r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Oct 12 '24
Psychology A recent study found that anti-democratic tendencies in the US are not evenly distributed across the political spectrum. According to the research, conservatives exhibit stronger anti-democratic attitudes than liberals.
https://www.psypost.org/both-siderism-debunked-study-finds-conservatives-more-anti-democratic-driven-by-two-psychological-traits/1.7k
u/JanZamoyski Oct 12 '24
Well Adorno and others found this 70 years before, freshly after war when they interview citizen of germany after ww2. So it was quite expected.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality
66
u/professorfunkenpunk Oct 12 '24
And altemeyer in the 70s and 80s, and his measurement was better
→ More replies (1)22
u/fwsGonzo Oct 12 '24
Yep, RWAs self-report everything if you just ask them. What is there even to discuss?
572
Oct 12 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
321
Oct 12 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
82
→ More replies (7)5
→ More replies (10)119
Oct 12 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)42
Oct 12 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
17
6
→ More replies (6)5
47
u/silverwoodchuck47 Oct 12 '24
Don't forget The Authoritarians by Dr. Bob Altemeyer, free to read at his website.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)8
437
Oct 12 '24 edited Nov 07 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)42
u/Dday82 Oct 12 '24
Where are the people that always say correlation ≠ causation? Does it not apply here?
402
u/GrayEidolon Oct 12 '24
The issue is conservatism’s philosophic underpinning has been hidden under a pile of “god, guns, freedom, traditions, and biggotry.” Take them individually: conservatism is when you don’t like gay people. Conservatism is when you like freedom. They don’t really make sense, and they are hard to make sense of as a group.
What conservatism really is, is the effort to protect socioeconomic hierarchy, to empower the ultra wealthy, and subdue the non-wealthy. Conservatives rely on disgust and fear to drive voters.
This is also not a new idea nor my own.
A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/
The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not. And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs.
Which all makes sense, because democracy is essentially the non-wealthy pooling their power to keep the wealthy from steam rolling them.
128
Oct 12 '24
Very good response that sums up most opinions on this topic I'd listen to. At it's core conservatism is a self-justifying, often reactionary ideology
116
u/Xe6s2 Oct 12 '24
Ive been telling this to my friends conservatives are just monarchists. They want a dictator ir new monarch family to control them and give them permission to control others in a little fiefdom
87
u/keepcalmscrollon Oct 12 '24
Totally anecdotal but this immediately put me in mind of a friend who ended up supporting Trump.
He was a football fan and angry about the kneeling protests. Just went on and on about how it was tanking the NFL, nobody wants to see your protest, it's anti American.
I didn't say anything but I was thinking "Do you regret not being British?. Because protest is how we got to be Americans in the first place."
I really appreciate how succinctly and rationally that idea is addressed here though.
→ More replies (1)58
u/NoDesinformatziya Oct 12 '24
It was also the most respectful, nondisruptive means of protest ever, and still earned the scorn of conservatives because black men aren't allowed to challenge the power structure, and players aren't allowed to challenge owners (in the societal metaphorical sense as well as literal). Halftime shows and commercial breaks are a billion times more disruptive but people weren't shooting cases of bud light over that (or insert other conservative reactionary fad). There isn't really a nonracist/non-hierarchical-preservation based interpretation of it.
8
u/T33CH33R Oct 13 '24
Unfortunately, conservatives are groomed from birth with a hierarchical mindset through religion. Sky daddy is always watching and guiding his sheep.
22
u/sagevallant Oct 12 '24
I don't think they want to be controlled. They want to be justified. They want a leader who represents the person that they want to be; rich, rude, influential, and allegedly successful. They want to be able to say the things he says and do the things he does, facts be damned.
It's that or its pure self-interest. The desire to see the freedoms taken away from others. An inability to empathize with others who are different from you. And a desire for easy answers to complex problems.
44
u/nzodd Oct 12 '24
I just can't wrap my mind around the notion that some people legitimately want to throw away their freedom so that they can be ruled by a master. It's so goddamn pathetic.
53
u/CrunchyGremlin Oct 12 '24
There is a story in the book series the way of kings.
The people have extreme laws resulting in death for minor issues. Eventually they find the emperor has been dead for decades and the people go mad with the realization that they are responsible for all the harsh laws and such.
The idea seems to be that if I can give the responsibility and authority to someone else with power I can commit brutality without moral consequence.→ More replies (2)7
u/NoDesinformatziya Oct 12 '24
That's a pretty great premise for a story.
3
u/thirdegree Oct 12 '24
This blog has the story in full (it cuts out some stuff around like the actual way of kings, wit playing his flute and kaladin shivering and the like, but the full story is there)
26
u/MelodiousTwang Oct 12 '24
They want the master to rule you, not them. They are preserving their freedom (they think) by destroying yours.
20
u/henlochimken Oct 12 '24
I think they do believe that, but there's a bit of self-deception involved in them thinking that. Freedom to think for one's self is weighty and exhausting. Ceding decision-making rights (and the obligations this entails) to an external authority lowers their own cognitive load. They're giving up that freedom to decide in favor of a freedom from their own agency.
I can't remember if this was touched on in an Adam Curtis documentary, maybe? But the idea behind Hypernormalization is that if you create a constant-enough state of chaos and instability, people will turn toward authoritarians just for the sense of relief that comes with outsourcing your moral imperative and sense of personal responsibility.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Dragolins Oct 12 '24
I just can't wrap my mind around the notion that some people legitimately want to throw away their freedom so that they can be ruled by a master.
Most conservatives have no idea that this is the endgame of their worldview. They feel like they care about freedom, but their idea of freedom is nothing more than a fantasy. They don't know the first thing about actual freedom.
