In 2006, Pew Research conducted a survey that showed that conservatives were significantly happier with life than were their liberal counterparts.  Forty-seven percent of conservatives described themselves as “very happy,” while only twenty-eight percent of liberals made the same claim.  This, of course, obviously speaks well of holding to conservative values.  I suppose it was mainly a matter of time until someone somewhere discovered that not only was this claim not true, but rather that conservative contentment was actually something to be ashamed of.

It appears that psychologists Jamie Napier and John Jost of New York University have done just that.  As Fox News reported, they argue that the main reason conservatives are happier is that they have the incredible ability to explain away (“rationalize”) society’s wrongs and ignore the evil in the world.

Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives…apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light.—Napier and Jost, Psychological Science, June 2008.

In reality, what I believe we have here are basically solid findings, couched in seriously biased language.  Someone—either the researchers themselves or perhaps journalists—is once again using the cloak of scientific “objectivity” to express a political opinion. 

First off, I believe that the essential findings of the study are correct, though their interpretation is radically skewed.  Conservatives possess a worldview that more than adequately explains why the world works the way it does.  This worldview, while not perfect and not fully represented in every individual in the general movement, is, on the whole, in accord with reality.  That is to say, it is true.  Part of this belief system teaches that while the average conservative should work to make the world a better place (and does so more often than liberals, according to this research), he/she also understands that due to humanity’s finitude and general tendency towards evil, we will never create a perfect world.  The fact of individual responsibility means that there is no necessary cause-effect relationship between the actions of two people who have neither met nor carried on meaningful interactions.  He/she should take responsibility for affecting those in his/her immediate vicinity and may often try to encourage change on a broader scale, but understands that he/she cannot make decisions for others.  He/she then bears no clear moral responsibility for anyone beyond his/her much smaller sphere of influence, and even there he/she has reasonable limits on what he/she can expect.  Frankly, that makes a life in a fallen world more bearable and expectations for living it more realistic.

So, why do I believe that there are any word games going on here at all?  I would suggest that a look at the use of the word “rationalizations” would be in order.  According to Dictionary.com, in the 19^th Century, to “rationalize” meant “to treat in a rational manner.”  However, we are all more familiar with the 20^th Century usage, pioneered by psychology itself:  “to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that seem reasonable but actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious causes.”

By using that specific terminology, the study’s findings imply that conservatives actually have no real answers, only handy, irrational excuses to explain away a reality they don’t want to face.  They are, in fact, rather amoral (if not outright immoral) and so callous that they can ignore the suffering going on around them.  This sums up much of what liberal propaganda has said about conservative and conservative thought for years, from Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth to Dawkins’ critiques of Intelligent Design to Al Franken’s Lies to much of the on-air content of other Air America hosts.

The above quotation, taken generally, also implies the converse.  If liberals spend their time worrying about the world around them and won’t indulge in “ideological rationalization,” it means that they are not only more kind and caring toward their fellow men, but also have a much clearer-headed view of the world than average.  Their moral scruples make it impossible for them to ignore the pain and suffering around them.  This, of course, confirms the traditional leftist self-image as much as the previous picture of conservatives confirms its biases.

I believe we are seeing some rationalization here:  An attempt to explain away the inconvenient truth that conservatism is generally better equipped to deal with life and its stresses than some other belief systems. 

Perhaps the use of “rationalizations” is just incidental, but I doubt it.  There are probably hundreds of other ways to state that information that would be more objective and fair to both sides.  A look through of Jost’s and Napier’s university homepages shows that they are definitely postmodern leftist status quo.  Napier, for instance, compares political conservatism to “‘system justifying’ ideologies, such as opposition to equality, fair market ideology, economic system justification, and right-wing authoritarianism,” thereby taking for granted virtually every negative conservative stereotype currently on the market.  Jost provides a more long-winded echo of this when he explains that his group’s research focuses on, amongst other things,

counter-intuitive outcomes, such as…nonconscious biases that perpetuate inequality,…opposition to equality among members of disadvantaged groups, rationalization of anticipated social and political outcomes, and tendencies among members of powerless groups to subjectively enhance the legitimacy of their powerlessness and, in some cases, to show greater support for the system than do members of powerful groups.

Translated from the postmodernese, that means he wants to know why his subjects—conservatives in this case—are inherent racist anti-feminists opposed to equal rights and are willing to come up with illogical rationalizations to justify their feelings.  He also wants to know why some groups, perhaps poorer whites and conservative blacks, would support a movement like conservatism.  If this is the basis for their research, we should not be shocked (or impressed) by their conclusions. 

And just think:  your tax dollars are paying for this!

In the end, Jost and Napier’s results reveal less about conservatives than they do about liberal academia and the useful myth of total scientific objectivity.  It also gives us another example of why, in this highly politicized information age, we should set aside our blind idolization of anything people arbitrarily declare “science” and remember that there are human beings—with their own political agendas, right or left—behind it.  This is not to demean science at all; I am certainly most grateful for thousands of advancements it has produced.  But we must beware of science, draped with the misleading semblance of objectivity, used for political/social ends.