How Ebola Makes Conservatives More Conservative

Conservatives react more strongly to negative things—like disease.

Brian Resnick
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Brian Resnick
Oct. 15, 2014, 1 a.m.

Thomas Eric Duncan, the first per­son to die of Ebola in the United States, came to this coun­try by air. He did not cross the U.S.-Mex­ico bor­der. And yet, for some con­ser­vat­ive politi­cians, the ar­rival of Ebola here has piqued con­cerns about the se­cur­ity of the south­ern bor­der.

“If people are com­ing through nor­mal chan­nels [with Ebola],” Sen­ate can­did­ate Scott Brown said re­cently in a ra­dio in­ter­view, “can you ima­gine what they can do through our por­ous bor­ders?” Oth­er politi­cians are like-minded, call­ing for the out­right clos­ure of the bor­der.

The scen­ario that Ebola enters the U.S. through Mex­ico is not out­right im­possible. It’s just un­likely con­sid­er­ing the facts. There have been no re­por­ted cases of Ebola in Mex­ico or Cent­ral Amer­ica. Con­ceiv­ably, it could be pos­sible for someone in­fec­ted with Ebola to enter the United States in a car from Mex­ico. But for that to hap­pen right now, the Ebola car­ri­er would have had to spend some time in West Africa be­fore head­ing to Mex­ico. Then, the per­son would have to travel to the U.S. be­fore the dis­ease’s symp­toms kick in, which can take two to 21 days after ex­pos­ure.

So why are con­ser­vat­ives so con­cerned about the south­ern bor­der in the wake of Ebola? Psy­cho­logy has an an­swer: Ebola is mak­ing con­ser­vat­ives more con­ser­vat­ive.

Let’s step back.

It’s likely that hu­man­ity has evolved to have people with lib­er­al and con­ser­vat­ive minds in any giv­en so­ci­ety. Ac­cord­ing to mount­ing psy­cho­lo­gic­al re­search, lib­er­als tend to be open to new ex­per­i­ences, while con­ser­vat­ives seek to pro­tect what they already have. Of­ten these mind-sets res­ult in polit­ic­al clashes. But the ten­sion between lib­er­al brains and con­ser­vat­ive brains makes sense for sur­viv­al. There are times when it’s im­port­ant to dis­cov­er new things, and there are times when it’s im­port­ant to avoid dangers. The ten­sion between those two strategies is what has fueled hu­man polit­ic­al con­flict for mil­len­nia as groups ar­gue over how a so­ci­ety should be run. But it has also kept us alive.

Through this evol­u­tion­ary lens, con­ser­vat­ism is a strategy to pro­tect a so­ci­ety from harm from both out­siders and dis­eases. Ebola hits this ex­act con­ser­vat­ive nerve—it’s a deadly dis­ease from a for­eign coun­try. Ebola is ac­tiv­at­ing all the evol­u­tion­ary alarms of the con­ser­vat­ive mind.

John Hi­b­bing, a lead­ing re­search­er in polit­ic­al physiology, ex­plains it like this: “What we’ve found is pretty clear and con­sist­ent—that con­ser­vat­ives tend to have more re­ac­tion to neg­at­ive things. We like to see not just if they re­port in a sur­vey-type format wheth­er they are bothered by that, but ac­tu­ally physiolo­gic­ally if there has been a change.”

In his ex­per­i­ments, Hi­b­bing of­ten at­taches elec­trodes to lib­er­al and con­ser­vat­ive par­ti­cipants’ skin and then shows them dis­turb­ing im­ages, such as a man eat­ing a hand­ful of worms. In these tests, con­ser­vat­ives sweat more (i.e., have a stronger gut re­ac­tion) in re­sponse to the dis­gust­ing stim­u­lus. And when Hi­b­bing hooks par­ti­cipants up to eye-track­ing ma­chines, he finds con­ser­vat­ives mon­it­or more closely the things that make them squirm. So they are more read­ily pro­voked and more vi­gil­ant. These dif­fer­ences between lib­er­als and con­ser­vat­ives are likely deep seated in the brain: sci­ent­ists have found that con­ser­vat­ives tend to have lar­ger amy­g­dala, a re­gion of the brain in­volved in fear pro­cessing, than lib­er­als do.

And when people be­come fear­ful, they’re more likely put dis­tance between their group and oth­ers. “Since out-group mem­bers are more likely to carry patho­gens to which mem­bers of the in-group have not yet de­veloped im­munity, avoid­ance of out-groups can be ad­apt­ive when the threat of the dis­ease is sa­li­ent,” UCLA re­search­ers wrote in a 2006 pa­per.

In that pa­per, the re­search­ers found that when par­ti­cipants were primed to think about dis­ease, they “in­creased their pref­er­ence for the Amer­ic­an over the for­eign­er and in­creased their at­trac­tion to the Amer­ic­an.” They be­came less re­cept­ive to out­siders, just like cer­tain politi­cians seem to be do­ing right now in the wake of Ebola.

“It doesn’t mean that con­ser­vat­ives are deeply flawed,” Hi­b­bing said. “From an evol­u­tion­ary point of view, re­spond­ing to neg­at­ive things in the en­vir­on­ment makes a lot of sense. You need to be aware of them.”

Reena Flores contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
Judiciary Committee Counteroffers on Ford Appearance
4 hours ago
Trump Backtracks on Document Dump
6 hours ago
Trump Says Ford Should Have Filed Charges 36 Years Ago
7 hours ago
Ford Would Like to Testify on Thursday
20 hours ago

"Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault in the 1980s, is reportedly willing to publicly testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee next Thursday. Lawyers for Ford told committee staffers during a call Thursday evening to negotiate details of a potential hearing that she wanted Kavanaugh to testify before her and she does not want to be in the same room as him, according to multiple reports."

Kavanaugh WIll Testify Monday
23 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.