Morning Consult: U.S. Right Wing More Supportive of Authoritarianism Than those in Other Modern Democracies.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/28/global-right-wing-authoritarian-test/

• A scale measuring propensity toward right-wing authoritarian tendencies found right-leaning Americans scored higher than their counterparts in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.

• 26% of the U.S. population qualified as highly right-wing authoritarian, Morning Consult research found, twice the share of the No. 2 countries, Canada and Australia.

• The beliefs that voter fraud decided the 2020 election, that Capitol rioters were doing more to protect than undermine the government and that masks and vaccines are not pivotal to stopping COVID-19 were similarly prevalent among right-leaning Americans and those that scored high for right-wing authoritarianism.

...

The Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol gave the country a striking wake-up call to the alarming rise in undemocratic behavior on the right side of the political aisle, and new global Morning Consult research underscores the prevalence of authoritarian attitudes among U.S. conservatives.

The research, which used longtime authoritarian researcher Bob Altemeyer’s right-wing authoritarianism test and scale and builds on recent work he conducted with the Monmouth University Polling Institute, found that U.S. conservatives have stronger right-wing authoritarian tendencies than their right-of-center counterparts in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. 

RELATED: Republican Voters Largely Want to Move On From Jan. 6. The Rest of the Country Doesn’t

Altemeyer defines authoritarianism as the desire to submit to some authority, aggression that is directed against whomever the authority says should be targeted and a desire to have everybody follow the norms and social conventions that the authority says should be followed. Those characteristics were all on display in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, culminating earlier this year in the attack on the Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump. 

...

In the interview, Altemeyer raised a number of potential long- and short-term solutions that could reduce authoritarian tendencies in the populace. One of those short-term solutions he mentioned was “superordinate goals, where you have things where everybody has to cooperate and work with each other.”

“You can’t solve problems independently, and that has a remarkable effect on letting people who are enemies understand each other better and decrease the tension,” he said. “The business of masks could have been that, but it was effectively trumped by Trump, who made wearing masks a sign of weakness.”

These divides all seem to stem from the same dynamic: leaders in the political and media spaces exacerbating tensions and differences for political gain. That’s a difficult problem to stop, especially when the political incentives and inertia of the moment suggest that voters may just move on to “the craziest son of a bitch in the race,” as dubbed by conservative Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) in a March 2017 Washington Examiner article.

Thomas Costello, a psychological scientist at Emory University who studies authoritarianism, said “it seems like there is just a small minority of the population that is really sensitive” to alienation and fear toward people of different ethnicities and political and religious views, and “it exacerbates latent authoritarian tendencies.”

“I don’t know if you can change that in the same way that I don’t know that you can change someone’s height, or their level of extraversion,” he said. “But what you can do is try to mitigate the sense of the threat and the sense of difference that exacerbates authoritarianism.”

 

[homersapien 11,373]

The truth about many in the GOP base: They prefer authoritarianism to democracy

Opinion by

Jennifer Rubin

Columnist

June 29, 2021 at 7:45 a.m. EDT

 

 

We want to believe that goodwill can foster a return to less contentious and hyperpartisan times. But what if one side adopts noxious views antithetical to democracy — and, worse, rejects the basic premise of America?

We have witnessed Republicans’ reflexive defense of the disgraced former president’s illegal and corrupt conduct. We have observed that the majority of the party accepts the “big lie” of a stolen election and seeks to use that as a basis for suppressing the votes of minorities.

And we know that, once more, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has committed himself to one objective: the defeat and failure of a Democratic president.

In short, they have taken themselves outside the small-d democratic compact that requires, at the very least, that we respect election results and abide by normative guidelines in defeat or victory.

 

It would be somewhat reassuring to think this is a problem of Republican officials, donors and activists. Alas, the authoritarian temptation is luring millions of Americans away from the democratic experiment. “A scale measuring propensity toward right-wing authoritarian tendencies found right-leaning Americans scored higher than their counterparts in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom,” a Morning Consult poll finds. “26% of the U.S. population qualified as highly right-wing authoritarian, Morning Consult research found, twice the share of the No. 2 countries, Canada and Australia.”

