Much has been written here about political concepts of conservatism and liberalism without defining these terms in everyday language. Perhaps this is because these words have changed meaning rapidly in modern society. Most of us have heard the lament: “I was a blue-collar liberal growing up—and I haven’t changed—so why do I now find myself a conservative?”
One would hope the reverse were also true, that the once youthful conservatives would find themselves liberals today, but alas, they now often find themselves lumped into the extreme right. Hoping to revive, at least partially, the original meanings of liberalism—as openness to innovation, or lasting liberalism—and conservatism—as commitment to tradition, or classical conservatism—I offer here a relatively simple test for membership in either group.
The test consists in honestly answering the following three questions (yes, this is a type of quiz): 1. Do you feel inherent revulsion at being shown photos involving severe violence? 2. Do you refuse to eat broccoli or even accept it on your plate? 3. Would you refuse to return to the Squid Games as a participant in the second episode after escaping the “Red Light, Green Light” death-by-doll game in the first episode?
If you answered “yes” to question 1, you are inclined toward classical conservatism (as statistically determined by psychological studies). Moreover, those answering “yes” to question 1 tend also to answer “yes” to question 2 about their aversion to broccoli. These individuals have, on average, a lot more taste receptors on the tongue than those answering “no” to question 2 and are more sensitive to and less tolerant of broccoli’s bitter taste.
Therefore, if you answered “yes” to both questions 1 and 2, research studies indicate you are definitely inclined toward classical conservatism. (Note: This is a statistical tendency and not an absolute result.) Similarly, those leaning toward lasting liberalism tend to answer “no” to both questions. If your answers were mixed, stick with your answer to question 1 as dominant.
I threw in the third question as an example of how people in each group would choose as players in the Squid Games. There are no studies on this, but it seems likely that only lasting liberals would return (since they crave the new and innovative) and that the classical conservatives would stay put (since they are most comfortable with what is traditional and stable). It’s axiomatic that an engaging book, exciting movie, or any enticing story—like life itself—always has a diverse mix of interesting lasting liberal and classic conservative characters.
Well, there you have it. Simply put, our temperament and biology determine our political inclinations. What’s to get angry about if you realize that your opponent is—primarily by nature—conditioned to respond to you in a certain way? Our nation’s founders were an interesting mix of lasting liberals and classical conservatives. Their common goal was freedom, and they produced a unique federalism—the dual sovereignty of state and nation inherent in our Constitution. When Ben Franklin was asked what those writing the Constitution had created, he said: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Can we keep it? The keys to success are understanding our respective inclinations and then deciding to work together—like two oars on opposite sides of a boat propelling it forward—toward the common goals of individual freedom and mutual prosperity. Δ
Dan Biezad is a retired teacher and Air Force veteran, who has lived in SLO County since 1990. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Feb 24 – Mar 3, 2022.
Yeah, man. The classical conservative founding fathers just owned slaves because of their temperament and biology. Ronald Reagan called black people “monkeys” because of his inclination toward broccoli. Greg Abbot didn’t didn’t like the Netflix show Squid Game, and so decided to use state violence against gender non-conforming kids and their parents.
Brilliant analysis, Dan.
I tend to avoid experiences I find unpleasant, and don’t seek out depictions of graphic violence. I like broccoli, especially with hollandaise sauce. And while I have heard references to the Squid Game, I really don’t know what it is about, and can’t form an opinion one way or the other. Am I an anarchist, a Whig or a Successionist?
I prefer conservative politics because I like what actually works, instead of merely engaging in emotionally cathartic displays parroting the fashionable thinking of the moment.
Lost me with the broccoli and “Squid Games?” references. Better writers such as Edmund Burke, William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan or Marc Levin have defined modern conservatism, while John Maynard Keynes, John Stuart Mill, Richard Wolfe or Paul Krugman have made the case for liberalism. I just wish current politicians would pick up a book from one of these writers once in a while, rather than jumping on the facebook or twitter bandwagon of analysis.
When I first presented the research data for questions (1) and (2) of this New Times article to classes at Cal Poly, there were many groans from the students. However, students asked for the data when they realized I was serious. There are dozens of articles on this, and they all have the same result. Here are two of them:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/the-yuck-factor/580465/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201203/are-you-easily-disgusted-you-may-be-conservative
The first three comments on my article from New Times readers are most interesting. Two comments make their case by name-dropping individuals, positively in one statement and negatively in the other. The third simply presents a personal belief. However, in contrast to the students, none of these readers requested my supporting data or provided their opposing data. They offered their own opinions, and I accept each of those opinions as valid. That was my point: people use reason to justify their inclinations and not overcome them (a critical thinking skill that requires both effort and some humility).
