Bill, that's not the first time studies have found that Conservatives care more then Liberals.

Arthur Brooks wrote a really good book called "Who Really Cares" that dives into a study that shows Conservatives even with an over all income LESS then that of the same number Liberals give on average 30% more.

And he found it isn't just money donations where Conservatives give more. Even blood and time. If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same level as conservatives we'd see a rise of 45% in blood donation.

Also those who practice a faith (the "religious right") are 52% more likely to volunteer then those who do not practice a faith.

Here's one site discussing the book:
http://www.faithfulreader.com/reviews/0465008216-about.asp

And one word of note about that, the author is a Democrat. He said in one interview he expected to see Liberals come out as the more caring group but data just didn't support it so he wrote what he found to be the truth.

Of course its true. They are also more courageous, thriftier, thinner, better looking, better at golf, and more polite and courteous.

And more credulous too. Don't forget that. It's what makes all the others possible.

Way too many people believe erroneously that there is a particular political pathology.

The whole premise is sketchy.

Actually, ideologues whether they are on the left or the right, have far more in common with each other than most groups.

Or look at religious ideologues. The groups that fight each other decade in and decade out are united in their belief that God is on their side.

Bill please dig deeper and take a look at this.

Bill and Richard

By its own definition. the GSS does "opinion surveys"

This is NOT a legitimate psychological research project. I would point out a little thing called observer bias.

If you Google Political pathology. you won't find any studies whatever.

Once again--you are entitled to your own opinions, but trying to present your opinions as fact is deceiving.

Dear Chaz and Mr. Marsh,

I am glad that you have commented, but I would point out that I have not offered an opinion on the matter. I merely asked whether the idea is true. Apparently neither of you think it is, which is fine.

I am reminded of the studies that show that conservatives give far more money to charity than do liberals, even when church tithing is factored out. Why is THAT the case? I am not suggesting that liberals are heartless, but where do liberals get to (self) identify as bleeding hearts? To liberals, or so it seems to me, America is only just when people are forced to be charitable, by law and through taxation. This artifice is not only disconcerting, it smacks of emptiness. Doesn't nihilism come to mind when we consider how eager many people are to make compassion, justice and charity matters of law, of force?

Be well, and enjoy this balmy day.

BG

Bill,


Then what was your point?

I read the article you pointed to and the author clearly believes conservatives are morally superior to liberals.

Richard obviosly agrees--he makes that point about once a week as a matter of fact.

It looks ( from this piece) that you agree with him

But if one takes the three pieces you posted today, there is an unmistakable theme about the evils of Democrats.

Leave that bigotry to Ed Naile and Richard please

What about humility?

Dear Chaz,

I am sorry that you believe I am committed to regaling against the "evils of Democrats." I don't think Democrats are evil; I don't even think they are bad. I merely think that they are often wrong. (And I've known Republicans who are "evil", and wrong.)

And there IS a pathology to this penchant for erroneousness. The pathology is envy.

As for humility, no one has a corner on it. But without appealing to a religious position, perhaps you can tell me why humility is virtuous? And while we are at it, what does humility look like if, indeed, it is a virtue?

Maybe Mr. Marsh would like to weigh in as well.

In all honesty, I bid you well.

Peace,

BG

Dear Richard,

I am a conservative, but this does not make me ipso facto Republican. It simply makes me conservative. As a conservative, I embrace all kinds of old-fashioned values; I try to follow classic mores and etiquette. I do not always succeed, but I do try to be polite.

My liberal friends are certainly polite, at least to me. But there is no doubt they are far more likely to scoff at the New Testament or Emily Post. They do not blush when the "Beastie Boys" step onto the stage to receive a Grammy shouting "F**king A!" Of course, this is not me writing with a broad brush, for my mother-in-law, a true Democrat and liberal, would not countenance the "Beastie Boys" approvingly.

But what I notice is something I've already written above: liberals only believe a country is just if charity is a matter of law. Tonight, at dinner, I sat with old friends, both of whom described themselves as Woodstock kids (they both tried to go, but turned around). They are now conservatives. Both of them discussed how guilty they have been made to feel by liberals: their wealth, their waste, their exhalations, their travel -- all of these, and many more things like these, are things which they've been made to feel guilty for. They laughingly noted that when they were young hippies the Catholic Church seemed to promulgate nothing but guilt and rules; they note now that their old party makes them feel guilty for everything, supplanting the burdensomeness of the Church.

I don't exactly know what I am getting at. My main point, however, remains: liberals believe fairness and equity and egalitarianism are matters of law, and not of conscience, freedom; of grace. And it is liberals, mostly observable among the artistic set (are there many conservative artists?), who are always "pushing boundaries" and "shattering presuppositions." Where do traditional mores fit in with a group given to shaping everything in terms of progress and the future, as Mr. Obama intimated Friday?

Are conservatives intrinsically nicer? If ideas shape actions, then yes, it is possible that conservatives are nicer; it is equally conceivable that liberals are nicer people than conservatives. If my motive is love rather than envy, then I think I will be kinder than my neighbor who sees everything through envy's very colored glasses. So if ideas shape actions, and conservative ideas inspire actions that are fixed on kindness without suspicion (a necessary liberal suspicion is that everyone is politically motivated, except, perhaps, liberals), then I think it possible, even reasonable, to assume that conservatives can be kinder than others.

