Here’s how the study’s researcher defined liberalism (note that the researcher’s quote is then followed by IronShrink’s commentary:
“I provisionally define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.”
Got it? Liberals care about unrelated others, and conservatives do not. This is perhaps the most simplistic, unsubstantiated, self-serving definition I have ever encountered.
“I provisionally define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.”
An interesting statement, in that it's contradicted by the fact that "liberal" states like Massachusetts give far less in charitable contributions per person than "conservative" states like Mississippi. Of course I'm sure "liberals" have moved beyond such constraining things as facts.
Maybe they are smart. Those "private resouces" the want to give to others do not belong to them. But then "smart" isn't the correct word is it? A criminal self-serving mentality better describes their mindset.
“I provisionally define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of other people's private resources for the welfare of such others.”
Also from the article:
liberals might put the following values in this order of importance:
Peace, Justice, Freedom, Liberty
...whereas conservatives might prioritize those same values differently:
Liberty, Freedom, Peace, Justice.
I would say this prioritization on the part of liberals as being evidence of what I might call a "God complex": "I'm smarter than you, so let me run things." Also, is the liberal ideology arrived at logically or emotionally? Does it take into account human nature?