Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A psychological explanation for Bush voters.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 12:51 PM
Original message
A psychological explanation for Bush voters.
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070827&s=judis082707

Death Grip
How Political Psychology Explains Bush's Ghastly Success.


by John B. Judis
Post date: 08.17.07
Issue date: 08.27.07

In June 2004, I went door to door in a white, working- class neighborhood of Martinsburg, West Virginia, a small blue-collar town in decline. There, I found voters disillusioned with both the Iraq war and the flagging economy. But, when I returned five months later-- the Sunday before the election--I had difficulty digging up anyone who didn't plan to vote for George W. Bush. As far as I could tell, Martinsburg voters were backing him for two reasons: first, because he opposed gay marriage and abortion ("There are two gays around the corner who are voting for Kerry," one fellow, with a Bush sign in his yard, advised me scornfully from his stoop); and, second, because he was leading the war on terrorism ("I feel more safe with Bush in there," an elderly disabled man explained). There was still grumbling over the war, the economy, and other topics--the same elderly man who praised Bush for making him feel safe also bemoaned America's lack of universal health insurance--but these issues were eclipsed by the threat of gay weddings and terrorist attacks.

(snip)

There is, however, one group of scholars--members of the relatively new field of political psychology--who are trying to explain voter preferences that can't be easily quantified. The best general introduction to this field is Drew Westen's recent book, The Political Brain, but the research that is perhaps most relevant to the 2004 election has been conducted by psychologists Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski. In the early 1980s, they developed what they clumsily called "terror management theory." Their idea was not about how to clear the subways in the event of an attack, but about how people cope with the terrifying and potentially paralyzing realization that, as human beings, we are destined to die. Their experiments showed that the mere thought of one's mortality can trigger a range of emotions--from disdain for other races, religions, and nations, to a preference for charismatic over pragmatic leaders, to a heightened attraction to traditional mores. Initially, the three scholars didn't attempt to apply their theory to elections. But, after September 11, they conducted experiments designed to do exactly that. What they found sheds new light on the role that fear of death plays in contemporary politics--and, arguably, goes a long way toward unraveling the mystery of Martinsburg.

(snip)

Over the next decade, the three performed similar experiments to illustrate how awareness of death could provoke worldview defense. They showed that what they now called "mortality salience" affected people's view of other races, religions, and nations. When they had students at a Christian college evaluate essays by what they were told were a Christian and a Jewish author, the group that did the mortality exercises expressed a far more negative view of the essay by the Jew- ish author than the control group did. (German psychologists would find a similar reaction among German subjects toward Turks.) They also conducted numerous experiments to show that mortality exercises evoked patriotic responses. The subjects who did the exercises took a far more negative view of an essay critical of the United States than the control group did and also expressed greater veneration for cultural icons like the flag. The three even devised an experiment to show that, after doing the mortality exercises, conser- vatives took a much harsher view of liberals, and vice versa.

(snip)

But, right now, it doesn't look promising for any candidate who hopes to follow Bush's 2004 script. The voters of 2008, including those in Martinsburg, will probably be buffeted by competing emotions about Iraq and the war on terrorism, and therefore less inclined to base their decisions on gay marriage. Barring another assault on American soil, the moment of September 11--and the reminder of mortality that it brought--may well have passed. And with it, too, the ascendancy of politicians who exploited the fear of death that lies within us all.
------

Fascinating article. Well worth reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. This explains a lot too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Thanks for the link.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberaldemocrat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. How about this explanation?
Prospective Republican voter: Hey these tax cuts really don't help me much. I have a difficult time keeping up financially. Why should I join the Republican party?

Republican party recruiter: Well we hate N*GGERS, KIKES, SPICS, HOMOS and baby killers and those who want to raise your taxes further with Whellllfare programs.

Prospective Republican voter: Ok, I'm in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Well yes, of course that factors in... always has.
Well, since the civil rights movement.

But this is about something else... something that explains how people can be manipulated into voting for someone for irrational reasons... whereas a racist would consider those reasons rational. When people were instructed to think carefully before choosing, their answers weren't as influenced by the mentions of death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks! (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Strong daddy complex" seems more concise
The part of the article that really disturbs me is the elderly man who is more scared of terrorists than lack of healthcare. Of course I'm sure the lack of mental healthcare can explain a lot of those votes too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes, but it is more than that... since it seems to affect nearly everyone. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. So it's a little more complicated than plain stupidity?
I've certainly felt smug in that notion!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Stupidity is dangerous.
In this post 9/11 world we need to take the epidemic of stupidity very seriously. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. One word: "Fear". No need for an entire article.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The article shows scientific proof.
I think not only the article, but the also the resarch is worthwhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. This is how Rudy and to a lesser extent, Romney intend to win in 08.
Rove manipulated religious nut cases to come out an vote for anti-gay amendments and there is no doubt in my mind that the fear of "terrorists" is a cynical ploy to stay in power. Yes, fundamentalism is a threat but not worth our overreaction to 9/11.

