Opinions about Child Rearing Determine How You Vote

Post Reply New Topic

October 16, 2012 Salon.com by Jonathan Weiler


It’s a truism in American politics that President Obama has a hard time appealing to white working-class voters , the assumption being that whether you support or oppose the president is a function of race and class (and, to a lesser degree, geography, since Southerners are less likely to vote for Obama).

But this demographic view of voting behavior, while not entirely wrong, fails to capture the nature of support for Obama among whites, and misses a crucial dynamic among the electorate more broadly. To a large extent, it is not class or education that explains political preferences. It is personality; specifically, the degree to which white voters believe in order and hierarchy. In fact, it turns out that plenty of less well-educated whites who tolerate ambiguity and disdain hierarchy are highly supportive of the president. Conversely, many well-off, college-educated whites who dislike ambiguity and embrace hierarchy oppose the president.

How do we know this? For the past two decades, pollsters have been asking people what values they think are most important to instill in children. Is it more important for kids to develop a sense of independence or to respect their elders? To be curious or to display good manners? As we spelled out in our book, “Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics,” studies have repeatedly shown that answers to child-rearing questions reflect fundamental personality differences that, in turn, have become perhaps the most important explanation for our polarized politics.

These personality differences tell us who supports gay marriage and who doesn’t, who favors immigration and “amnesty” and who opposes them, as well as differences on a host of other issues. Individuals who cherish independence and curiosity tend overwhelmingly to be authority questioning, whereas those who most value respect for elders and good manners tend to place a premium on order and hierarchy. White respondents’ answers to these questions illuminate powerfully their views about politics. It turns out that whether white Americans support Obama or not, vote Democratic or Republican, has more to do with how they think about raising children than with their socioeconomic status.

To flesh this out, we looked at data from two different election cycles: 2008 and 2010. The results were striking. In 2008, among whites voters, those most comfortable with questioning authority supported Obama by more than 3-to-1, while those more disposed toward authority and order preferred Sen. McCain by a 2-to-1 margin. Among whites with a high-school education or less who were most authority questioning, however, 76 percent supported Obama, whereas among college-educated but authority-minded whites, only 18 percent supported the future president.

Data from the 2010 midterm elections reveal the same picture. Again, about 75 percent of the most authority-questioning voters cast ballots for Democratic House candidates. By contrast, more than three-quarters of those placing the highest value on authority voted Republican. As in 2008, personality trumped education levels in explaining partisan voting. Among whites with at least a college degree and who scored low in authority-mindedness, more than 90 percent voted for Democratic candidates. But, if those same highly educated whites were predisposed to be authority-minded, 80 percent voted for Republican candidates.

The same basic story holds when we look at income. In fact, there is no difference in support for President Obama among white voters who differ in income but share the same personality type. Low-income whites who say they want kids to question authority are as supportive of President Obama as high-income whites with the same psychological disposition. Conversely, high-income whites who prefer order and authority feel just as negatively toward the president as do low-income whites with the same personality type. To be crystal clear, neither income nor education explains white political preferences as well as how people think about raising kids.


What do you think?

I think someone needs to slap these variables into a regression analysis rather than making long-winded posts.

The numbers and polls are there if you read the post....troll.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/dr ... arians.pdf

Here is a more depth and detailed study of authoritarian attitudes and political voting behavior.

do you expect anybody to read 250+ pages of that?

I saw no regression coefficients (standardised or not), no significance levels, no Durbin-Watson (Invented by the Mann, BTW), no homogeneity tests, no Cronbach's Alpha and no actual documentation of DATA in your original post.

Just because you're not curious does't mean I'm not. I'm looking through that link and a link to Robert Barro right now. What are you doing?

It's an op ed piece about what to expect in voting behavior from two different sets of people. It's not a science project. Troll.

We already know that the brains of people are observably-different, in correspondence with their political and ethical beliefs, with conservatives showing increased activation in disgust response and fear as compared to liberals, vegetarians showing increased activity in empathy-related regions as compared to omnivores, etc.

It's nice that articles like this are finally hinting at the actual variables of neurology,
as opposed to the endless demographics discussions.

plants "scream" by releasing chemicals into the air, to either warn other plants in the vicinity of impending doom, or to attract predators of whatever is eating the plant. In addition to this, plants exhibit similar responses to that of a human being nervous or "lying" when hooked up to a polygraph and approached with intent to attack/destroy the plant. There is nothing empathetic or moral about eating plants vs. eating animals. The only difference is that the animals respond in a way that's more easily understandable to us when pain is inflicted upon them, which only makes sense, as we are much more similar to other animals(because we ARE animals) than we are to plants. So... enough of that moral crusader garbage coming from the vegetarians.

By the way, this study is a bunch of crap because regardless, I'm not voting, and I wouldn't vote for a republican or a democrat based on their political affiliation in the first place. If I were to vote, I would vote for Ron Paul.

You initiate a thread with the words "What do you think?" and then you throw ad hominem attacks at people when they actually *say* what they think.

So liberals and vegetarians are genetically superior in your opinion?

Darling,
the point isn't whether it objectively IS more moral to be vegetarian or not,
but that people who ARE have increased amygdala activity as compared to those who are not,
in relation to their PERCEPTIONS (which can be flawed, just as anyone else's).

I am so terribly sorry if I made you feel insecure, but you once again have utterly missed the point.

Trolling this thread.

No, liberals and vegetarians have different neurological responses from conservatives and omnivores,
in numerous studies.


Is this the get-your-panties-in-a-twist thread, or is it just me?

Yeah if what they are saying is just asking for information that isn't available in the piece then I have to assume that they are troll, troll, trolling.