¹ Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J. and Sanford, N., The Authoritarian Personality (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; H. McClosky, “Conservatism and Personality,” this Review 52 (1958), 27–45, esp. 44–45. See also Rokeach, M., The Open and the Closed Mind, (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; and Anderson, B. et al., “On Conservative Attitudes,” Acta Sociologica, 8 (1965), 189–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W. and Stokes, D., The American Voter (New York, 1960), p. 249 Google Scholar; Converse, P., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Apter, D. (ed.), Ideology and Discontent (New York, 1965), pp. 206–261 Google Scholar.

³ See, e.g., The critiques by Christie, R., Hyman, H. H. and Sheatsley, P. in Christie, R. and Jahoda, M. (eds.), Studies in the Scope and Method of ‘The Authoritarian Personality” (Glencoe, Ill., 1954)Google Scholar; M. Rokeach, op. cit., pp. 3–30; Brown, R., Social Psychology (New York, 1965), pp. 526–546 Google ScholarPubMed. Campbell et al., op. cit., pp. 209–214, 512–515; W. Kendall, “Comment on McClosky's ‘Conservatism and Personality,’”, this Review 52 (1959), 1111–1112; Rosenberg, M. J., “Images in Relation to the Policy Process: American Public Opinion on Cold-War Issues,” in Kelman, H. (ed.), International Behavior (New York, 1965), ch. 8Google ScholarPubMed.

⁴ Adorno, et al., op. cit., pp. 265, 179.

⁵ McClosky, op. cit., pp. 37–38.

⁶ Barnes, S. H., “Ideology and the Organization of Conflict: On the Relationship Between Political Thought and Behavior,” Journal of Politics, 28 (1966), 513–530, esp. 521–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For relevant, not necessarily deliberate, examples of this approach, see Chesler, M. and Schmuck, R., “Participant Observation in a Super-Patriot Discussion Group,” Journal of Social Issues, 19 (1963), 18–30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. Wolfinger et al., “American's Radical Right: Politics and Ideology; in Apter (ed.), op. cit., pp. 262–293; Grupp, F. Jr., “Political Activists: The John Birch Society and the ADA,” a paper delivered at the 1966 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York City Google Scholar.

⁷ The mere act of joining an ideologically-oriented group or party does not guarantee either ideological support or even interest. A discussion and justification of certain analytical exclusions can be found in Schoenberger, R. A., Conservatives and Conservatism (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1966; University Microfilm No. 67–8986), pp 40–44 Google Scholar.

⁸ The key points of the Conservative Party Platform, derived from “… the American tradition of individual liberty, limited constitutional government, and defense of the Republic against its enemies,” include belief in balanced budgets, opposition to or curbing of “… centralization of governmental power, monopoly union power, deficit spending and oppressive taxation…”, the wish for the confinement of “… the Supreme Court … to its proper judicial functions,” support for the “Neighborhood School” principle, opposition to state legislative reapportionment, public housing and foreign aid (except for “our friends”), See “Introducing: The Conservative Party of New York State” (New York, 1965)Google Scholar, unpaged pamphlet. Available from Conservative Party State Headquarters, 141 E. 44 St., New York, New York 10017.

⁹ Females were excluded primarily because of the need to economize resources. Informal inquiries discovered, as one would suspect, that numerous Conservative females registered as they did only at their husband's request.

The 1966 Conservative Congressional candidate in the district dominated by the eastern, and most populous, half of Monroe County polled 6.4% of the vote.

¹⁰ The upper case “C” is used only when referring to registered Conservative Party members or to the Party itself.

¹¹ Rosenberg, M., “Misanthropy and Political Ideology,” American Sociological Review, 21 (1956), 690–695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Misanthropy and Attitudes Toward International Affairs,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1 (1957), 34–45 Google Scholar.

¹² Eighty-nine per cent had attended college, 62% received the bachelor's degree and 31% had started or completed graduate or professional school requirements.

¹³ The average item-percentage difference between Conservatives and Republicans in Table 2 is −0.8 (sign indicates normative evaluation). The range is +13 to −12 across items.

¹⁴ x², p<.05, df = 1. All subsequent references to significance refer to this statistical measure and convention.

¹⁵ The average item-percentage difference between Conservatives and Republicans in Table 4 is +10.75. The range is + 5 to +20.