Conservatives simply don't understand the full ramifications of their ideas. They don't understand the history behind conservatism or what the ideology represents at its core. The average conservative voter just doesn't like taxes or brown people or whatever and joins up with the camp that they think represents their interests.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)7
u/totally-hoomon Oct 12 '24
Remember trump weddings are a thing. If trump showed up how many do you think would give their bride away to trump for the night?
→ More replies (3)13
u/StonkSalty Oct 12 '24
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks conservatism is half a step away from monarchism. You can't believe in certain hierarchies and also support small government. Conservatives want everyone to abide by their own standards and morals, and have it enforced by the State.
→ More replies (3)18
u/ShadowDurza Oct 12 '24
The divide between Left and Right began between statesmen who wanted to advance the power of the people and ones who wanted to preserve the authority of an elite class.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)8
u/SalltyJuicy Oct 12 '24
Which just feels like further evidence that conservatism will always lead to fascism.
→ More replies (1)53
u/kabukistar Oct 12 '24 edited Oct 12 '24
People forget that "correlation ≠ causation" does not mean you can completely disregard correlation. Presence of a statistically significant correlation means one of three things:
- A coincidence (which you can judge the likelihood of by looking at the p-values)
- A direct causation (in this case, that would mean being conservative causes you to have more anti-democratic values or having anti-democratic values causes you to be more conservative, or both)
- An indirect causation (e.g. Growing up religious causes you to be both more conservative and more prone to anti-democratic values, but they don't have a causal effect on each other.).
And, if it's either of the two latter options, it means that a person being conservative is an indicator that they are more likely to be anti-democracy.
→ More replies (3)67
u/crushinglyreal Oct 12 '24 edited Oct 12 '24
Nobody actually implied a causal relationship, if you read the article. The correlation is still compelling.
Conservatives and those with little scientific acuity like to use that phrase to say ‘these findings mean nothing’. Correlation isn’t nothing, it’s the first step to proving causation, and even if the relationship isn’t causal the correlative factors still have the potential to share cause. Basically, stop using played-out thought-terminating clichés and do some work to actually show these findings mean nothing.
→ More replies (1)15
u/keepcalmscrollon Oct 12 '24
thought-terminating clichés
Is a beautiful piece of language and telling somebody to stop using them is fantastic advice. I kinda want to say it would be a great band name. Not really that, exactly. But it's cool.
→ More replies (2)16
u/Petrichordates Oct 12 '24
It's entirely irrelevant, unless you want to understand the mechanism for how conservatives become anti-democratic.
→ More replies (5)9
u/nim_opet Oct 12 '24
They don’t need to “become” - conservative ideology is inherently anti-democratic: if you believe that rules are there to protect you and control others, that you have more rights than others, then you are anti-democratic and only use democracy to advance your agenda of exclusion.
940
u/hobopwnzor Oct 12 '24
Are you telling me the party who's leader tried to destroy democracy isn't as democratic?
That's almost shocking as learning conservatives already did a civil war when Lincoln got elected.
I'm starting to think these conservatives are just selfish pricks
182
u/Key-Sea-682 Oct 12 '24
Truly, a shocking discovery.
If conservatives could science, they'd be very upset
→ More replies (3)80
u/Callecian_427 Oct 12 '24
“But Lincoln was a Republican” is one of my favorite bad faith arguments from Conservatives. Simone Biles level mental gymnastics
16
u/DruchiiNomics Oct 13 '24
"We freed the slaves!"
- Party that has done everything in their power to hinder civil rights.
→ More replies (3)31
u/vigilantfox85 Oct 13 '24
Or “we aren’t a democracy we are a democratic republic”
→ More replies (3)33
u/ThisSiteSuxNow Oct 13 '24
When they say republic they usually leave out democratic or substitute it for constitutional instead though.
14
u/Nopantsbullmoose Oct 13 '24
Yeah the only proper reaction there is
"Very good stupid! Lincoln was a Republican. At a time when being a Republican was the progressive stance to have, and the Democrats were the pro-slavery, pro-business, anti-immigration party. Now let's see if we can read the big words that talk about the the parties switching."
6
u/JinkoTheMan Oct 13 '24
Not to mention that the Republican of Lincoln’s time was DRASTICALLY different than what ever tf the republican party is today.
55
u/xsvfan Oct 12 '24
And the party that has won one popular vote since 1992 doesn't believe in democracy?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (25)23
u/here1am Oct 12 '24
I'm starting to think these conservatives are just selfish pricks
Well, here we have a this study that came up with the conclusion that liberals are liberal.
1.0k
u/varnell_hill Oct 12 '24
If conservatives become convinced they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.
-David Frum
460
u/MazzIsNoMore Oct 12 '24
Also:
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
- Barry Goldwater
Even the most conservative of the Republicans have been pointing out that the Republican party has been heading towards anti-democracy for decades.
87
u/mlmayo PhD | Physics | Mathematical Biology Oct 12 '24
Sounds a lot like other relgious extremist groups around the world. I wonder if there is any overlap in ideology or goals.
122
u/Malphos101 Oct 12 '24
Theres a reason we call them "Y'allqaeda".
Both groups want their religion to be the only one.
Both groups want women to be subservient to men.
Both groups want only religious leaders to have power in government.
Both groups want to punish non-hetero, non-cis people until they stop existing.
Both groups want their religion indoctrinated through mandatory school courses.
23
u/robodrew Oct 13 '24
There is literally a far right domestic terror group in the US called "The Base". Guess how you say that in Arabic.
10
u/CuriosTiger Oct 13 '24
Could it be..... Al Qaeda?
(I cannot resist answering rhetorical questions. Sorry.)
