What Makes People Vote Republican?

GOPJonathan Haidt wrote back in 2008:

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.

Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the “war on terror” and repeal of the “death tax”) that damage the national interest for partisan advantage.

But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is.

Read more here.

Haidt’s conclusions raise some interesting question two years later.  If conservatism is about unity and authority and purity, why do Tea Partiers view themselves as rogue individualists?  And if liberalism doesn’t value such things, why are globalists and people who support regulations favoring organic foods generally Democrats?  Are we witnessing a transformation of the yin and yang of our society?  Or are our political identities really reaction formations?

, ,

  • Hadrian999

    morality is a system of control,
    getting people to love their chains is the ultimate con

  • Hadrian999

    morality is a system of control,
    getting people to love their chains is the ultimate con

  • Hadrian999

    morality is a system of control,
    getting people to love their chains is the ultimate con

  • Hadrian999

    morality is a system of control,
    getting people to love their chains is the ultimate con

    • reubenavery

      see also, #democrats

      • Hadrian999

        I don’t support any party.

        I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

        This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

        The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

        Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

        It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

        There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
        -George Washington

  • AngryIndie

    Jesus jumped up Christ in a sidecart… love this new Liberal mantra. No, it couldn’t possibly be that people have different economic theories, could it? Especially since the majority of middle America are borderline retarded… they couldn’t possible be smart enough to have a preference as far as economic theory… or gawd damn almighty, political theory? Nah, couldn’t be!

  • AngryIndie

    Jesus jumped up Christ in a sidecart… love this new Liberal mantra. No, it couldn’t possibly be that people have different economic theories, could it? Especially since the majority of middle America are borderline retarded… they couldn’t possible be smart enough to have a preference as far as economic theory… or gawd damn almighty, political theory? Nah, couldn’t be!

    • Andrew

      Didn’t read the whole article, did you?

      • MoxAmok

        Sounded like he was commenting on the fact that the author basically dismissed all Republicans as Huckabee-type supporters, when Ron-Paul-type supporters are becoming more numerous and more vocal.

      • MoxAmok

        Though I suppose you’re talking about the blurb by the poster, not the article itself.

        • Andrew

          No, I meant the article itself. It seems to me Haidt ends up dismissing liberals, not conservatives.

    • MoxAmok

      When I vote Republican it’s typically because I think they’ll drive us into an economic wreck a little slower. Unfortunately even that hasn’t been the case, perhaps until very recently.

      • 5by5

        No, Republicans have always tried to drive the country off a cliff. George Bush just drove faster while drunk.

  • DeepCough

    Ever come to the conclusion that maybe one reason why “working class and rural Americans” vote Republican is because their rich, Republican bosses write their paychecks?

  • DeepCough

    Ever come to the conclusion that maybe one reason why “working class and rural Americans” vote Republican is because their rich, Republican bosses write their paychecks?

  • Andrew

    Didn’t read the whole article, did you?

  • MoxAmok

    When I vote Republican it’s typically because I think they’ll drive us into an economic wreck a little slower. Unfortunately even that hasn’t been the case, perhaps until very recently.

  • MoxAmok

    Sounded like he was commenting on the fact that the author basically dismissed all Republicans as Huckabee-type supporters, when Ron-Paul-type supporters are becoming more numerous and more vocal.

  • MoxAmok

    Though I suppose you’re talking about the blurb by the poster, not the article itself.

  • MoxAmok

    Though I suppose you’re talking about the blurb by the poster, not the article itself.

  • Andrew

    No, I meant the article itself. It seems to me Haidt ends up dismissing liberals, not conservatives.

  • Anonymous

    see also, #democrats

  • Hadrian999

    I don’t support any party.

    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

    Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

    It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

    There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
    -George Washington

  • swabby429

    I question this single-minded hypothesis. While much of Haidt’s opinion is important, we also must remember who has been controlling the organs of mass communication for the past several decades. Also, who accesses those media for the lion’s share of their information about current events and politics.

    I too have spent time in India. I experienced much of what Haidt did. However, I felt more empowered in my quests. I saw what entrenched authority and institutional inertia has wreaked. I came away as a more committed progressive.

