Debunking Myths About Conservatives

While certain people like to imply that conservatives are “against all that lernin’ stuff”, apparently, among other things, conservatives are on average more educated than are liberals.

That factoid, and some more good stuff in this post by Professor Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA law – a corporate law guy and unabashed conservative, both socially and economically – quoting from some stuff presented by Northwestern University law professor Jim Lindgren:

Volokh Conspirator (and NU law professor) James Lindgren is here at UCLA today to present a paper on Chasing Cherished Superstitions About Conservatives to the Federalist Society. I’m a big fan of Lindgren’s work, which is widely acknowledged to be fair and balanced in assessing empirical data. His talk today is a reply to the “study” by John Jost et al. 07.22.2003 - Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
that “found,” as Byron York put it, that “conservatives are crazy.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york080103.asp

Lindgren points out some flaws with the data Jost et. al used. First, they use a definition of conservative that includes people like Hitler and Stalin. Second, the data they rely on claims that women are more conservative than men, while Lindgren points out that every major survey find the opposite. Third, the surveys used in the Jost et. al meta-analysis assume that conservatives are less well-educated than liberals, while the widely used General Social Survey finds the opposite.

An email by Lindgren that was quoted some months ago by a blogger summarizes some of the many other data points Lindgren offers as rebutting the Jost analysis:

"The Jost article claims that conservatives are angry and fearful and it builds on a literature that claims that conservatives are unhappy. I find this strange, given the decades of superb data showing the opposite. In the NORC General Social Survey (a standard social science database, second only to the U.S. Census in use by U.S. sociologists), the GSS asks the standard survey question about happiness in general. In the 1998-2002 GSS, extreme conservatives are much more likely to report being "very happy" than extreme liberals--47.1% to 31.6%. Earlier years show a similar pattern.

This conservative happiness carries over into most other aspects of life as well. Conservatives usually report being happier in their jobs than liberals. In the 2002 GSS, for example 65.2% of extreme conservatives report being "very satisfied" with their jobs in general, while only 50% of extreme liberals report being very satisfied. When the question is broadened to satisfaction with job or housework, a similar pattern obtains. In the 1998-2002 GSS, 61.0% of extreme conservatives reported being very satisfied, compared to 53.6% of extreme liberals. 

As to finances, in the 1998-2002 GSS 34% of extreme conservatives report being satisfied with their finances compared to 26.4% of extreme liberals. More extreme liberals (34.5%) than extreme conservatives (25.8%) report being "not at all satisfied" with their finances.

Conservatives usually tend to report less marital unhappiness than liberals. In the 1998-2002 GSS, 5.1% of those who report being "slightly liberal" say that they are "not too happy" in their marriages, compared to 0.9% of those who are "slightly conservative." Ordinary liberals (3.7%) and extreme liberals (8.9%) also differ from ordinary conservatives (2.4%) and extreme conservatives (4.1%) in the levels of reported marital unhappiness. Indeed, in the 1998 GSS, 18.2% of extreme liberals reported that their marriages were "not too happy," while only 1.6% of extreme conservatives reported marital unhappiness.

Earlier General Social Surveys found that conservatives were more satisfied with their health, their friendships, their family life, and the city or place they live--all in all, a remarkably consistent picture.

Another claim in the Jost paper is that conservativism is driven by anger and fear. Again, their claims conflict with some of the highest quality data available. In the 1996 GSS, questions were asked about anger and fearfulness. Extreme conservatives were much less likely to report being mad at someone every day in the last week--7.3% to 24.2% for extreme liberals. Extreme conservatives were also less likely to report being fearful in the last week--32.5% to 56.3% for extreme liberals. In other words, a staggering one-quarter of extreme liberals report being mad at someone EVERY DAY and most extreme liberals report being fearful at least once a week. 

I am surprised that the Jost group was not aware of the very strong and remarkably consistent data that conservatives report being happier than liberals about their lives in general, their jobs, their finances, their health, their friendships, their family life, and where they live. Nor does the Jost group deal with the less extensive data suggesting that conservatives are less fearful and less angry than liberals. I will have to look into more of the studies that Jost cites to see why these fairly obvious patterns are missed. I wonder whether Jost relied too much on studies that either used unrepresentative samples (such as undergraduates) or used biased questions or indices -- asking about issues on which conservatives tend to be unhappy but not about issues on which liberals tend to be unhappy. In either event, the Jost group seems to have missed decades of very high quality survey data that undercut their thesis."

