JohnEngelman
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2022
- Posts
- 3,371
In The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind: How Self-Interest Shapes Our Opinions And Why We Won't Admit It Jason Weeden & Robert Kurzban argue that self interest, rather than political philosophy, determines party affiliation. However self interest consists of economic and social interests. Consequently, party affiliation is complex. Nevertheless, if one knows a person's economic and social interests one can predict that person's party affiliation with a certain amount of accuracy.
Economic issues largely concern who pays how much in taxes, and what the money is spent for. Economic conservatives favor lower taxes for the rich, and less domestic spending. Economic liberals favor the opposite. Economic conservatives will explain their opinions by saying in so many words, "I am in favor of freedom, and Constitutional government. Democrats want to punish our most productive citizens."
Economic liberals will say in effect, "I think everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living. The Republicans only care about the rich."
Social issues largely concern sexual behavior and factors that restrict it, although attitudes about guns, criminals, race, and immigrants are also important. Social conservatives will explain their opinions this way, "I am in favor of Judeo Christian morality. Secular humanists favor the sexual license that has always resulted in the fall of civilizations."
Social liberals will counter with an argument that sounds like this, "I am in favor of tolerance. The religious right is intolerant, and probably racist and sexist besides."
Immigration is a social and an economic issue. Many Americans do not like cultural diversity. Others like it. Most Americans are jeopardized by the downward pressure a high rate of immigration exerts on wages. Hispanics and Asians, most of whom are immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants, want fewer restrictions on immigration. Blacks understandably tend to favor policies that benefit blacks as a race. Many whites oppose those policies, even when they share economic interests with blacks.
Libraries can be filled with books that argue for one or another of these attitudes. Jason Weeden and Robert Kurzban assert that people do not have the opinions they have because they have read books with good arguments. Instead, they read books that reinforce opinions they already have. These opinions in turn are based on how they perceive their economic and social interests.
The United States government is a democracy. We are equal under the law. Nevertheless, wealth, education, and power correlate. Those with the most of each tend to be more libertarian than the population as a whole. That is to say, they tend to be more conservative on economic issues, and more liberal on social issues. These are the people who lead the two major political parties. Consequently, when the Republican and Democratic parties compromise, the compromise ends up to the right of the American consensus on economic issues, and to the left on social issues.
This is particularly true of the Supreme Court and of courts in general. The Supreme Court has legalized abortion, outlawed prayer in public schools, and legalized nearly unlimited campaign funding by rich people. These rich people of course expect results from the politicians they contribute to, results that benefit them in particular and rich people in general.
In What is the Matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank expressed incredulity and displeasure at the fact that low income whites in Kansas (and the rest of the country) usually vote against their economic interests by voting Republican.
Well, it turns out that low income whites usually have liberal opinions about Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment compensation. They also have conservative opinions on issues like gay marriage, abortion, prayer in the schools, gun control, affirmative action, and immigration.
Lower income whites usually vote Republican because for them social issues are more important than economic issues. Nevertheless, their liberal economic views often come as a shock to the Republican politicians they vote for when those Republican politicians get serious about cutting specific items in the domestic budget.
The vast majority of blacks vote Democratic. Their opposition to gay rights issues often displeases the Democratic politicians they elect.
President Reagan did little to advance the agenda of the Religious Right that had enabled him to be elected in 1980. (The only thing I can think of is that he helped to stop the Equal Rights Amendment from passing.) President Reagan did cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Under the Obama administration corporations got bailouts. Ordinary citizens did not.
The prime movers of political affiliation are income, education, race, and sexual behavior. Generally speaking income correlates with economic conservatism. Education correlates with social liberalism. People favor policies that benefit others of their race. Number of sex partners varies inversely with church attendance.
There is a strong correlation between income and education. Nevertheless, when income is held constant, those with more education lean to the left. When education is held constant, those with more income lean to the right.