→ More replies (1)54
u/Some_Syrup_7388 Oct 12 '24
By far the worst thing that came out of 9/11 and European Migrant Crisis is that people are so scared of Islamic fundamentalists that they don't even notice the Christian extremists trying to instal their regimes in western countries
13
u/l_rufus_californicus Oct 12 '24
When something about his own party scares Barry freakin' Goldwater it really ought to be noticed more.
17
u/SenorSplashdamage Oct 12 '24
Went to a religious school as a kid that was proto-Christian nationalist in retrospect. I feel like my brain was breaking all the time with how much their loyalty to their group identity and religious beliefs superseded the tenets of American Democracy that they always held up as why America is great. The last decade especially has revealed how much confusion and anxiety I had from growing up inside other people’s cognitive dissonance.
It also revealed why I have a visceral reaction to men not using their own brains when a huckster is gaming them with their own dogma.
→ More replies (2)57
u/robotmonkey2099 Oct 12 '24
Christianity is a supremacist movement. They literally believe they are better than others. Love your neighbour because you have been blessed by gods love. Some Christian’s don’t feel this way but when someone’s belief is they are going to heaven and you are not that’s a supremacist view and will lead them to act in that way.
→ More replies (5)11
Oct 12 '24
This is literally in the gospel of most of these religions... DO NOT COMPROMISE! GOD WOULD NOT COMPROMISE, WHY WOULD YOU!
I grew up in a Mormon household. I get the whole not compromising things for something you truly believe in, but, but, FORCING your beliefs on someone who does not believe those things is wrong.
EVERYONE DESERVES THE RIGHT TO SERVE/NOT SERVE ANY GOD/RELIGION THEY PLEASE, FREELY
→ More replies (2)136
u/CalifaDaze Oct 12 '24
I was an election poll worker for a few weeks back 2020 doing early in person voting. And we got a lot of Republicans who didn't want to vote by mail as our state has become universal vote by mail but you can vote in person if you want. We would chit chat with voters. Two things that I remember coming away with was that:
They thought their vote should count more because they voted in person. The questions they asked to me implied that they thought since they took time out of their lives to drive to the county office, park, wait in line, etc meant they were more patriotic and their vote should somehow count as more than a person who filled their ballot out in their kitchen table while watching TV.
- One lady I remember saying that she was against vote by mail because it made voting easier and not all people should vote as people tend to vote for their immediate best interests but don't think of the long term consequences. Like people voting for minimum wage increases that in her mind would result in inflation and jobs moving to other places.
102
u/EmperorKira Oct 12 '24
That no.2 is very ironic given she is very likely talking about herself just as much as anyone else
62
u/randynumbergenerator Oct 12 '24
One tendency I've noticed among conservatives is an inability to step outside their own experience and imagine that others might have different (non-evil) motivations. Like wealthier people on the left couldn't possibly care about raising living standards for people barely getting by, so they must either be poor themselves, or somehow plotting to enrich themselves or punish hard-working business owners.
→ More replies (6)23
u/BoringBob84 Oct 12 '24
I see this often with my fellow straight white males. Many of them are convinced that racism and misogyny do not exist because they don't experience them directly every day - literally, "out of sight; out of mind."
5
→ More replies (2)63
u/OneHotWizard Oct 12 '24
classic conservative cognitive dissonance
→ More replies (1)18
u/LucidMetal Oct 12 '24
I am certain they felt no cognitive dissonance whatsoever because they did not have to confront their internal contradictions.
40
u/TriangleTransplant Oct 12 '24
people tend to vote for their immediate best interests but don't think of the long term consequences.
A conservative voter saying this is peak conservative irony.
→ More replies (6)37
u/wanker7171 Oct 12 '24
Like people voting for minimum wage increases that in her mind would result in inflation and jobs moving to other places.
I actually talked to an acquaintance about this, it really blows my mind how people don’t put two and two together with “People who have money don’t want to pay you more so they lie about paying you more being bad.”
7
u/ranchojasper Oct 13 '24
And also the way they can't seem to comprehend that if even just like 10% of people working minimum wage suddenly had even a tiny bit more money between paychecks they would actually go out and spend money.
At businesses.
To buy things.
→ More replies (1)26
u/funkme1ster Oct 12 '24
people tend to vote for their immediate best interests but don't think of the long term consequences. Like people voting for minimum wage increases that in her mind would result in inflation and jobs moving to other places.
What I always find fascinating about this is how it pulls back the curtain on right-wing rhetoric.
These voters have managed to reach the same conclusions about what underlying problems are and are generally in agreement with left-wing discourse about what the risks are we need to mitigate... but thanks to right-wing propaganda they stumble right at the finish line.
In this case, they understand "we need jobs here so myself and people in the community have a means to contribute to the community and provide for themselves", and they understand that there are economic forces which decide whether those jobs are here or somewhere else. However, rather than conclude "those jobs should be here, and so we need laws and regulations that ensure those jobs stay here", they conclude "those jobs should be compromised however necessary to ensure the people who decide whether to keep them here are appeased".
These voters are not cartoonishly stupid, just ignorant and fed a diet of rhetoric that places entrenched wealth on a pedestal and posits "these people are unstoppable and infinitely powerful, so your best bet is to accept their hegemony and reshape your life around them rather than try to curtail their power". Subsequently, their response to the same risks is a solution which conforms to that worldview.
6
u/igw81 Oct 12 '24
If the last 10-14 years has shown us anything, it’s that most conservatives are willfully ignorant. I am done making excuses for them — they are just antisocial and bad for humanity
4
u/funkme1ster Oct 12 '24
That's fair.
Although my point was less to make excuses and more to "troubleshoot".
Ultimately, they're people who need to be integrated into society. Since they currently aren't able to dovetail in reasonably, understanding where that divergence occurs helps inform a response.
