The “Conservatives Are Crazy” Study: Paid For by Taxpayers

National Review Online ^ | August 1, 2003 | Byron York

[John Jorsett]

Congressional investigators call for a new look at funding academic research.

An academic study of conservatism that lumped together Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Ronald Reagan, and Rush Limbaugh was funded by federal grants, according to congressional investigators.

The study, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," was written by John T. Jost, a professor at Stanford University, Jack Glaser and Frank J. Sulloway, professors at the University of California, Berkeley, and Arie W. Kruglanski, a professor at the University of Maryland. It was published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Congressional investigators have found that the study was financed by $1.2 million in federal funds. According to the House Republican Study Committee, Kruglanski received National Institute of Mental Health grants totaling $976,762, Glaser received National Institute of Mental Health grants totaling $48,464, and Jost and Kruglanski together received an estimated $213,800 from the National Science Foundation.

The authors describe their work as an examination of "the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including (a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) personal needs for order and structure, and (f) need for cognitive closure; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt....We have argued that these motives are in fact related to one another psychologically, and our motivated social-cognitive perspective helps to integrate them."

One of the more controversial assertions in the federally funded work is the authors' argument that Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh share common traits as conservatives. "One is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives," the authors write in a published adjunct to the study, "not because they share an opposition to 'big government' or a mythical, romanticized view of Aryan purity — they did not share these specific attitudes — but because they all preached a return to an idealized past and favored or condoned inequality in some form."

Among the sources cited by the scholars in support of their conclusions are the works of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. For example, the authors write, "It has been observed that Republicans are far more single-mindedly and unambiguously aggressive in pursuing Democratic scandals (e.g. Whitewater, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair) than Democrats have been in pursuing Republican scandals (e.g. Iran Contra, Bush-Harken Energy, Halliburton). In commenting on the Republican 'scandal machine,' Krugman argued that, 'there is a level of anger and hatred on the right that has at best a faint echo in the anti-globalization left, and none at all in mainstream liberalism. Indeed, all the liberals I know generally seem unwilling to face up to the nastiness of contemporary politics.'"

On another occasion, the authors cite Krugman on the legacy of Ronald Reagan. "[Reagan's] chief accomplishment," they write, "in effect, was to roll back both the New Deal era and the 1960s, which was also the goal of former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and many other neo-conservatives often regarded as advocates of change. As Krugman observed in the context of current debates concerning the privatization of social security, 'hard-line conservatives are determined to build a bridge back to the 1920s.'"

In an interview with National Review Online, Florida Republican Rep. Tom Feeney, who looked into the study and its funding, called the project "outrageous."

"Taxpayers shouldn't be required to pay for these things," Feeney said. "If private universities, privately funded, want to study ridiculous hypotheses for political agendas, they have a right to do so, but when you are basically confiscating money from taxpayers to fund left-wing rhetoric and dress it up as scientific study, I think you have a real problem with credibility."

The full text of the study can be found here. The adjunct, in which the authors address some objections to the study, can be found here.

[StockAyatollah]

all the liberals I know generally seem unwilling to face up to the nastiness of contemporary politics.

Right. They never said anything about Republicans wanting to starve children, kill old people, destroy the environment and burn black churches. Definitely not haters, thos liberals. LOL!

[goldstategop]

Our money goes to defame and slander conservatives? They've been doing the same thing to Christians for years. It was simply a matter of time til our turn came up.

[thoughtomator]

Those professors should be permanently barred from ever again receiving public funds. Political smears disguised as 'research' deserve nothing but contempt, as do the authors.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALISTS Party which is left wing. Hitler in under the same roof as Stalin.

The leftists desperately want to disassociate themselves from Hitler and the Holocast.

[Doey]

"It has been observed that Republicans are far more single-mindedly and unambiguously aggressive in pursuing Democratic scandals (e.g. Whitewater, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair) than Democrats have been in pursuing Republican scandals (e.g. Iran Contra, Bush-Harken Energy, Halliburton). In commenting on the Republican 'scandal machine,' Krugman argued that, 'there is a level of anger and hatred on the right that has at best a faint echo in the anti-globalization left, and none at all in mainstream liberalism. Indeed, all the liberals I know generally seem unwilling to face up to the nastiness of contemporary politics.'"


Maybe conservatives pursue scandels more agressively because something is there to pursue. He did not mention Watergate. What a surprise!

[DoughtyOne]

I would submit that government funds work against conservatives in a number of areas. Troublesome NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) operate with government funding. Some of the worst land graber environmentalist groups purchase land with government funds. Others simply work to implement terrible land management policies. Of course I refere to nature's conservency groups here, but there are countless others.

