Why People Vote Republican

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting article on why people vote against their own self interests.

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html


WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world...

[Dean]

This is interesting,but I doubt that hereditary traits linked to that inflexibility really have anything to do with Republicanism - correlation, not causation.

[Bud Struggle]

This is interesting,but I doubt that hereditary traits linked to that inflexibility really have anything to do with Republicanism - correlation, not causation.

I think there is a certain optimism that might be inherent. Two poor people seem a guy drive by in a Bentley--the one with the essentially optimistic Capitalist world view will say, "someday I'm going to have a car like that." The one with more pessimistic Communist world view might say, "Someday that guy is going to ride the bus just like me."

[Lynx]

I remember reading that it was Republicans who worked for civil rights while the South was ruled by racist Democrats. Is this true?

[Robert]

Hard to generalize about this, but you're half right. Most of the south, which opposed civil rights for blacks, was run by Democrats during the Johnson years (1963-69), when Civil Rights legislation ended the most obvious form of segregation and discrimination in voting.

But Pres. Johnson who led the charge for reform was a southerner too (Texan) -- and a Democrat. So the Dems have some bragging rights and some shame in the history of modern civil rights reforms.

It was a Republican (Sen. Everett Dirksen) who actually drafted the first bill during the (Democratic) Kennedy presidency, and a Republican President Nixon who did more than his predecessors to desegregate schools. But there were northern Republican congressmen who opposed the reforms too.

Much of the support as well as the opposition to civil rights in the USA came down to simple politics on both sides, but there were true believers on both sides too. So ... you be the judge.

[IcarusAngel]

I think this country is full of right wing nut jobs.

Yep, it's really as simple as this. For all the liberals' complaining of the Democratic Party's failures, the fact is a majority of Americans are right-wing crazies.

In any other country, it'd be considered ludicrous to have a politician running for president who thinks that dinosaurs existed 4,000 years ago and believes in the talking snake, and so on, and yet she is on the VP ticket of the republican party, who are polling ahead of the democrats. Unless, of course, the country you were talking about was Iran or something.

[Pirate Utopian]

I remember reading that it was Republicans who worked for civil rights while the South was ruled by racist Democrats. Is this true?
More or less, Dixiecrats were all for slavery.
Republicans promised to abolish slavery to get blacks on their side during the civil war.

[Robert]

it'd be considered ludicrous to have a politician running for president who thinks that dinosaurs existed 4,000 years ago Did you really not know that: 1) this was a joke; and 2) it was acknowledged as such by the originator a week ago?

It must be wishful thinking on the part of the poor people who actually fall for this nonsense, silly as the documentary of Hitler's air tour of New York City. (Remember that howler? It looked real, too.) Nothing else explains it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp

p.s. Palin is running for vice president.

[IcarusAngel]

Palin believes in creationism and teaching it along side of evolution in the science classroom.

Bush is also a creationist and he ran in 2004, if you can't remember.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think it's a sad reflection on society when we have to decipher whether someone is serious or not when they say Fred Flinstone's pet existed 4,000 years ago.


Republican President Nixon who did more than his predecessors to desegregate schools.While utilizing racism to win the presidency, of course. But Nixon always was exploiting what worked for him.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I remember reading that it was Republicans who worked for civil rights while the South was ruled by racist Democrats. Is this true?

Remember party affiliation in the '60s was sketchy at best. Both parties had to deal with emerging movements from within the ranks. What appeared from the Democratic Party in the '60s and '70s was the New Left, or modern day American liberalism (although it's now retreated somewhat into centralism). Democrats gradually adopted their current trademark platforms on abortion, homosexuality, drugs, and crime. They also sought to expand the welfare state beyond the New Deal.

[Robert]

Here are some more "facts" about the Governor of Alaska to add to your arsenal. Spread them around. :)


http://unbearablebobness.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/governor-sarah-palin-quotes.html

As for Bush, he has imprudently opined that ID should be taught alongside evolution as a competing theory in public schools, but not as a federal mandate, and then only so that people can understand what the debate is. Of course, I suppose one is free to believe and teach their children that not only is there no intelligent designer, there is not even really a bible. There is no Koran either. I mean, not really.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

P.s. No adherent of ID I know of believes dinosaurs roamed the Earth 4,000 years ago anyway.
Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone (http://www.rael.org/rael_content/index.php)
http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/

[Comrade Looter]

I think this country is full of right wing nut jobs.
I believe this world is full of right-wing nutjobs.