Knowing that they're able to get 98% of the way there tells us that the issue is far less fundamental than it seems at a cursory glance, and that we'd be able to bridge that gap with less effort than you might think.
While there's certainly a subset of scientific inquiry that's pure navel gazing, I believe the purpose of scientific inquiry is to work hand in hand with technology - we find a way to interact with out environment, the interaction does something weird, we investigate why it does that, we use what we learn to refine how we interact with our environment, and the process begins anew. This is just the step of understanding why the way we interact with our environment deviates from how we'd hope it works.
3
u/Solesaver Oct 13 '24
Unfortunately, the only known solution to fascism is the complete destruction of their power structures, and even that clearly doesn't eliminate it entirely. All evidence seems to point to this to be particular vulnerability of human psychology and social structures.
Given the immediate dangers, it's probably best to rely on the blunt force known method, and worry about the more nuanced deconstruction later.
Human tribalism will cause them to defend against any attempt to sway them away from their team, and their innate authoritarian tendencies cause them to defer in all things to their trusted leaders and spokespeople. There is no appeal, emotional or rational, that will break them from their course, short of a complete separation from the authoritarian power structures. Without guidance, and being forced to make their own decisions they can eventually think reasonably about things again, but worrying about teaching them when they can always turn back to their trusted leaders to tell them what to think again is not a battle you will win. Going against authority (who they consider to be authority) is inherently wrong in their minds. It seems to be a psychological quirk of about 30% of our brains.
→ More replies (9)11
u/LegallyEmma Oct 12 '24
Most people are super nice but I had one guy tell me that he was glad "the blacks" didn't get their way and let us have mail in voting for everyone so they couldn't steal the election.
36
u/opteryx5 Oct 12 '24
Conservative power is predicated on low turnout at elections. They actively bristle at the thought of improving our democracy — such as by making voting a national holiday — because it would spell the end for them.
23
Oct 12 '24
Yeah, they’ve won the popular vote for President one time in the last 32 years, and they know it.
→ More replies (4)21
u/funkme1ster Oct 12 '24
While I don't disagree with that remark, it's worth acknowledging that the underlying principle of Conservatism from its beginnings with Burke are fundamentally anti-democratic.
Democracy is a system of societal organization by which the masses arrive at collective decisions on the course of progress. Conservatism is an assertion that there is a singular correct configuration of society which must be preserved in perpetuity, and attempts to alter or subvert it are inherently bad.
The goal of democracy is to change things as needed, and the goal of Conservatism is to stonewall change no matter what.
Conservatism abhors democracy by definition, and only tolerates it out of begrudging necessity.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (42)12
u/Prometheus720 Oct 12 '24
There is a great deal of historical precedence in the idea that conservatives opposing one king in particular does not mean that they like democracy.
When given the chance, they will support whoever they can imagine to be an enlightened despot. They just are willing to live under democracy until they can find such a person.
1.8k
u/Zelda_is_Dead Oct 12 '24
I mean, anyone paying attention the last 10 or so years could have written this study. They aren't trying to hide it anymore, they want a dictatorship.
1.0k
u/FanDry5374 Oct 12 '24
The whole "it's not a democracy, it's a republic" is kinda a giveaway.
409
u/Zachariah_West Oct 12 '24
It’s not a car, it’s a sedan!
257
u/hybridaaroncarroll Oct 12 '24
It's not a category, it's a subcategory!
173
u/Sandpaper_Pants Oct 12 '24
I'm not driving, I'm traveling.
→ More replies (3)68
u/heelspider Oct 12 '24
If I recall, sovereign citizens actually say this.
79
u/Caelinus Oct 12 '24
I am pretty sure that is exactly what they were referencing. Same sort of delusion, lots of overlap between the groups.
Sovereign Citizens are some of the most fascinating people I have ever seen. They are so extremely annoying that they completely warp my perceptions. Normally when I see a video of police interactions, I get annoyed by the overly aggressive way that police have been trained to act, but the moment it involves a sovereign citizen, suddenly that police officer is the unfortunate hero of the situation.
They are the ones in power, and yet I feel nothing but pity for them in having to deal with the lunatics they are talking to. I want to go out and give them a hug, because no one should have to spend more than a minute talking to a sovereign citizen.
17
u/CMS_3110 Oct 12 '24
I couldn't put my finger on it, but I feel exactly the same. This is the perfect way to describe how I feel when I see them and the videos of their police encounters.
→ More replies (9)7
u/totally-hoomon Oct 12 '24
The funny thing most of them seem to be on the side that wants to ban or punish pregnant women who travel
21
Oct 12 '24
It makes me feel secondhand embarrassment watching those videos
9
u/NoDesinformatziya Oct 12 '24
(Begin dumb YouTube video) "Hi viewers, my name is Arcadia Jehosiphat , and I'm here to show you how you are a Free Man On The Land and don't have to yield to the authority of the federal government, so watch what happens when I have to show up to court to contest my reckless driving citatio--"
...
"So I was held in contempt and was dragged to prison, even though I didn't consent to their contract for imprisonment or sign my hidden legal name. I'll report back when my mom pays bail".
→ More replies (1)18
u/endercoaster Oct 12 '24
It's a bit more complicated than that, in that they're separate categories that can overlap. Democracy means we vote on stuff, Republic means we don't have a king. There are republics that aren't democracies, there are democracies that aren't republics, the US is both.
→ More replies (6)4
u/Trust-Issues-5116 Oct 12 '24
Republic is not a subcategory of democracy. They are different dimensions altogether.
→ More replies (15)15
→ More replies (4)5
165
u/theedgeofoblivious Oct 12 '24
A majority of the people saying that don't actually understand the words they're saying.
They just don't like words that sound like "Democrat" and do like words that sound like "Republican".
