Guardian Unlimited
Go to:  
Guardian UnlimitedSpecial reports
Home UK Business Online World dispatch The wrap Weblog Talk Search
The Guardian World News guide Arts Special reports Columnists Audio Help Quiz

Special report United States of America


  Search this site

Go to ...
Special report: United States of America

United States of America archived articles





 In this section
The Editor: Californian press review

Human shields face 12 years' jail for visiting Iraq

Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve

Briton held as missile plot foiled

Fed vows to peg rates until growth improves

Duncan Campbell: A circus fit for the fruit and nut state

Battle begins for US Bill of Rights

Merrill Lynch rocked by $43m embezzlement claim

A bull run of crises and scandals

'You really shouldn't be watching this'

US troops approach Liberia as Taylor makes his exit

Liberian president pleads for US help

Total recall

Julian Schnabel, Inverleith House, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh

Martha Stewart empire warns of ballooning losses


Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday August 13, 2003
The Guardian


A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."

Special report
United States of America

World news guide
North American media

Media
New York Times
Washington Post
CNN

Government
US government portal
White House
Senate
House of Representatives




Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story





UP

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003