U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

[Jace, Extat]

I will concede my point on the grounds that the fear and hate are linked, neither being the exclusive motivator. 

Too many people to respond to directly, I've rewritten several posts due to a new response and settled on the above statement.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

I never considered the liberal side being motivated by anger (righteous indignation). So really all of politics is motivated by negative emotional states. Maybe that's the problem. The revolution that needs to happen is people being motivated by positive emotional states, and not simply swapping between fear / hate and anger. Doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon though.

[Ormond]

3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Another factor I would mention: studies show that conservatives are primarily motivated by fear, liberals by anger. Neither of these are sustainable at their extremes, but lower levels of fear are much more sustainable than lower levels of anger. Trump in particular emphasizes this distinction by virtue of exhausting liberal anger to the point where many kind of check out, while very few conservatives become distanced from their fears.

Fear also tends to engage coping mechanisms better than anger, meaning angry people are less likely to be cooperative with other angry people just because they're both angry at the same thing, but people sharing similar sources of fear will generally be more cooperative with one another below panic level states. 

And, lastly, fear translates to authoritarianism much much better than anger. Frightened people will follow someone who tells them where to go a lot more than angry people.

I have to push back on this some, too. Do you have a reference for the studies you claim show this?

Certainly it seems to me that the right wing media is even more about making their viewers/listeners angry than it is about making them fearful. Rush Limbaugh especially seems to be all about stoking anger rather than fear to me. I think the anti-immigrant and racist sentiment Trump taps in to is much more about resentment than fear, and resentment seems to me to be a low level form of anger.

[Ormond]

24 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Hate is almost always a fear based thing. And when you are frightened you react in two ways: run away and hide, or fight ferociously. So rage is also a common fear response.

As a psychology professor I don't agree with that at all. Hate is more about anger, contempt and disgust than it is about fear. 

[Jace, Extat]

20 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I never considered the liberal side being motivated by anger (righteous indignation). So really all of politics is motivated by negative emotional states. Maybe that's the problem. The revolution that needs to happen is people being motivated by positive emotional states, and not simply swapping between fear / hate and anger. Doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon though.

Yeah, I'll put my faith in a bearded pervert on a cloud to save us before I expect human nature to change.

 

[Fez]

Very excited by the Virginia flips, but it is tempered somewhat by the fact that it looks like the state senate is only going to be a 21-19 Democratic majority. One of those 21 is Morissey, a singularly sleazy guy that is also quite conservative on a lot of issues. And if he votes against Dems on anything, Lt. Gov Fairfax needs to break the tie. Fairfax has been in a feud with a lot of Democrats because they didn't defend him in his scandal earlier this year. He's probably still a reliable tiebreaker, but giving him any leverage over the state party will not end well.

It's a little surprising they couldn't pick up a third seat to make it 22-18, especially with how many House seats are getting picked up. And the two they did flip were 9 point wins. Democrats overall did great tonight in Virginia, but the other targeted Republican state senators I guess had personal brands that were a bit too strong still.

[DMC]

I'll comment a bit on this personality/ideology discussion.  I am still avidly interested in the correlation between the two and it's always been one of my favorite subfields (or really sub-subfield) in political behavior since I started grad school.  The notion conservatives are motivated by fear is pretty much taken for granted.  That's not an interesting research question.  It's nice that's it's been confirmed by physiological studies and the like, but it's pretty damn intuitive.  And liberals being motivated by unfairness/hypocrisy, yep, pretty intuitive as well.  All each is saying is that conservatives are afraid of changing the status quo - which is the entire basis of conservatism conceptually - and liberals are shaped by egalitarian attitudes - which is the entire basis of modern liberalism conceptually. 

But liberals motivated by anger?  Eh, I haven't encountered that much in the literature.  In terms of propensity scores I don't think I've ever seen anything showing a significant difference on anger between ideologies or parties.  What is more interesting about the correlation between personality and partisanship/ideology is the research on the Big Five personality traits, summed up here, albeit that's pretty old now.  Reason I'm not gonna hp dig up something more recent is that there hasn't been much more progress published.  The relationship between personality traits and ideology is plagued by endogeneity issues that have still yet to be properly accounted for and scrutinized systematically (to be fair, that's a very tall task I do not envy).  In other words, it's still not clear the relationship between the two isn't more so due to alternative factors.

[Kalbear]

Anger psychologically innately stems from unfairness. We have seen this repeatedly in simian experiments including the best experiment ever done in the world.