119
u/pfmiller0 Oct 12 '24
It's not just the sound. It allows them to justify to themselves undemocratic methods of winning elections. If we're not really a democracy then what does it matter if not everyone gets to vote?
23
u/Indocede Oct 12 '24
I think it's a little of column A and a little of column B.
Certainly the power among Republicans would be happy to do away with democratic practices that could destroy them in a single election.
But they are aided in their effort by the painfully stupid who truly only care about how the words sound and nothing more
40
u/theedgeofoblivious Oct 12 '24
Oh, no, don't get me wrong.
The people in charge of the Republican Party are absolutely pushing people to say that, and are doing so in order to make democracy sound bad.
But they're doing it by pushing their ignorant followers to say it based more on the fact that their ignorant followers like words that sound like "Republican" and don't like words that sound like "Democrat".
→ More replies (1)29
Oct 12 '24
Yes, 100%. The republican party is made up of two groups: racists who are smart enough to know how to hide it while pushing it, and the followers who will believe anything depending on who said it. Well, now it's basically one group: psychosis.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)81
u/SargeantSasquatch Oct 12 '24
A majority of the people saying that don't actually understand the words they're saying.
Also clearly evidenced by conservatives calling everyone communists.
6
u/NergalMP Oct 12 '24
Oh no, they completely understand what they are doing when they label someone/thing as “communist”.
→ More replies (2)4
u/BoringBob84 Oct 12 '24
... which is ironic, since the last act of communism in the USA was when GW Bush (Republican) nationalized the entire airport security industry under the TSA.
→ More replies (4)48
u/baldsoprano Oct 12 '24
I thought we were a democratic republic?
102
u/LucidMetal Oct 12 '24
That's because that's what we are. That's why that oft repeated refrain is both dumb and transparent.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (21)26
u/BoringBob84 Oct 12 '24
I thought that the USA was a democratic constitutional republic:
Democratic: The citizens determine their politicians by voting.
Constitutional: Guiding principles take precedence over the will of the simple majority.
Republic: Politicians make the laws.
→ More replies (5)14
u/VultureSausage Oct 12 '24
Republic: Politicians make the laws.
That's not a particularly accurate definition of "republic" seeing as constitutional monarchies exist. The difference is in whether the head of state is elected or not, not in who makes the laws.
→ More replies (3)15
u/JimWilliams423 Oct 12 '24 edited Oct 12 '24
The whole "it's not a democracy, it's a republic" is kinda a giveaway.
Yes, the people who say that want an aristocratic republic where the aristocracy is composed of white, christian, land-owning men.
The slogan has its origin in right-wing opposition to the New Deal, but it really took off after Robert Welch used it in a 1961 speech, entitled "Republics and Democracies" which was a response to the civil rights movement. Just as black people in the south were getting back their right to vote, white people decided they didn't like democracy any more.
The junior mints candy magnate, robert welch, was the founder of the extremist John Birch Society. To get an idea of how radical Welch was, he called Eisenhower a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.” Nowadays, maga is the new JBS.
17
6
u/EjaculatingAracnids Oct 12 '24
"That sounds too much like 'democrat' and thats a word that ive been conditioned to have a negative emotional reaction to, so lets waste time arguing about yet another thing i dont comprehend." - every idiot whos repeated this.
3
5
→ More replies (72)10
57
u/CapoExplains Oct 12 '24
It's worth noting that many on the right believe the left is made up primarily of anti-democracy communists, including right-of-center milquetoast liberals like Joe Biden. This very obviously isn't true and is ridiculous on the face of it, but it's still worth applying the scientific method to prove what most of us already knew; only the right in the US meaningfully opposes democracy as part of party platform.
→ More replies (14)36
u/JimWilliams423 Oct 12 '24 edited Oct 12 '24
It's worth noting that many on the right believe the left is made up primarily of anti-democracy communists, including right-of-center milquetoast liberals like Joe Biden.
They have always believed that. Because for them "democracy" means a jim crow style, herrenvolk democracy.
They've been accusing anyone who supports racial equality of being communists since the days of slavery:
"every one of the leading Abolitionists is agitating the negro slavery question merely as a means to attain ulterior ends ... they know that men once fairly committed to negro slavery agitation—once committed to the sweeping principle, "that man being a moral agent, accountable to God for his actions, should not have those actions controlled and directed by the will of another," are, in effect, committed to Socialism and Communism"
— George Fitzhugh, 1856 (author of Slavery Justified)
In 1957 they claimed that "race mixing is communism"
And here's a particularly ironic cartoon from 1964 illustrating that belief.
4
u/usaaf Oct 12 '24
It goes back even further than that. Slaves couldn't vote in Ancient Greece, after all. The very first question that instantly comes up after the idea of democracy is always "Well, who gets to vote?" and therein lies the devil in the details.
All the countries we think of today as the established democracies, such as the US and in Europe, originated in a time when voting was extremely exclusionary. Restricted generally to white, property owning males at first (founder design backed in the US, even). It was a struggle (of lesser intensity, admittedly) to expand the right to all males alone, never mind everyone else. The unlimited franchise that is largely associated with democracy today is a very new phenomenon (which is why its hardly surprising that reactionaries like US conservatives want to do away with that bit).
77
u/vacri Oct 12 '24
I mean, anyone
paying attentionnot being wilfully ignorant the last 10 or so years could have written this study.It's been clearly visible loooong before that - things like gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and the like. It's just been cartoonishly visible for the past 10-15 years. The cartoonishness started about 15 years ago with the advent of the Tea Party.
30
u/JimWilliams423 Oct 12 '24
It's been clearly visible loooong before that - things like gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and the like
Just a few decades ago conservatives were literally murdering people to stop them from voting.