At the extremes, someone with nothing to show for a PhD. or a law degree but unpaid student loan debts and a low wage job is likely to vote Democratic or perhaps Green. High school dropouts who become prosperous business owners tend to vote Republican or perhaps Libertarian.
Whites tend to vote Republican, even when they are poor. Non whites and Jews tend to vote Democratic, even when they are rich. The tendency of Jews and Asians to vote Democratic even when they are rich irritates Republicans. It can probably be explained by the fact that Asian societies value social harmony, and that American society values individualism and competition. Jews are less averse to competition, but they usually have a collective memory of the shtetl, the ghetto, and the lower east side of Manhattan.
Moreover, the tragic history of the Jews has taught them that they are safest in multi ethnic societies, where no ethnicity is clearly dominant. For obvious reasons they feel differently about Israel. The Jewish tendency to support lower immigration laws in the United States, but stricter immigration laws in Israel angers white nationalists.
The authors get their data about how Americans with different characteristics behave and think from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS). Most of what they find is what you would expect: rich people are less likely to favor higher taxes on the rich that are poor people; promiscuous people are more likely to favor legal abortion than are monogamous people; gun owners are less likely to favor more gun control laws than are people who do not own guns, etc.
One area where people differ is in human capital. People with high human capital score well on mental aptitude tests and are well educated. People with low human capital test poorly and are poorly educated. People with high human capital welcome competition with people of other races and religions. People with low human capital desire a form of group based preference.
Blacks and Hispanics with low human capital desire affirmative action policies. White Gentiles with low human capital want Jews and non whites to be discriminated against in hiring and university admissions.
Low human capital explains the antisemitism that infects some websites on the internet. White Gentiles with low human capital sneer at the poverty of poor blacks and Hispanics at the same time that they resent the prosperity of Jews and Orientals.
The most interesting finding of this book is that sexual behavior has more of an influence on religious attendance than does religious attendance have on sexual behavior. The authors discuss sexual behavior with a continuum that ranges from those they call "Freewheelers" at one extreme, to "Ring Bearers" on the other. Freewheelers enjoy sexual variety and casual sex, and have little interest in marriage. Ring Bearers have little (or no) interest in sexual variety and casual sex, and much interest in marriage.
Economic issues largely concern who pays how much in taxes, and what the money is spent for. Economic conservatives favor lower taxes for the rich, and less domestic spending. Economic liberals favor the opposite. Economic conservatives will explain their opinions by saying in so many words, "I am in favor of freedom, and Constitutional government. Democrats want to punish our most productive citizens."
Economic liberals will say in effect, "I think everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living. The Republicans only care about the rich."
Social issues largely concern sexual behavior and factors that restrict it, although attitudes about guns, criminals, race, and immigrants are also important. Social conservatives will explain their opinions this way, "I am in favor of Judeo Christian morality. Secular humanists favor the sexual license that has always resulted in the fall of civilizations."
Social liberals will counter with an argument that sounds like this, "I am in favor of tolerance. The religious right is intolerant, and probably racist and sexist besides."
Immigration is a social and an economic issue. Many Americans do not like cultural diversity. Others like it. Most Americans are jeopardized by the downward pressure a high rate of immigration exerts on wages. Hispanics and Asians, most of whom are immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants, want fewer restrictions on immigration. Blacks understandably tend to favor policies that benefit blacks as a race. Many whites oppose those policies, even when they share economic interests with blacks.
Libraries can be filled with books that argue for one or another of these attitudes. Jason Weeden and Robert Kurzban assert that people do not have the opinions they have because they have read books with good arguments. Instead, they read books that reinforce opinions they already have. These opinions in turn are based on how they perceive their economic and social interests.
The United States government is a democracy. We are equal under the law. Nevertheless, wealth, education, and power correlate. Those with the most of each tend to be more libertarian than the population as a whole. That is to say, they tend to be more conservative on economic issues, and more liberal on social issues. These are the people who lead the two major political parties. Consequently, when the Republican and Democratic parties compromise, the compromise ends up to the right of the American consensus on economic issues, and to the left on social issues.