This means that a large percentage of Republicans — that is, tens of millions of Americans — embrace an authoritarianism defined “as the desire to submit to some authority, aggression that is directed against whomever the authority says should be targeted and a desire to have everybody follow the norms and social conventions that the authority says should be followed.” This inclination to follow a demagogue and to reject democratic values is more pronounced than in other Western democracies.

The most authoritarian-inclined Americans tend to be over age 45, live in rural areas and don’t have a colleg

That authoritarian mind-set leads to a host of bizarre and dangerous articles of faith in the MAGA-infused GOP. Those with authoritarian beliefs are much more likely to conclude that the Jan. 6 insurrectionists were justified in the attempt to violently halt the electoral count; they are much more inclined to think Trump should not have left office. Although more than half of the strong authoritarian right-wingers “disagreed that Trump should have refused to leave office, that paled in comparison to the approximately 9 in 10 liberal and low-[authoritarian] respondents who said the same.” The authoritarian-inclined are much more inclined to resist mask-wearing and get vaccinated.

The right’s descent into authoritarianism to a large degree is religiously-based. As NPR reported after the Jan. 6 insurrection:

In an open letter, more than 100 pastors, ministry and seminary leaders, and other prominent evangelicals express concern about the growing “radicalization” they’re seeing, particularly among white evangelicals.

 

The letter notes that some members of the mob that stormed the Capitol carried Christian symbols and signs that read, “Jesus Saves,” and that one of the rioters stood on the Senate rostrum and led a Christian prayer. The letter calls on other Christian leaders to take a public stand against racism, Christian nationalism, conspiracy theories and political extremism.

Robert P. Jones, the author of “White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity,” explains: “The most striking difference between right-wing politics in the U.S. and other countries such as Australia, Canada, and [Britain] is the dominance and influence of white evangelical Protestants, who have a theological proclivity toward authoritarianism.” He continues, “The evangelical worldview in America has historically been built on a set of hierarchies that have been defended as divinely ordained — Christian over non-Christian, Protestant over Catholic, white over non-white, men over women. In its strongest forms, this worldview is fundamentally anti-democratic and theocratic.” In what sounds like a perfect alignment with political authoritarianism, “It demands deference particularly to white male charismatic leaders (even when they themselves violate communal norms) and builds identity through a politics of aggression to a shifting array of perceived out groups,” Jones observes.

“Most notably,” he adds, “it gives no quarter to critical thought or dissent, defending its own views as divinely ordained and beyond question.”

If a significant faction of the Republican Party adheres to Christian nationalism rather than the democratic civic religion (equality, the rule of law and the aspiration to perfect the American experiment), the rest of us cannot embrace them as good-faith partners in democracy. As disturbing as it may seem, today’s GOP cannot be entrusted with power and cannot play the role of the “loyal opposition” if it continues to operate outside the democratic compact.

Moreover, if millions of Americans maintain an authoritarian fixation, our democracy will founder, and what happened on Jan. 6 may become a post-election pattern.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/29/truth-about-gop-they-prefer-authoritarianism-democracy/

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

"Robert P. Jones, the author of “White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity,” explains: “The most striking difference between right-wing politics in the U.S. and other countries such as Australia, Canada, and [Britain] is the dominance and influence of white evangelical Protestants, who have a theological proclivity toward authoritarianism.” He continues, “The evangelical worldview in America has historically been built on a set of hierarchies that have been defended as divinely ordained — Christian over non-Christian, Protestant over Catholic, white over non-white, men over women. In its strongest forms, this worldview is fundamentally anti-democratic and theocratic.” In what sounds like a perfect alignment with political authoritarianism, “It demands deference particularly to white male charismatic leaders (even when they themselves violate communal norms) and builds identity through a politics of aggression to a shifting array of perceived out groups,” Jones observes."

 

Yep. Exactly, 

Edited June 29, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[tomcat 569]

Fascism? It is becoming more apparent.