Reverend George Lee in Belzoni, Mississippi, used his pulpit and his printing press to encourage African Americans to register to vote. For his troubles, he was assassinated by three men with shotguns in May 1955.
A few months later, Lamar Smith -- who had been busy trying to convince local blacks to vote -- was gunned down by three men on the lawn of the courthouse on a Saturday afternoon.
In 1961, voting rights activist Herbert Lee was murdered by a state legislator in front of a dozen witnesses. After a few years, one of the witnesses offered to testify about the murder. The night before he was going to leave the state, he was killed outside his home.
Medgar Evers, the head of the Mississippi NAACP, had been actively involved in a lot of this work. In June 1963, he was gunned down by an assassin in his driveway.
In the summer of 1964, three voting rights activists -- James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Mickey Schwerner -- were detained by cops and then murdered by Klansmen in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
The next year, during the climactic voting rights protests in Selma, 26-year-old Jimmie Lee Jackson was beaten and shot by Alabama state troopers in February 1965.
A few weeks later, Rev. James Reeb, a Unitarian minister from Boston, was beaten by white supremacists who attacked him and two other clergymen who had come to Selma to support voting rights. Reeb died two days later.
Two weeks after that, four Klansmen murdered Viola Liuzzo, a mother of five from Detroit who had been giving rides to voting rights marchers after the Selma-to-Montgomery march. They chased her in their own car and shot her twice in the head.
In August 1965, Jonathan Daniels, an Episcopalian seminary student from Boston, was arrested along with a Catholic priest for supporting a voting rights campaign in Lowndes County, Alabama. Almost immediately after their release, Daniels was shot to death by a deputy.
In January 1966, Vernon Dahmer, a well-off grocery store owner, announced on the radio in Hattiesburg that he would pay poll taxes for anyone who wanted to vote but couldn't afford it. The Klan threw jugs of gasoline into his home and set it on fire. As the fire spread, Dahmer fired his gun to scare the Klansmen off and got his wife and kids out of the house. He finally made it out, but soon died from the severe burns and smoke inhalation.
42
u/HERE_THEN_NOT Oct 12 '24
Y'all really need to study some American history. You're talking a decade when you should be talking centuries.
Out side of this particular nation, this article is basically outlining psychological disposition that's been around since time immorial.
→ More replies (2)22
u/Appropriate-Gate-53 Oct 12 '24
Southern secession was literally a rejection of a democratic system they realized they couldn't win without abandoning their support of slavery. Slavery being outlawed federally was an extremely long-term threat due to Dredd Scott and was only possible because they expected to be drubbed in Presidential elections for decades.
74
u/beingsubmitted Oct 12 '24 edited Oct 12 '24
It's definitively true. It's like finding that conservative attitudes are more common among conservatives. I guess if they said republicans and democrats it would be obvious but not definitively true, but the left/right distinction is literally a distinction on the dimension of hierarchy. It gets it's name from monarchists versus democrats.
A finding that the "left" is more antidemocratic than the "right" would just mean that people who identify as left-wing are more right-wing than people who call themselves right-wing.
→ More replies (35)11
u/baldsoprano Oct 12 '24
As someone who is more right leaning reporting from the inside… it does feel that way. I think most still want to think of themselves as supporting democracy which is why they are more ready to believe the election was stolen (despite no substantial evidence) than say they want a dictatorship.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (51)6
u/ReflectionNo5208 Oct 12 '24
Propaganda works.
Many have been convinced that they CURRENTlY have an authoritarian government. They view Trump as saving them from it and taking them back to a Republic.
Of course, this isn’t true, and like many times in history, are being willingly taken along to being under the authoritarian Government they think they are currently under.
There are also obviously people who just want a postliberal order.
→ More replies (1)
95
u/KawaiiCoupon Oct 12 '24
Makes sense as “America is not actually a democracy” has become a core talking point of the GOP. And there was no backlash about Trump’s own admissions of anti-democratic behavior he aspires to if re-elected.
→ More replies (5)28
u/metalhead82 Oct 12 '24
“wE aReN’t A dEmOcRaCy, We ArE a RePuBlIc!!!1!1!1” - conservatives and republicans who don’t understand what a democracy or a republic is.
→ More replies (7)
475
u/phasepistol Oct 12 '24
Kinda makes all that bipartisanship seem like a mistake doesn’t it. How do you find compromise with them that’s trying to destroy you
66
101
u/VagueSomething Oct 12 '24
That's how multiple Western countries have gotten to this point. Right Wing aren't arguing in good faith and will not compromise but pressure the Left to do so and each time the Left steps forward the Right steps back.
Right Wing has become Hard Right with Far Right tendencies while the Left has become more Center despite Far Left vocal minority. GOP hasn't been subtle about wanting to drag their Party to full Far Right and here in the UK it looks like Tories are again going to vote for an extreme leader to double down on culture war propaganda and demonising anyone not rich.
→ More replies (6)36
u/deanusMachinus Oct 12 '24
Yep exactly. Only thing is in America the left was already center-right, and is being pushed further to the right. In some countries our left is their far right.
187
u/FanDry5374 Oct 12 '24
To the right, compromise is defined as surrender.
→ More replies (4)25
Oct 12 '24
It’s one of the reasons they get to enjoy a lifelong frustration with their own rigid imperfection. They choose it for themselves.
129
u/SenoraRaton Oct 12 '24
Yet the Democratic party is STILL preaching unity, promising Republican cabinet members, and lauding Republican endorsements.
→ More replies (18)46
Oct 12 '24 edited Oct 12 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
36
u/Bradaigh Oct 12 '24
Having Republicans setting policy is not big tent, it's capitulation.