Nothing to fear but fear itslef. Those words were never more true than today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. What's even more scary
And at the same time, almost comical -- most of these people who fear terrorists are already living far far away from any plausible terrorist target. Of course they live far away from high populations probably because they are scared of being around others in the first place. I think these people really are (excuse the non P.C. term) nut cases who need treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It isn't terrorism they fear. It's death.
It's completely irrational... a lizard-brain response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ludwigb Donating Member (789 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. John Judis Rocks
Him and Jon Cohen basically keep TNR afloat as having any value for progressives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. problem is, the Repig candidate isn't gonna follow Bush's script
the campaign will still be built on God, Guns, and Gays. That's a proven recipie for success.

But this candidate will talk of ending the war (eventually or immediately, who knows) and may even try to pose as more anti-war than the Dem.

The Repigs are gonna run as anti-Bush if they have to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. That's the thing... they will have to... unless there is another attack. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. sound like they overthought the premise
Your average voter is too simple to go through a complicated thought process revolving around mortality, religious conflict, and terrorism paradigms. Really, most political scientists that study voting behavior (myself included) have long ago concluded that people vote based on extremely simplistic, essentially stupid points. Campbell, Converse, Stokes and Miller wrote about the idiocy of the average voter over 40 years ago, and no one since has really been able to challenge their findings. Its easier for voters to vote for Bush because "he's against the gays" than it is for a voter to form a coherent thought about policy, psychological orientations, or advanced rational choice modeling.

Yeah, that sucks, but there it is. If you want to get elected, just run on one simple slogan that provokes a knee-jerk reaction. Wins every time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Did you read the article?
They didn't overthink anything... they sought out to prove what they suspected... and they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. What about special interest groups...
Since you've studied this, I thought you might know... My theory is that a lot of people vote for whoever their affiliated organization endorses (unions, NRA, church groups, etc). Therefore, voters who actually research the candidates are a vast minority, and the winner is ultimately determined by only a few people. Does this make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Makes sense to me...
and it's also what the author states. It's those 'undecideds' who tend to tip the scales, and they, of course, fall prey to the worldview defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
distantearlywarning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. I worked with Tom Pyszczynski on several research projects involving Terror Management Theory.
So I know something about the subject.

The idea here is actually that the fear of death and subsequent behavior based on that fear is an subconscious process. If you ask subjects in these sorts of experiments if they fear death, they invariably say no and offer all kinds of reasons why ("I'm a good person in life", "my religion tells me I'm going to heaven", and so forth). Similarly, if you ask subjects if being reminded of death during a terror management experiment influenced their behavior in any way, they invariably say no, even when their results suggest otherwise.

In fact, to make terror management experiments work correctly, you have to distract subjects between the time you remind them of their mortality and the time when you ask them about their political preferences or whatever. The reason for this is that when people are thinking consciously about death they are able to consciously deal with any unhappiness related to being reminded of their own death, so they don't need to make themselves feel better by denigrating outgroup members or whatever. Alternatively, if they are reminded of their mortality and then distracted by something else, death related thoughts become more subconscious and the mind finds other ways to deal with those thoughts, like by denigrating outgroup members.

In other words, it is not necessary for the average voter to carefully consider questions of mortality, religious conflict or whatever to be affected by mortality-related political advertising such as reminders of 9-11 or "be very afraid of terrorism" ads. In fact, the less aware and thoughtful someone is, probably the more likely they are to be impacted by mortality salience.

I'm sure this all sounds like total psychobabble BS to the outside observer, but 10 years of a lot of different kinds of experiments (lab studies, field studies, etc) in a number of different cultures is hard to dismiss. The Terror Management Phenomenon is simultaneously one of the most difficult social psychological results for the layperson to believe and one of the most well-documented.

Frankly, I'm surprised to see this article on DU. Although this work is highly relevant to political issues today, the media rarely reports on it because they either don't understand it or refuse to believe it (or both). Thanks to the OP for pointing it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. My pleasure to share it.
I hope people are taking the time to read it. It really is very interesting... a completely subconscious reaction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-30-07 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. Just one nighttime vanity kick...
just in case anyone else might find it interesting.

:kick:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC