher virtue to a liberal than "non-discrimination." And, despite Jefferson's proclamation that “all men are created equal" and entitled to certain political rights of which we are all familiar; the truth is that humans are not all equal. They possess differing abilities, affected by intelligence, culture, nurturing, etc. Therefore there can be no equality of outcome for all people, in spite of our best political efforts to the contrary.”

Just as I am guilty of over generalizing about conservatives, Rainman’s opinion about “modern liberals” paints with a similar brush. What is telling about Rainman’s opinion is that he seems perfectly comfortable and resigned to the concept of inequality and even has a tidy rationale to back it up. As the words of a self described “conservative,” I think he supports the point I’m trying to make.

I am certain that pure equality is neither practical nor achievable because the concept runs contrary to the laws of nature. Holding this belief pretty much rules me out as a pure Socialist I suppose, but I can’t help but experience pangs of pathos when I see so much bounty and opportunity that is denied to many in this country simply because of unlucky birth. So for me it becomes a moral question and a problem that deserves work and energy toward a solution.

Thomas Jefferson probably didn’t invent the concept of all men being equal, but he forever ensconced it in our national conscience when he included the phrase in the Declaration of Independence. The fact that the word “men” lacked a definition at the time that included the slaves that he owned or his wife or daughters, does not diminish the ideal the phrase embodies in modern time.

The people who founded this nation are rightfully considered among the most courageous in human history. They willingly risked life and treasure for a chance at a kind of freedom that no people had ever had before them. At first the chances of success in their pursuit of the ideals of freedom and equality were so tenuous as to be considered nothing more than an experiment. Somehow it held together and has withstood every threat, internal and external for about the last 225 years.

Those of you who are clever with math will notice that I have excluded the last seven years from the calculation in the previous sentence. In the shadow of the “War on Terror,” the conservative Bush administration has been conducting a war on the Constitution, that, “goddamned piece of paper,” and in turn a war on our freedom. The conservative penchant for “tolerance of inequality,” has been projected in everything from fixing federal elections to no-bid contracts, to abuse of executive power, just to name a few of the transgressions.

Why do conservatives hate our freedom? Well they don’t really, but because of their tolerance for inequality and the application of this guiding rationale, they at least, in spite of lip service given, put less value on freedom equally distributed, or at worse seek to diminish and pervert the concept in order to achieve goals deemed of greater value.

In part three, having expended the shock value in the use of the word, “hate” the final installment will be titled, “Why do Conservatives Under Value our Freedom?” and I’ll explore another angle on the Disorderly Events Ordinance and the associated political ramifications.