> Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
Which defined the essence of political conservatism as:
<quote>
* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management
<unquote>
If this refers only to features of a world view -- if the content of the views are unimportant -- than it's a description of a zealot rather than a conservative; it applies by definition to a style of holding opinions & (not) responding to criticism rather than to a particular set of opinions. You could be a communist and fit this description.
If, on the other hand, it refers to the content of policies and the criteria for selecting among them, points 2-4 don't cover the policy on Iraq at all, which introduced maximum uncertainty, ambiguity and change, and exhibited no need for cognitive closure at all.
If the response is that neoconservatives are not really conservatives because they want to change the world, I'm afraid that would fall immediately into the no true Scotsman fallacy because these guys define conservatism as the moment.
And as far as points 1 and 5 are concerned, all the liberals I know are terrified and hate these people (aka have aggressive feelings toward them).
So out of 5 points, 3 seem diametrically wrong when applied to the most important conservative group of our time; and 2 apply to their opposite. When shorn of its conspiracism, I'm afraid the Rand guy's frothing might actually be justified in this case.
Michael