"Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less... and even hug their children more than liberals"

"Liberals are more self-centered than conservatives.

Conservatives are more generous and charitable than liberals.

Liberals are more envious and less hardworking than conservatives.

Conservatives value truth more than liberals, and are less prone to cheating and lying.

Liberals are more angry than conservatives.

Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals.

Liberals are more dissatisfied and unhappy than conservatives."

Just some of the empirically-based conclusions of a new American book by Peter Schweizer entitled Makers and Takers.

Comments

[Alexander King]

Oh God, not another one of those silly books from the American Right.

What was the last one? Jonah Goldberg banging on about liberal fascism?

We should give thanks that our political culture is not so polarised that this sort of nonsense sells over here.

[Anthony]

I've got to agree with Alexander. Do we really need more books like this?

[Steevo]

No surprises Tim. Some of us just know it, right?

[Neil Wilson]

I would say that American politics is actually less polarised, given that there are, for example, Conservatives who vote Democrat etc.

This book looks like an affirmation of a lot that I've realised for a while now.

[Alexander King]

"I would say that American politics is actually less polarised, given that there are, for example, Conservatives who vote Democrat etc".

Maybe that is true at the grassroots level but it is certainly not true of the media and the political class.

Watching Sean Hannity, for instance, is as depressing an experience as you can have.

(Not to mention the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, etc etc).

[Steevo]

The grassroots is where it is usually the most extreme. For the most part these are the liberals to the left and conservatives to the right. 2 competing ideologies and, political platforms.

[Alexander King]

"The grassroots is where it is usually the most extreme".

I mean the average voter, not the party activists.

[batman]

Jonah Goldberg's thesis is quite correct. Facism was a type of socialism that appealed to the middle classes because it didn't call for their violent overthrow. It was also ideologically racist rather than pragmatically so like communism. 'National Socialism' was not chosen randomly; the Nazi party grew out of the German Worker's Party; the Jews were said to be part of the alliance between the bankers and the communists to destroy Germany. The trope of evil banks and 'zionists' condemning the world to slavery is all too familiar from student leftism in this day.

[Steevo]

Right. The average voter is affected more so by casual observance from mainstream media, personal experience, friends and relatives.

[Alexander King]

Batman,

You are confusing socialism with liberalism.

[Tony Makara]

The time is fast arriving when political evolution will consign political parties and the ideology they create to history. We are moving into a more pragmatic age when politics will be built around what can be achieved rather than chasing faith-like dogma. All mainstream parties now seem to be gravitating to toward the centre ground, they are being pulled towards each other as they realise that the public does not want confrontational politics.

Some may find it hard to imagine a world without political parties, without ideology, but I believe the very terms Liberal, Conservative, Social democrat are the forces that divide peoples and nations. The political era will end, it has outlived its historial usefulness, pragmatism and a corportate style of government will eventually prevail.

[Alex Swanson]

they are being pulled towards each other as they realise that the public does not want confrontational politics

If that were true then we should be seeing more enthusiasm and support for political parties now than we have done for years. Does anyone really believe this?

It is true that policies are converging, but in my view this is not because that's what the public wants, it's because political debate has become hijacked by a small elite which destroys the career of any politician who dares to challenge the consensus.

[Alexander King]

"It is true that policies are converging... because political debate has become hijacked by a small elite which destroys the career of any politician who dares to challenge the consensus".

Surely it's because every election since 1945 has been won on the centre ground?

Parties want to win.

[Alex Swanson]

every election since 1945 has been won on the centre ground

1979?

[Alexander King]

1979?

The exception that proves the rule.

[Dave B]

I currently half way through Nick Cohen's What's Left, and the current generation of liberals/lefties are so far getting a pretty thorough drubbing for laziness, apathy and wrong-headedness.

[Tony Makara]

Alex Swanson, I don't think we will ever see a Thatcherite or Old Labour style government again. They belong to a different era and at the time they were what people wanted. Now people want pragmatic politics that focus on what can be achieved.