[SaturdayGT 719]

This site is like microcosm of reality...whats the dominant side on this site? What side is more controlling...who's more likely to get shut down, or banned?...cant be to hard to figure out...

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

15 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

This site is like microcosm of reality...whats the dominant side on this site? What side is more controlling...who's more likely to get shut down, or banned?...cant be to hard to figure out...

[autigeremt 6,626]

Both want less freedom and more control.

 

next 

[1716AU 728]

On 6/29/2021 at 5:31 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

"Robert P. Jones, the author of “White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity,” explains: “The most striking difference between right-wing politics in the U.S. and other countries such as Australia, Canada, and [Britain] is the dominance and influence of white evangelical Protestants, who have a theological proclivity toward authoritarianism.” He continues, “The evangelical worldview in America has historically been built on a set of hierarchies that have been defended as divinely ordained — Christian over non-Christian, Protestant over Catholic, white over non-white, men over women. In its strongest forms, this worldview is fundamentally anti-democratic and theocratic.” In what sounds like a perfect alignment with political authoritarianism, “It demands deference particularly to white male charismatic leaders (even when they themselves violate communal norms) and builds identity through a politics of aggression to a shifting array of perceived out groups,” Jones observes."

 

Yep. Exactly, 

When Christians think of the world, they think in terms of saved/unsaved, church/non-churched, Christian/non-Christian. I don't interpret the Johannine term 'kosmos' in that fashion. The world are those committed to violence as their cultural and religious matrix, to a sacrificial reading of texts. Those who follow Jesus should be expected to be brutally ostracized and scapegoated, maybe even physically by those who call themselves "Christians" but who justify violence.  I have more in common with a peacemaking atheist or Muslim than I do with a Militant Christian or someone who has a Janus-faced god.

[Handlemycandle 14]

On 6/30/2021 at 3:33 PM, autigeremt said:

Both want less freedom and more control.

 

next 

That's the way it seems to me, too.

I don't think much of the Atemyer RWA scale, personally.  All the items supposedly reflecting authoritarian tendencies are pro-trait worded and all the items supposedly measuring conventionalism are con-trait worded, which in and of itself is a design flaw IMO.

I know there are few critics of it in psychological academia—then again, psychological academia is dominated about 9 to 1 by the political left, so the proportion of those who embrace the ARWA scale vs those who criticize it is exactly what one would expect. 

The left loves to invent things that supposedly show "scientifically" that the right is this or that.  My favorite is the "research" that is supposed to show that people on the right are paranoid.  If you look into that what you will find is that everything that the left is afraid of is considered a justified fear, even when it's clearly not, and everything that people on the right are afraid of is considered unjustified. 

People on the right being afraid that not enforcing the southern border will result in more contraband crossing the border (which we actually have proof is the case) is considered a xenophobically paranoid position, but people on the left being afraid of "assault weapons" despite the fact that more people literally die every year from falling out of bed (yes, that's also a fact) than they do from being shot with an assault rifle despite their being tens of millions of them in circulation...well, that's a justified fear.

It's a neat trick and it works if you're not paying attention.

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, Handlemycandle said:

That's the way it seems to me, too.

I don't think much of the Atemyer RWA scale, personally.  All the items supposedly reflecting authoritarian tendencies are pro-trait worded and all the items supposedly measuring conventionalism are con-trait worded, which in and of itself is a design flaw IMO.

I know there are few critics of it in psychological academia—then again, psychological academia is dominated about 9 to 1 by the political left, so the proportion of those who embrace the ARWA scale vs those who criticize it is exactly what one would expect. 

The left loves to invent things that supposedly show "scientifically" that the right is this or that.  My favorite is the "research" that is supposed to show that people on the right are paranoid.  If you look into that what you will find is that everything that the left is afraid of is considered a justified fear, even when it's clearly not, and everything that people on the right are afraid of is considered unjustified. 