More by Lindgren on this topic here.

See also non-Lindgren commentary here.
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/jost_conservatism.html

All of this does raise an interesting question: what makes someone a liberal or conservative? Nature or nuture? Environment, education, or economic success/failure? My guess is that conservatives and liberals tend to be born, not made. Doubtless factors like environmental and class play into it, but my guess is that we tend to be hardwired for one side or the other. (When I asked Lindgren this question, he suggested looking at twin studies, which apparently are the classic way of doing nature versus nurture studies. A post over at the 2Blowhards discusses a twin study that seems to confirm the nature hypothesis.

)

Sidenote: Lindgren notes that he can’t study libertarian attitudes because the number of people who self-report to the GSS as libertarians is so small that they don’t even collect the data. Heh.

That would seem to contradict the typical Conservative whining about how “liberal” the academic institutions in America are.

Maybe you can ‘debunk’ this question for me?

Why are some of the Bushies on this forum so bitter and whiny? After all, you guys are in power. The GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the House. Yet some of the guys who post here like Rainjack, Doogie, Shrauper, JackZepplin, Hedo and Biltritewave are so PISSY about politics that you’d think that they were being shut out of politics.

Why are Bushies so PISSY? Your guy has his hands on the steering wheel.

I knowed conservatives was smarter.

Lumpy,

“That would seem to contradict the typical Conservative whining about how “liberal” the academic institutions in America are.”

How so?

The most educated folk are not necessarily in the academy.

Definitely nurture, there’s nothing to ponder on this one.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lumpy,

“That would seem to contradict the typical Conservative whining about how “liberal” the academic institutions in America are.”

How so?

The most educated folk are not necessarily in the academy.[/quote]

Those who can - do. Those who can’t teach.

Whiny? Me? Lumpy - how in the hell can you hear me whining above your own glass-shattering shrill?

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Those who can - do. Those who can’t teach.

What a stunningly original thought. Gosh, I never heard that one before. How did you ever think this one up? Can I use it the next time I go to a parent-teacher conference?

You had better not let BB see this- he provides information from many different professors.

[quote]jnd wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Those who can - do. Those who can’t teach.

What a stunningly original thought. Gosh, I never heard that one before. How did you ever think this one up? Can I use it the next time I go to a parent-teacher conference?

You had better not let BB see this- he provides information from many different professors.[/quote]

First off - Dude, learn how to use the ‘quote thingy’, or else quit trying.

That wasn’t a reference to school teachers. I don’t know if you know how to understand the context of a thread or not, but I was referring to college professors. School teachers are not even being talked about.

Oh, school teachers don’t teach but college professors do teach? Since when did the word teach apply to only college level or above? Are the rest only babysitting or something?

Methinks he doth profess too much! :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, this thread is about as useful as pointing out that women, in general, may be more intelligent than men. What the hell does that have to do with you or me?

What you think or what I think should be based on what you or I actually think. Oh my goodness, what a concept.

Vroom,

You are sounding more and more like the Sphinx from the movie Mystery Men.

I think the main idea was that Lumpy reflexively made a weird connection that since ‘conservatives were better educated’ somehow the academy had to be conservative by default, which is plainly odd and indefensible.

As to who teaches - it’s a good question.

School teachers are unlikely to take sides in the culture war. They see themselves as educators instead of indoctrinators.

“What you think or what I think should be based on what you or I actually think.”

Very instructional.

I think the problem is that school teachers are less likely to take sides in the culture war.

[/quote]rainjack wrote:
First off - Dude, learn how to use the ‘quote thingy’, or else quit trying.

That wasn’t a reference to school teachers. I don’t know if you know how to understand the context of a thread or not, but I was referring to college professors. School teachers are not even being talked about.[/quote]

Cool I am elevated to “Dude” status. I most certainly did understand the context of the thread. Let me see if I get this right (please correct me if I am wrong). BB was using information from some of those do-nothing, nothing-doing, unable to cope in the real world professors to make an interesting point about the political divide in this country. You chimed in the with the brilliant TWCD-TWCT. Hard to tell exactly what that contributed to the dialogue, but I thought you might want to take a small step back from your very severe statement (especially in the context of a thread that really relied on research from those professors you seem to be so fond of). I used a little sarcasm to make my point.

BTW, there is a large difference between TEACHERS and PROFESSORS.