This is particularly true of the Supreme Court and of courts in general. The Supreme Court has legalized abortion, outlawed prayer in public schools, and legalized nearly unlimited campaign funding by rich people. These rich people of course expect results from the politicians they contribute to, results that benefit them in particular and rich people in general.
In What is the Matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank expressed incredulity and displeasure at the fact that low income whites in Kansas (and the rest of the country) usually vote against their economic interests by voting Republican.
Well, it turns out that low income whites usually have liberal opinions about Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment compensation. They also have conservative opinions on issues like gay marriage, abortion, prayer in the schools, gun control, affirmative action, and immigration.
Lower income whites usually vote Republican because for them social issues are more important than economic issues. Nevertheless, their liberal economic views often come as a shock to the Republican politicians they vote for when those Republican politicians get serious about cutting specific items in the domestic budget.
The vast majority of blacks vote Democratic. Their opposition to gay rights issues often displeases the Democratic politicians they elect.
President Reagan did little to advance the agenda of the Religious Right that had enabled him to be elected in 1980. (The only thing I can think of is that he helped to stop the Equal Rights Amendment from passing.) President Reagan did cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Under the Obama administration corporations got bailouts. Ordinary citizens did not.
The prime movers of political affiliation are income, education, race, and sexual behavior. Generally speaking income correlates with economic conservatism. Education correlates with social liberalism. People favor policies that benefit others of their race. Number of sex partners varies inversely with church attendance.
There is a strong correlation between income and education. Nevertheless, when income is held constant, those with more education lean to the left. When education is held constant, those with more income lean to the right.
At the extremes, someone with nothing to show for a PhD. or a law degree but unpaid student loan debts and a low wage job is likely to vote Democratic or perhaps Green. High school dropouts who become prosperous business owners tend to vote Republican or perhaps Libertarian.
Whites tend to vote Republican, even when they are poor. Non whites and Jews tend to vote Democratic, even when they are rich. The tendency of Jews and Asians to vote Democratic even when they are rich irritates Republicans. It can probably be explained by the fact that Asian societies value social harmony, and that American society values individualism and competition. Jews are less averse to competition, but they usually have a collective memory of the shtetl, the ghetto, and the lower east side of Manhattan.
Moreover, the tragic history of the Jews has taught them that they are safest in multi ethnic societies, where no ethnicity is clearly dominant. For obvious reasons they feel differently about Israel. The Jewish tendency to support lower immigration laws in the United States, but stricter immigration laws in Israel angers white nationalists.
The authors get their data about how Americans with different characteristics behave and think from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS). Most of what they find is what you would expect: rich people are less likely to favor higher taxes on the rich that are poor people; promiscuous people are more likely to favor legal abortion than are monogamous people; gun owners are less likely to favor more gun control laws than are people who do not own guns, etc.
One area where people differ is in human capital. People with high human capital score well on mental aptitude tests and are well educated. People with low human capital test poorly and are poorly educated. People with high human capital welcome competition with people of other races and religions. People with low human capital desire a form of group based preference.
Blacks and Hispanics with low human capital desire affirmative action policies. White Gentiles with low human capital want Jews and non whites to be discriminated against in hiring and university admissions.
Low human capital explains the antisemitism that infects some websites on the internet. White Gentiles with low human capital sneer at the poverty of poor blacks and Hispanics at the same time that they resent the prosperity of Jews and Orientals.
The most interesting finding of this book is that sexual behavior has more of an influence on religious attendance than does religious attendance have on sexual behavior. The authors discuss sexual behavior with a continuum that ranges from those they call "Freewheelers" at one extreme, to "Ring Bearers" on the other. Freewheelers enjoy sexual variety and casual sex, and have little interest in marriage. Ring Bearers have little (or no) interest in sexual variety and casual sex, and much interest in marriage.
