Political Preference - Brain Differences? Astrology in there anywhere?
LEFT-RIGHT
All in the Mind
Astrology apart, I can understand why the wealthy, and better-off land-owners, farmers, ranchers, lesser aristocracy (in the UK), or well-heeled professionals etc would vote conservative/Republican. I have never understood why everyday people of modest means at best, ranging to those in virtual poverty, would even consider voting conservative/Republican. They do. They vote conservative/Republican in droves.
I lived in various locations in the UK for more than 60 years, and in south-west Oklahoma for the past 11 years. Same thing happens in both countries, though I do believe it's more obvious here in the USA where, in certain areas, there exists more severe poverty.
Googling around the net, realising that many others must have puzzled over this same question, I found a few suggestions, which boil down, in a few words to:
Pursuit of aspirations, a bit of mild social climbing - mistakenly assuming conservatives will help lift them "up" to join, if not the golden ones, at least the rhinestone crowd.
The "I'm alright, Jack!" syndrome (well-known in the UK) prevalent in those who have secured a decent job and could not care less about other unfortunates, so vote conservative to ensure their taxes remain at lowest possible level.
Propaganda from radio, newspapers and TV (I'd add churches too, for the USA). Misguiding gullible, trusting folk whose knowledge of politics is skimpy, if any at all, and they lack or energy time to pursue more information, being hard pressed to work enough hours to feed their families.
A feeling that "liberals", who are often seen as "the elite" in the USA, look down on the less well-off and the poor, who then group together and vote "the other way", not realising that voting conservative/Republican is not going to change a darn thing - only make it worse!
Personally, I could never ever, ever, ever vote conservative/Republican - nor for any Democrat who is not truly of the left-wing (most of 'em here in the USA are really not of the left). Whether this is due to something in my astrology, or in my ancestral DNA of generations of serfs in feudal England, I know not.
13 comments:
Appertaining to your last paragraph, I would definitely say the latter, though I believe the UK experience of free healthcare for all, and other social benefits, also play a large part.
And a Happy Springtime to you and AnyJazz, Twilight. Just watch out for those tornadoes.
RJ Adams ~ That combination does seem highly likely.
Thank you for the good wishes, which are returned to you and Mrs RJ, now enjoying the beauties of this year's Spring in Yurp. :-) Tornado time is almost upon us once more here, yes. Deep joy! :-(
I think the rationale is that the voter perceives the morals-ethics-values of a candidate as similar to their own. We have this undefined misnomer in the USA called family values that each conservative evaluates others by, but excludes themselves from the parlance as needed. Christian, evangelical beliefs are enmeshed in the equation, but again, can be disregarded as required by one's personal (typically private) needs. Conservatives have a strong desire to project an image of conservative values, which translates to their family, community, and government. Radical, non-conforming, non-Christian concepts scare the bejeebers out of them. And it's a convenient method of subjective, but socially acceptable discrimination.
I recently read a liberal-conservative quick test that displayed five circles, in a gradient from perfectly round to very perceptibly out-of-round. The question was "which of these are circles?". Conservatives chose the perfect circle or the nearly perfect circle, and rejected the other three or four as not circles. Liberals selected four of the five and often all five. I assume the take-home is that conservatives like well-defined, exacting, fits-the-mold, not abstract, and easy to interpret concepts and ideologies. [I chose four of the five]
It's obvious that if one supports Bernie, they are more than likely a liberal. However, Trump supporters cross all of the demographics, from liberal to conservative, to wild and radical. A paragraph I read not long ago stated that virtually all of Trump's supporters would not be allowed into Trump's prestigious The Mar-a-Lago Club...they would be deemed losers by Trump's definition. Yet, The Donald is calling on these very losers to support him. Unlike other politicians that are wolves in lamb skin, The Donald appears to be a wolf.
I will vote for the most liberal-rational-sane candidate, whether they fully qualify my interpretation of liberal, simply to cancel a vote for the most conservative of the candidates. I fully wish success for Bernie and he received my primary election vote, but if Hillary should be the DNC nominee, I'll vote for her in the presidential election, however regretful I may feel.
I see that Bernie's chance of winning is now rated at 6%...last week it was 4%...three weeks ago it was 2%. The steady climb! Go Bernie!
Symbol test
http://www.worldtrans.org/essay/symboltest.html
Is this a circle
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/is-this-a-circle-your-answer-could-reveal-your-political-stance-a6763216.html
The world's smallest political quiz
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php
mike ~ Your rationale would (broadly) come under the churchy propaganda included in the 3rd of my possibilities above, I suppose.
Re the second of your links - the one with the slightly wobbly line circle - first had me defining the word circle. It fits that because it's made up of a single line which meets itself by moving in a full 360 degree direction. Not sure why that makes me liberal though, it more likely makes me analytical or logical. ;-) but I do get what they're proposing.
There's a long complex quiz on the net somewhere - I think we've discussed results from it before. Results show in a square divided into 4 segments. My results put me in an ultra left position - I used to keep the little diagram in my sidebar.
Bernie's chance at only 6% seems like a miserly assessment, and doesn't allow for growing enthusiasm, that important psychological oooomph of a strong back wind going forward - it needs to be sustained above all else. I refuse to decide what to do in November until all else becomes clear.
I tried to post a correction to my post in the previous column but could not.
Fell Friday and am suffering highly distracting neck and shoulder and back, pain.
Lost my hard drive last Wednesday and am using a second hand back-up I bought last spring. Smaller print on keys, smaller keyboard function keys I use a lot in different places,, and graphics that are terrible after adjusting them the best that I am able.
Why Me?
I might vote conservative just to get lifted up out of this mess.
This damn site has too many restrictions for posting. Result of too much control.
I would also add that, in the USA, some people seem to opt for home education for dubious reasons. In the UK, the people I know who have chosen it seem to be motivated because they like to be around their children and to watch their children learn (and often to learn new things alongside them). Or because their children are having difficulty at school.
Okay, also because sometimes it could be because the child(ren) or parent(s) are really eccentric and the child(ren) would probably be teased mercilessly in a conventional school.
But in the USA, there seems to be far more of a propaganda element - right-wing parents who are afraid that their child might learn about evolution or sex or both.
Vanilla Rose - I agree with your home schooling assessment, but I have to say it works both ways. Here in Texas, land of conservative, right-wing Christians, creationism is often taught alongside evolution as dual, but separate theories, in public schools. Whether to actually "teach" creationism is left to the teacher's discretion. TX has a large population of K-12 students and therefore dominates textbook publishing content for other states, too. Creationism creeps into virtually all facets of science education here. Some home schooled children have parents that are liberal or at least do not want creationism taught (dumbed-down) to their children. Texas also has a problem with how history is taught, as it can often favor distorted facts concerning politics (Confederacy) and racial aspects (slavery).
VR - I should also say that here in TX, a student has a recognized right to bring-up creationism as viable. If so, the teacher HAS to address the student's interest in creationism and is not allowed to discredit creationism.
Bob ~ sorry to hear your woes - i hope things improve for you soon. I know Blogger can be a pain in the ass regarding commenting procedures. You could just re-post a corrected comment on the earlier day's page, and I'll delete the original one if you wish. Or I'll delete the original if you tell me which it is, and you can post another here under this post today.
Vanilla Rose ~ Hi there! I know nothing at all about home schooling so I'm glad mike has responded. In my childhood, in the UK, home schooling wasn't a known "thing", at least not in my environment. We had to go to school and that was that! :-)
Post a Comment