Let’s try an experiment. What if we could gauge liberal leanings of the American public by tracking technology purchases? Now, before you start complaining about how disturbing or invasive such tracking might be, or how suspicious and absurd it is to even ask about tracking people in such a way, let me say this: you’re right!
But this wasn’t my idea. I got the idea from a psychological study published in Psychological Science in March 2013 entitled Ideology and brand consumption . The study is replete with liberal bias from the researchers and they appear entirely oblivious to it. The study is not about general political leanings. No, the study particularly targets U.S. conservative political leanings. Here’s the abstract:
Do mundane daily choices, such as what brands people buy in a supermarket, reflect aspects of values and ideologies? This article presents a large-scale field study performed to determine whether traits associated with a conservative ideology, as measured by voting behavior and religiosity, are manifested in consumers’ routine, seemingly inconsequential product choices. Our analysis of market shares for a variety of frequently purchased products shows that both of these measures of conservatism are associated with a systematic preference for established national brands (as opposed to their generic substitutes) and with a lower propensity to buy newly launched products. These tendencies correspond with other psychological traits associated with a conservative ideology, such as preference for tradition and the status quo, avoidance of ambiguity and uncertainty, and skepticism about new experiences.
The abstract mentions a conservative leaning three times and makes no mention of a liberal leaning. It should be no surprise that the researchers have left wing political leanings, given their description of a conservative ideology clearly stems from a liberal bias. Look at the traits the abstract lists as “associated with a conservative ideology”:
preference for tradition
preference for the status quo
avoidance of ambiguity and uncertainty
skepticism about new experiences
Plenty of conservatives would agree on a preference for tradition, but a preference for the status quo? That’s obviously a liberal point of view on conservatism, as such a term is not how conservatives typically describe themselves. Sometimes Liberals can be accused of defending the status quo too, especially in bloated government institutions such as public education, or government in general. As to ambiguity, liberalism thrives on that so of course an aversion to ambiguity would get the attention of the liberal researchers.
Uncertainty is a problem for every one, not only conservatives. It just depends on the context for us to see this. For example, the social safety net (such as unemployment benefits, social security, Obamacare, etc.) is obviously meant to help people, not least of which by providing some level of financial security (even if it fails to actually achieve the promises made to the American people). The social safety net is intended to reduce uncertainty and help people manage risk, and is most vocally championed by liberals. We all appreciate reducing uncertainty in some form, but these liberal researchers seem to have overlooked this simple and plain fact of the human condition about themselves.
Skepticism about new experiences is another favorite liberal critique of conservatism, not something conservatives typically say to describe themselves. The article is written from a viewpoint that seems entirely bereft of sociopolitical balance – a liberal examination of a conservative perspective hardly qualifies as a conservative perspective.
The secondary data points mentioned in the study are also from a thoroughly left wing bias. Without leaving the first page we see risk aversion mentioned, and included in the examples are the purchase of medical and auto insurance (conveniently, the social safety net escapes mention as an example of risk aversion, when that is precisely its purpose). Keep in mind, in most states the purchase of auto insurance is required by law. Obamacare is a glaring example of the researchers’ political blind spot in that it MANDATES the purchase of health insurance. Not a single Republican in Congress voted for the Affordable Care Act. It was enacted by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, three years before this psychological study was published. Liberals widely favored the mandate aspect of Obamacare, conservatives did not. Conservatives favored health savings accounts as these would transfer control of health decisions from an insurance bureaucracy back to into the hands of the patient. The purchase of insurance is one thing, mandating it is quite another. This factor is completely disregarded in the Psychological Science article. The researchers instead thought only the “risk aversion” aspect of purchasing insurance was relevant because it fits neatly into their sociopolitical narrative. This is certainly true given the partisan goal of the study, but not as useful for understanding the reality of the situation as it ignored the liberal proclivity for reducing risk by favoring policies which control people’s choices.
The researchers refer to the 2005 edition of Miriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary to define conservatism (Miriam-Webster showing signs of political hackery ). They state this definition as “disposition in politics to preserve what is established” and “the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change”. This, again, is more a matter of how liberals see conservatives rather than how conservatives see themselves. To those paying attention, conservatism is not a “disposition in politics to preserve that which is established”. Some obvious examples would be Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court ruling highly lauded by most liberals but highly condemned by most conservatives. The same is true of Obamacare and its mandate to purchase health insurance. Conservatives are working to undo both matters of law, which is the opposite of “preserving what is established”.
On the other hand, conservatives are certainly interested in preserving the individual’s right to make his/her own decisions that don’t cause harm to others. Some examples of this are opposing the institution of slavery (one of the seminal issues that led to the founding of the Republican party), opposing Jim Crow (established and defended by Democrats taking liberty with other people’s rights), and supporting the expansion of civil union laws rather than allow the federal government to usurp the religious institution of marriage – which is a violation of the separation between church and state, a tenet of freedom which liberals have said for generations is vital to maintaining liberty.
Let’s return to part of the hypothetical scenario I mentioned up top – tech purchases. Consider two major consumer products in the tech market: smart phones and Microsoft’s Windows operating system. Both forms of technology give us good reason to practice patience, or exercise a “preference for the status quo” and “skepticism about new experiences” as this liberal study would suggest.