  • swabby429

    I question this single-minded hypothesis. While much of Haidt’s opinion is important, we also must remember who has been controlling the organs of mass communication for the past several decades. Also, who accesses those media for the lion’s share of their information about current events and politics.

    I too have spent time in India. I experienced much of what Haidt did. However, I felt more empowered in my quests. I saw what entrenched authority and institutional inertia has wreaked. I came away as a more committed progressive.

  • swabby429

    I question this single-minded hypothesis. While much of Haidt’s opinion is important, we also must remember who has been controlling the organs of mass communication for the past several decades. Also, who accesses those media for the lion’s share of their information about current events and politics.

    I too have spent time in India. I experienced much of what Haidt did. However, I felt more empowered in my quests. I saw what entrenched authority and institutional inertia has wreaked. I came away as a more committed progressive.

  • AD

    I voted for Obama, and I’m a fucking idiot!

    Ron Paul 2012.

  • AD

    I voted for Obama, and I’m a fucking idiot!

    Ron Paul 2012.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    You can’t throw all forms of liberalism or conservatism into easy lumps. There are vast gulfs just between sects. Pop conservatism, the fallback of much of the right, is one form. True neo-conservatism is another. Fundamentalist driven conservatism is still a third and very old school libertarian conservatives are another. The Tea Party is just the newest brand name on the shelf…all that matters is that they play ball with their team and come to the table ready to serve the party above their personal interests…or face the total absence of support that happens when conservatives break ranks on key issues.

    Likewise liberalism is a big house…from garden variety Dems, stodgy old socialist wobblies, shrill anarchists and effete ivy league intellectuals…there are endless permutations…the only difference is that unlike the Borg Collective…I mean GOP…the liberals are a lot more inclined to let each other be different…which makes them the weaker of two political forces even when they hold a majority.

    I like the articles self effacing look at the interior of liberal disgust with conservatism…especially as we know the term today (conservatism now being tainted and transformed into a hideous brand of fruit-loopery that requires amazing patience just to listen to)…but some of the analyses are interesting.

    I always suspect that modern pop conservatism is the by product of ignorance, shame, selfishness and inherent cowardice…and that this is not an accident…because those qualities almost HAVE to be in place before one can absorb the new party message and not walk away in horror. I would love to see a new William F Buckley drag the GOP kicking and screaming back toward sanity and self discipline instead of psychotic ramblings and total denial.

    Contrary to what a lot of people might think…I don’t actually hate the GOP or conservatism per se…what I hate is what they’ve done to themselves and the rest of us. The conduct is at issue, not the institutions. It’s like having a child who is a heroin junkie. Sure…you love him very much…but you’re perpetually amazed by the depths he sinks to, you don’t trust him, and sometimes you have to be cruel and critical just to help him understand what he’s doing wrong. He lies, steals, cheats and keeps on using everyone around him to get by…and keep going, burning one bridge after another to satisfy short term needs…all the while refusing responsibility for his actions. So no…I don’t hate the institutions…but they used to be healthy…then they became very very sick…and what I’d really like is to see them get well again.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    You can’t throw all forms of liberalism or conservatism into easy lumps. There are vast gulfs just between sects. Pop conservatism, the fallback of much of the right, is one form. True neo-conservatism is another. Fundamentalist driven conservatism is still a third and very old school libertarian conservatives are another. The Tea Party is just the newest brand name on the shelf…all that matters is that they play ball with their team and come to the table ready to serve the party above their personal interests…or face the total absence of support that happens when conservatives break ranks on key issues.

    Likewise liberalism is a big house…from garden variety Dems, stodgy old socialist wobblies, shrill anarchists and effete ivy league intellectuals…there are endless permutations…the only difference is that unlike the Borg Collective…I mean GOP…the liberals are a lot more inclined to let each other be different…which makes them the weaker of two political forces even when they hold a majority.

    I like the articles self effacing look at the interior of liberal disgust with conservatism…especially as we know the term today (conservatism now being tainted and transformed into a hideous brand of fruit-loopery that requires amazing patience just to listen to)…but some of the analyses are interesting.