 

https://youtu.be/lKhAd0Tyny0

[Paladin of Ice]

Who do Independents want to be President? Anyone but Trump. Some are more squeamish about voting for Warren or Sanders, but for many they're not entirely out of the question.

Quote

The latest Post-ABC News poll has some seriously troubling news for President Trump: A year out from the 2020 election, he is hemorrhaging the support he once enjoyed from independents.

If it hadn’t been for voters who claim no party affiliation, Trump most likely would not be in the White House today.

In 2016, he carried independents by four percentage points across the country, according to the National Election Pool exit poll. But in the states that mattered most, independents pulled him across the finish line. For instance, in Michigan, which had the nation’s closest contest, Trump won independents by 16 percentage points over Hillary Clinton.

So which Democrat is best positioned to benefit from the disenchantment that many of these less partisan voters are feeling about the Trump presidency?

Three months ago, the answer was clear. Former vice president Joe Biden was the only Democratic contender who beat Trump — by a narrow seven percentage points — among independents in a theoretical head-to-head matchup in the Post poll.

But in the latest survey, five of the most talked-about Democratic candidates are besting Trump with independents. Biden has expanded his lead over the president to 17 points, while Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) do nearly as well, each leading the president by 16 points among independents. They favor Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) over Trump by 11 points, and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg by 10 points.

In other words, the poll suggests that independents are increasingly willing to vote for a Democrat, no matter which of the most likely possibilities the party nominates. It also erodes Biden’s chief selling point, which is that he is the most “electable” prospect in the field.

...

While political scientists will tell you that there are relatively few truly independent voters — those who call themselves that generally side with one party or the other — most of the people I talked to said they had cast ballots for both Democrats and Republicans at some point in the past.

Dale Pike of Newmarket told me he used to be comfortable with Republicans back in the era of George H.W. Bush, but has voted more Democratic in recent years.

Pike likes a political slogan he spotted lately: Any Sane Adult 2020.

“I’m not in favor of a socialist. I’m not in favor of that. Other than that, it’s ‘any sane adult,’ ” he said. “My nightmare scenario is I’ve got to choose between Bernie and Donald or Elizabeth and Donald.”

Warren seemed a particular puzzle to undeclared voters in the state next door to hers. Carolyn Stiles of Penacook has been back and forth regarding Warren. “She’s on my list now. She was off, and now she’s come back on,” Stiles said. But Maureen Comfort of Londonderry has gone the opposite direction. She once supported Warren, “but now, I’ve been thinking, she’s so divisive, and that’s what I want to get away from.”

The people I talked to were also, by and large, supportive of the Democratic House’s vote to move forward on an impeachment inquiry in light of growing evidence that Trump withheld badly needed aid from Ukraine to further his own political interests.

They recognize that it is not likely to remove him from office, as the chances of a conviction by the Republican-held Senate are slim. But at a minimum, an impeachment investigation shows “there is some level of accountability,” Tom McGreevey of Concord said. “I think accountability at some level is what people want.”

 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Anger psychologically innately stems from unfairness. We have seen this repeatedly in simian experiments including the best experiment ever done in the world.

Yeah that's great and all but it's not sufficient to directly apply that to ideology or partisanship.  The entire political landscape right now is pretty much universally referred to as polarization, negative partisanship, and affective polarization.  There's plenty of anger on both sides.  And fear leading to anger is definitely a thing on the right.  Just saying "anger stems from unfairness" doesn't explain anything between liberals and conservatives.  Because the fear that motivates conservatives results in anger at the out-group.  This is part and parcel of the endogeneity problems I was referring to.

[The Marquis de Leech]

This is the first time in half a century that the Democrats have the Virginian Governorship, legislature, and both Senators.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

As a psychology professor I don't agree with that at all. Hate is more about anger, contempt and disgust than it is about fear. 

I hate spiders, not because I'm angry or contemptuous or disgusted by them. Quite the contrary, I respect them and the part they play in the circle of life. But they scare the bejeebus out of me, so I hate them.

Fear is primal and lizard brained. Contempt, anger and disgust require some cerebral thought process. There are lots of ways to get to hate, but the easiest pathway to it is through fear.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Anger psychologically innately stems from unfairness. We have seen this repeatedly in simian experiments including the best experiment ever done in the world.

 

https://youtu.be/lKhAd0Tyny0

As an animal psychologist that's not how I interpret that video.

