"Similarities between Left Wing and Right Wing Radicals"
That is the title of a great 1985 article by Herbert McClosky and Dennis Chong (JSTOR). Two things brought it to mind. One is the comments thread on my post on birthers vs. truthers, in which a few people take issue with this comparison because the two things are different and my conspiracy theory is better than your conspiracy theory and so on. Whatever. I’m not interested in this argument. The second thing is this comment by Ezra Klein about the town hall protests:
What we’re seeing here is not merely distrust in the House health-care reform bill. It’s distrust in the political system.
I think Klein is right about these protesters, but it’s also relevant to point out that a similar sentiment may exist among people on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. Noting the similarities between “radicals” on either side also draws our attention to how much left- or right-wing conspiracy theories are really motivated by the same underlying beliefs and cognitive styles.
Now to McClosky and Chong.
In a couple surveys from the late 1970s, they asked batteries of questions that tap underlying ideologies and allowed them to locate the “far left” and “far right.” (I’m leaving out some of the details; see the article for more.) For purposes of illustration, they compare these two groups to “moderates.”
Unsurprisingly, the far left and far right have vastly different opinions about sexual freedom, racial equality, women’s rights, and other topics. But they are much more similar to each other, and different from moderates, on other dimensions.
One is trust in the political system — the attribute that Klein refers to. See the graph below:
Both groups of radicals have less trust in the system.
They are also similar in what McClosky and Chong call “paranoid tendencies.” Large majorities of both left and right wing radicals, but few moderates, agree that “We’d be much better off now if our foreign affairs were conducted out in the open, for all to see, rather than secretly” and that “I often feel that the really important matters are decided behind the scenes by people we never even hear about” and that “Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places.”
Both groups are similarly “intolerant of ambiguity.” They are much less likely than moderates to agree that “On important public issues, I believe you should always keep in mind that there is more than one side to most issues.”
Both groups can be equally intolerant of free speech. Only about 40% of both left and right wing radicals, but 71% of moderates, agree that “Free speech should be granted to everyone regardless of how intolerant they are of other people’s opinions.”
McClosky and Chong’s conclusion is worth reading in full:
Nevertheless, while the two camps embrace different programmatic beliefs, both are deeply estranged from certain features of American society and highly critical of what they perceive as the spiritual and moral degeneration of American institutions. Both view American society as dominated by conspiratorial forces that are working to defeat their respective ideological aims.
The degree of their alienation is intensified by the zealous and unyielding manner in which they hold their beliefs. Both camps possess an inflexible psychological and political style characterized by the tendency to view social and political affairs in crude, unambiguous and stereotypical terms. They see political life as a conflict between ‘us’ and ‘them’, a struggle between good and evil played out on a battleground where compromise amounts to capitulation and the goal is total victory.
The far left and the far right also resemble each other in the way they pursue their political goals. Both are disposed to censor their opponents, to deal harshly with enemies, to sacrifice the well-being even of the innocent in order to serve a ‘higher purpose’, and to use cruel tactics if necessary to ‘persuade’ society of the wisdom of their objectives. Both tend to support (or oppose) civil liberties in a highly partisan and self-serving fashion, supporting freedom for themselves and for the groups and causes they favor while seeking to withhold it from enemies and advocates of causes they dislike.
Comments
Maybe this question should be on the birther-truther post but . . . Are believers in one conspiracy theory more tolerant of other conspiracists even though they might disagree with them? (I posted this question on my blog, but it doesn’t get much traffic, certainly not from political scientists.)
Posted by: Jay Livingston | August 12, 2009 11:11 AM
It should be noted that the use of “far left/right” and “moderate” is not referring to the typical liberal-moderate-conservative ideology scale. The terms used in the paper are constructed from a battery of questions that appear to tap into radicalism, bigotry, intolerance, etc. I thought this should be pointed out since this is not an analysis of those who identify as being far left/right (or “very liberal/conservative”). I think the terminology used in the paper is somewhat misleading.
Posted by: CB | August 12, 2009 12:45 PM
Jay: That’s an interesting question. My guess is that there would be little tolerance because the opposing side’s “theory” would be seen as wrong. But I don’t really know.
And per CB’s point, here are examples of the items used to capture the “far left” and “far right” categories:
Far left
The communist countries will go down in history as: (A) countries that reached a new and higher stage of progress; (B) dictatorships that crushed human freedom.
When black militant groups use violence to achieve their goals: (A) they deserve our support considering the way blacks have been treated; (B) they should be arrested.
Education in America mainly aims: (A) to help keep the mass of people under control; (B) to teach people of all groups to read, write, and get ahead.
The sacrifices made by the people in the communist countries: (A) are necessary and will benefit the people in the long run; (B) are not really in the people’s interests.
If the police are harder on radicals than on other groups: (A) the radicals are entitled to use violence to strike back; (B) their actions should be brought to the attention of the courts.
Individual terrorist or guerrilla acts: (A) are often the only way an oppressed group can win its rights; (B) are morally wrong and never do much good anyway.
The best way to solve this country’s problems and make life better for the American people is to: (A) overturn the whole society from top to bottom; (B) work within the system and try to reform it.
The welfare of mankind can best be served: (A) by establishing a government controlled by the working class; (B) by improving our present government.
Which is the better way to bring about necessary changes in society? (A) by demonstrating in the streets and disrupting the system; (B) through the election process.
The American form of government is: (A) one of the worst; (B) one of the best.
The use of violence to try to change the system: (A) is often the only way to get results; (B) usually hurts the cause more than it helps.
American foreign policy for the past twenty-five years has shown that we are: (A) an imperialist and warlike country trying to dominate the world; (B) a country sincerely trying to defend the free world against aggression.
The Americans who put this country down: (A) have seen through the fine words to the rotten core; (B) forget how well it compares to other countries.
Far Right
Most campus protests and antiwar demonstrations: (A) are started by Americans who want to express their feelings and frustrations; (B) are secretly organized by foreign agents.
An American who doesn’t believe that this is the best country in the world: (A) has a right to his opinion; (B) doesn’t deserve to live here.
Books that preach the overthrow of the government should be: (A) made available by the library, just like any other book; (B) banned from the library.
Any American who shows disrespect for the flag: (A) has the right to think what he pleases; (B) should be turned over to patriots to be taught a lesson.
The most important values children should learn are: (A) independence and self-reliance; (B) love and respect for their parents.
The employment of radicals by newspapers and TV: (A) is their right as Americans; (B) should be forbidden.
If a foreign country is strongly opposed to our way of life: (A) we should still trade and try to get along with them; (B) we should refuse to trade with them.
As a political system, communism: (A) has become so well established that we must learn to get along with it; (B) is so evil we should go to any lengths to destroy it.
These days: (A) people have healthier and more relaxed ideas about sex; (B) there is too much sexual freedom and loose living.
How would you feel if the United States were to lose its role as a leader among nations? (A) I doubt it would bother me much; (B) I would consider it tragic and humiliating.
Which of these comes closer to what you believe? (A) There is little or nothing to be said in favor of war; (B) War is cruel but it does teach people something about honor, loyalty, and courage.
Liberalism differs from communism: (A) in many ways, but especially in liberalism’s concern for freedom; (B) hardly at all.
Censoring obscene books: (A) is an old-fashioned idea that no longer makes sense; (B) is necessary to protect community standards.
The United States was meant to be: (A) a country made up of many races, religions, and nationalities; (B) a Christian nation.
Posted by: John Sides | August 12, 2009 01:41 PM
I didn’t read the paper. It is a nice post. However, their conclusion is biased as well.
Yes, you can say radicals are “intolerant of ambiguity” or have “paranoid tendencies”.
Or you could say they are more critics, more skpetical, not so naive and so on.
Or you could say they recognise that always will be some conflict and people should take a side.
Or even that they bileive more in their opinions, that fads do not have much impact on them etc.
Posted by: Manoel Galdino | August 12, 2009 01:42 PM
at least in their sample the far right is three times as large as the far left (p. 341). They argue that might not be the true distribution bc lefties may refuse to answer surveys, but its what we have.
Following the Krugman/Sides/Gelman discussion on “% to the right of Malkin” that would seem relevant information.
Posted by: Sebastian | August 12, 2009 03:05 PM
Great entry, this is important to understand why radical groups out on the right/left fringe will never succeed with their aims.
Posted by: Alex Birch | August 12, 2009 05:06 PM
The last paragraph could just as well apply to moderates.
Posted by: Unit | August 13, 2009 12:27 AM
This article seems to suffer from the same problem that Mr. Sides’ previous post on the “birther/truther” issue.
That being: the notion that the validity of any viewpoint depends on the number of people who agree with it. So of course once you label somebody who holds a minority opinion to be a radical you’re going to find them paranoid and intolerant because those are traits we ascribe to radicals…
And remember that some of today’s radical views will be tomorrow’s moderate views…will people who hold them still be crazy?
Posted by: Dan Tarrant | August 13, 2009 09:38 PM
Why is the position that “We’d be much better off now if our foreign affairs were conducted out in the open […]” considered a “paranoid tendency” by McClosky and Chong?
Or am I just paranoid for asking?..
Posted by: George Surus | August 16, 2009 01:00 PM
Because it is an ad hominem attack, similar to the way people who think that schools should be integrated are “crazy”.
Wait, sorry, they were crazy in 1950, perfectly sane now.
Posted by: Dan Tarrant | August 16, 2009 09:49 PM
How are you. Is there life before death? Help me! Can not find sites on the: Dale jr nascar dicast. I found only this - dale jr dei. For roy and dale son roy dusty rogers jr. Local ford dealer must not know that his dog, diesel is a dale earnhardt jr. With love :-(, Dobry from Western.
Posted by: Dobry | August 18, 2009 09:40 AM