    I always suspect that modern pop conservatism is the by product of ignorance, shame, selfishness and inherent cowardice…and that this is not an accident…because those qualities almost HAVE to be in place before one can absorb the new party message and not walk away in horror. I would love to see a new William F Buckley drag the GOP kicking and screaming back toward sanity and self discipline instead of psychotic ramblings and total denial.

    Contrary to what a lot of people might think…I don’t actually hate the GOP or conservatism per se…what I hate is what they’ve done to themselves and the rest of us. The conduct is at issue, not the institutions. It’s like having a child who is a heroin junkie. Sure…you love him very much…but you’re perpetually amazed by the depths he sinks to, you don’t trust him, and sometimes you have to be cruel and critical just to help him understand what he’s doing wrong. He lies, steals, cheats and keeps on using everyone around him to get by…and keep going, burning one bridge after another to satisfy short term needs…all the while refusing responsibility for his actions. So no…I don’t hate the institutions…but they used to be healthy…then they became very very sick…and what I’d really like is to see them get well again.

  • AP

    Why don’t you ask the same question about why people vote Democrat?
    We are all being fooled by the system because both parties are the same. I used to vote Replubican because I believed that they stood for my interests which are not paying for lazy people who don’t want to work but who want to feed off the system. I also thought they stood up for my Constitutional rights.
    I now know the truth but I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat either. They are pushing for a communist agenda.
    My real question for you is why are you an idiot?

  • AP

    Why don’t you ask the same question about why people vote Democrat?
    We are all being fooled by the system because both parties are the same. I used to vote Replubican because I believed that they stood for my interests which are not paying for lazy people who don’t want to work but who want to feed off the system. I also thought they stood up for my Constitutional rights.
    I now know the truth but I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat either. They are pushing for a communist agenda.
    My real question for you is why are you an idiot?

  • Cerebralcaustic

    Came here to say the same thing, but you said it much better than I’d planned.

    Haidt’s starting point that Republicanism/right wing/conservativism is automatically flawed or dubious is so arrogant and wrong-headed that it’s difficult for me to take his article seriously.

    One fallacy, however, I can’t let pass:Haidt’s false dichotomy that pro-business = bad for middle America. Via stocks and mutual funds, middle America has a vast ownership stake in “big business.” And via 401(k) and IRA funds, those stocks and mutual funds have helped millions of working class Americans build wealth and retire with 100% financial independence and, in many cases, high amounts of wealth. Investing only $100 per month, at an average rate of return of 12% (which is quite feasible in the long-term) will yield over $1 million in 40 years. The free market is kicking Social Security’s ass.

  • jeffhalmos

    People confuse the way they live and think with what’s best for a population. Just because you expect and hope for liberty for all, doesn’t mean that the world works best with large, over-spending governments (a Liberal/progressive staple). The opposite is always true. Libertarianism seems to fit this best, if one had to pick a category at gunpoint.

  • Anonymous

    People confuse the way they live and think with what’s best for a population. Just because you expect and hope for liberty for all, doesn’t mean that the world works best with large, over-spending governments (a Liberal/progressive staple). The opposite is always true. Libertarianism seems to fit this best, if one had to pick a category at gunpoint.

  • Andrew

    Of course you completely overlook how big business kicks middle America’s ass by shipping jobs overseas if wages and benefits aren’t slashed enough. Try investing $100 a month when you have to spend it on food and rent, and can’t afford medical care to keep you healthy enough to work enough.

  • GunshowDave

    What makes people vote?

  • GunshowDave

    What makes people vote?

  • Anonymous

    Haidt’s arrogant premise is a regurgitation, in condensed paraphrase, of Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality.

  • Anonymous

    Haidt’s arrogant premise is a regurgitation, in condensed paraphrase, of Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality.