But there is nothing hard and fast here, really, when it comes to niceties and kindnesses. Such virtues are like art: they are in the eye of the beholder.

Peace,

BG

Dear Mr. Marsh,

I appreciate your passion, but I would be careful, at least when writing to me, when tossing out accusations that conservatives are gullible. Credulous, as you say.

For the record, I find your comment rather incredible, really.

Peace and mirth,

Bill Gnade

Bill

I mentioned humility because when individuals in a group continually makes an issue of its moral superiority--that in itself shows a lack of humility.

I don't think I have to defend humility as a virtue. That's been done for thousands of years and from what you describe seems to fit into your concept of traditional values.

Hoping not to sound to strident, but like I explained yesterday, I think the whole premis of who is more just is erroneous.

I don't believe there in a political pathology. True pathology is complex and each individual is shaped by many events, cognitions and so on.

If you go into the DSM4 ( the diagnostic statistical manual of mental disorders) you won't find a political pathology.

Dear Chaz,

Thanks for the very interesting comment.

With my son heading off to college and this dad struggling with empty nest syndrome, I've been talking with my wife -- and a few psychologist friends -- about my returning to graduate school. My interest? The psychology of political party (and candidate) identification.

You mention the DSM. I am glad you did. But there is surely some element of psychoses to political identifications: conformism, group-think, fear of rejection, approval needs, envy: all of these play into a person's political identity, ambitions and goals. That the DSM does not mention political pathology is meaningless, since it does address the singular pathologies that, when bundled together, do result in a person's surrender to a group's ideology and influence.

I've mentioned envy twice now in this thread, maybe three times. I am convinced that envy's role in liberal political ideology is pervasive and, at best, borderline unhealthy. It is also overlooked, or, more aptly ignored. Perhaps I will enlarge upon this idea in a future essay here.

As for humility, I am not sure any of us even knows what it is, what it looks like. G.K. Chesterton once said that the proud man is the quiet man, as he is constantly weighing his words in order to protect his image; and that the humble man is garrulous, free with his tongue because he is free of conceit. Strangely, this makes some sense; and it is worth noting that most of us believe humility is quiet, self-effacing, deferential. But such qualities may be the very heart of conceit and self-adoration. Humility may not at all be what we think it is.

Of course, you have suggested that a conservative's conceit is for him to point to his own great generosity and moral vigor. And it may be a conceit, and it may not be one whit humble. But my liberal peers are constantly patting themselves on the back in every put-down of their conservative contemporaries. Denouncing "tax cuts for the rich" is surely a veiled boast of liberals' moral excellence, as are their many denunciations of war, "Big Oil," Big Business and greenhouse gas emissions. The gay marriage issue is really a liberal boast, as is the abortion issue: liberals believe themselves wiser and kinder and more compassionate than their conservative contemporaries and, in taking umbrage, conceal their conceit with language that merely points out conservatism's flaws and deficiencies.

Why, pray tell, would anyone put a political sticker of any kind on his or her car, for example? Why put an Obama aticker on one's bumper? Because the sticker serves as a badge of demarcation: it says that the person in the car is a TYPE of person, a BETTER type, and is NOT one of THEM, the LESSER types. Stickers as group identification markers clearly serve as points of censure (of those who do not wear the badge) and boasting ('we are morally and ideologically advanced!').

To me the psychological needs of political identifications are many, obvious and clearly overwhelming. And I also believe that what people are seeking in such identifications cannot ever be found: Barack Obama, for example, will not make the world a better place, nor will he make anyone happy. The fulfillment we all seek transcends the mundane promises of politics; if politics and politicians and parties could fulfill us, then the prophets and poets throughout the ages have duped us all, and have been duped themselves (perhaps even duping themselves). Sadly, when our psycho-spiritual needs are not met in the political realm, we seek to blame some external locus of control: Republicans, liberals, Bush, Rove. The very obsessiveness by which many of our peers live regarding Bush/Cheney/Rove (or Clinton/Obama/Pelosi) proves that psychopathology is very much at work in the heart of the American electorate. We look for fulfillment and justice and meaning in the wrong places, and then blame groups and individuals and policies for our deep discontent.

You say there is no political pathology. I might be saying that politics IS pathology.

Peace,

Bill Gnade

Mr. Gnade:

My comments were meant as a humorous way of saying "I don't believe the premise". Surprised you missed the irony, if you in fact did. I didn't imply you were gullible, as I don't know you and you didn't say you believed this canard.

As for the premise, a close reading of Mr Brooks' book indicates that most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.

I don't happen to think that all money that goes to churches should be considered as "charity", but that's the way the statistics work/

Bill

Last week here at NH INSIDER someone called me a Stalinist.

That's offensive and I believe that the constant din from Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh has found a warm reception here.

I expect that from some of our front page bloggers, but after many conversations with you I was surprised to see you buying into it.

