What Makes People Vote Republican? »
Posted By GregD 1 year, 3 months ago in News...the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats " just don't get it," this is the " it" to which they refer.
Read Full Story at edge.org »
5485 Views Share Story 78 Comments Report
Submitted By:
GregD
My name is Greg and I'm a Community Leader here on Propeller.
You can usually find me imbibing coffee in copious amounts, playing with ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 197 of 233 Comments (view all)
-
RIChrisComment removed: Retracted by user60 Replies
-
-
75%
tehranchik1 year, 3 months ago
-
100%
oldgringo1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GregD...I've pretty much abandoned Propeller...I've become so sick of the junk and smear that passes for stories here, and the name calling taking place on both sides. And then you put this gem out there for us to read. Excellent article! Thanks for bringing some sanity back to Propeller!
Reply -
87%
Bkumm1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great article. It illustrates the point perfectly that Millian political philosophy is something to which we should be striving, but respecting the fact that our nation does not have some of the coherence that other nations have either in sport, ethnicity or religion.
Reply
It is one of the biggest hurdles facing Democrats. We have to convince the people that social justice is not the antithesis of moral certainty. We have to convince people that being told it's okay for a person to marry another person of the same sex is not "forcing" people to do anything.
It's going to be a long road and it doesn't help when people muddy the waters with things like, "He is calling Sarah Palin a pig!!!". -
88%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bloody brilliant article. (Pardon me if that offends anyone's sense of sanctity)
Reply
Bkumm, I've got to disagree with you. It's not all about "convincing the people" that democrats are right. The article speaks to a lot of the ways that democrats have it wrong. Taken to its extreme, the liberal ideal is Godless, heartless, and cold. Logic has no room for warm, fuzzy feelings.
Take away ingroup/loyalty completely, and there's no reason at all for marriage. There's no reason not to have affairs, and there's no reason to care for your family (especially your non-descendant family).
Take away authority completely, and you have anarchy. You also lose science. We cannot discover everything on our own as individuals (there isn't enough time in a day in our technically complex world) so we have to take some things on "faith".
Sanctity/purity isn't so cut and dried, but I think the author is wrong about it having no basis in science. His example about grasshoppers vs. locusts is a case in point. The grasshopper doesn't tend to swarm, therefore is relatively harmless. Locusts do swarm, so it is best that they are reviled, so they will be killed on sight. Similarly, many of the condemned foods in the Bible correspond to foods that could be dangerous when unrefrigerated. Even taboos against homosexuality were once valuable, as homosexual (male-male) sex has a higher risk of carrying disease and causing infections. Similar arguments about urination vs. excrement, and the negative association with menstruation apply.
Democrats need to learn to acknowledge the importance of these three foundations. And learn to apply their Millian logic in ways that uphold them, and also to develop strategies that deal with them.-
100%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For example: welfare. It's a great system, assuming that those not working want to work and are unable, i.e. they're not abusing the system. A democratic strategy, if they want to appeal to conservatives, should include stipulations to prevent abuse of the system.
Reply
A system that might appeal to Republicans would only provide Welfare to those actively looking for work, and to those who are working full-time but who are underpaid by their employers. To successfully promote their campaign to republicans, they should focus on ensuring that cheaters are not rewarded. To promote it to democrats, they should focus on making sure the needy are cared for. Taken together, this should be appealing to all. (Rather than the current appeal only to caring for the needy.) Republicans have a valid concern, and Democrats should not dismiss it. -
100%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bkumm, I've got to disagree with you. It's not all about "convincing the people" that democrats are right. The article speaks to a lot of the ways that democrats have it wrong. Taken to its extreme, the liberal ideal is Godless, heartless, and cold. Logic has no room for warm, fuzzy feelings.>>>>>
Reply
I didn't hear that in the message; however, I did hear 'place' being important to the structure of society, in order for it to gel & function. This I don't agree with. Matter of fact, that conclusion smacks against the very heart of what this nation is trying to achieve, from a Constitutional standpoint. Autonomy isn't a bad thing when tempered to keep it from imposing onto others. Hierarchies are necessary, to a degree. It takes thought, and study, and wisdom to know when enough is enough in keeping order. But then I suppose it depends on where a person stands in the hierarchal order as to whether or not 'place' is relevant. It would behoove those at the top to 'think' about how what they impose may do to the 'warm and fuzzy' life experience of those at the bottom. That brings us to conservatism, and that 'black and white' thing. Not color, but situations,. -
100%
Bkumm1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To be fair, willottica, I didn't say that the people needed to be convinced that the Democrats were right. I said that we needed to convince people that social justice (which I've defined above) is not the antithesis of moral certainty.
