COMMENTARY | As Halloween approaches, I’m reminded of a great article by Brian Keim in Wired magazine where the headline reads “Conservatives Scare More Easily than Liberals, Say Scientists.” Are those who are on the political right more easily unnerved, or does it depend on the issue?
In the article, Keim cites a study from the journal Science, where self-identified conservatives were more jumpy around “loud noises and graphic images.” As Keim wrote, “accompanying the physiological differences were deep differences on hot-button political issues: military expansion, the Iraq war, gun control, capital punishment, the Patriot Act, warrantless searches, foreign aid, abortion rights, gay marriage, premarital sex and pornography.”
John Jost, a psychologist with New York University, was quoted by Keim as saying “Threatening situations do indeed seem to increase people’s affinity for politically conservative opinions, leaders and parties.” Such results were supported by another Keim article that a psychology professor Chuck Kraemer sent me from Wired, titled “Primal Propensity for Disgust Shapes Political Positions.”
As Keim writes, “The study ‘suggests that people’s physiological predispositions help to shape their political orientations,’ wrote the researchers, who were led by University of Nebraska-Lincoln political scientists Kevin Smith and John Hibbing. ‘Disgust likely has an effect even without registering in conscious beliefs.’” This research was published in Public Library of Science One.
There’s only one problem with these research studies. They focus only on one side of the coin. We’ve treated all political issues as social/law enforcement and military/foreign policy. But there are also a whole host of economic issues that remain untapped by this research.
Would it make a difference? You bet. Though liberals and conservatives claim to be all about freedom, each pushes for a different level of government intervention. Conservatives generally want economic freedom, but insist on a large role for the government on matters of war, crime and moral issues. Liberals want more social freedom and less of a heavy hand for government on social policy, law enforcement, and military matters. But they are quicker to support government intervention into the marketplace. According to this theory, fear drives greater support for government intervention.
Analysis of the CNN exit poll of the 2004 election confirms that Kerry voters were more concerned about economic and job issues, while Bush voters cared more about moral issues and terrorism. In that poll, those concerned about the “availability and cost of health care” backed Kerry, while those who were “not very concerned” or “not at all concerned” backed Bush. Kerry voters felt the job situation was worsening while Bush voters did not. These same Kerry backers wanted the government to do more to solve the problems by a 2:1 margin over Bush voters.
The trends on both sets of fears continued into CNN’s 2008 election exit poll. Those worried about health care costs were more likely to support Barack Obama, while those more concerned about another terrorist attack in the U.S. supported John McCain. Obama won the voters who admitted to being worried about economic conditions by 10 percentage points, while McCain overwhelmingly won those who said they weren’t worried about economic conditions.
To paraphrase Thomas Hobbes in The Leviathan, people’s fears of the state of nature lead them to trade liberty for security. That doesn’t mean conservatives aren’t really more likely to be afraid of things. They just fear social and military issues more, while liberals fear economic factors more. And people’s fears drive government policies.