In the United States, religion and politics have always been (fitful) bed buddies. But whether faith drives people left or right (or neither) is not obvious. On one hand, there is the Christian right, a demographic epitomized by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that values tradition and authority and opposes gay rights and the teaching of evolution. On the other hand, we owe many of our advancements in civil rights -- a predominantly left-wing cause -- to religious leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. One way to make sense of the relationship between faith and political orientation is to recognize the difference between religiousness and spirituality.
In a paper in press at the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, Jacob Hirsh, Megan Walberg and Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto asked approximately 1,300 people in the U.S. and Canada their political orientations. Then they measured respondents' religiousness (e.g., how important they feel church services are) and their spirituality (e.g., whether they've ever felt deeply connected with the universe). They also assessed respondents' personalities and personal values.
The more religious a person is, the more conservative he is, and this relationship is strongly mediated by the value placed on tradition -- respect for customs and institutions. But even though religiousness and spirituality are highly correlated, the more spiritual a person is, the more liberal he is. This relationship is mediated by the value placed on universalism -- social tolerance and concern for everyone's welfare.
As with previous studies, conservatives were more conscientious (organized and self-disciplined), while liberals were more agreeable and more open to new ideas and experiences. The trend of conservatives being more religious and liberals being more spiritual held even when controlling for these personality factors, and when controlling for age, gender and socioeconomic status.
It's possible that people's values -- particularly their concerns for tradition or universalism -- drive both their political orientation and their religious perspective. But the researchers prefer the explanation that religiousness and spirituality shape values, which then shape politics. To support this view, at least regarding spirituality, they conducted another experiment in which they manipulated people's sense of oneness.
Subjects participated online. They were asked their political orientation and were also measured on "right-wing authoritarianism" (RWA) -- their preference for social order -- and "social dominance orientation" (SDO) -- whether they prefer hierarchy or egalitarianism. High scores on these measures are two of the biggest predictors of conservatism.
But first, half of the subjects were asked to complete a guided meditation exercise for several minutes. Afterward, these subjects said they felt more spiritual than the control subjects. They also described themselves as being more liberal. And a significant amount of this change in political outlook was due to reduced social dominance orientation. Apparently, the meditation made people feel more connected and inclusive and thus reduced their conservative attitudes.
And presumably spiritual experiences of any kind could do the same.
Turn on, tune in, turn left.
Follow Matthew Hutson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/silverjacket
Rabbi Laura Gold, Ph.D.: I'm a Values Voter, Too
This doesn't ring true to me. I think that a person who is more progressive in their view of the world is much more likely to reject dogmatic, fundamentalist religions and explore the wide range of spiritual practices out there. Not because of their politics, but because of their general attitude and approach to gaining knowledge, politics is just one part of a person's life, a small part for most.
A person who is attracted to conservative politics is more likely to join a mega-church to seek out like minded people, regardless of their background. Unfortunately, religion has become inseparable from the conservative movement.
I attended a very liberal seminary in the 1980's, and the people there were just as authoritarian, dogmatic, and power-hungry as any Fundamentalists.
I think your outline also shows the path towards improvement of the stalemate or even reconciliation: the thing about conservative religious people is that they "want to hold on to their possessions and societal identity." Exactly. And you can't even blame them for that. It's their choice and they have a right to want that.
Point is: they have become utterly sterile in their attempts to even get there. And it's abundantly obvious that they are NOT choosing what they would be choosing if they really understood that goal, from a thoroughly reflexive point of view and with the appropriate historical perspective.
Because if they did that, they would have to understand how their doctrine (ossified into dogma) actually did the job of bringing about the liberation and identity formation that is associated with it in the past.
In short: they would have to stop fooling themselves concerning their roots. Wordly roots, political roots, intellectual roots, otherworldly roots.
They couldn't be any further from that. They are about to vote for a candidate who adheres to a fabricated faith, while screaming that they don't trust him as a leader, because he took their possessions while he was a business man, and doesn't connect to their societal identity now.
Romney should just tell them the truth straight to their faces, and then move on founding a new party, ending this hickup in history.
That's what I always suspected: the age of enlightenment and its document, the declaration of independence, have a liberal bias.
But that of course is merely an artifact of 40 years of conservative movement propaganda. Within the larger scheme of things, no such tendency exists, and it's perfectly possible to adhere to enlightenment and that document and still be conservative on many issues.
What does this prove? Who cares? It proves that there have been 40 years of conservative movement propaganda. Everybody should care. Because in terms of substance, there is NO conservative party in the US. Unless you count the democrats.