conservative vs liberal profile faces spewing blocks 1500 x 1000

As in other periods in our history, ours is a battleground between two basic views of statecraft: 1) the liberal view of social change for the good of the people and 2) the conservative belief that any “social engineering” is doomed to failure at best and is tyrannical at worst.

Our present-day heated, even venomous arguments, are nothing new. Abraham Lincoln, not a rabid Socialist, had to contend with the reactionary Democratic Party of his time that was true to its name—the “know nothing” party. Teddy Roosevelt (TR) fought the big money interests of his time and planted the seeds of the progressive movement. His fifth cousin Franklin Delano (FDR) gave us the “New Deal”, a social experiment of profound dimensions. And Lyndon Johnson completed the work of Lincoln, TR, and FDR with his much underappreciated “War on Poverty”.

This seemingly inexorable process of progressivism was punctuated with conservative backlash, the most profound initiated by Ronald Reagan whose worldview could be summed up by his own pithy phrase:

“Government is the problem, not the solution.”

This conservative trend continued during George Bush’s two terms and is assuming its most extreme form in the Libertarian ideology of Ron Paul. So, who is right?


The surprising new science of psychological change

An important book by Timothy Wilson, Redirect: The Surprising New Science of Psychological Change, reviews the track record of “social change through policy”. Although written in 2011, it is still quite relevant today and is an eye opener. Equally important to read is a review of Wilson’s book in Science Magazine that was written by Geoffrey L. Cohen of Stanford University’s Departments of Education and Psychology that appeared shortly after the book was published. Wilson is a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who has made groundbreaking discoveries in the study of intuition and introspection. Who better to judge whether intuition and ideology are sufficient?

Here is what he said,

“When the father of the field, German refugee Kurt Lewin, conducted his seminal studies, the problems of World War II preoccupied him: the power of leaders to shape citizens’ behavior for good and ill, intergroup conflict and aggression, minority groups’ belongingness and adjustment, de-Nazification and cultural transformation (“nation building” in today’s parlance), and so on. At the heart of Lewin’s approach rested a novel idea: social problems are amenable to experimentation. ‘The best way to understand something is to try to change it,’ he was fond of saying. Beyond descriptive and correlational studies, Lewin championed experimental manipulation: Introduce an exogenous shock to the system and see how it responds.”

Cohen goes on to say,

“Lewin also advocated a diagnosis stage in what he dubbed ‘action research’. First, assess the relationships among variables in a system. In doing so, one could identify the pressure points where a small nudge might have large consequences. For example, to encourage families to eat cheap-cut meats like sweetbreads during the war (because the finer cuts had limited supply), Lewin showed the importance of the gatekeeper, the person who controls the behavioral channel—in this case, the housewife. He also demonstrated the impotence of persuasion and the power of the small group. Bring housewives together into a new group supportive of change, freeing them from the grip of their old familial norms, and they would try the novel foods far more frequently than if they were lectured to. Time and again, Lewin showed that what often seem problems of bad attitudes, lack of information, or economic incentives were instead problems of group influence, identity, and social perception. But most revolutionary was Lewin’s method. There was a combination of optimism and folly in the idea that researchers could, through the experimental method, change reality and improve social conditions for the better.”


Policies based on ideology and intuition are almost always doomed to failure

In Redirect: The Surprising New Science of Psychological Change, Timothy Wilson reviews much of this history and revisits the field of social psychology 70 years after Lewin’s pioneering work. To summarize his findings from this extensive review, it becomes clear that policies based on ideology and intuition are almost always doomed to failure. On the other hand, policies based on controlled studies—employing the best techniques science provides—have an infinitely better chance to succeed.

Such studies start with a limited population sample, and once proven effective, scale up to larger and larger populations. Fortunately, our thousands of municipalities, tens of thousands of school districts, and 50 culturally-diverse states offer an enormous laboratory for such social experiments. Interventions that defuse blacks’ and whites’ fear of interracial rejection increase their likelihood of becoming friends. And reminiscent of Lewin, there are studies that cleverly manipulate social norms to reduce teen alcohol use and encourage energy conservation.

Now let’s consider the “ideologically-based” policies, such as, for instance, the “ownership society” of George Bush. The idea was basically quintessential conservative: Give people property and they’ll become conservative because they’d have something to lose, and hopefully, they’d vote Republican—a not-so-fringe benefit of the policy’s advocates. The catastrophic failure of this policy is still reverberating through our economy today and will, I believe, continue to do so for many years to come.


