[crazedmongoose2003]

A while ago I made two seperate claims.

Claim A, conservatives are more likely to subscribe to the just world theory (ie. you reap what you sow).

Claim B, conservatives thinks that the current class status quo is fair and are quite content with it's overall structure.


Claim B was made in direct responce to another claim that conservatives were generally happier people (this has been shown by numerous studies for years). But I was just blowing hot air then. It was more anecdotal observations and educated guesses, no empirical stats.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354424,00.html

I know it's Fox News, but since I'm making an argument about conservatives it would actually be less biased than say, the NY Times.

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found.

Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."

To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance.

In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.

If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted both a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.

"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.

The same rationalizing phenomena could apply to personal situations as well.

"There is no reason to think that the effects we have identified here are unique to economic forms of inequality," the researchers write. "Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor."

The current study was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Emphasis mine.



Agree/Disagree? I know this can't speak for all conservatives and all liberals. Because we're not simple binary opposed robots. But just general speaking in broad terms.




Edit: I'd just like to point out that Conservatives are only happy with certain status quos. That being mainly socio-economic and gender. I know they're very unhappy with other current status quo, ie. racial.

[MaidenAnte]

I have to agree with you if I have understood this right.
They seem like the typical we-want-control-but-disguise-it-as-good-will-politicians. About the same ones that control Sweden at the moment (so gonna vote them off next time).

[crazedmongoose2003]

Originally Posted by MaidenAnte

I have to agree with you if I have understood this right.
They seem like the typical we-want-control-but-disguise-it-as-good-will-politicians. About the same ones that control Sweden at the moment (so gonna vote them off next time).

Well no I have to state for the record now that I don't see it as that.

This is more about conservative voters, than politicians of either side of the political spectrum.

The kind of conservative (and libertarian, I might add, libertarianism is similar to conservatism without the increased military spending and religious and moral interference on personal lives) mindset is that our current first world country ultimately works on a fair system with good social class mobility and good opportunities for hard workers to increase wealth and move up in class.

By that rationale the lower class is where they are due to working less hard. It's a rationalization and in my (very biased liberal) view a psychological defense mechanism. Because if people who have bad things happen to them, or who are less well off, ended up there because they commited wrongs or didn't work as hard, then similar things will not happen to good people like me. ie. do the right thing, be rewarded.

[ForbiddenKnowledge]

I have some ideas on this, but can't quite word it right. I'll think about it some more/.

[crazedmongoose2003]

Note that this is the US standards. Where minimum wage isn't like $14AUD and there's no two tiered UHC, interest free government loans for universities and things like that.


I'm actually quite happy with Australia's socio-economic status quo save for the education system. We have to remeber that your average Australian or British conservative is several kilometers left of the average US liberal in terms of economic policies.

[Vallessian]

Claim A: True
This philosophy is supported by the bible, and as many Conservatives are also Christians, it makes perfect sense.

Claim B: True
Everyone has the opportunity to move up here in America. The wealthy have earned their positions through hard work (with some exceptions of course) and everyone else has the same opportunity. I am currently dirt poor by American standards, but in a few years I will finish college and become a police officer. Thats a big jump up into the middle class.

[BloodiedFangs]

Originally Posted by Crazedmongoose

I'm actually quite happy with Australia's socio-economic status quo save for the education system

i wouldn't be too upset with australia's education system...the UK one, for instance, is somewhat worse IMO (at least in terms of quality vs family wealth). and at least at a university level, i was studying with a decent few people from pretty damn poor families (i have to say was because i've just taken a year out. i don't know who i'm studying with any more...)

although this changes a bit when the student is trying to study in sydney, or possibly even melbourne. i know for a fact my sister is struggling a bit to afford living on rez in sydney. should help when she moves into a share house though

[crazedmongoose2003]

Originally Posted by BloodiedFangs

i wouldn't be too upset with australia's education system...the UK one, for instance, is somewhat worse IMO (at least in terms of quality vs family wealth). and at least at a university level, i was studying with a decent few people from pretty damn poor families (i have to say was because i've just taken a year out. i don't know who i'm studying with any more...)

Our university system is okay. Our main problem comes from the high school system. Which is a simple matter of "crappy suburbs has crappy schools, news at 11".

And no abolishing selective schools won't help. I really want to strangle whoever suggests that.

[BloodiedFangs]

i suggest we abolish selective schools...honestly, i think it will help our system a great deal. many things will be accomplished, such as the reduction of snobby selective school students that should be beaten up at regular intervals...as well as the shoes that they purchase :P

although i disagree that its a universal rule that crappy suburbs always have crappy schools in oz. i think it varies a bit city to city. i think this situation is more likely in sydney than in canberra, where i grew up

[crazedmongoose2003]

Canberra doesn't have as big an socio-economic disparity and the presence of troubled migrant communities (in particular Vietnamese, Lebanese, Pacific Islander and Sudanese) creating social friction with everybody else.

So yes, it definitely varies from city to city.

Also if we're going to abolish snobbishness then abolish Anglican schools.

I'M ON TO YOU YAIFROG!