  • Anonymous

    I came to the Right because my father was a Mustang officer in World War Two. His generation slew the dragons of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. From listening to him and his veteran contemporaries, I learned that my generation would have a more difficult dragon to slay. The Right appeared to me to offer a stiffer resistance, and in more depth, to the Soviet Union and the Pepoles’ Republic of China. Reading about atrocities committed by Marxist-Leninist governments against their own people (When I was younger, I did not know from ethnic conflict.) confirmed me in my allegiance to the Right. After the Soviet Union fell, I continued voting basically Republican because just too many Democrats and denizens of points left, hate the common people’s R I G H T to arms. (It is significant here to note that, when I was four years old, sixty-three years ago, Dad shot a burglar in our living room in the dark of a November morning. And, to forefend the reflexive cries of “Racism!” from soft-hearts on the Left, that Burglar was as white as I am.) I did not realize, until a relatively short time ago, that the Republicans seem to consider gun-rights people a dependent constituency whose interests can be traduced with impunity. But, still, the biggest of all reasons why I consider myself a man of the Right, is that simply I do not hate this country.

    There is a fundamental difference in the quality of anger between kicking someone in the arse to punctuate an injunction to “Straighten up and fly right…” vs. feeding someone alive into a furnace. The latter is only and nothing other than atrocity, where the former is sometimes nothing less than grandmotherly kindness. If the Right is the occasional swift-kick course correction, too many movements of the Left are born in the blood shed in atrocity: Except for gas chambers, which had not yet been invented, both the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian October 1917 revolution recapitulated every atrocity directly committed or sponsored by National Socialist Germany.

    Too, the Right seems to me to have a clearer and broader historical perspective. Social revolution has happened before, as has ethnic conflict, as has ethnic invasion and succession.

    But today’s Republicans? Short-range, tunnel-vision monomaniacal economo-maniacs who seem to be about principally helping businessmen become richer. Sorry, folks, but, bad as the Republicans seem to have become, I consider it against every interest I hold to vote for a candidate of the national Democratic Party as presently constituted.

  • robertpinkerton

    I came to the Right because my father was a Mustang officer in World War Two. His generation slew the dragons of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. From listening to him and his veteran contemporaries, I learned that my generation would have a more difficult dragon to slay. The Right appeared to me to offer a stiffer resistance, and in more depth, to the Soviet Union and the Pepoles’ Republic of China. Reading about atrocities committed by Marxist-Leninist governments against their own people (When I was younger, I did not know from ethnic conflict.) confirmed me in my allegiance to the Right. After the Soviet Union fell, I continued voting basically Republican because just too many Democrats and denizens of points left, hate the common people’s R I G H T to arms. (It is significant here to note that, when I was four years old, sixty-three years ago, Dad shot a burglar in our living room in the dark of a November morning. And, to forefend the reflexive cries of “Racism!” from soft-hearts on the Left, that Burglar was as white as I am.) I did not realize, until a relatively short time ago, that the Republicans seem to consider gun-rights people a dependent constituency whose interests can be traduced with impunity. But, still, the biggest of all reasons why I consider myself a man of the Right, is that simply I do not hate this country.

    There is a fundamental difference in the quality of anger between kicking someone in the arse to punctuate an injunction to “Straighten up and fly right…” vs. feeding someone alive into a furnace. The latter is only and nothing other than atrocity, where the former is sometimes nothing less than grandmotherly kindness. If the Right is the occasional swift-kick course correction, too many movements of the Left are born in the blood shed in atrocity: Except for gas chambers, which had not yet been invented, both the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian October 1917 revolution recapitulated every atrocity directly committed or sponsored by National Socialist Germany.

    Too, the Right seems to me to have a clearer and broader historical perspective. Social revolution has happened before, as has ethnic conflict, as has ethnic invasion and succession.

    But today’s Republicans? Short-range, tunnel-vision monomaniacal economo-maniacs who seem to be about principally helping businessmen become richer. Sorry, folks, but, bad as the Republicans seem to have become, I consider it against every interest I hold to vote for a candidate of the national Democratic Party as presently constituted.

    • Andrew

      Nice rationalizations!

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      Another son of a nails tough pilot here…I’ll share with you how I defended the American left when speaking to my dad.