With Republicans the majority of the House and Senate and in the White House, why do we not defund these concerns that work against us. Defunding can have a marvelous outcome. There's nothing more pathetic than a multimillion dollar leftists organization suddenly penniless.

[Savage Beast]

Remember that "scientific study" circulating the web a year or two ago that proposed to determine the I.Q. of various people by evauating their remarks (as though the best designed intelligence tests were not fallible enough)? You can stick this one in file-13 along with that.

[Eva]

First of all, we need to stop calling the leftists, liberals. The term is no longer apt. Leftists do not support individual property rights or small central government, which were the cornerstones of liberalism. Liberalism is far too dignified a term for fascsist control freaks.

Call them leftists, or fascists or socialists, but not liberals.

[dead]

With Republicans the majority of the House and Senate and in the White House, why do we not defund these concerns that work against us.

Because the great majority of that majority are gutless at their core.

God forbid they should undertake reforms that will earn the scorn of the New York Times editorial board, and bring disapproving clucks from the academics in their social circle.

Despicable punks.

[Scenic Sounds]

The authors describe their work as an examination of "the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with

(1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including (a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance, (e) personal needs for order and structure, and (f) need for cognitive closure;

(2) lowered self-esteem;

(3) fear, anger, and aggression;

(4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt....

We have argued that these motives are in fact related to one another psychologically, and our motivated social-cognitive perspective helps to integrate them."

____________________________________________________________

Don't these charges seem to be a bit subjective? ;-)

[stands2reason]

Oh, Stalin. Well.....they've decided that Stalin was, in his own way, conservative, because, once he was in power, he was opposed to change--ie., he wanted to stay in power. I read that in a previous article.

[dead]

Remember that "scientific study" circulating the web a year or two ago that proposed to determine the I.Q. of various people by evauating their remarks (as though the best designed intelligence tests were not fallible enough)?

That "study" was a harmless hoax that was given legs by a media short on basic fact checking, but eager to latch onto anything that makes them feel smarter.

This "research" was real, and we paid for it.

And I am furious about it.

[Fraulein]

Kruglanski received National Institute of Mental Health grants totaling $976,762

He got almost a million dollars to write that tripe!!! Sheesh!

Doesn't the National Institute of Mental Health have better ways to use their funds? Like helping people with schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, etc?

[dmcnash]

This reminds me of the Soviet practice of putting political dissidents in mental institutions for all sorts of inovative therapies. After all, if you disagree with the party you must be crazy. Is that what conseratives have to look forward to if these people regain power?

[liberallarry]

Actually they should be forced to publicly defend their views (science?) in front of hostile taxpayers.

[Rabid Dog]

As I was searching for the actual article, I found this little tidbit that you may remember. I guess this same publication, Psychological Bulletin was responsible for publishing the equally controversal article that condoned man/boy love as being normal. Here's is APA response to all the flack it received on that peer reviewed article.


APA RESPONSE TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE INQUIRIES

The American Psychological Association (APA) strongly endorses the position that the sexual abuse of children is a criminal act that is reprehensible in any context. The association, through its national programs, and the work of its members, devotes considerable time and resources to protecting children from being victimized by such abuse. APA is proud of its record in this area and will continue to foster initiatives to study, prevent, and treat all childhood abuse, including sexual abuse.

In July of 1998, the Psychological Bulletin, one of APA?s 37 journals, published an article, "A Meta-Analytical Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Students," by Bruce Rind, Phillip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman. The article combined the results of 59 previous studies to examine the long-term impact of child sexual abuse. Using a broad definition of sexual abuse that included incidents ranging from witnessing indecent exposure to experiencing repeated rape, the authors found sexual abuse to be not as harmful as generally believed. They also concluded that some victims, typically adolescents who had sexual relations with adults, perceived the experience as consensual; some even regarded it as positive. The publication of the article led to considerable controversy about both the journal review process and APA?s position regarding child sexual abuse.

APA has always condemned the sexual abuse of children. This position is absolutely fundamental to our organization and is demonstrated by our strong record of advocacy on behalf of abused children and our work to educate the public, health professionals, and others about the prevention and treatment of such abuse. We do not support the "normalization" or decriminalization of any form of sexual relations between adults and children. Such behavior must remain criminal and punishable to the fullest extent of the law. APA also totally rejects the contention that much of what we call child sexual abuse is not particularly harmful. While there is doubtless a continuum of harmfulness depending upon the nature, intensity, and duration of the abuse, there is no way to be certain that even the mildest forms of non-contact sexual encounter might not cause serious damage to a vulnerable child. For that reason, it is the position of APA that child sexual abuse is never trivial, never justifiable, and always wrong.