[Comrade Looter]

I'm an American, and I don't support that message.

[Decolonize The Left]

P.s. No adherent of ID I know of believes dinosaurs roamed the Earth 4,000 years ago anyway. Quote:
Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone

Then that "designer" could in theory be.... me! :lol:

What this argument is basically saying is:
'We don't understand it, and we assume that we won't be able to understand it, so let's believe in a hierarchical, authoritative, oppressive, system instead. We need to be subjects and servants, but we'll feel better about the fact that we don't understand a question which is ultimately irrelevant.'

- August

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Panspermia has more scientific support than ID. I want my middle schooler to learn a vocabulary word with sperm in it, dammit.

[Robert]

Then that "designer" could in theory be.... me! :lol:

What this argument is basically saying is:
'We don't understand it, and we assume that we won't be able to understand it, so let's believe in a hierarchical, authoritative, oppressive, system instead. We need to be subjects and servants, but we'll feel better about the fact that we don't understand a question which is ultimately irrelevant.'

You're reading more into it than is there. And annihilating a man made of straw.

Now it's the 7th day. I must resteth. Thou be feelin' me homey?

[Decolonize The Left]

You're reading more into it than is there. And annihilating a man made of straw.

Am I? You were foolish enough to post a definition of intelligent design as an argument, and yet you get upset because I note how incoherent it is?


Now it's the 7th day. I must resteth. Thou be feelin' me homey?

I shall rest as well, but not due to any specific day or number - rather, because I'm somewhat tired and rest feels nice.

You see? I need to spooky creator to do things, only myself. (But according to your definition, that would make me the creator - I sense profit in this 'reality'. You want to join my church? It's unjustified and exploitative, but at least it's backed up by a book I wrote... seriously... you only have to pay a nominal fee.)

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Am I? You were foolish enough to post a definition of intelligent design as an argument, and yet you get upset because I note how incoherent it is?


Yet every time that it's pointed out how how incoherent Communism seems to be--you withdraw for the fray.

Both Christianity and Marxism are "religions" and one may even be right. :lol:

[Decolonize The Left]

Yet every time that it's pointed out how how incoherent Communism seems to be--you withdraw for the fray.

Both Christianity and Marxism are "religions" and one may even be right. :lol:

Religion:
"1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." (dictionary.com)

I fail to see how an economic system such as communism, a political system such as anarchism, or a socio-political economic system such as Marxsim, fall under this definition...

- August

['cum'rade robie]

I think it's really as simple as economic situation (higher income brackets get more tax breaks under republicans, vice versa for democrats) and religious beliefs since democrats are pro-choice and support gay unions and such.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yet every time that it's pointed out how how incoherent Communism seems to be--you withdraw for the fray.

Both Christianity and Marxism are "religions" and one may even be right. :lol:

By that narrow definition capitalism is a religion as well.

[Bud Struggle]

:lol:
Religion:
"1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." (dictionary.com)

I fail to see how an economic system such as communism, a political system such as anarchism, or a socio-political economic system such as Marxsim, fall under this definition...

- August

I mean that Communism and Christianity are both "Uoptian: in context and in practice. In both there is a "happy ever after" if only some conditions are met. In retrospect--maybe I should have said both Marxisma and Christianity are "Fairy Tails."

That falls into line somewhat better.

FWIW: To believe that Communism is ACTUALLY an economic system--strains credability. It's no more an actual economic system than the goose that laid the golden egg.

With both--I'll have to see it to believe it. :lol:

[Robert]

August, I know you're smart enough to recognize, if too proud to admit, that to jump from this:


Intelligent Design adherents believe only (emphasis mine) that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone.
to this:



We don't understand it, and we assume (emphasis yours) that we won't be able to understand it, so let's believe in a hierarchical, authoritative, oppressive, system instead. We need to be subjects and servants, but we'll feel better about the fact that we don't understand a question which is ultimately irrelevantis an overreaction.

I enjoyed my nap. How was yours?

[spice756]

This is interesting,but I doubt that hereditary traits linked to that inflexibility really have anything to do with Republicanism - correlation, not causation.


I think if one is conservative or not determines how you are raise and media exposure.If my mom and dad where teaching conservative values to me and I watch all the time fox.Than I would be a conservative .

But I watch very little TV.I think conservative is faith.Has there is no logic in conservative it is all superstition.

[#FF0000]

It may also have something to do with how goddamn condescending democrats are.

That's the problem with The Left in the U.S. in general, i think.