Via Glenn, a study finds, unsurprisingly, that those most responsive to threats are more likely to support policies that respond to threats aggressively:Â
People who are physiologically highly responsive to threat are likely to advocate policies that protect against threats to the social unit: favouring defence spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War.
In contrast, people who are less startled by sudden noises and threatening visual images are more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control.
It’s like the old saying: a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality. There’s some literal truth there: experiencing trauma makes one more reactive to danger. Even second-hand experience of trauma makes one realize that perhaps threats need to be aggressively confronted with force – which is probably why I’ve seen Republicans remark Democrats should be strapped down and forced to watch Rambo 2008 a few dozen times.
{ 11 comments }
i don’t know about the rest of it, but imho everyone should be strapped down and forced to watch rambo 2008.
zach’s last blog post..Happy Birthday Mark
Well I lived in a bad neighborhood for awhile and hung out in bad neighborhood for years when I was young. I noticed your typical yuppie maggot Republican spawn can’t tell the difference between a bum that wants change, a mentally ill Vietnam vet, and a guy that will kill him for a nickel.
All of those Democratic voters that live there seem to be able to spot a threat just fine. You know what they call people who overreact to threats? Paranoid.
I find a lot of Democrats who have been mugged and have been robbed because they lived in places that were actually dangerous right here in the United States. Instead of cleaning up these places, our corrupt leadership instead chooses to fight overseas.
Who’s in fantasy land? Not the people who actually have to struggle to make a difference around here, that’s for sure.
Hmm. So we should use the armed forces domestically to clean up crime and dangerous influences? Well it’s a thought…
Funny I didn’t mention the army. We could however use the already established agencies that enforce federal law to eliminate quite a bit of crime though. The FBI the ATF etc… But we don’t. Our armed forces could be at ready to defend the country or something. That would be crazy thinkin’ I guess.
jrogge wrote:
 typical yuppie maggot Republican
Judgemental much?
Actually.. I’m curious, jrogge…
How is it you’re so good at knowing how someone’s parents vote? Or do you just assume that because someone looks a certain way, their parents vote in some way?
If you base it on how much money their parents have, for example, you’re probably about 50% wrong, and you actually despise the spawn of Democrats just as much as the spawn of Republicans.
But that, uh, presumably wouldn’t look anything like a police state?
 Reminds of this story I just read yesterday. http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1221789310207720.xml&coll=1 I wonder how he’ll be voting now….
It’s not clear how significant this study is. I generally lean towards being a democrat, but after 9/11, I started voting conservative because of the way Democrats panicked in reaction to the attacks. Panicking during a crisis is not a sign of leadership.
However, conservatives do get riled up about relatively unimportant things, like nudity and "declining moral values" Rudy Giuliani was brilliant at fighting crime and responding to terrorism, but he went nuts over an dumb and offensive art show.
Anyway, a few years ago, someone did a study that said that liberals had a stronger ‘fear’ reaction to a perceived threat, and the liberal researchers interpreted this as a sign that liberals were more empathetic than heartless conservatives. Which basically means that most social science is not science at all.
But that, uh, presumably wouldn’t look anything like a police state?
Dean, if you think I mean we should barge into people’s houses unannounced, without warrants, go through their stuff until they are guilty of something so they can go to re-education camp; then you have misunderstood what I am saying.
I guess it’s better to invade countries for cheaper bananas then, more moral? We can spend 14 years banging stuff around and messing up stuff in a foreign country to catch one columbian drug lord, but searching for crime in our own streets? Nah too unrealistsic I guess. If someone is obviously guilty of weapons smuggling and drug trafficking and we arrest them, how is it a police state?
Most street gangs, for example, are by and large guilty of these things. I suppose it was a police state when the untouchables busted up all that organized crime or when the F.B.I. cracked down on all of those KKK and racist groups then, and we should just allow the crime and filth to exist in America’s cities then. Great idea.
However, conservatives do get riled up about relatively unimportant things, like nudity and "declining moral values" Rudy Giuliani was brilliant at fighting crime and responding to terrorism, but he went nuts over an dumb and offensive art show.
Actually Mary this is sort of my point. I would love to see our government paying tax dollars to help cities clean up their crime and strengthen their education than what they use the money for now. We have a growing problem that is constantly being swept under the rug. We have stamped out crime in the past using federal forces and I don’t see why it is such a terrible thing now.
Most people in these organizations are guilty of some federal law and it is not unreasonable to suggest that the F.B.I. could become involved in cleaning up some of our worst cities. Cities that have fallen into corruption to the point where the local law enforcement is either powerless or flat out non-existent. Cities where the government is just a guilty of crime as the people under them and so forth.
Instead, we have gun control laws that help criminals, we have a welfare system that only keeps the poor at a baseline level. After Katrina New Orleans received a grant of a mere 20.9 million from the no child left behind bill. Despite the criticism of the bill this allowed a city that had 48 of the 55 worst schools in Louisiana to reform their schools.
So why does it take a hurricane for people to address a problem in this country?
Judgemental much?
Yup.
How is it you’re so good at knowing how someone’s parents vote? Or do you just assume that because someone looks a certain way, their parents vote in some way?
Considering all of the stereotypes that have been tossed around about a number of people, especially Muslims, around here, I think I’m entitled to a few myself.
Anyhow the people getting mugged by "reality" daily tend to be Democrats. At least the areas the our wonderful society tends to ignore, the areas that have the most danger, tend to be. It’s too bad that the Democratic party does not address their issues either but they at least pretend to care sometimes. You see, our government would rather tackle unsolvable issues like abortion and gay marriage to make it look like that are doing something, rather than actually do something.
I noticed your typical yuppie maggot Republican spawn can’t tell the difference between a bum that wants change, a mentally ill Vietnam vet, and a guy that will kill him for a nickel.
That’s simply knowledge of the environment, like a forest-dwelling hunter/gatherer knowing better than an urbanite which plants are edible and which will kill you.Â
But regardless of party, if someone has been mugged they’re more likely to support tougher laws on violent crime and the right to self-defense — and are more easily startled.
Comments on this entry are closed.