Some of Nothing

Republicans: The Real "Girlie Men" and Women?
Thursday, December 13, 2007

Isn't it interesting how Republicans continually call other people chickens? I mean: beyond Schwartzenegger's idiotic "girlie men" statement, we have Limbaugh's "feminization" or "chickification" of whatever, not to mention Bill OhhhhhhReilly's continual use of the c-word (coward--which is, at least, an improvement). So, not only are we all a bunch of wusses, we're also a bunch of girls, which for most Republicans would seem to be the same thing. Well, according to the Situationist, science may say different:

The reason thoughts of death make people more conservative, Jost says, is that they awaken a deep desire to see the world as fair and just, to believe that people get what they deserve, and to accept the existing social order as valid, rather than in need of change. When these natural desires are primed by thoughts of death and a barrage of mortal fear, people gravitate toward conservatism because it’s more certain about the answers it provides—right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, us vs. them—and because conservative leaders are more likely to advocate a return to traditional values, allowing people to stick with what’s familiar and known. “Conservatism is a more black and white ideology than liberalism,” explains Jost. “It emphasizes tradition and authority, which are reassuring during periods of threat.”

To test the theory, Jost prompted people to think about either pain—by looking at things like an ambulance, a dentist’s chair, and a bee sting—or death, by looking at things like a funeral hearse, the grim reaper, and a dead-end sign. Across the political spectrum, people who had been primed to think about death were more conservative on issues like immigration, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage than those who had merely thought about pain, although the effect size was relatively small. The implication is clear: For liberals, conservatives, and independents alike, thinking about death actually makes people more conservative—at least temporarily.

Now, I honestly don't know how reliable the results of studies such as these are, and they are certainly more complexity-laden in the Situationist's post than they are here. But what seems incredibly obvious is that campaign strategists (the Roves of the world) use them...a lot. As the Situationist notes:

“At least some of the President’s support is the result of constant and relentless reminders of death, some of which is just what’s happening in the world, but much of which is carefully cultivated and calculated as an electoral strategy,” says Solomon. “In politics these days, there’s a dose of reason, and there’s a dose of irrationality driven by psychological terror that may very well be swinging elections.”

Solomon demonstrated that thinking about 9/11 made people go from preferring Kerry to preferring Bush. “Very subtle manipulations of psychological conditions profoundly affect political preferences,” Solomon concludes. “In difficult moments, people don’t want complex, nuanced, John Kerry-like waffling or sophisticated cogitation. They want somebody charismatic to step up and say, ‘I know where our problem is and God has given me the clout to kick those people’s asses.’”

Sure. This is hardly a groundbreaking conclusion. Remember the Fear and Loathing in NYC that was dubbed the 2004 Republican National Convention? How many times did Bush talk about fear and threats in his speech:

We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that September the 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late. (Applause.)

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

AUDIENCE: U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

So, the problem that liberals have is that we don't constantly feel threatened. We're not always under attack. Why is this? Well, the Situationist also cites some possible personality differences:

As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

It's hard to say how much of this we can buy. I mean, anecdotally, everything brought up in this study matches my own personal observations of Republicans (and I mean everything), but maybe that's why I'm more likely to believe it. But then, maybe my wondering if I can believe it, in spite of the fact that it matches my observations, is what makes me a liberal. Not only that, I think that I DO feel threatened...by Republicans. True that I'm not going to go all extracurricular with my fear and start blowing stuff up, but the impact I've seen them make on our world is pretty disgusting. So, maybe I'm not afraid but disgusted? To top it off, I also kind of feel threatened by terrorists, but I'm pretty sure I can take them. It's all so perplexing. Either way, the most pressing question I have in all this is:

Which is worse: the notion that Republicans may be such complete and utter wusses or the notion that their complete and utter wussery may be so easily manipulated?

Well, that, and why are they so afraid of girls? Just askin' (again).

Oh yeah, and to get it on the record: If Bill OhhhhhhhReilly doesn't respond to my blog entry, he's a coward! (but then again, maybe that's up to science to tell us)

Nothing New byslag at 1:51 PM