patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Not at all, it's just PR Baloney. Social Science in the service of Politics.

It was actually a positive piece for Trump explaining why he will have crossover appeal to Independents and liberals. And theorizing that, contrary to popular belief, his numbers may still have room to rise in the general election.

tatupu70 says

Uh--no you didn't. You mentioned Super Tuesday which is a primary day, not general election.

He's going to win Fat Tuesday too Brudah!

tatupu70 says

What the hell? The story doesn't say liberals aren't authoritarian. Did you even read it??

The author does not describe the percentage of Democrats who are authoritarian. He indicates other work has shown a migration to Republicans, but that is poorly described. So I can fill in my own observation that Democrats are as authoritarian as Repubs, and I also find his methodology to be a bit strange, and also it down not take into account other variables that are in play. Silly sociology, poorly contrived design, and reaching no real conclusion outside of the ridiculous constraints of the study. Pseudo science the "findings" of which suit the needs of haters.

Blurtman says

The author does not describe the percentage of Democrats who are authoritarian. He indicates other work has shown a migration to Republicans, but that is poorly described. So I can fill in my own observation that Democrats are as authoritarian as Repubs, and I also find his methodology to be a bit strange, and also it down not take into account other variables that are in play. Silly sociology, poorly contrived design, and reaching no real conclusion outside of the ridiculous constraints of the study. Pseudo science the "findings" of which suit the needs of haters.

Except that's not what you did. You implied that the author's finding was that liberals weren't authoritarian. Which is the opposite of what the article stated--pretty clearly actually.

You are free to find his methodology strange but you must acknowledge that his methodology found a statistically significant result. I think you are trying to apply the results to characteristics outside the study--not the author. You obviously have a pre-determined view of what authoritarianism means and it is probably different than what the authors are measuring.

And what "haters"? Neither the authors nor I are implying that valuing conformity is bad.

tatupu70 says

is it better to conform or to be independent.

It's a false dichotomy. Especially in a liberal democracy you can be independent and conformist.
We could return this: relative to the establishment, I guess Trump supporters refuse to conform, are more independent, more willing to change the system, more willing to create chaos.

Doesn't sound like people who respect (the establishment's) authority.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's a false dichotomy. Especially in a liberal democracy you can be independent and conformist.

We could return this: relative to the establishment, I guess Trump supporters refuse to conform, are more independent, more willing to change the system, more willing to create chaos.

Doesn't sound like people who respect (the establishment's) authority.

In a capitalist society, following/supporting the oligarch is a sign of conformity just like in a communist society being a follower of stalin/fidel is a sign of conformity. It is all relative to the overarching system.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's a false dichotomy. Especially in a liberal democracy you can be independent and conformist.

We could return this: relative to the establishment, I guess Trump supporters refuse to conform, are more independent, more willing to change the system, more willing to create chaos.

Doesn't sound like people who respect (the establishment's) authority.

I disagree that it's a false dichotomy. I guess it depends on your definition of conform and independent, but they are pretty clearly opposing views.

And the Republican establishment isn't the leader by any means. I think it's very rare for authoritarians to want to follow a vague group. They want a strong leader. All strong leaders change the system. It's not about holding back change.

tatupu70 says

I disagree that it's a false dichotomy. I guess it depends on your definition of conform and independent, but they are pretty clearly opposing views.

Would you at least agree you can conform to different things and independence is therefore relative.

tatupu70 says

I think it's very rare for authoritarians to want to follow a vague group. They want a strong leader.

Maybe that's the difference between authoritarians and conformists.
Authoritarians want an assertive leader and want all people to follow the leader.
Conformists are just more like sheep, following the crowd. They are generally herded rather than led. They are obedient to the "system" and so the establishment. Often, they don't realize or don't think of themselves as conformists - but they are. I would say many liberals are strongly conformist.

The establishment is counting on conformism.
Trump, more on authority. But as long as his claim on authority is just "I'm rich", his success with liberals/independents will be limited.

The linked article says, "Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter." It does not say all Trump supporters share one trait.

Also, we live in an era dominated by partisan/sectarian authoritarian paradigms. Voters have a "choice":
1) religious charlatans demanding more power for themselves on behalf of their imaginary friend (Allah, Jehovah, whatever);
2) corporate spokesmen demanding more power for themselves on behalf of their sponsors (Obamneycare, Booz Allen Hamilton, whatever);
3) a guy who speaks for himself, and says he'll keep out the most lethal terrorists.
In that light, the appeal of perceived anti-establishment insurgents Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump makes more sense. As between Putin's candidate (Trump) and the Saudi sponsored candidates (almost everyone else), Putin's Russia seems somewhat less authoritarian than Saudi Arabia.

Remember folks, the MSM-Establishment Square Dance:

"Grab Your Partner, Think like this,
Don't vote for the Radical,
Life is Bliss!

Now go for Immigrants, Deregulate
Vote for so-and-so,
Or you're an ingrate!"

(Fun fact: least favorite but official part of the NYC School Curriculum in the 80s. "Teacher, why can't we put on Whodini and breakdance?")

Trump's GOT DIS!