      America is a grand old house…with two families in it. One is old, hidebound with tradition, refuses to see change happening or make changes themselves, is tight fisted with the cash for upkeep of the house, hides food and occasionally shoots at the neighbors…sometimes without warning or explanation. The plumbing can quit, the roof can leak and cold air can blast through the windows…but when you mention these things all you get is “LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!”

      The other family sees changes and problems and wants to fix them, is generous to others to the point of being hungry and broke half the time, and welcomes change and new company and is always apologizing for the way the other family acts…but they can’t balance a checkbook to save their lives, can’t shoot straight if they tried, can’t fix anything without spending five times as much money as was needed (and usually get it wrong anyway)…but they love the house and want to keep fixing it up because it is precious to them.

      The point is…there’s plenty of idiocy on both sides…but they both love the house and want it to be there for future generations…the way they express that love is different…and we can argue over who is right and wrong…but the love is present just the same.

      • Ran

        Well said, I think that can be extended beyond America, to the planet. More than two families, but the general idea that we all love what we have (or what we aspire to have) and will protect it with everything, just in different ways.

  • Andrew

    Nice rationalizations!

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Another son of a nails tough pilot here…I’ll share with you how I defended the American left when speaking to my dad.

    America is a grand old house…with two families in it. One is old, hidebound with tradition, refuses to see change happening or make changes themselves, is tight fisted with the cash for upkeep of the house, hides food and occasionally shoots at the neighbors…sometimes without warning or explanation. The plumbing can quit, the roof can leak and cold air can blast through the windows…but when you mention these things all you get is “LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!”

    The other family sees changes and problems and wants to fix them, is generous to others to the point of being hungry and broke half the time, and welcomes change and new company and is always apologizing for the way the other family acts…but they can’t balance a checkbook to save their lives, can’t shoot straight if they tried, can’t fix anything without spending five times as much money as was needed (and usually get it wrong anyway)…but they love the house and want to keep fixing it up because it is precious to them.

    The point is…there’s plenty of idiocy on both sides…but they both love the house and want it to be there for future generations…the way they express that love is different…and we can argue over who is right and wrong…but the love is present just the same.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Works in theory…but the real time experience of millions of people was that 70% of their gains in the last decade were wiped out by market volatility and retirement has been put off for a decade…clogging the market with older job seekers and holders who prevent room from being made for new arrivals. The stock market rebounded handily…The Dow Jones is doing fine…but the individual 401ks and IRAs and investment portfolios took an ass beating and haven’t come anywhere close to recovery. Privatization of retirement is legalized gambling…a lotto ticket instead of a “sure thing”.

  • Dan Mac

    “Or are our political identities really reaction formations?”

    Yes. I think that is well stated and true.

  • Dan Mac

    “Or are our political identities really reaction formations?”

    Yes. I think that is well stated and true.

  • 5by5

    No, Republicans have always tried to drive the country off a cliff. George Bush just drove faster while drunk.

  • 5by5

    What Makes People Vote Republican?

    See the article directly above this one on the main page.

  • 5by5

    What Makes People Vote Republican?

    See the article directly above this one on the main page.

  • Anonymous

    Simple they worship the idiot box and it tells them what to do. Vote Republican, borrow more money, buy more junk, worship celebrities, and God is Greed.
    Also if your are accused of terrorism your are automatically guilty and should be killed on the spot regardless of the right to trial.
    To be rich is to be a genius no matter the evidence to the contrary and that wealth is a measure of greed not intelligence.
    Believe in God but ignore that seven deadly sins crap there is absolutely nothing wrong with wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony (the whole point of being rich) as pointed out by every idiot box commercial no matter how contrary to any known religion.
    It is good to be a selfish greedy arse hole although the underlying plot of pretty much every action movie ever made is to kill all the selfish greedy arse holes because they are evil.
    You wonder why idiot box addicts are crazy, the inherent schizophrenic nature of the idiot box, were news is made up, commercials contradict the movies they are in, reality TV is anything but reality and they treat society as some kind of insane game show and, it should hardly be surprising.