The bottom line

Cohen, the Stanford scientist, concludes:

“Wilson wants society to adopt more of an experimental approach to solving social problems—putting interventions to the test with randomized controlled trials. This is a good idea, at least when the ambition is to disseminate the interventions widely. However, one problem that Redirect does not explicitly address concerns limitations in the experimental method itself. There is nothing better than an experiment for testing causality, whether an intervention A affects a social problem B. However, a positive experimental result risks deluding us into believing that A is both necessary and sufficient to solve B. But as Lewin taught us, the effect of A will depend on the context into which it is introduced—the preexisting system of variables. Encourage students to see their academic fates as within their own control, and they will thrive, provided that they inhabit a classroom that provides them with opportunities for growth, such as committed teachers and quality instruction. Many of the interventions Wilson reviews act like catalysts. They will not teach a student who cannot spell to spell, but they will encourage the student to seize opportunities to learn how. Because the effects of interventions are context-dependent, there will be no silver bullets.”

Wilson compellingly argues that effective interventions validated by social-science research are rarely implemented. This is a problem. Why are such interventions ignored in favor of ideology and intuition? What can we do to prevent this? What interventions should we be implementing today?

Richard Thaler is an economist at the University of Chicago, and Cass Sunstein is a professor of law at Harvard Law School. These professors, both with an unimpeachable conservative (in the academic sense of the word) track record, did something unique in our ideology-soaked political environment: They looked at the science. Specifically, they examined the field of behavioral economics as developed by Daniel Kahneman and his colleagues. And in doing so, they arrived at a surprising conclusion: When based on science, both a conservative and a liberal approach to social policy can be married.

In their book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Thaler and Sunstein state:

“The libertarian aspect of our strategies lies in the straightforward insistence that, in general, people should be free to do what they like and to opt out of undesirable arrangements if they want to do so. On the other hand, ‘it is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence people’s  behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier, and better.'”

They dubbed this theory Libertarian Paternalism, somewhat of a dissonant contradiction to my ears. Their argument is that you don’t have to compel people to do what’s good for them; you can nudge them toward it. Have people opt out of health insurance rather opt-in, have them opt out of their employer’s 401K plan rather than actively save for retirement. You get the picture.

How such an approach would fare with bikers who detest wearing their helmets is left unanswered. No matter. It gives me hope that—examined dispassionately through the lens of scientific evidence—such seemingly irreconcilable ideologies as Libertarianism and Liberalism can rise above the ideological cacophony and give us enlightened policymaking.

Is it too much to ask?

This article was originally published December 28, 2011. It has been reviewed and updated by the author and is being republished because of the remarkable relevance of the arguments to today’s political environment. We hope it adds to the much-needed conversation about U.S. policy approaches.

Dov Michaeli, MD, PhD

Dov Michaeli, M.D., Ph.D. loves to write about the brain and human behavior as well as translate complicated basic science concepts into entertainment for the rest of us.

He was a professor and basic science researcher at the University of California San Francisco where he also taught biochemistry to medical students. During this time he was also the Editor of Lange Medical Publications, a company that developed and produced medical texts that were widely used by health professionals around the world.

He eventually left academia to enter the world of biotech. He served as the Chief Medical Officer of biotech companies, including Aphton Corporation. He also founded and served as the CEO of Madah Medica, an early-stage biotech company that developed products to improve post-surgical pain control.

He is now retired and enjoys working out, following the stock market, traveling the world, and, of course, writing for TDWI.


  1. your only example was your contention that bush “gave people property” and expected certain behavior from them. you have it backwards;dems gave housing to unqualifed buyers by their control of freddie mac, et al. the laffer curve works. every time income tax rates are reduced, the gov’t collects more, not less, taxes. the problem is that politicians increase spending to match receipts in good times but don’t reduce expenditures when the economy turns.

  2. there are many other examples of change based on ideology — Prohibition, Commuism, radical Islam, Alabama’s immigration law, and they all fail.

    One point worth observing is the friction of the status quo, no matter how indefensible their stand. For instance, if someone said: “Let’s introduce a new coin worth a fifth of a nickel that will cost more to make than it’s worth, cost more for retailers to handle than it’s worth, pollute the environment with mining, and be regarded as litter when dropped on the ground,” he’d be laughed at. And yet…

    Final point: It was George Herbert Walker Bush (or his speechwriter Peggy Noonan) who coined the term “Voodoo Economics,” not George W. Bush.

Comments are closed.