What desturbs me is that it's a very bad sign when "nice" people like you ( people who are sensitive to others and so on) play into the hands of the morally superior amongst us.

From the heart

Dear Mr. Marsh,

I appreciate your comment, but if I am not mistaken, the statistics show that when church-giving is factored out of the data, conservatives still give more to charity than liberals. I will check on my sources, and get back to you.

Be well.

BG

Dear Chaz,

I am not sure what you're saying in your last comment. Have I ever called you a name, particularly a name like "Stalinist"? Indeed, I have not, and I've not thrown any insults your way at all. Nor do I believe I've "bought into" anything; I've no idea why you should inject that sort of rhetoric here. Have I missed something? Perhaps you could point me to what I've said that disappoints you, that changes your view of my person-hood.

The bulk of this thread addresses whether there is anything psychological (you introduced the idea of pathology, if I am not mistaken) to party affiliation and support for a given candidate. I am prone to believe that psychology has far more to do with it than pure intellect, abstract reasoning, or moral acumen. People find psychological comfort, affirmation, and even pride in identifying with a political "team"; and in joining that team, they also find affirmation of their self-images by distinguishing themselves from others "over there," those folks who are NOT on the team. So in conformity to one group and opposition to another many Americans find some vestigial meaning and existential affirmation in their lives.

If you think these musings are evidence of my "buying into" some shallow and vicious paradigm, then I have no effective defense other than to suggest that a closer reading of my work will show that I am rather independent of any prescribed political paradigm.

Be well.

Gnade

Bill

All I'm trying to do is point out that there is a slippery slope that goes directly from articles like the one you cited to people feeling justified in calling me not only a Stalinist, but a fascist too. ( even though historically Stalinists and fascists were mortal enemies)

Phoney research projects always fan the flames. Remember the book "the Bell Curve"?

I'm just suggesting you take a look at this from Mike Marsh and my perspective.

Bill

Respectfully: ( I'm actually in a good mood and enjoying our chat here )

but let me give another perspective on political bumper stickers. I think you are reading far too much into those.

In fact they are a form of advertising and a very effective one. Campaigns know that you have to put a candidates name in front of someone at least seven times if you hope for name recognition.

Bumper stickers are one of the most effective ways of doing this. People also like to toot their horns at each other and "bond" a little as they drive.

I'm almost done Bill I promise

But you wrote this which seems to support the idea that Conservatives are kinder than liberals:

I am reminded of the studies that show that conservatives give far more money to charity than do liberals, even when church tithing is factored out. Why is THAT the case? I am not suggesting that liberals are heartless, but where do liberals get to (self) identify as bleeding hearts? To liberals, or so it seems to me, America is only just when people are forced to be charitable, by law and through taxation. This artifice is not only disconcerting, it smacks of emptiness. Doesn't nihilism come to mind when we consider how eager many people are to make compassion, justice and charity matters of law, of force?


C'mon. Nihilism, emptiness?



PS I'd rather be skiing!!

Chaz,

I am totally with you: I'd rather be skiing, too. But I will stand by my nihilism assertion, for it is accurate. If charity is born of force, of compulsion, by law and social guilt, then it is not charity, nor is it just. Liberals, or so it seems to me, want to improve the world by legislation, which is ultimately an empty endeavor. America and Americans will not be better if love, kindness, decency, charity, and generosity are the result of law. We cannot and must not ever force charity or generosity; to do so is utterly vacuous. Benevolence must always be a freely given act.

Just my opinion, I know, but I will not be shaken. Love that is required is not love.

Peace,

Bill Gnade

Chaz,

As for the survey/study cited, please let me note again that I have used it solely as a springboard for inquiry: Is it true that conservatives are nicer; kinder? But the discussion has gone wonderfully further: What is the psychology or even the psychopathology of political belief?

All this to say that I have not suggested that any of us should put much stock in studies such as these. And please note how I treated the material: I've not used it as a catalyst for vitriol and name-calling. I do not think myself better than anyone; I am, like St. Paul, the worst of sinners. But I do think ideas can and do shape behavior; that bad ideas generally inspire bad deeds and good ideas inspire good deeds. Of course, I am quite certain that even seemingly good ideas can have bad consequences, and vice versa, but this is not the general rule.

You are of course right about bumper stickers being a form of advertising. But branding is all about psychology: it is not just about generating a sort of insouciant interest in a product, it is also about appealing to a person's need to belong to a group. One person rides a Harley Davidson not merely because it is well-made, but because it is a gateway to a fraternity; to belonging. Harley riders sneer at "rice burners" as super-bike enthusiasts snicker at Harley duffers. Miller drinkers believe themselves different -- and better -- than Bud drinkers. There is indeed a Ford/Chevy rivalry, and it is not merely superficial; there is a world of presumed difference between those who enjoy NASCAR and those who enjoy Churchill Downs.

Hence, an Obama sticker is not merely about promoting an idea or person. It is an appeal to one's self-image: "You too can be one of us." And that appeal always promises that the person will be "better" if he joins the club.

These things are not as devoid of psychological import as you might think.

Peace,

BG