This is absolutely and demonstrably false. You may consider yourself a conservative, but you do not understand conservatism at all, as few of today’s American conservatives do. The following is a much more accurate description of the basis of conservatism, in America or anywhere else. It is from an essay by Philip E. Agre, an associate professor of information studies at UCLA. I have abbreviated for the purposes of this post, but the point remains the same:

“In nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives. The most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. The true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.”

Name any progressive social, political or economic movement of any time, anywhere, that sought to expand the rights, freedoms, powers, or opportunities of the common people and I will show you how it was bitterly, and usually violently, opposed by the conservatives of its day. Abolition, women’s suffrage, labor rights, civil rights, reproductive rights, you name it. Conservatives are forever ready to stand in the way of empowering ordinary and unfortunate people or even giving them an equal playing field in which to empower themselves. Backing up this claim with facts is entirely effortless. Conservatism exists to establish and maintain the dominance of one group over all others, plain and simple. The key feature of conservatism is the psychological aspect – the willingness of large numbers of common people to embrace being on the losing end of inequality. Call it deference, submissiveness, or servility, it eventually amounts to the same thing. A great deal has been written about the psychology of conservatism and the odd ways it manifests itself in our public behavior. I recommend you take time to enlighten yourself.

What you apparently identify with as conservatism is actually what until recently was known as classic liberalism, a label which applies to the political philosophy of democracy, equality and basic human rights – foremost among them the freedom to build a happy life for oneself and one’s family – that arose in response to the excesses of aristocracy in England and Europe, and that the United States was founded upon. It’s a philosophy whose buzzwords and catchphrases have been hijacked by the modern conservative movement in America to advance the interests of the wealthiest and most powerful elite, the 21st century American corporate aristocracy that funds the movement. Nothing has changed of course, but it might help if you at least recognize who’s side you’re speaking for.

I think perhaps the most interesting point is (and I haven’t heard either side disagree,) is that there are psychological bases for the political choices we make, many of which are quite fundamental in our nature and temperament. What this means, therefore, is that we are not choosing from these political perspectives based solely on their merit; we are identifying with those that follow the rules of our own temperament. Although this does make it complicated to attempt an analysis of either wing objectively on its merits (Joe says, “sushi is good!” and Mary says, “not to me!” …so is sushi good?) it does force us to recognize through what “lens” someone is evaluating an argument and where they’re coming from.

Now that all the niceties are out of the way…
This is absolutely NOT to say that objective, valuative measures are NOT appropriate; I would fundamentally disagree with that. Even for those arguments that stem from a personality trait, some traits are, well, not as good as others. And clearly we can’t launch into a theorietical discussion of morality, but I will say that a proper starting point of arguing what might be “good” or “bad” is this: does it evolve us?

I am a staunch liberal, and I have understood for years that a typical conservative perspective about cutting, say, some social program helping the poor, is fundamentally abrasive to me because my personality is such that my social perspective taking skills (empathy- putting yourself in another’s shoes) are very honed. My conservative friends’ are not; which is why they are the only ones who utter phrases like, “why should HE get to xxx,” “I tried hard, if he wanted to, he could too,” and “why should I have to foot the bill for xxx?”

As to the “rightness” of social perspective taking skills, for example, all we have to do is ask, “would nurturing that skill evolve us?” I would say yes. And we could make a list and discuss each one in turn, if you like.

Now, as a conservative, you may be offended that it is being suggested that your group lacks social perspective taking skills, but that doesn’t make it untrue. And they may very well be attributable to temperament the way that introversion and extroversion are, for instance. But regardless of their biological nature, I would still suggest it is “better” to have them, and “worse” to not. Policy discussions that are won by them, and the resulting policies for our civilization, are better. You make not like the terminology, but it still means the same thing. “Mental flexibility” still means “the ability to hold two conflicting throughts in the mind at the same time,” and it is still a fundamental element of higher intelligence. Whatever you call it, accusing someone of lacking it is likely to sound like an insult. Unfortunately, it’s also a measurable observation. If you don’t want to think that way, change. Or acknowlege that you should change and are trying to change. But if you believe so strongly in the merits of your conservative argument, it would not be considered an insult if someone told you you lacked these traits- they are the building blocks of conservative thought.

Females have larger anterior cingulate cortices.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/business/media/25adco.html

Also see here
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/social-networking-amygdala/

Signed,

another (intelligent, sensitive, and not at all arrogant) conservative.

P.S. Nice post, Entropy. (I KNOW it’s the latter.)