I admit to simply having some fun with the third question about the Squid Games. However, I stand by my metaphor of the two oars on opposite sides of the boat. Some may want everyone to rotate all oars clockwise, and others counterclockwise. If one side prevails, we go in circles. Best to think about this before imposing our views on others and develop a practical plan to move forward. This thought and action always require teamwork, not conflict.
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the added evidence and will convey it to the students the next chance I get. I find their openness refreshing, and that bodes well for our future.
Dan Biezad
We must draw upon our personal experiences to test your premise. In my case, I like broccoli and am not especially repelled by violent images, thus marking me as a liberal. Most regular readers of this paper have probably reached a different conclusion of my orientation. And, of course correlation is not causation, and I have difficulty accepting that possessing certain traits preordained me to have certain political views, and that personal experiences and observations have little influence. Like many,I was liberal in my youth and gradually became conservative, yet my taste for broccoli and reaction to violent images remain constant. And while considering both sides is important, not every issue can be most successfully addressed by “cutting the baby in half”. Sometimes only one course will be successful, while the opposite course will be disastrous.
In reply to Mr. Donegan (2/27/22), thank you for the comment–yes, certainly we must draw upon our personal experiences to test the premise, but please realize that your experience (or mine) would only be one data point in a statistical research study. I certainly understand your reluctance in accepting some type of Calvinist predetermination of your political views. In fact, that reluctance spawned a large number of psychological studies to disprove that result (over fifty studies, but all of them ironically reached the same conclusion). Many of my students were equally flabbergasted, as was I. The point is that, collectively, we are more biologically determined in our political affiliations than we think.
I agree with you that Solomon’s approach to solving problems by “cutting babies in half” will not work in practice (but it may work as a threat), and I also agree that, depending on the situation, only one course of action may be effective. That is why we have a Republic with a strong executive.
The key question to me is whether we are thinking about practical solutions or talking over each other toward inevitable conflict. Often the first step is to accurately state your opponents’ positions (to their satisfaction). However, I don’t think of you as an opponent, and I appreciate your comments.
Dan
Dan, your point is moot. For one, it doesn’t replicate:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/11/27/no-co…
https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/scien…
It also says nothing of values. We can simply make a rule in the boat that racists get pushed out of the boat.
@neighborhood: I agree about lightening the boat, as it will result in a lot of Democrats being forced to tread water while indignantly insisting that they aren’t racists. But their prevailing assumptions and arguments – that Black folks are somehow unable to compete and succeed without special help from their Democratic patrons – will reveal far more about their true thinking.
WOW – this writer touched a cord, correct? More after I read All the comments . . . gkl
Well, I read them and the writer’s responses but I am not any closer to the truth.
I, for instance, similar to Donegan, am a Classical Liberal. I don’t think I fit into the writer’s groups even tho’ I don’t have “inherent revulsion . . . [to] severe violence”, I like broccoli and don’t play games much less one with the word “Squid” in it [where does one play Squid Games, anyway?].
Like John, I get my principles from my own thinking supported by thinkers over the centuries because when I read what they wrote it was precisely what I thought. Any Rand first, since I read the Fountainhead when I was 14, others later when I came across them as an Objectivist and Libertarian.
And while I may choose not to feast on such photos, I am not totally “revulsed” since it is important to know violence happens without excusing it. I willingly signed and live according to the NAP, a Pledge “not to initiate force for political or social gain” required by Libertarian Party’ members.
What “studies”? Throw unrelated Likes and Dislikes into a political survey and later pull find commonalities to use to identify individuals as belonging to one group or another?
Now, I have to go read the “studies’. This writer is sending me in search of answers. I’ll get back to you. gkl
First provide link says:
“The subjects in the trial were also shown violent imagery (men pointing revolvers directly at the camera, battle scenes, car wrecks) and pleasant pictures (smiling babies, beautiful sunsets, cute bunnies). But it was only the reaction to repulsive things that correlated with ideology.”
This study used MRI reactions.
Second provied link says:
So what’s the political connection?
“Evidence suggests that harm avoidance and the need for fairness underlie people’s moral judgments in a number of cultures. While liberals rely primarily on these two values, conservatives also rely on desires for group loyalty, authoritative structure, and, most importantly here, purity. Following this logic, Kevin and other researchers became interested in the potential for a relation between disgust and political orientations. They speculated that conservatives are more disgust sensitive than liberals as a result of their concern with purity-related norms and that this difference would manifest itself on issues that some may associate with sexual purity (e.g., homosexual sex and, therefore, gay rights).”
Make if them what you will . . .
Myself, I’ll trust Briggs-Meyers, the Smallest Political Quiz and David F. Nolan’s Chart.
gkl