[Maithanet]

10 hours ago, Fez said:

Very excited by the Virginia flips, but it is tempered somewhat by the fact that it looks like the state senate is only going to be a 21-19 Democratic majority. One of those 21 is Morissey, a singularly sleazy guy that is also quite conservative on a lot of issues. And if he votes against Dems on anything, Lt. Gov Fairfax needs to break the tie. Fairfax has been in a feud with a lot of Democrats because they didn't defend him in his scandal earlier this year. He's probably still a reliable tiebreaker, but giving him any leverage over the state party will not end well.

Let's not get too pessimistic.  20-20 (with the Lt. Gov) is waay better than 19-21, which is what it was previously.

21-19 is vastly better than 20-20, because in some cases the Lt. Gov doesn't get to break a tie (like the budget) and thus 21 votes is needed for a "true" majority.

22-18 is a bit better than 21-19.  It would have been nice.  But on big, meat and potatoes issues for Virginia Democrats like redistricting, health care, and gun background checks, dealing with Fairfax and Morissey is going to be a lot more possible than trying to get any Republicans to cross the aisle. 

Democrats had a great night last night, and just because it could have been a little bit better doesn't change that. 

[Maithanet]

Going further, I think that the 2017, 2018 and 2019 elections have unequivocally demonstrated that Trumpism without Trump on the ballot does not work.  Democrats won each of those elections decisively, winning multiple races in very red areas (Alabama Senate, Kentucky Gov, Kansas Governor, PA-17), and gaining ground across the board in blue and purple areas.  It's not a clean sweep - Republicans did notably well in Florida in 2018, but the trend is undeniable.

The question is just whether Trump being on the ballot in 2020 changes all that.  It is hard to say.  On the one hand, you can point to Obama, who swept into power in 2008, lost ground in 2009, 2010 and 2011, only to win again (with very strong Senate coattails) in 2012.  But the Obama comparison can also go the other way because Obama went from +7% popular vote win to +3.8%.  Trump has no such margin for error.  He would have lost in 2016 with a shift of less than 1%, and there's no guarantee the electoral college will be as favorable to him in 2020 as it was in 2016 (538 showed no correlation year to year between the electoral vote and popular vote results). 

[Fez]

26 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Let's not get too pessimistic.  20-20 (with the Lt. Gov) is waay better than 19-21, which is what it was previously.

21-19 is vastly better than 20-20, because in some cases the Lt. Gov doesn't get to break a tie (like the budget) and thus 21 votes is needed for a "true" majority.

22-18 is a bit better than 21-19.  It would have been nice.  But on big, meat and potatoes issues for Virginia Democrats like redistricting, health care, and gun background checks, dealing with Fairfax and Morissey is going to be a lot more possible than trying to get any Republicans to cross the aisle. 

Democrats had a great night last night, and just because it could have been a little bit better doesn't change that. 

I do agree with all this. But at the same time, I remember what happened in New York when Democrats first took a narrow majority back in the 2012 election. It's really only Joe Morrissey that I don't trust, and he alone isn't enough to break things. But it's still a concern in the back of my mind.

Also, there were four state senate districts that Republicans held that Clinton had carried in 2016; Republicans kept two of them last night. So there was some low hanging fruit that was left on the tree; even though the Democratic candidates did improve quite a bit from their 2015 performances.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I’m not going to speak to the research data, but as someone with degrees in both psychology and poli sci, from my field experience it has more to do with positive verse negative stimuli . Conservatives respond more to negative messaging while liberals respond better to positive messaging. I agree with everything DMC said above, but as far as communication goes, this might be a better way of looking at it.

[sologdin]

doesn't explain anything between liberals and conservatives. 

yeah, lotsa rightwingers mouth off with egalitarian arguments--usually based on how their particular group (white, straight, male, conservative itself, inter alia) is getting its rights removed or is treated poorly or suffers some disentitlement, normally at the hands of some mysterious cabal comprised of communists and bankers (wut), which is often enough controlled by the learned elders of zion.  some of these motherfuckers may actually believe it, too--though the presence of insincerity is less important than the manifest inaccuracy.  this is nevertheless what animates the turner diaries (and the protocols of the elders of zion, as it happens).  that these items are propaganda used by those who support herrenvolk ideology does not require them to be expressly herrenvolk themselves--quite the contrary, the groups preferred by NSDAP doctrine are presented as the underdog in these texts.  granddaddy gobineau actually presents jewish persons as superior, in sections that the NSDAP edited away from their german translation of his ridiculous treatise; slavers in the US edited away gobineau's comments about mongrelization of european persons in the US when they issued their preferred edition, which focused on the purported inferiority of african persons.

when egalitarian principles are not controverted (as they very much are in gobineau), it is more a matter that the beliefs are simply based on bad facts.  these persons are therefore in theory redeemable--just a matter of persuading them away from the bad factual allegations.  less redeemable are those who reject egalitarians principles--fascists proper, monarchists, herrenvolk greasers. 