Reply
As you so eloquently write, the perception is that liberalism (and thus the Democratic Party), taken to its extreme is "Godless, heartless and cold". Which is funny (ironic, not ha, ha) considering that one of the major knocks against us is that we are "bleeding hearts". Which, to me, sounds neither heartless or cold.
You are correct in that logic has no room for "feelings", however that is not the essence of Millian democracy. Millian democracy, at it's heart, is the concept of personal responsibility tempered by a recognition of the necessity of laws for public good.
For instance, many liberals would balk at a law telling a person who they could marry, regardless of gender or number. However, no liberal I know would deny that certain restrictions must be placed on marriage (as regard to consent), simply to protect those who can not protect themselves.
Individualism, taken to extreme, does indeed breed anarchy. However, that is not the idea of Millian democracy and that is not a (primarily) liberal idea. True, there are anarchists out there, but they are just as likely to be conservative as liberal. Millian democracy states clearly that we each have duties, both to ourselves and our society. I can do as I will until it interferes with another. This is not anarchy, it is the rule of law, expressed in terms of the individual rather in than in terms of the whole.
Further, individualism, expressed in Mill's terms, does not prohibit one from participating in a society. Rather, it encourages one to participate fully while recognizing that one does not have the right to infringe upon another persons choices as they regard that individual.
We don't have to take anything on "faith". For instance the common phrase, "you can't fight City Hall" is simply BS. There are people who fight City Hall and they win. Now, it's difficult, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible.
more later -
100%
Bkumm1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Willottica
Reply
The sanctity/purity argument has no basis in science. The reason it does not is that what it sacred to one group may not be sacred to another. What is pure to one group is anathema to another. By the by grasshoppers and locusts are the same thing, so it's not a case in point at all. That is not to say that all grasshoppers are locusts, but all locusts (except for cicadas, which are not properly locusts at all) are grasshoppers. The swarming behavior only happens when certain environmental conditions prevail.
Most of the condemned foods in the Bible were put there due to appearance (lizards, snakes) or to prevent certain diseases like trichinosis (pigs). I haven't heard the refrigeration argument before, but it strikes me as inadequate.
Homosexual sex carries no lessor or greater risks than heterosexual sex that has the same risk level. Further, there are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals. The sexual taboos were primarily in place to increase the population of a small group within a larger group.
What Democrats "need to learn" is how to explain to people that we do honor and respect these foundations. We do care about these things, but we look at them as belonging to our history and not our future. That's not to say they are not valuable, but rather that they are strong foundations upon which to build a more equitable society, founded on the principle of social justice.
-
-
91%
agoodlibertian1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is the question I asked every republican I know. The #1 answer is social programs like welfare, food stamps etc. These people tend to think this makes government bigger( which it does) and they want smaller government so they are against these programs so much and the republican politicans act like they are against these same programs , so they vote republicans in office so that these republican politicans will get rid of these social programs. What they do not realize is that republicans expand government even more than democrats and make government bigger than democrats.They certainly spend more than democrats. This is why I tell them they are brainwashed in their thinking.
Reply-
-
50%
Spinward1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just did a study on these issues and I need to offer some correction.
Reply
First, spending has grown dramatically under both parties equally, not more under Republicans. I have a chart that shows spending growth over the last 50 years and the parties in control... no difference.
Yes, we want smaller government, but it's because we can't sustain the spending growth we have currently. Since 1965, mandatory spending is up 729% while incomes are up 35% - party affiliation is not important, but the entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are killing us all. By 2052, those three programs will require 100% of all tax revenue, so forget about everything else including food stamps AND the military.
Likely we won't fix anything, sorry to say. We're on a roller coaster ride to hell and all our politicians want to do is figure out how to spend more, when spending less will soon be the ONLY option.
-
-
40%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
-
73%
Grrr1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And yet you are voting for Republicans... are they not the statists that are spending, whoops -- make that 'have spent', all of our collective money for the supposed common good of war, tax breaks for the wealthy, and handouts to corporations? Thousands of times more dollars than on every social program if we funded it to the extent it should be. Heck, they could have replaced all the money they've stolen from social security with just what the contractors in Iraq have taken us for.
Reply -
72%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't like voting Republican, but, I vote Republican because I don't want to vote for Communists.>>>>>
Reply
How about you explain what that means. You can't honestly expect people to accept your demeaning comment, & sit down to have a relevant conversation with you. Well, it's wrong to speak for others, so I'll just speak for myself. Comments like you made show you to be an ass in my eyes. Better?
-
-
-
-
75%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you do not like Republicans do not vote for them. The Libertarians have candidates as do the Greens. Furthermore, the Democrats are on the ticket this year, as luck would have it. I think, though am not sure, the Communist Party of America does not have a candidate on the ballot in PA. You could move to a state where Communists are not on the ballot. Finally, you could write in a candidate. With all of the previously mentioned options, you have no excuse for voting Republican.
Reply -
-
-
100%
rivermint1 year, 3 months ago
-
100%
StevieGee1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GregD, this was one of the best articles that i've seen on propeller yet. It didn't have any pictures and a lot of big words, but I think I understood it. It was both critical and complimentary of both the Democratic and republik parties. We can all learn something from stories like this. Thanks.
Reply
-
-
83%
MyCampingMall1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Professor Haidt has an interesting article and I agree with much of what he says. However, voting republican or democrat is more complicated than the analysis. Likewise, lumping conservatism and liberalism in the respective camps of republican and democrat can be misleading. For a long time, conservative politicians were in the decomocratic party, now they are mostly in the republican party. Conservatism at one time meant a life of maintaining the status quo. Now, it varies with the issues. We now use social conservatism which in large part goes back to slavery period. Fiscal conservatism use to mean keeping a tight rein on ones budget but now it varies with the issues. For example, conservatives generally support the military interest and are willing to be very liberal in support of the military budget. Conservatives tend to be more effective at persuading the less informed than they are with the more educated, partly because the more educated tend to be more inquisitive about the facts and more willing to look at other options.
Reply-
100%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The end of your paragraph: "the more educated tend to be more inquisitive about the facts and more willing to look at other options" is, I think, backwards.
Reply
It's not that education makes people more inquisitive. I think inquisitiveness makes people seek more education. -
80%
miklkit1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is what your fiscal liberalism does to our economy.
Reply
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
-
-
-
Neutral
silvera1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Finally...an article on Propeller that doesn't insult one's intelligence. For the most part the replies from those that actually read it are thoughtful and measured and devoid of the moronic one liners that have almost become a signature on this site. And then I read your posting, Engnr, and it all comes back to me...what a stupid little person you must be.
Reply
-
-
75%
chevydog1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA - 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.
Reply
An interesting article. I found it easier to follow in the second half, though the above quote is from the first half. In making comments, I can speak only for myself. I wonder whether the author has fallen into the trap of believing in dichotomies --e.g. Repub/ Dem, liberal / conservatve -- in his analysis. To me, it puts human behavior in either / or boxes, which ignores whole ranges of behavior. Also, he seems to have started based on the premise that what Dems offer is "right" (however that may be defined) and that Repubs are errant beings that must be steered in that direction. Granting that many politicians in both major parties also share the general feeling for the other group, it still seems to me to be quite egotistical.
As a long-time Repub, I certainly see the attempts to deliver "moral clarity." This is especially true in what it usually called the Reagan wing of the party, which has more or less taken upon itself the task of delivering the religious message of certain Evangelical-based churches. I do not always see "'appeals to reason" on the Dem side. IMHO they more often try to appeal to emotion. The logic comes into play when policies decided on are implemented. This is true for the Repubs as well.
Think that the author has made a valiant, though flawed, attempt.-
100%
GregD1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
chevydog,
Reply
My interpretation of the first paragraphs is wholly different from yours. While he does say that democrats, "hold the moral high ground" he also goes on to slam his profession (psychology) for having to diagnose conservatism, and deriving pleasure from it. It certainly doesn't sound to me, like he's trying to be right.
-
-
86%
Grrr1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This much dualism makes me edgy. Personalities fall across the whole range of spectrums, not on either side of arbitrary dividing lines. And I still think the last three are all the same thing -- spectrums of dominance/submission games; with ourselves or others, dogma or new information, reflexes or introspection. Pretty muddy.
Reply-
-
100%
italymeetsdixie1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think most people do fall into several spectrums. This would be the middle ground where most of America lies.
Reply
My take on the article says that the Republicans (and I took that term to mean the far right) look at things as either right or wrong, black or white, good or evil. Having said that, the Democrats (or the far left, use an emotional reasoning to justify their policies). They see varying shades of gray. Both of which are true.
I find myself in the middle. I believe that most of us are there.
-
-
-
all2funComment removed: Hard Banned13 Replies
-
100%
moxxxxxxxxxx1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
type your comment here "But now imagine society not as an agreement among individuals but as something that emerged organically over time as people found ways of living together, binding themselves to each other, suppressing each other's selfishness, and punishing the deviants and free-riders who eternally threaten to undermine cooperative groups."