People on the right being afraid that not enforcing the southern border will result in more contraband crossing the border (which we actually have proof is the case) is considered a xenophobically paranoid position, but people on the left being afraid of "assault weapons" despite the fact that more people literally die every year from falling out of bed (yes, that's also a fact) than they do from being shot with an assault rifle despite their being tens of millions of them in circulation...well, that's a justified fear.

It's a neat trick and it works if you're not paying attention.

I don't need research to demonstrate to my satisfaction that the right is paranoid.  Their vehement irrational reaction  to 'Critical Race Theory' is sufficient.

And if you need evidence they are anti-science (and paranoid) just look at the statistics on who is refusing to get vaccinated.

And the fact the Republican party is now the party of Trump pretty much clinches the argument on authoritarianism.

Edited July 9, 2021 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,896]

On 6/29/2021 at 10:53 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

These divides all seem to stem from the same dynamic: leaders in the political and media spaces exacerbating tensions and differences for political gain.

The problem summed up in a single sentence. 

[Handlemycandle 14]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I don't need research to demonstrate to my satisfaction that the right is paranoid.  Their vehement irrational reaction  to 'Critical Race Theory' is sufficient.

And if you need evidence they are anti-science (and paranoid) just look at the statistics on who is refusing to get vaccinated.

And the fact the Republican party is now the party of Trump pretty much clinches the argument on authoritarianism.

In your first sentence you declare that you don't need no stinking science to know what the truth of the reality is, then two sentences later you declare it's the right that is anti-science.

It would be laughable if you weren't serious.

I get it though.  You're pro-science when it suits you and it's not necessary when it doesn't.  Heads I win, tails you lose.

It's a pretty popular tactic these days, for both sides.  Again, works great for those not paying attention.

[homersapien 11,373]

29 minutes ago, Handlemycandle said:

In your first sentence you declare that you don't need no stinking science to know what the truth of the reality is, then two sentences later you declare it's the right that is anti-science.

It would be laughable if you weren't serious.

I get it though.  You're pro-science when it suits you and it's not necessary when it doesn't.  Heads I win, tails you lose.

It's a pretty popular tactic these days, for both sides.  Again, works great for those not paying attention.

Ahhhh, the old "gotcha" response. 

First, I didn't say I didn't need "science", I said I didn't need "research".  This is partly because I have already read much of the research - or at least enough - to convince me my view is valid. ( I suppose I should have said I didn't need further research to reach a conclusion).  So right off the bat you are mischaracterizing my post.

Secondly, simple observation is part of the scientific method. 

When people tell me or show me who they are, I believe them.  I don't need really need additional research to back that impression up, but to your point, presenting research is useful in demonstrating validity to those who are skeptical or dismiss one's personal beliefs. (Especially those who aren't paying adequate attention. )

So, if you really require it, I can cite some:

https://www.psypost.org/2020/11/conservatives-propensity-toward-conspiracy-thinking-can-be-explained-by-a-distrust-in-officials-and-paranoid-thinking-58459

https://www.economist.com/international/2020/06/03/fake-news-is-fooling-more-conservatives-than-liberals-why

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342625213_The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics_Revisited_An_Ideological_Asymmetry_in_Conspiratorial_Thinking

https://scholars.org/sites/scholars/files/ssn-key-findings-parker-on-tea-party-paranoia.pdf

 

Like it or not, I am pro science in all cases.

Certainly can't say that about a lot of Republicans.

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,806]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like it or not, I am pro science in all cases.

Of course but not so sure about the formula in ncbi link. 

“We found that increased gray matter volume in the right amygdala was significantly associated with conservatism (Figure 1 (R = 0.23, T(88) = −2.22, p < 0.029 corrected). No significant correlation was found in the left amygdala (R = 0.15, T(88) = −1.43, p = 0.15 corrected; see Figure S1 available online for the individual gray matter volumes of the ACC and amygdala).”

[homersapien 11,373]

33 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Of course but not so sure about the formula in ncbi link. 