[Zorral]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I hate spiders, not because I'm angry or contemptuous or disgusted by them. Quite the contrary, I respect them and the part they play in the circle of life. But they scare the bejeebus out of me, so I hate them.

Fear is primal and lizard brained. Contempt, anger and disgust require some cerebral thought process. There are lots of ways to get to hate, but the easiest pathway to it is through fear.

So immigrants, African Americans, women, gay and trans people, Muslims, you name, anybody who isn't you, whom you declare the insane white supremacists are afraid of, are -- at best -- the same as arachnids (see Shelob and Tolkien, I guess?), insects and other 'things'? Fear so much these people that they prefer to burn down the house -- our planet -- than, well, what? actually? 

And goddamn it!  People should be OUTRAGED ANGRY about slavery, slave societies and the rest -- as well as a goddamned Missouri politician tracking the menstrual cycles of Planned Parenthood clinic patients -- and what kind of laws did he break to so invade these people's privacy, hmmmmmmm?   I guess this is why so many historians want to say that John Brown was insane, not a martyr ....

In the meantime, one must be at best bemused, viewing those photos and videos of the bedbug supporters wearing hats and t-shirts that proclaim,  "Transparency" and "Read the Transcript!" -- while Lindsey Graham publicly declares that he will not read the Congressional investigative committee's publicly released reports.

You know they haven't read any of it either.  These people are gaslighting and lalalaing simutaneously, which has to be a definition of insanity.

Slavery, white supremacy, misogyny, religious intolerance, etc. -- they do drive people insane.  As Henry Adams wrote, witnessing first hand the melt down of what became secession and the War of the Rebellion, witnessing the behaviors and listening to the rhetoric of them in government, down there, and up on the Hill -- he could come up with no other explanation or description, than "They are insane."

Which all seems more apt and useful than blathering on about republicans are driven by fear and democrats by anger.  Especially these days when the xtian right isn't even about fear of hellfire and damnation, but only about hating and getting rich(er) -- and getting to torture those not like Them.

P.S.  Of course Lindsey Graham has read or is reading those committee reports.  He has to be informed as to what gaslighting he will be required to do.  So add out and out lying to gaslighting and lalalaing.

[TrueMetis]

Sometimes it's the little victories that feel the best.

https://secondnexus.com/news/juli-briskman-trump-motorcade-virginia-election/

Quote

Juli Briskman Wins Seat on Loudoun County Board of Supervisors after Being Fired for Flipping off Trump’s Motorcade’

 

[argonak]

19 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You make that argument, in the face of the general evidence in countries that have no electoral college and even have proportional representation and much higher voter turn outs and yet still return conservative governments more often (or at least as often) than progressive governments. Australia has a PR-lite electoral system as well as compulsory voting (which tends to get about 95% of people voting) and yet it has had a nearly equal number of conservative / right leaning govts as progressive / left.

The Republican party would probably move away from extreme religious conservatism under a different system, but it would still find itself in power a lot of the time.

Yes Conservatives can win for different reasons.  Trump in particular won because our system does not reward overall majority an actual. . . majority.  I don't have a problem with conservative parties in general.  Its totally sensible and reasonable for someone to hold certain opinions that fall into that side of the spectrum.  And Major changes to society often need to be slowed to avoid mass disturbances to social fabric and unrest.  People suck at handling change, and the main goal of any government (in my opinion) should be overall stability, fairness, and compromise.

My problem with the republican party on the other hand is that they are morally and ethically bankrupt and are actively participating in the destruction of our democracy because it helps them win power.  They don't argue in a legitimate fashion, they're happy to cheat and change their opinions anytime it benefits them.  It is all about winning to the modern republican party and that is destroying the social fabric of our country.  An actual conservative party would care about the traditions and structures of our government and be fighting changes to that structure.  The republicans have just become fundamentalist authoritarians who want to enrich their billionaire backers and enforce their evangelical doctrines on everyone.