Oh yeah, thanks for pointing out the quoty thing- it took me all afternoon to figure it out, but I think I finally got it…

Since it came up here on this thread, here’s a nice op-ed piece from today’s WSJ concerning the political tilt of the academy (at least as can be measured from political donations):

John Kerry U

By RUTH R. WISSE
October 25, 2004; Page A18

Last spring, I was surprised by a call from a reporter at the Harvard Crimson asking me to comment on my contribution to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. His inquiry was prompted by the disparity he’d discovered in donations by Harvard faculty of about $150,000 for Kerry to about $8,000 for Bush. (The figures have since changed but not the percentages.) I could have filled the whole issue of his paper with reasons for supporting Bush over Kerry, but as we both knew, the real story was the “herd of independent minds” – the image is Harold Rosenberg’s – charging through the American academy.

The Federal Election Commission could not have foreseen that when it required employment information on political donations of over $200, it would expose scandalous uniformity in a university community that advertises its diversity. The Sacramento Bee reported that the University of California system gave more to the Kerry campaign than any other single employee group, and that Harvard was second, with only 15,000 employees to UC’s 160,000. Campus bloggers computed the percentages of Kerry contributions over Bush: Cornell 93%, Dartmouth 97%, Yale 93%, Brown 89%.

Personally, I greatly enjoy being in the conservative opposition. My colleagues are cordial, and since I’m not looking for promotions I willingly sustain an occasional snub for the greater advantage of being able to speak my mind. Students making the transition from liberal to conservative are often wounded by their first exposure to the contempt that greets their support for the war in Iraq or opposition to abortion or whatever else separates them from the liberal campus. I suggest to them that, as opposed to living in constant terror of offending some received idea, they relish their freedom of expression. The self-acknowledged conservative never experiences intellectual constraint.

But this enviable autonomy doesn’t extend to graduate students or untenured colleagues. Recently, I had two encounters with sobering implications for the academy. A junior professor told me that when she began teaching at Harvard she resigned from several organizations that would have betrayed her conservative leanings. She hadn’t wanted to give colleagues an easy excuse for voting her down when she came up for tenure; but now that the prospect of tenure was before her, she didn’t know whether she wanted to stay on in such a repressive community. My second conversation was with a rare pro-Israel Muslim whose contract as lecturer hadn’t been renewed, very probably because he was critical of the way his subject was being taught. This young man was in a great mood. He was leaving for Washington, where he could make a greater contribution to national security.

All groups tend to a measure of homogeneity, but the ideological pressures driving these two dissidents from the university affect even those at the highest level of authority. At a Commissioning Ceremony for the Harvard officers of ROTC, President Lawrence Summers praised the noble work of the graduating soldiers. “Our strength as a nation rests upon our freedom. . . . [All] of us who cherish and pray for that freedom must also support those who contribute to the strength that maintains our freedom.”

These sentiments were exceptionally welcome from the president of a school whose faculty has denied ROTC an official presence on campus for 30 years, and shows no signs of modifying its opposition to the military. When he speaks to the faculty, however, the president doesn’t air his patriotic zeal. He rather reports on his protection against the Patriot Act, the commitment of Harvard to affirmative action, and such other liberal pieties as bringing more women into the study of science. I recognize that the president may sincerely support both sets of issues, and I sympathize with his reluctance to be stampeded by the herd. But in trying to avoid offending the liberal-left hegemony he – and everyone else who makes this calculation – intensifies the regnant culture of pusillanimity.

One of the most refreshing things about President Bush is his immunity from intellectual intimidation. More than his decision to go to war in Iraq, more than the religious values I share with him (though I do not share his religion), I appreciate that, though he has to struggle for language, he expresses unapologetically his commitment to the strength of our nation. By contrast, through their opposition to the military, my clever colleagues have done everything they could to make America indefensible.

Ms. Wisse is a professor at Harvard.

This also seemed an appropriate place to post this link to a post that tries to estimate Bush’s and Kerry’s IQs (the author apparently corresponded with Charles Murray on this project, so even given his estimations I would lean toward giving it weight – especially given that Kerry won’t release his scores and records):

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

I wish what you say were true, but I expect that the rabidly fervent of any belief can’t help but make sure the little tykes are steered.

One more thing – apparently in the U.S., conservatives are more politically informed than are liberals (assuming strong correlation between “Liberal” and “Strong Democrat” and “Republican” and “Strong Conservative,” and assuming the 2000 National Election Study was bias-free):

http://volokh.com/2004_02_08_volokh_archive.html#107656713823142589