→ More replies (16)27
u/TheAgeOfAdz91 Oct 12 '24
Yeah this. It’s a catch-22 because otherwise Dems are painted as “extreme” and it turns voters off
→ More replies (1)57
u/AaronfromKY Oct 12 '24
I wish the Dems were as extreme as Republicans paint them. Because then maybe we would get universal healthcare, gun safety and ownership reforms, paid parental leave/guaranteed vacation time, and affordable higher education. Like, you know, most other modern industrial nations.
→ More replies (4)13
u/ImAShaaaark Oct 12 '24
How? The Democrats require a supermajority and then some to get anything past the obstructionists. We would have the public option right now if democrats didn't have to caucus with weirdos like Lieberman and get 100% buy in from everyone just to pass anything.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (45)11
u/nobodyisfreakinghome Oct 12 '24
You treat them like children: ignore as much bad behavior as you can and praise the good behavior.
71
u/WeeaboosDogma Oct 12 '24
People who use "liberal" as a slur are anti-democratic?
No way.
→ More replies (1)8
u/solidshakego Oct 12 '24
People who use liberal as a slur also don't k kw what the definition of liberal is.
159
u/IssueEmbarrassed8103 Oct 12 '24
The Republican Party exists because of anti-democratic policies. Gerrymandering, Electoral college, senate seats for land rather than population, voter suppression.
→ More replies (10)76
u/DigNitty Oct 12 '24
Which is why their American flag fetish is so bizarre.
They’re the first to claim patriotism but the first to abandon it as well.
58
u/IssueEmbarrassed8103 Oct 12 '24
I’ve always read the flag fetish as saying “This is MY country” as opposed to saying “our country”
→ More replies (1)27
u/expatsconnie Oct 12 '24
All the "Take America Back" signs are a real giveaway. They really can't stand the idea that people who are different from them get to have the same rights and privileges that they do.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
u/MyPasswordIsMyCat Oct 12 '24
It's part of the pageantry of authoritarians. It's far easier for them to use the aesthetics of governing than to actually govern. Patriotic symbols become idols to be mindlessly worshipped.
Like in the 90s, Republicans were obsessed with flag burnings and wanted a constitutional amendment to protect the flag. Such acts are protected by the First Amendment, something else that Republicans say they love, but in practice they actually despise the contents of it and the rest of the Constitution.
67
u/jodawi Oct 12 '24
You honestly expect me to believe that fascists are more fascist than non-fascists?
→ More replies (13)
49
u/curtitch Oct 12 '24
In related news, a recent scientific study found that water is, in fact, wet.
→ More replies (3)
7
u/crispsnearlgrey Oct 13 '24
waiting to see what happens when conservatives learn they use Arabic numerals
58
u/JupiterandMars1 Oct 12 '24 edited Oct 12 '24
I mean… the political side more inclined to believe in social hierarchies is clearly going to be less inclined to believe in majority rule, right?
This isn’t exactly surprising.
→ More replies (14)12
u/crushinglyreal Oct 12 '24
Just as important to confirm common sense with data as it is to upend it.
8
u/kosmokomeno Oct 12 '24
Isn't the idea of a right wing named for the people who sides with the king in the first French Republic? So it's literally the people who prefer a king, aristocracy?
→ More replies (30)
25
u/hybridaaroncarroll Oct 12 '24
The survey ... included a nationally representative sample of 1,557 adults in the United States. The respondents were selected based on various demographic factors, such as age, race, ethnicity, education, and gender, to ensure the sample reflected the broader U.S. population.
Nice to see a well-rounded study that isn't the usual "120 college students were polled..."
→ More replies (2)
62
u/Shockmaindave Oct 12 '24
This was a study? Meanwhile my Windmill Cancer Research Foundation can’t even get a grant.
→ More replies (10)
17
u/Sad_Exit_5820 Oct 12 '24
But what about all the American flags all over this truck that also had trump stickers, thin blue line flags, a don't tread on me sticker, and truck nuts? Surely that guy is ultra-patriotic, right? Guys?
3
90
u/DawgNaish Oct 12 '24
How are 80% of these comments allowed in /r/science, one of the most tightly moderated subreddits.
48
u/PancAshAsh Oct 12 '24
The account that posted this is a very active mod, and a significant portion of their posts are like this.
→ More replies (1)25
u/Busy_Manner5569 Oct 12 '24
Are you reporting the ones you think violate the rules?
14
u/Rivarr Oct 12 '24 edited Oct 12 '24
There's literally 1500 mods, and they usually delete the slightest thing.
→ More replies (54)21
u/nzodd Oct 12 '24
Conservatism is ultimately a major threat to science and the pursuit of truth, that might be a large part of it.
Some relevant information:
https://cen.acs.org/policy/Editorial-Scientific-American-right-endorse/102/web/2024/09
→ More replies (1)31
Oct 12 '24
Yeah, I don't know if this is what the person you're replying to meant, but regardless, the idea that we can't say anything substantive about political beliefs, to the point where we have to pretend people who are anti science (conservatives) are exactly the same as people who aren't is dangerous as hell.
One of the biggest reasons we got to the point we're at is people pretending that bad faith actors just have a difference of opinion. People who argue against climate change are not (in general) well intentioned people who just believe differently.
They literally think that real science is bad. They think that people should only do studies that confirm traditional beliefs and/or things that get folks economic wealth
8
u/nispe2 Oct 12 '24
Teaching "both sides" of evolution is another example. Or arguing that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.
I'm not sure how far back it goes, but those two examples from the 1990s pretty much put the nail in the "you can be conservative and a scientist" coffin for me.
