Conservative psychlogical characteristics. (Candidates win, not issues.)
So, on another thread where I was suggesting candidates rather than issues win, and that conservative voters may like liberal policies but vote for conservative candidates, I realized that part of the problem here is "conservative" has two meanings in this discussion.
Conservative policies are a specific set of agenda, at least in the context of the current US. Those change over time, and for that matter the use of "conservative" to describe them is historically problematic (Burke and Oakenshott would be perplexed, to say the least, as are some of the few remaining "old-school" conservatives like Millman).
Conservative characteristics in a candidate are what conservative voters vote for. There are a huge swath of studies in psychology and sociology about what those characteristics are for both liberals and conservatives (just Google if you're curious and haven't seen them), but here's a few off the top of my head:
1. High "disgust" response. Cali did an excellent OP that I now can't find about how the presence of hand sanitizer in a voting booth makes voters reliably and noticeably more conservative in their choices. Dirt in the polling place has been shown to have the same effect. (A conservative writer has suggested that cleaning/dirtying polling places might be more effective "activism" for both parties than anything else.)
2. A "just world" metaphysic. Conservatives are more likely to assume that any existing distribution was "supposed" to happen and is deserved.
3. A dislike for uncertainty. Conservatives are much more uncomfortable facing situations where relevant parameters are unknown.
4. A preference for false positives over false negatives. (eg better for innocent people to be in jail than guilty people to go free; better for valid voters to be denied a ballot than invalid voters to cast one)
Basically, conservatives are better at detecting threats nearby and liberals are better at finding opportunities in the distance. Hunter-gatherer tribes probably needed both of those skills.
So, just taking those three cases, here is a conservative case to do something about climate change (paraphrasing that same conservative writer who jokingly suggested conservatives should dump dirt in voting booths):
60 years ago, American industrial scientists bravely told the world about a direct threat to our families and jobs in the form of disgusting, dirty pollutants filling up the air and causing temperatures to rise. Although laughed at at the time by elite academics, eventually the evidence became too much even for the ivory tower to ignore. American entrepreneurs boldly developed new techniques of energy generation and distribution that would both defend us from this threat and reduce the power of foreign Islamic and Marxist cartels, while making American businesses more profitable.
Unfortunately, China is not satisfied with being the Number 2 economy in the world and is currently using the dirtier techniques because they lack the entrepreneurial drive to compete fairly. In this brazen attempt to overtake our economy, they are releasing more of these disgusting, dirty pollutants into the air, which makes them float over our towns and farms.
No one can be certain what the ultimate effect of this economic war on us will be, unless we take action to make all countries play by the rules. It's better to be too strong in this situation than too weak. Do you stand with the President to keep our jobs, farms, towns, and families safe?
(As a thought experiment, imagine you knew nothing about climate change and read that. Are you for action or against it?)
There's no particular reason conservative characteristics must equate to conservative policies (though some of them are pretty much a given). Conservative voters will vote for a person who wants to take action on climate change if they are convinced that a narrative like that is why he wants to take that action, and even if they would prefer not to take that action.
We need candidates first. We need to find them, and we need to run them. Candidates are who wins and loses, not issues.
= new reply since forum marked as read