As political parties lose their role as ideological blocs we will see politicians banding together and forming blocs over single issues, each time new groups being formed. This will be a more pure form of politics, taking politicians out of the ideological ghetto.

Of course there will still have to be government by cabinet, but that I believe will take on more of a corportate style with experts in the field joining ministers to formulate policy. This is how the political process will evolve. Political parties may well exist in name, as a point of reference, but over time the decision making process will be liberated from the ideological bloc-thinking that has done so much harm.

[Alexander King]

Tony,

Sounds like the tyranny of technocrats to me.

[Tony Makara]

Alexander, that sounds like the arguements career politicians would use to maintain their monopoly on power.

[Alex Swanson]

The exception that proves the rule.

1970? Heath fought four elections, and won one solidly - on a right-wing agenda. He later abandoned it, but that's what he won on.

And I think you are being a little disingenuous about "centre ground". It may be true that most people support - for example - high levels of public spending and socialist health and education services, but that's hardly surprising if arguments to the contrary are supressed and, instead, people are constantly given the message that anything else would mean that they would not get any service at all.

[Peter]

The belief that the answers to problems inevitably lie in the 'centre ground' and with disinterested experts is just as ideological as the belief that answers lie with the left or right.

[Alex Swanson]

I don't think we will ever see a Thatcherite or Old Labour style government again. They belong to a different era and at the time they were what people wanted. Now people want pragmatic politics that focus on what can be achieved.

Do they? Then why isn't there more enthusiasm for politics and political parties, if people are being offered what they want?

I've spent most of my life supporting ideas and policies which were and are regarded as "extremist" by the political establishment. Yet more and more, when I discuss life and politics with friends and colleagues, I find myself as the voice of moderation. I think there are a lot of angry people out there who believe they are not being listened to.

One example of course is immigration. Labour is taking a newly tough line on this, but they are only doing so because they've picked up on public anger. Up until recently the Establishment line was that severely restricting immigration was "extremist" and "racist".

[Tony Makara]

Peter, the centre ground is the non-ideological base for pragmatic politics, it is the arena where a person is free to speak his/her mind. Ideology is always imposed by the political class, people don't ask for it. True democracy can only come when the monopoly of the political class is broken, when the political extremes are broken, when what unites politicians takes precedence over what divides them.

Alex, I agree fully on immigration, with two and a half million coming into our country unchecked in the last decade you are right to say people are angry and feel let down by politicians. These politicians, driven by the ideology of political correctness, should have been pragmatic and said we can't cope with these numbers.

[Alexander King]

Alex and Peter,

I'm not saying that the answer to problems lies in the centre ground (I suspect the opposite is true). Nor am I saying that most voters reside on the centre ground (though I suspect they probably do).

I'm saying that the key to winning elections is to take the centre ground. Each party has its traditional supporters who tend not to switch (say, 30% of the electorate on each side). The key to winning elections is therefore the 20% in the middle.

Call them Worcester Woman, Basildon Man, whatever you want - these people are the key to winning elections, and the parties know it.

[tory granny]

Alex Swanson is quite right. Policies are not converging. They are getting ever more separate. The political party that picks up on the next wave of politics will win the argument. This will be when the ordinary voter rejects all the other socialist nostrums, (not just "we must allow unlimited immigration") that we know to be plain wrong.

I'm thinking particularly of the evil of political correctness, but also state control of education, health and the monumental waste of our money by followers of these out-dated beliefs. You can make your own list

Until now we have not been able to say these things because the media is in hock to the socialist dogma.

Things have changed: the internet has grown up, and in Crewe we had a foretaste of what happens when people think for themselves.

People's anger at the political class and in particular the EU, will not now be pushed back into the bottle

[Tony Makara]

"Until now we have not been able to say these things because the media is in hock to the socialist dogma."

Tory Granny, I don't know about you but I have begun to notice there has been a certain re-habilitation of Conservative ideals in the media of late. This is an interesting change. Whether its a curiosity built on the back of the recent opinion poll ratings or something more permanent we will have to wait and see. Nontheless its good to see people with a high profile like Tony Hadley coming out on TV to support commonsense Conservatism.