Some of us remember Windows Millennium Edition (Windows ME). That was a publicly disastrous product launch for Microsoft. It left a bad taste in the mouth of Microsoft’s customers, so much that many of those customers have been cautious about upgrading to the next latest edition ever since. Windows 8 proved a similar problem in that many Windows users simply hated it, and reverted back to a previous version. This pressured Microsoft to push out the next version of the OS and many people, including conservatives, are quite happy with Windows 10 (the most recent version of the OS as of this writing). Many Windows users learned to wait before upgrading to any “new” version from Microsoft. This group of customers will gladly let other more adventurous people test the latest version of Windows first. After the inevitable update fixing who knows how many problems (as also happened with Windows 10), this more cautious group becomes much more likely to upgrade. But according to this liberal study on conservative consumer habits, this would be an example of a “preference for the status quo” rather than an example of sensible patience.
Smart phones have a similar problem. There are customers who, for whatever reason, simply must have the latest smart phone as soon as it is released to the general public (if not before). These devices are at their most expensive retail price at this early release stage. And they typically have the same sort of quality problems as a new Windows OS. Common sense tells us with the practice of a little patience, most of these problems can be fixed and the prices for the smart phones will drop once the market is more saturated with them among the first triers. But according to the liberal study this pragmatic and reasonable self restraint might demonstrate a “skepticism about new experiences” something akin to a resistance to trying any new technology simply because it’s unfamiliar. Those of us who live in the real world can understand the benefits of new technology that it has been well vetted by the adventurous first triers. If that qualifies as “conservative” so be it.
Contrary to what liberals tell themselves, conservatism is a disposition to preserve freedom, not any old thing that has been established. In the conservative mindset, the single greatest threat to freedom is the abuse of power. A healthy skepticism of power is fundamental to the American experiment; it’s part of America’s DNA. In the effort to PRESERVE freedom the conservative endeavors to CONSERVE power (use it sparingly). And how does the abuse of power occur in the grand American experiment? Quite often it happens through the offer of government assistance. Ironically, it turns out government aid usually means government making decisions for us, and a decision the government makes on our behalf is a decision we (as individuals) no longer have the right to make for ourselves.
Freedom is also threatened by the abuse of freedom itself, which why we need laws in the first place. This necessitates a sort of social compact where we try to reach a balance between laws and liberties. In the conservative mindset this balance favors liberties. The abuse of power and the abuse of freedom are best addressed by an aversion to abuse and waste, thus self restraint is encouraged in both cases, where power (the use of force) is limited or conserved (hence the term “conservative”).
Contrast this with the liberal balance between laws and liberties, which seems to favor laws. It is not conservatives who are constantly trying to regulate various aspects of life. While one could argue conservatives want to regulate drugs, it is not conservatives who push to regulate the use of tobacco, or sugar, or speech, firearms, business, etc. The ever increasing list of words we are to avoid using (for fear of offending anyone) is not an invention of conservatives; it is the hallmark of modern liberalism. (Jailing students for distributing free copies of the constitution is thoroughly a liberal policy .) On the one hand, liberals claim to value and defend free speech when what they really mean is APPROVED speech, which is the opposite of free speech. Liberals often suppose they have good reasons for their preferred regulations but presume conservatives couldn’t possibly have good reasons for theirs.
The ambiguity and purposeful misuse of language is the playground of tyrants. And let us not purposefully confuse the Republican Party with conservatism. The Republican Party has spent decades distancing itself from conservatives, attempting to become diet Democrats. And they have succeeded. There is scarcely a trace of conservatism left in the Republican Party of today.
The so-called resistance to change often cited as a tenet of conservatism is predictably reductive as well. Rather than acknowledge the fact change is merely different, and that difference could be either good or bad, the typically mindless liberal view is that change is automatically a good thing (that’s how the vague and vapid slogan “hope and change” was so successful). The problem is none of us knows change is always good. Getting cancer is “change” but none of us is likely to treat that change as good. How do we know a political or social change is going to be good if we don’t examine it first? But, as mentioned earlier, in the liberal mindset, recognition that life is not so simple is dismissed as a small-minded resistance to change. To suggest change ought to be vetted before we impose it on our entire society is typically dismissed as bigotry. (Consider Obamacare again: liberals dismissed health savings accounts as a solution to the problem of astronomical health care costs saying this was another example conservatives don’t care about people, whereas mandated health insurance was the preferred liberal solution, ignoring the highly likely possibility that the insurance model itself is the primary CAUSE of astronomical health care costs.) One of the underlying premises of this study is a fundamental premise of liberalism – that conservatives are “skeptical about new experiences” and “prefer the status quo” because they don’t like change.
I know plenty liberals who have their favorite products or establishments and spend their money accordingly, with an apparent disinterest in trying new things. In the same way this study tries to cast conservatives as being skeptical about new experiences I could just as easily place that label on a liberal who is exclusively loyal to Apple products rather than Android, Microsoft, etc., or who is exclusively loyal to Starbucks. The fact that people might have valid or inexplicable reasons to stick with what they know escapes recognition in this study.
I learned of this study by randomly encountering an article in Psychology Today by Art Markman titled Conservatism and product purchase . Dr. Markman’s article didn’t address the liberal bias of this study. His interest was more on confirming a standard liberal view of conservatism. He ends his article with this:
There is evidence suggesting that conservative ideology is often taken on by people who find newness and change to be stressful. For individuals who are anxious in new situations, familiar products and brands are comforting. So, the same factors that promote conservative political affiliation also seem to affect everyday purchases.
It seems to me this study and the impetus behind it was in the common liberal vein of trying to “explain away” conservatism as if it were a pathology rather than trying to actually understand people. The partisan basis of this study managed to find corresponding data points by specifically looking for them. But because the study is insulated from how their findings might also apply to non-conservatives, their interpretation of the data is skewed and will drive them to misleading conclusions. Partisan research often results in bad science.