The association has been publishing scientific articles of the highest quality for over 100 years. We take very seriously the responsibility of maintaining a rigorous and independent peer review process for our journals. However, the peer review process was never designed to consider the public policy implications of research conclusions, a point illuminated by the current controversy surrounding this one article. The concerns that have been raised about the Rind et al. article have made clear to our organization the very different, but compatible, obligations APA incurs as both a publisher of scientific journals and an organization deeply involved in promoting the public welfare. APA fully accepts the responsibility associated with its role in providing a bridge between the science we publish and the public that our science seeks to serve. As a scientific organization, we recognize that we must take into account not only the scientific merit of articles but also their implications for public policy.

Obviously, research such as that presented in the Rind et al. article cannot be disproved or invalidated by a policy statement or press release from APA. We can state our disagreement with certain conclusions, as we have done. However, the only effective way to uphold or discredit the substance and methodology of any article is for it to be reviewed by credible scientists who can, in turn, publish independent findings derived from their own and others? research. It is clearly part of our responsibility to facilitate that process. To that end, we have taken several steps, enumerated below, to expedite the standard process of scientific inquiry and to address other issues raised by the article:

Our Board of Directors has approved a resolution that clearly reaffirms our long-held position condemning the sexual abuse of children. This official statement represents the views of our organization, which is comprised of 159,000 members and affiliates. We have sought independent expert evaluation of the scientific quality of the article and will make those results known. This is unprecedented in the association?s 107-year history of scholarly publishing, but, in view of the criticism of this study by various groups and individuals, we believe that such a review is appropriate. In addition, several researchers have informed us of their intention to submit a critique of the Rind et al. article for publication in the Psychological Bulletin. These manuscripts will be granted expedited review by the editorial board. Once such a critique is published, it will be linked electronically to the Rind et al. article so that anyone who accesses that article will automatically access the critique as well. We are currently requesting submissions of independent research, scientific comments, and public policy papers from experts on child sexual abuse for a special section in the American Psychologist, one of our premier journals. The American Psychologist, with a circulation of over 100,000 is by far the most widely-read psychology journal in the world. To handle such controversial topics better in the future, we are also strengthening procedures within the association to assure that journal editors will consider the social policy implications of articles on controversial topics. Certain pro-pedophilia organizations have referred to the Rind et al. article as providing support for pedophilia. Our position regarding such organizations is expressed in our APA Resolution Opposing Child Sexual Abuse: "The American Psychological Association repudiates and disassociates itself from any organization or publication that advocates sexual interaction between children and adults." Our legal counsel has sent them a letter rejecting the use of this article and forbidding the use of our name in justifying their reprehensible position. Our General Counsel is preparing amicus ("friend of the court") brief materials that could be adapted for use in any court of law to challenge any efforts to use the data in this or any other study to justify, condone, or "normalize" sexual interactions of any sort between children and adults. These materials would also serve to refute any claims that the American Psychological Association in any way condones sexual relations between children and adults or any form of abuse of children. As part of the association?s ongoing efforts to prevent child abuse, we have published numerous materials on treatment and prevention targeted at both professional and public audiences. To build on these earlier publications, we are in the process of creating a public information brochure that will give parents and other caregivers practical, applied information on how to protect their children from sexual abuse. This brochure will be developed in consultation with nationally recognized experts in child sexual abuse. We will then nationally disseminate this brochure, as well as continue to disseminate our 1997 brochure, Protecting Our Children from Abuse and Neglect. We hope to enlist religious organizations, child protection and advocacy groups, education and mental health associations, youth service organizations, and our state psychological associations to lend their support to this project and to assist us in the distribution of these brochures. In addition to the specific actions outlined above, the American Psychological Association will continue to support the prevention of child sexual abuse and the treatment of its victims. Thousands of our members work in child abuse prevention programs, and thousands more provide therapy and family support to the victims of this egregious behavior. We recognize and applaud their vital work, and that of others, to safeguard the welfare of our nation?s children.

For further information regarding APA?s positions and/or efforts on behalf of abused and neglected children, please contact Rhea Farberman (202) 336-5700 in our Public Affairs Office, Mary Campbell (202) 336-6039 in our Public Interest Directorate or Daniel Dodgen, Ph.D., at (202) 336-6068 in our Public Policy Office.

[Yardstick]

Liberalism is far too dignified a term for fascsist control freaks.

No kidding! The Left's kidnapping of the word "liberal" is grevious. I wish we could take that one back from them.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Here's the results of my study of liberals:

Their heads are implanted firmly up their rectums. Reality really upsets them.

Now where's my gubmint $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

[Fraulein]

closed-mindedness, dogmatism, intolerance, lowered self-esteem, fear, anger, and aggression, pessimism, disgust, and contempt

Sounds like the leftists to me.