Reply
What responsbility does the society take for producing free-riders and deviants? Are these types products of society or genetically predisposed to be free riders and deviants.? In either case the deviants and free riders are victims . If "emerging organically" is the ideal then the end result would be devoid of deviants and free rders. punishment would't be necessary.-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
---
Reply
deviants and free-riders are victims? Sometimes I guess. Victims who victimize others
if you want to do the environment heredity thing, that's cool, as long as it doesn't mess with personal responsibility. as someone's who's had a relatively hard lot, I can say that someone can usually find it within themselves not to be a detriment to others, but if they go pointing fingers at others[state or family etc] and do not take responsibility for themselves, that's most likely the first step toward free-rider and deviant-hood
---
and oh yeah, your name has too many X'es....
-
-
Shankari25Comment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
56%
lloydm651 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
These jerks in office today aren't Demograts, my grandfather was democrat ,today he would puke on these people.He work hard every day ,then on sunday he preach the gospels where ever he was invited .He never took a dime for his services,nor from any body else.He knew once you take from these poverty pimps, they expect you be subservient to them, sorta like slavery without chains.I'm afraid that is coming back strong.Obama promises so much he can't deliver without making his voters dependant on him.
Reply -
doclucyben1Comment removed: Spam
-
doclucyben1Comment removed: Spam
-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gobbledygook of the n-th degree in this article. I found a number of glaring errors in the methodology of these so-called studies. First, the sample sizes are way too small to be of any use in nearly all the studies conducted. Second, did this psychologist rule out ALL possible factors which may cause students and others to feel a certain way about the stories which he told? Those stories are ridiculous because they strike at people's taboos while not ruling out other possible factors. For example, what if instead of the family pet, the animal in question was a stray? No emotional attachment would linger to prevent the family from "recycling" the pooch. My point is that this psychologist's ideas are fundamentally flawed.
Reply
The direct impact of that statement is that the fundamental premises are flawed. Republicans do vote the way they do because of factors other than economy. In essence, they tend to vote based on religious idealism and a sense that Republicans back their values. No matter how badly the Republicans embarrass themselves (David Vitter, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, VP Cheney shooting his lawyer friend) many in this country cling to the Republicans based on their overarching beliefs.
One should consider that because of all the deregulation in this country, that we are in far worse shape since Jimmy Carter left office than before. Reagan eliminated the air traffic controllers' union. Environmental laws were gutted, and courtesy of the Republicans, we have the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae meltdowns. Despite the government assuming their helms, it may be too little, too late. The author of this "article" should go back to school.-
100%
GregD1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
david_nwpa,
Reply
There are those that believe that the mere gathering of empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, interferes with the actual process that would have occured had you *not* been gathering that evidence. That being said, that same group of people believe that one can never attain perfect enlightenment with regard to that hypothesis. One can only miminize the risk that one might be wrong, which is where the author was headed.
Given a family pet or a stray. Does it really matter? There have been numerous stories of homeless folks with their homeless pets, being injured in accidents and invariably, the pets will get more inquiries about their well being, then the owner. It's reasonable to assume that it wouldn't matter. Eating a dog is eating a dog.
The underlying premise is that we're all in this together. Having a bit of understanding about something that is really foreign to me (being a republican) has, at the very least, given me more clarity. -
100%
JohnGault1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans embarrass themselves (David Vitter, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, VP Cheney shooting his lawyer friend)
Reply
The democrat list is just as long. If people would stop defending their party, it would be easier to rid ourselves of these corrupt politicians. -
-
-
-
50%
Tcaros1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In one sentence:
Reply
People vote Republican because they have not yet been victimzed by a narrow point view
They usually have not placed themselves in someoene else's shoes. They like to think they have, but when pressed they really don't care. They've led a fairly effortless existance, or so they believe, as the result of having adhered to some simple set of rules. They don't mind restriction of freedoms, especially for others, for some perceived higher cause. They require little convincing to do something unethical if told it must be done to maintain the status quo. They believe their job, money, and life are due to adherence to this system which include approval and affiliations with others believing along with them. This is the fantasy for them in the moment. They are self-centered in this world and any person with a different point of view is rebuked since it will invalidate their thinking. They think nothing of having to cheat or lie to advance their point. Some grow old to realize the folly of their perceptions, even becoming embarrassed at having been decieved by grey haired old men who had sold their souls long ago.
The best analogy would be to the Pharisees. These religious zealots believed in the letter of legalism, missing the whole point. They thought to show themselves approved by the laws they appeared to keep, but missed the point that they were the worst hypocrits and liars. -
-
100%
JohnGault1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anytime you paint people with a broad brush you are going to look like an idiot. There is no one reason people vote republican or democrat. I find this piece to be self serving drivel. I believe that there isn't the divide in politics when it comes to issue. The divide begins when we talk in terms of party's and not the issues.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.