  • rtb61

    Simple they worship the idiot box and it tells them what to do. Vote Republican, borrow more money, buy more junk, worship celebrities, and God is Greed.
    Also if your are accused of terrorism your are automatically guilty and should be killed on the spot regardless of the right to trial.
    To be rich is to be a genius no matter the evidence to the contrary and that wealth is a measure of greed not intelligence.
    Believe in God but ignore that seven deadly sins crap there is absolutely nothing wrong with wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony (the whole point of being rich) as pointed out by every idiot box commercial no matter how contrary to any known religion.
    It is good to be a selfish greedy arse hole although the underlying plot of pretty much every action movie ever made is to kill all the selfish greedy arse holes because they are evil.
    You wonder why idiot box addicts are crazy, the inherent schizophrenic nature of the idiot box, were news is made up, commercials contradict the movies they are in, reality TV is anything but reality and they treat society as some kind of insane game show and, it should hardly be surprising.

  • Ran

    Well said, I think that can be extended beyond America, to the planet. More than two families, but the general idea that we all love what we have (or what we aspire to have) and will protect it with everything, just in different ways.

  • Ran

    I personally would rather pay higher taxes to know everyone is protected, and pay the price of a few bastards that will always cheat the system, than to close my wallet and stubbornly refuse to help anyone because it will take MY money.

    Money is an illusion.

  • Ran

    I personally would rather pay higher taxes to know everyone is protected, and pay the price of a few bastards that will always cheat the system, than to close my wallet and stubbornly refuse to help anyone because it will take MY money.

    Money is an illusion.

  • baph777atyt

    Tea Partiers shouldn’t view themselves as rogue individualists because they simply are not rogue individualists. Rogue individualists would be in favor of rights for all individuals, however, if someone is gay, for example, they don’t support that person’s right to have as many rights as individuals as they do.

    They say they’re Libertarians, but that is a lie. Most of them would despise everything that a true Libertarian like William Burroughs stood for and you hear them uttering the praises of someone like Ann Rand who is solidly in the corner of the powerbroking elites but you never hear them defend gay rights or freedom to take all drugs like Burroughs would have espoused.

    In short, they want everyone else to be slaves to their Bible based moralit, which is why you often hear them say they want to bring back God and traditional morality, but have little to no tolerance for anyone else that wants to have rights.

    The psychological assessment given in the article is correct.

  • baph777atyt

    Tea Partiers shouldn’t view themselves as rogue individualists because they simply are not rogue individualists. Rogue individualists would be in favor of rights for all individuals, however, if someone is gay, for example, they don’t support that person’s right to have as many rights as individuals as they do.

    They say they’re Libertarians, but that is a lie. Most of them would despise everything that a true Libertarian like William Burroughs stood for and you hear them uttering the praises of someone like Ann Rand who is solidly in the corner of the powerbroking elites but you never hear them defend gay rights or freedom to take all drugs like Burroughs would have espoused.

    In short, they want everyone else to be slaves to their Bible based moralit, which is why you often hear them say they want to bring back God and traditional morality, but have little to no tolerance for anyone else that wants to have rights.

    The psychological assessment given in the article is correct.

  • Andrew

    Of course you completely overlook how big business kicks middle America’s ass by shipping jobs overseas if wages and benefits aren’t slashed enough. Try investing $100 a month when you have to spend it on food and rent, and can’t afford medical care to keep you healthy enough to work enough.

  • robertpinkerton

    Haidt’s arrogant premise is a regurgitation, in condensed paraphrase, of Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Works in theory…but the real time experience of millions of people was that 70% of their gains in the last decade were wiped out by market volatility and retirement has been put off for a decade…clogging the market with older job seekers and holders who prevent room from being made for new arrivals. The stock market rebounded handily…The Dow Jones is doing fine…but the individual 401ks and IRAs and investment portfolios took an ass beating and haven’t come anywhere close to recovery. Privatization of retirement is legalized gambling…a lotto ticket instead of a “sure thing”.

21
More in Politics, Psychology
The Tea Party Is The New Birch Society

Before the Tea Party there was the John Birch Society, which decried "big government" as part of a communist plot to enslave America. These so-called "loonies in the basement" were...

Close