Why working class people vote for conservatives.

[lumberjack_jeff]

Why on Earth would a working-class person ever vote for a conservative candidate? This question has obsessed the American left since Ronald Reagan first captured the votes of so many union members, farmers, urban Catholics and other relatively powerless people – the so-called "Reagan Democrats". Isn't the Republican party the party of big business? Don't the Democrats stand up for the little guy, and try to redistribute the wealth downwards?...

...Here's a more painful but ultimately constructive diagnosis, from the point of view of moral psychology: politics at the national level is more like religion than it is like shopping. It's more about a moral vision that unifies a nation and calls it to greatness than it is about self-interest or specific policies. In most countries, the right tends to see that more clearly than the left. In America the Republicans did the hard work of drafting their moral vision in the 1970s, and Ronald Reagan was their eloquent spokesman. Patriotism, social order, strong families, personal responsibility (not government safety nets) and free enterprise. Those are values, not government programmes....

In the same way, you can think of the moral mind as being like a tongue that is sensitive to a variety of moral flavours. In my research with colleagues at YourMorals.org, we have identified six moral concerns as the best candidates for being the innate "taste buds" of the moral sense: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Across many kinds of surveys, in the UK as well as in the USA, we find that people who self-identify as being on the left score higher on questions about care/harm. For example, how much would someone have to pay you to kick a dog in the head? Nobody wants to do this, but liberals say they would require more money than conservatives to cause harm to an innocent creature.

But on matters relating to group loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity (treating things as sacred and untouchable, not only in the context of religion), it sometimes seems that liberals lack the moral taste buds, or at least, their moral "cuisine" makes less use of them. For example, according to our data, if you want to hire someone to criticise your nation on a radio show in another nation (loyalty), give the finger to his boss (authority), or sign a piece of paper stating one's willingness to sell his soul (sanctity), you can save a lot of money by posting a sign: "Conservatives need not apply."

In America, it is these three moral foundations that underlie most of the "cultural" issues that, according to duping theorists, are used to distract voters from their self-interest. But are voters really voting against their self-interest when they vote for candidates who share their values? Loyalty, respect for authority and some degree of sanctification create a more binding social order that places some limits on individualism and egoism. As marriage rates plummet, and globalisation and rising diversity erodes the sense of common heritage within each nation, a lot of voters in many western nations find themselves hungering for conservative moral cuisine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/05/why-working-class-people-vote-conservative

A lot of what this guy says rings true, even if I don't like it, or share a moral compass which allows voting for Republicans.

[Major Nikon]

1. This is not new information

There was a white paper that came out a few years ago that explains this concept. If anyone is interested, I can probably find it again if I looked hard enough.

Basically what I got out of it is that conservatives tend to place more emphasis on group morality than liberals. Liberals believe more strongly in personal morality than group morality. In other words, conservatives believe that if they belong to a group that has a set of moral codes, morality is bestowed upon them by virtue of identifying with that group and they are relieved of the responsibility of doing so. Liberals take more personal responsibility in determining morality. In other words, they don't just accept something as moral just because the group approves. This is why liberals believe more in social justice than conservatives. That's why conservatives are more prone to believing in religious hocus pocus and are more prone to nationalism, demagoguery, and so forth.

It's been a while since I've read it, but one of the examples I remember was that let's say your neighbor put up a sign that said, "Cable TV is destroying society". You ask the neighbor to explain it and they say the cable is transmitting dangerous electronic waves that are making people sterile. You try to explain to your neighbor that their idea isn't based on any scientific evidence and just isn't true. They ignore you and there is no point in trying to reason with them. Naturally you think your neighbor is fucking crazy and delusional and there is sound basis for this. However, let's say you have another neighbor that puts up a sign that says, "Gay marriage is destroying society." You ask your neighbor to explain it and they say gay marriage is against god's will. You try to explain them the harm to society that this attitude creates, but they ignore you and there is no point in trying to reason with them. You don't think your neighbor is fucking crazy because a lot of other people believe this.

It's easy to see in this example the moral pitfall that conservatives easily fall into, however the article you published demonstrates a moral pitfall that liberals are prone to fall into. Liberals more commonly equate equal outcomes to equal opportunity. So issues like the gender wage gap issue become important because when there is obvious unequal outcomes, there must be unequal opportunity, even though there may be many rational reasons for unequal outcome. Commonly a liberal will reject reason given this belief. Conservatives are more likely to reject the idea of equal outcomes reflecting equal opportunity. The problem is that quite often unequal outcomes do mean unequal opportunity. If you consider the case of disadvantaged minorities, liberals point to unequal outcomes which do actually reflect unequal opportunity. While a conservative will point to some minorities who have "made it" and say, "There's all the evidence I need, minorities are just lazy and don't try hard enough."

I think Obama understands at least some of these concepts. If you listen to him closely, he says things like he doesn't fault rich people for being rich, he just wants them to play on a level playing field with the rest of us. This appeals more to the mind of a conservative.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. If you do happen to find that white paper, I'd love to see it.

As a partisan, I reject the idea that half the people are just stupid and will never vote my way. There must be a way to reach people.

Look at coal miners as an example. If they supported Democrats 30 years ago and Republicans today, then the explanation that they're simply dupes is unfulfilling.

I think we have to reach them where they are (I'm mostly talking about working class white men here) and there must be a way.

[Major Nikon]

3. I found it

[font color=black size=5]When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have
Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize[/font]

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pub041.pdf

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Thank you, I'll read it in the morning. n/t

[Major Nikon]

5. Here's why I think Republicans are fucking stupid.

Please note to potential jurists that I'm not trying to offend anyone who may or may not be what I'd call fucking stupid (well actually I may be). It's just that I define stupidity a bit differently than most and 'fucking' is used to define the extreme end of that stupidity.

I understand that most people would define fucking stupidity with some metric which is easily quantifiable such as I.Q. Awww, you scored below 84. You must be fucking stupid. But lookie here, this guy scored a 145 and he's a fucking genius! (I'm channeling George Carlin). The obvious flaw with this widely held belief is that there have been plenty of people who would be considered fucking geniuses who are serial killers and there are plenty of people who would be considered fucking stupid who have contributed incalculably to society. Forrest Gump for example.

So I tend to place more emphasis on emotional 'intelligence'. What do you do rather than what you are capable of knowing. Someone who I would call fucking stupid would be lacking in emotions and deeds I would consider virtuous.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. I think it's more a mixed up sense of right and wrong.

That's why the article linked in the OP makes some sense to me.

We liberals know right from wrong just like conservatives do. The difference is that we have a different moral sense of the elements which factor into that judgment.

People generally don't think at all about policy when deciding whether to be a democrat. I suspect that's the most frustrating thing for most of us.

[YoungDemCA]

7. "People generally don't think at all about policy when deciding whether to be a democrat." Nailed it

That goes for Republicans, too, and this is especially true of working-class and poor people of both parties.

Most (especially working-class) people vote based on a kind of cultural in-group morality, not on personal morality and certainly not on economic "self-interest." There are big racial issues here, too, that need to be addressed and wrestled with....