¹⁶ Where sample responses are scored and indexed, with education controlled, the number of Conservatives in the high (normatively negative) range does not differ importantly or significantly from the Republicans. The per cent “highly misanthropic” are: Conservatives—12; Republicans—15. The per cent “highly authoritarian” are; Conservatives—17; Republicans—15. The scoring procedure is that used by Almond, G. and Verba, S., The Civic Culture (New York, 1963), pp. 262–263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ The concept of authoritarianism is politically empty unless those persons it purports to describe are anti-libertarian. See Viereck's, Peter phrase “… authoritarian reactionaries …, hypocritically pretending to be devoted to civil liberties,” in Bell, D. (ed.), The Radical Right (Garden City, N. Y., 1964), p. 196 Google Scholar.

¹⁸ See, e.g., Stouffer, S. A., Communism, Conformity and Civil Liberties (Garden City, N. Y., 1955), pp. 94–97 Google Scholar; D. Bell, op. cit., pp. 88, 358; R. Wolfinger et al., op. cit., pp. 270–273.

¹⁹ Selvin, H. C. and Hagstrom, W. O., “Determinants of Support for Civil Liberties,” British Journal of Sociology, 11 (1960) 51–73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ The average item-percentage difference between Conservatives and Republicans is +17.1; between Conservatives and Goldwater-voting Republicans, +8.4. If any inference is to be drawn, it is that Goldwater Republicans are less anti-libertarian than Johnson-voting Republicans.

²¹ The average distanoe between college-educated Conservatives and Republicans dimishes to + 11.6.

²² The mean Conservative score (defined as the number of prolibertarian responses) is 7.8 of a possible 10; for Republicans it is 6.0. College-educated Republicans have a mean of 6.75 and Goldwater-voting Republicans (8 of whom have not attended college) a mean of 7.1 (!). College-attending Conservatives achieve a score of 7.9.

²³ R. E. Lane, “The Fear of Equality,” this Review, 53 (1959), 35–51. See also, S. A. Stouffer, op. cit., Prothro, J. W. and Grigg, C. M., “Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement,” Journal of Politics, 22 (1961) 276–294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ Hofstadter, R., The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (New York, 1965), Ch. 1Google Scholar. See also Higham, J., Strangers in the Land (New Brunswick, N. J., 1955), pp. 81, 85, 180 Google Scholar; Shils, E., The Torment of Secrecy (Glencoe, Ill., 1952), ch. 1Google Scholar.

²⁵ Stormer, J., None Dare Call it Treason (Florissant, Mo., 1964)Google Scholar; Schlafly, P., A Choice Not an Echo (Alton, Ill., 1964)Google Scholar; Manly, C., The Twenty Year Revolution (Chicago, 1954)Google Scholar. See esp., Heinsohn, A. G. (ed.), Anthology of Conservative Writings in the United States: 1932–1960 (Chicago, 1962)Google Scholar and any publication of the John Birch Society or its Western Islands Press.

²⁶ Fifty-eight per cent accepted no more than one; 31% accepted none. Comparable figures for college-educated Republicans were 65% and 30%; for all Republicans, 72% and 29%.

²⁷ The segregation of responses into these, and allied, categories is for the purpose of expository convenience. There is evidence that respondents falling into only one would quickly endorse the remarks of their colleagues in the others. For example, 80% of the Conservatives (36 of 45) agreed that “it seems clear that the United States is on the way to becoming a Socialist country,” although only ten mentioned the word “socialism” during the interviews. Seventy-four per cent (34 of 48) of the Republicans disagreed with the assertion.

²⁸ Forty-five per cent of the Conservatives volunteered anti-union comments.

²⁹ The median family income for Conservatives in 1964 was nearly $12,000; 85% earned more than $8,000. Ninety-six per cent were employed in white-collar jobs, 84% in business, managerial, professional or technical capacities.

³⁰ The Party platform, summarized in note 8, is an accurate, if too short and general, summary of the views of the majority of the sample.

³¹ Rohter, I. S., Radical Rightists: An Empirical Study (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967), pp. 124–144 Google Scholar.

³² Ibid., pp. 154–265, passim.

³³ Chesler, M. and Schmuck, R., “Social Psychological Characteristics of Super-Patriots” in Schoenberger, R. A. (ed.), The American Right Wing (New York, forthcoming, 1969)Google Scholar.

³⁴ R. Wolfinger, et. al., “The Radical Right …” op. cit., p. 285. Another recent study, of Dallas rightists, concludes that the availability of rightist organizations may better account for rightist behavior than psychological predispositions. See A. C. Elms, “Psychological Factors in Right-Wing Extremism,” in Schoenberger, op. cit., ch. 6.

³⁵ H. McClosky, “Conservatism and Personality,” op. cit., pp. 44–45.