I found it amusing 🙂
Study of Bush’s psyÂche touchÂes a nerve
A study fundÂed by the US govÂernÂment has conÂcludÂed that conÂserÂvatism can be explained psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcalÂly as a set of neuÂroses rootÂed in “fear and aggresÂsion, dogÂmaÂtism and the intolÂerÂance of ambiguity”.
As if that was not enough to get RepubÂliÂcan blood boilÂing, the report’s four authors linked Hitler, MusÂsoliÂni, Ronald ReaÂgan and the rightwing talkÂshow host, Rush LimÂbaugh, arguÂing they all sufÂfered from the same affliction.
All of them “preached a return to an ideÂalised past and conÂdoned inequality”.
RepubÂliÂcans are demandÂing to know why the psyÂcholÂoÂgists behind the report, PolitÂiÂcal ConÂserÂvatism as MotiÂvatÂed Social CogÂniÂtion, received $1.2m in pubÂlic funds for their research from the NationÂal SciÂence FounÂdaÂtion and the NationÂal InstiÂtutes of Health.
The authors also peer into the psyÂche of PresÂiÂdent George Bush, who turns out to be a textÂbook case. The tellÂtale signs are his prefÂerÂence for moral cerÂtainÂty and freÂquentÂly expressed disÂlike of nuance.
“This intolÂerÂance of ambiÂguÂiÂty can lead peoÂple to cling to the familÂiar, to arrive at preÂmaÂture conÂcluÂsions, and to impose simÂplisÂtic clichÂes and stereoÂtypes,” the authors argue in the PsyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal Bulletin.
One of the psyÂcholÂoÂgists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the averÂsion to shades of grey and the need for “cloÂsure” could explain the fact that the Bush adminÂisÂtraÂtion ignored intelÂliÂgence that conÂtraÂdictÂed its beliefs about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
The authors, preÂsumÂably aware of the outÂrage they were likeÂly to trigÂger, added a disÂclaimer that their study “does not mean that conÂserÂvatism is pathoÂlogÂiÂcal or that conÂserÂvÂaÂtive beliefs are necÂesÂsarÂiÂly false”.
AnothÂer author, Arie KruglanÂsÂki, of the UniÂverÂsiÂty of MaryÂland, said he had received hate mail since the artiÂcle was pubÂlished, but he insistÂed that the study “is not critÂiÂcal of conÂserÂvÂaÂtives at all”. “The variÂables we talk about are genÂerÂal human dimenÂsions,” he said. “These are the same dimenÂsions that conÂtribute to loyÂalÂty and comÂmitÂment to the group. LibÂerÂals might be less intolÂerÂant of ambiÂguÂiÂty, but they may be less deciÂsive, less comÂmitÂted, less loyal.”
But what driÂves the psyÂcholÂoÂgists? George Will, a WashÂingÂton Post columÂnist who has long sufÂfered from ingrained conÂserÂvatism, notÂed, tartÂly: “The proÂfesÂsors have ideas; the rest of us have emaÂnaÂtions of our psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal needs and neuroses.”