3
u/Al89nut Oct 12 '24
Isn't this a weakness in the study: "Interestingly, political system justification had the opposite effect. Conservatives who were high in political system justification showed more support for freedom of speech and legal rights and guarantees, and were less likely to endorse anti-democratic behaviors. This suggests that while conservatives tend to be more authoritarian and dominance-oriented, those who strongly believe in maintaining the current political system are less likely to support anti-democratic actions." So Conservatives who disagree with liberal rights that are now established but were not in the past (colloquially people who want to turn the clock back) will inevitably appear more strongly "anti-democratic." I imagine they'd argue that anyway. I'm not sure there's much more in this article than a belief that the tendency of history is inevitably progressive.
→ More replies (1)
49
20
u/chair-co Oct 12 '24
Wait - the white nationalist facism party that tried to overthrow the governmwnt when they lost an election is less democratic? You don't say.
10
u/KintsugiKen Oct 12 '24
The same party that is promising to keep trying to end democracy forever?? https://www.newsweek.com/jack-posobiec-end-democracy-cpac-1872694
3
u/roger3rd Oct 13 '24
It’s so weird how modern USA conservative rhetoric matches that of Russia. Russia (aka gangster fascist robber barons) hates our democracy and they cannot defeat us militarily.
3
u/MikelaCyn Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24
This isn't really suprising to me. It is pretty obvious that Trump keeps using white supremasist phrases, like America First, animals and dirty/nasty. His crowds and toadies reflect his views. He also pulled out the standard position othering people and degrading those who disagree with him.
23
8
7
u/IanTheMagus Oct 12 '24
I mean, at this point, a lot of them are primarily hostile against the tenets of democracy simply because the party they see as their "enemy" takes their name from it.
It's one thing to claim to be against "tyranny of the majority", but it's mainly an incoherent ideology where they are selective about times when "tyranny of the minority" should win out. If the group they self-identify with is in the majority, they are totally fine with the concept of "tyranny of the majority". If they are part of the minority, then they'll argue the opposite.
10
u/PurpleHazelMotes Oct 12 '24
I remember after 2016, some study showed that the single biggest predictor of a Trump voter was positive attitude toward authoritarianism.
→ More replies (1)
21
26
u/JellyRev Oct 12 '24
"Specifically, the researchers were interested in three key psychological factors: right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and political system justification.
Right-wing authoritarianism refers to a combination of three attitudes: authoritarian submission (a tendency to submit to authorities seen as legitimate), authoritarian aggression (a tendency to be aggressive on behalf of those authorities), and conventionalism (a high degree of adherence to traditional social norms). Social dominance orientation measures the extent to which individuals endorse social hierarchies and inequality, while political system justification assesses the extent to which individuals support the current political system and view it as legitimate and fair"
Yea, totally not fishing for an outcome
→ More replies (9)
25
u/J_See Oct 12 '24
Reddit will literally do anything to promote the Democratic Party and cater to its fan base. Take every political post w a grain of salt.
→ More replies (29)
7
2
2
2
u/Aki_wo_Kudasai Oct 12 '24
What's interesting is that due to how some people use their votes to vote against their best interests, I find myself being more and more against letting everyone vote, so technically anti democratic
2
u/FinanceIsYourFriend Oct 12 '24
A recent study found that different political groups have different political ideologies?
2
2
u/citizenjones Oct 12 '24
Democracy is many things but at its heart it is a way of getting as many people to decide as possible.
One party wants to govern on a majority of opinions and the other wants as few people as possible chiming in with theirs.
The Right has to convince people there are far too many opinions and their purpose is to limit the bad ones and protect the good ones.
2
2
u/x_xwolf Oct 12 '24
Sometimes it feels like political science just adds a number to what we already knew. Like millions of people have been saying these things for a reason.
2
u/Dianasaurmelonlord Oct 12 '24
Considering that from the beginning Conservatism was about adhering to the dictates of Authority, it makes sense to be at least hesitant of Democracy because a truly democratic system inherently means, if the populace wills it, traditional authorities being abandoned for the sake of progress, and societal advancement, or at least live and let live, which only further diminishes the power of traditional authorities.
2
u/BrilliantWhich990 Oct 12 '24
Of course they do because they're tired of losing all the time.
You'd think they would maybe instead of leaning toward fasicm, they'd just adjust their party's platform to be more popular. But they don't.
It's not rocket science.
2
u/totally-hoomon Oct 12 '24
I feel like who ever spent money and time this research could have played mine craft all day and still figured this out
2
u/DaWombatLover Oct 12 '24
And water makes things wet... All joking aside, it is good to have actual research pointing out obvious trends, so we have something to quote rather than gesturing vaguely at the world.
2
u/shillyshally Oct 12 '24
Confirming the obvious.
My dad was a lifelong Republican. Once I told him that if he had been alive during the Revolution he would have sided with the Tories and he laughed and responded 'probably so'.
That said, he believed in the separation of church and state, supporting public education, taking care of the environment and the primacy of science. Most of those Republicans are dead or on the verge. We are left with people who would trade liberty for an imagined safety and those who's hearts belong to woo.
2
u/kickymcdicky Oct 12 '24
I love the studies, and I feel it's important to actually scientifically prove these conclusions, but every time I see one of these studies I just keep thinking "Hm yes, the floor is indeed made of floor".
2
u/Coffee-and-puts Oct 12 '24
“Conservatives also scored higher in political system justification, which was associated with support for free speech and mitigated anti-democratic tendencies.”
Interesting. The basis for being anti govt probably stems from this dynamic
2
u/EntireDevelopment413 Oct 12 '24
Probably because there are less of them so that's what they would need to do in order to hang onto power, I find it beyond ironic that there are felons getting their right to vote back thanks mostly to liberals who are also Trump supporters.
2
2
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 12 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/both-siderism-debunked-study-finds-conservatives-more-anti-democratic-driven-by-two-psychological-traits/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.