And those who self-define as “conservatives” tend to prize order, tradition
and certainty, as well as being suspicious of novel ideas and more
distrustful of difference – at the extreme, they are psychologically
“authoritarian” and inclined to view the world in black and white.

Can these fundamental ideological differences have any basis in biology? If
so, this would mean a radical rethink of how we view humans as political
animals – and give pause for thought for those who dismiss their political
opponents as irrational, stupid or even evil. Recent research conducted at
the University of Nebraska’s political physiology laboratory provides
perhaps the most compelling evidence that we are often not aware of our
brain’s deep-seated political “choices”.

Studies using eye-trackers to monitor gaze and attention patterns, for
instance, show very different responses among conservatives and
progressives. Conservative eyes go straight to threatening images, and stay
there longer; liberals look more at appealing and enticing images.

Not only do these simple “approach” versus “avoidance” strategies for
navigating the world match up neatly with personalities: they may colour
everything about how we respond to life, not just our political views.
Exploratory and defensive strategies have even been found in “liberal” and
“conservative” styles of videogame play.

More fundamental brain processes and even anatomical differences may also be
involved. For example, a recent study by neuroscientists at University
College of London found that the self-described conservatives had a
larger-than-average right amygdala, the brain’s region for processing fear
and threat.

Troublingly, this “psychology of ideology” research seems to remove our
political views from the realm of conscious choice and free will.
Neuroscience findings are backed up by genetic studies, which show a
substantial heritability of core Left-Right ideology – 40 per cent or more
of our differences seem to be rooted in genes. But it is important to
emphasise that even if this figure is correct, that still leaves plenty of
wiggle-room for people to develop and change over their lifetimes, based on
the experiences they have.

What’s more, cross-cultural differences will affect our core “natures” very
differently in any case, producing highly varied results. The important
thing to remember about psychological needs is that they do not have any
explicit content – in this case ideology – to them. Someone in Britain today
may end up very different from someone with the same psychology in, say,
Russia at the time of the revolution. Indeed, in a nominally “Left-wing”
totalitarian society, the mainstream view may tend towards nationalism,
militarism, authoritarianism and conformity – traits often associated with
the Right.

In other words, biologically based ideology is vague and unspecific, and
highly amenable to suggestion (including political rhetoric and framing).
Basic “authoritarian” or “liberal” tendencies may be biologically grounded
to an extent, but how these “nature” differences can be exploited by clever
politicians and strategists may explain the startling differences between,
say, the Right in Britain and the Right in America.

For instance, American conservatives tend towards religiosity, creationism and
scepticism about science; in Britain, the Right is more associated with
fiscal rectitude and traditional values, but not necessarily religious
ideology (in fact Christianity in Britain is often associated with the Left).

Why this difference? In the late Sixties and early Seventies, strategists in
the Republican
Party made a decision to exploit an array of “nurture” factors –
aspects of culture and American institutions that could be biased to favour
and reinforce a Right-wing viewpoint. For example, they attacked academia,
labelling its denizens “liberal” and “biased”. Accordingly, since 1974 we’ve
seen a dramatic decline in trust in science among US conservatives.

In parallel, the American Right, to a much greater extent than in Britain,
also exploited what we might call psychological authoritarianism. They
rallied and appealed to a certain breed of conservatives, often highly
religious, who tend to view the world in black and white, to be intolerant
of uncertainty, and to be deeply riled by the most divisive of culture-war
issues: race, feminism, homosexual rights, religion in public life and so on.

This shifted all of US politics sharply to the Right, and continues to do so,
and provides a clear contrast with Britain, where the major parties of the
Right and Left sit either side of a common centre ground. No mainstream Tory
advocates banning abortion, or allowing free access to firearms, or
scrapping state health care, for example – standard fare among modern US
Republicans.

Meanwhile, as US conservatives have started to reject science, US liberals
have come completely to dominate the scientific establishment in a way never
seen before in history (in the Fifties there were plenty of Republicans on
the nation’s campuses; now they are a dying breed)

Today, most cannot even begin to understand who they’re dealing with on the
other side, because they’re staring at their psychological, as well as their
ideological, opposites. As the American psychologist Jonathan Haidt has put
it: “how can Democrats learn to see – let alone respect – a moral order they
regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?”

Haidt, himself a liberal, accepts that many of the traits most despised by his
ideological fellows – respect for tradition, pride in national values,
concern about crime and drugs – are in fact a necessary part of the spectrum
of beliefs found in any functioning society and should themselves be
respected.

Political ideology, then, is coming to look like an inevitable blend of nature
and nurture. What’s more, certain basic psychological needs may lay dormant
until circumstances, such as an impending economic collapse, allow them to
come to the fore. In countries on the brink, fear will take over and
extremist politicians of any hue who are able to exploit this fear by
providing certainties and promising order will prosper.

We cannot explain political extremism by biology alone, of course. Events, and
clever political strategists can drive politics in very different
directions. But science suggests that the success of parties such as Golden
Dawn is something we can expect when the human mind is confronted with
extreme economic realities.

Chris Mooney is author of 'The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They
Deny Science – and Reality’. John Wiley £17.99