“We found that increased gray matter volume in the right amygdala was significantly associated with conservatism (Figure 1 (R = 0.23, T(88) = −2.22, p < 0.029 corrected). No significant correlation was found in the left amygdala (R = 0.15, T(88) = −1.43, p = 0.15 corrected; see Figure S1 available online for the individual gray matter volumes of the ACC and amygdala).”

Well, regarding paranoia, that sounds about right:

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/06/left-right-and-center-mapping-emotion-brain   "The neural system for emotions linked to approaching and engaging with the world – like happiness, pride and anger – lives in the left side of the brain, while emotions associated with avoidance – like disgust and fear – are housed in the right."

I'd say paranoia is closely related to fear.

Glad to see you are paying attention.

Edited July 9, 2021 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,806]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

like disgust and fear – are housed in the right."

Right side is what Ms Salty claims to be a fault after seeing a snake and yelling SH*T!!! 
 

Great job Brother Homer

[homersapien 11,373]

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Right side is what Ms Salty claims to be a fault after seeing a snake and yelling SH*T!!!

As long as she doesn't hurt the snake.

[Handlemycandle 14]

On 7/9/2021 at 12:20 PM, homersapien said:

Ahhhh, the old "gotcha" response. 

First, I didn't say I didn't need "science", I said I didn't need "research".  This is partly because I have already read much of the research - or at least enough - to convince me my view is valid. ( I suppose I should have said I didn't need further research to reach a conclusion).  So right off the bat you are mischaracterizing my post.

Secondly, simple observation is part of the scientific method. 

When people tell me or show me who they are, I believe them.  I don't need really need additional research to back that impression up, but to your point, presenting research is useful in demonstrating validity to those who are skeptical or dismiss one's personal beliefs. (Especially those who aren't paying adequate attention. )

So, if you really require it, I can cite some:

https://www.psypost.org/2020/11/conservatives-propensity-toward-conspiracy-thinking-can-be-explained-by-a-distrust-in-officials-and-paranoid-thinking-58459

https://www.economist.com/international/2020/06/03/fake-news-is-fooling-more-conservatives-than-liberals-why

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342625213_The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics_Revisited_An_Ideological_Asymmetry_in_Conspiratorial_Thinking

https://scholars.org/sites/scholars/files/ssn-key-findings-parker-on-tea-party-paranoia.pdf

 

Like it or not, I am pro science in all cases.

Certainly can't say that about a lot of Republicans.

 

 

 

So you admit that you mis-spoke but I'm the one mischaracterizing your post?  Can you write anything without contradicting yourself?

And that's great that you can cite research.  The whole point was that the research that I have actually looked into rather than taking PsyToday's word for it is crap research deliberately designed to get the conclusion desired.

I'm on vacation right now and will not take the time to investigate the mechanisms and methodology of all of those links.  You should, however, if you're going to post them as proof of what you said you didn't even need research to tell you.  Or was that you misspeaking?

[homersapien 11,373]

On 7/11/2021 at 8:47 AM, Handlemycandle said:

So you admit that you mis-spoke but I'm the one mischaracterizing your post?  Can you write anything without contradicting yourself?

And that's great that you can cite research.  The whole point was that the research that I have actually looked into rather than taking PsyToday's word for it is crap research deliberately designed to get the conclusion desired.

I'm on vacation right now and will not take the time to investigate the mechanisms and methodology of all of those links.  You should, however, if you're going to post them as proof of what you said you didn't even need research to tell you.  Or was that you misspeaking?

There's plenty of valid research suggesting physiological/anatomical differences between liberals and conservatives as it relates to their psychology.  As someone who was raised in a conservative, religious environment, it has interested me for a long time. 

But one can draw similar conclusions by simple observation.  It is my observation that, as a general statement,  conservatives fear - and I use the term "fear" literally - progressive change.

That fear explains their literal hatred of progressives and progressive policies.  Anyone who has been paying attention to the country's current political climate would see this. (Unless, of course, they are conservatives.) 

Can you write anything without sounding like a complete jerk?

Edited July 12, 2021 by homersapien