Note that the following comments were not included in the article and provide additional insights derived from the findings.
1. Historically, the social science literature has tended to cast conservatives in a negative light. A precedent-setting example was the publication in 1950 of the Authoritarianism Scale or F-Scale (with F standing for Fascism) that purportedly described conservatives. Contrary to the preceding portrayal of conservatives, my data were highly consistent in showing an absence of any consistent personality or adjustment-maladjustment differences between liberals and conservatives or, for that matter, between libertarians and totalitarians. One highly general quantitative system of personality measurement (the PAD Model), used in all four of my studies, includes three basic dimensions of temperament that, in various combinations, yield assessments of an unlimited number of specific personality traits (e.g., friendliness, achievement orientation, dependency, depression, anxiety, empathy, conscientious, optimism, extroversion).
Considering that, in addition to the PAD Model, two other general systems of personality description and several specific measures of psychopathology were used, absence of significant personality or psychopathology correlates of liberalism-conservatism shows, for instance, that liberals are not necessarily more compassionate, empathic, sociable, dependent, or giving than conservatives; nor are conservatives necessarily more achievement and goal oriented, conscientious, self-sufficient, selfish, or frugal than liberals. There clearly are no consistent personality differences of any kind between liberals and conservatives. Additionally, liberals and conservatives do not differ in overall level of psychopathology; nor do they differ with respect to specific aspects of psychopathology such as anxiety, depression, panic, somatization or hypochondria, alcohol use, or recreational drug use.
In short, no personality or maladjustment differences can be ascribed to political orientation. Apparently, people do not vote one way or another because of their personality traits or because they are psychologically disturbed or healthy. This leaves some of the following alternative factors as possible determinants of political orientation: family history and tradition, ethnicity, source of economic support (employed versus welfare recipient), type of employment (government work versus private enterprise), age (found to relate positively to conservatism in my study), and religiousness (also a positive correlate of conservatism in my study).
2. All four studies consistently showed that liberals and moderates are more totalitarian (or less libertarian) than conservatives. According to this striking and consistent result, it is liberals and moderates, not conservatives, who are likely to find intellectual and emotional justification for use of laws and government institutions to forcefully impose the will of one segment of society on another, thereby confiscating property or limiting individual freedom.
Respondents in the studies were given an opportunity to express a wide range, including extremes, of agreement versus disagreement with various elements of totalitarian versus libertarian thought. On average, the entire group of respondents only disagreed very slightly with totalitarian ideology; in comparison, conservatives disagreed slightly with such ideology. Extrapolating to the general public, these findings show that Americans are lukewarm in their support of libertarian ideology and lack awareness of basic libertarian underpinnings to the U.S. constitution: severe limitations on the power and scope of government designed to maximize individual freedom. It is therefore not surprising that most Americans fail to recognize that the current de facto power of the judiciary and executive branches to legislate is a prescription for totalitarian rule.
Public support for criminalizing victimless behavior, confiscating property without due process, or regulating to the point that property loses its economic value or business cannot be conducted profitable or competitively illustrates acquiescence to totalitarian ways. It is evidence of the rejection of the golden rule in politics and shows an incredibly myopic view of political reality: once we allow the government to take away others' freedoms or property, we provide an opportunity for others to use government institutions to subject us to similar draconian measures.
3. Positive relations between conservatism and libertarianism, evidenced by correlation values of .21 to .48 across four studies, also have important implications about effects of libertarian-like third parties on elections. Insofar as most political races are won by a difference of a few percentage points, libertarian-like parties are likely to siphon off critical segments of the most conservative vote, yielding victories to Democrats. Such effects may be counterbalanced by the emergence of popular left-leaning third parties. In the meantime, to forestall splitting of the conservative vote, libertarians could compete within Republican primaries, essentially running as Republican candidates, and help reshape conservative political ideology. This strategy would give libertarians a voice among conservative ranks, move them toward center stage in national politics, and, most importantly, help deter some of the totalitarian urges that emerge on the right side of the political spectrum as well.