There will be far too many New Years diaries in the next 24 hours, but this will undoubtably be the latest--and earliest--you'll see. Here's my resolution from 2008, a promise to myself to discuss the psychology of the conservative and ultra-Republican psychology. Warning: There's a lot of hard science in the snippets below, so for the sake of those already laid back into New Years' celebrations (ex-Pats and those who wish they were) I'll summarize up top:
Study #1: You can change votes with a good election campaign, but it's a lot harder to change psychology
Study #2: Republicans/conservatives HATE uncertainty of any kind (especially herds of progressive cats), and need Big Daddy government.
Study #3: Religion (organized--as opposed to faith) is often a cliquish way to show off the compassionate tendencies you think you ought to have, but it seldom spills over.
And Conclusion #4: (My own) If we don't pay attention to this sort of study now, in two years we'll be watching Sarah Palin doing Iowa rallies, while stadiums full of true believers throw popcorn, recite her lines for her, and generally make themselves feel more secure.
Now for the tough stuff.
I'm three months late with the diary I intended to write, and it may be two years too early to be relevant. Yet, it's important to think about it now.
A front page link on New Years' Eve suggests that 84 percent of the voting public call themselves central or moderately conservative. I'd argue that's just for public consumption; the conservative folks have succeeded over the past three decades in making the term "liberal" so toxic that Joe at the corner Donut Shop doesn't dare admit it to a pollster. (The nationwide effort to steal Obama signs was part of that psychology.) The number of folks who vote Republican for deep-seated psychological reasons--because they want security--is probably far less (perhaps close to Bush's present approval rating, because he's still their Big Daddy.) They join with fiscal conservatives and deluded Libertarians to make up almost half of us.
It's easy to imagine that we've converted a lot of those folks, given Obama's big electoral margin. But science suggests that the realities of political campaigns are actually quite different. In the last few weeks of the election, two psychologists, D. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd G. Shieldsm, published a high level analysis of how campaigns succeed. (Not surprisingly, no one had much time to read it.)
The[ir] book advances the important point that although campaigns [do] not change a voter's predispositions, that does not mean that all such predispositions favor the same candidate. Instead, many voters are ambivalent because their partisanship and issue positions conflict. For example, there are a sizable number of pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. Campaigns can persuade these voters to favor one candidate over the other by altering the level of importance they place on their party and their issue positions.
In The Power of Cross Pressures, these authors present ample evidence that a campaign like Obama's changes votes, but not underlying attitudes. So to really achieve change "we can believe in" we have to look under the vote--forget the celebration, and figure out what will be working next time around.
A deeper look at conservative psychology appeared in Science 3 October 2008, where Canadian psychologists Whitson and Galinsky showed data that the "need for control" was an important and vital source of motivation for many, who see social situations (like democratic and progressive cat-herding) as terrifying uncontrollable threats to their personal structure. This research fits well with the general assumption that Republicans need paternalistic and even dominionist structures. The authors recommend "self-affirmation exercises to bring their illusory perceptions under control."
October surprise! Your 401K statement is terrifying! Go to the calmest "daddy" figure (Obama) for reassurance.
(And as an aside, in a brilliant look at the Creationist movement Finding Darwin's God, biologist Ken Miller came to exactly the same conclusion. Evolution is just too chancey for the the conservative psychology. A world based on statistical probability is too scarey.)
In that same issue of Science, two other authors, Norenzayan and Shariff, published a high level synthesis of a number of articles showing how religion could serve as a structure to reduce anxiety and improve social behaviors in such folks
Experimentally induced religious thoughts reduce rates of cheating and increase altruistic behavior among anonymous strangers. Experiments demonstrate an association between apparent profession of religious devotion and greater trust.
The stricter the religion (or the preacher) the more faithful the flock:
Sociological analyses are consistent with the idea that religious groups imposing more costly requirements have members who are more committed.
But it's a clique! The social benevolence is meant to impress those in the seat next to them, not necessarily anyone outside that group.
Religion's association with prosociality is most evident when the situation calls for maintaining a favorable social reputation within the ingroup.
And most significantly:
The same mechanisms involved in ingroup altruism may also facilitate outgroup antagonism
So now for the Rocky Horror Picture Show scenario. If Obama is anywhere near effective, October, 2011 won't be as terrifying economically or politically as October, 2008. Yet fear is needed. So at a stadium somewhere near Des Moines, Senator Palin feeds them the lines they already know by heart, and the crowd recites their responses as they throw popcorn.
Scarey? Between now and then (science says) there needs to be an effort to make these folks feel more secure. That's why I've encouraged a bit of tolerance for Rick Warren's prayer (although recognizing that position is hurtful to some). I've also urged my good friends to keep an open mind to temporary appointments like Gates', which are tactics, not strategy.
There are other long range implications of the "security voter" theory. One comment I heard on the endless reruns of punditry this morning fit in well. "If by some chance universal healthcare ever passed, it would be the end of the Republican party as we know it because that security blanket would be associated with the other party. It makes sense, it fits, and it should be part of anyone's thinking who wants to move beyond January euphoria.
So don't celebrate too hard. Take some time to reassure the Republican next door. Or you'll be cleaning up stale popcorn and shaving cream in two years.