Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-polite-discussion-ensued... dept.

Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology by Thomas F. Pettigrew seeks to understand the psychological profile of Trump supporters:

The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, France's National Front, Germany's Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).

In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.No one factor describes Trump's supporters. But an array of factors – many of them reflecting five major social psychological phenomena can help to account for this extraordinary political event: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:05AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:05AM (#606756)

    The example of The Tea Party was already given.
    Surely you noticed how they hijacked the GOP.

    It's completely do-able.
    The first step is showing up and signing up.

    ...and the Democratic Socialists[1] of America have been working on the superdelegates thing.

    [1] I really hate redundant names.
    ...and they aren't about the collective ownership of the means of production either.

    -- OriginalOwner_ []

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday December 07, @03:37PM (2 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {}> on Thursday December 07, @03:37PM (#606824) Homepage
    Democracy begins with a miracle (it's not dominant over any other prevailing system apart from anarchy).

    Once democracy has begun, can it *continue* with the help of you being active.

    The USA's approximation to democracy is so dysfunctional it's naive to call it a democracy. With the dysfunctional electoral college system as it currently is, it's not even a democratically elected oligarchy. And you're the poster-child for Duverger's law to boot (in large part due to the flaws in the system that make it undemocratic), which almost guarantees the stable equilibrium.

    The USA needs the miracle still. (Ever worse and worse presidents might be the impetus required, but you're only at the President Comacho level currently, there's plenty worse possible.)
    The "free" in #freearistarchus is the "free" in "free jazz"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:25PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:25PM (#607001)

      The USA's approximation to democracy is so dysfunctional it's naive to call it a democracy

      I find the term Oligarchy to be appropriate.
      It's the way the place was set up.
      ...with just enough of a veneer to convince the suckers that they count.
      The term The 99 Percent, coined by Occupy, puts a fine point on how much power Joe Average has--if he'd use it collectively against his actual oppressors.

      Duverger's law

      Didn't know that it had a name.
      Yeah. You may have seen me advocating here for Ranked Choice Voting.
      All the really great places have that.
      Way more democratic.

      President Comacho

      ...but, yeah.


      I keep forgetting that you're in .fi.

      -- OriginalOwner_ []

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Friday December 08, @07:13AM

        by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {}> on Friday December 08, @07:13AM (#607118) Homepage
        I left Finland 7 yars ago, but still work for a Finnish company, so spend a lot of time there. I'm now in Estonia. However, socio-politically Estonia modelled itself a lot on the Finnish model, which was one reason it became as successful as it did so quickly.

        One thing I like about Estonia is that, at least for municipal elections, a lot of the time when you vote for person X, and they reach a mandate level, they you are represented by person X precisely, not just some party person X has chosen to affiliate themself to. A full 43% of the representatives are independent or ad hoc coalitions (representing 27% of the voters)

        Duverger's Law still hasn't kicked in here, even though the 5% cutoff for any representation at all (in Tallinn, with 79 seats, even 2% of the vote is surely enough to prove there should be representation) does encourage it somewhat. (I'm one of those idealists who believes that if 2% of Tallinn's population is extremist racist whackjobs then, as long as they don't interfere with the smooth-running of democracy, they should be represented.}
        The "free" in #freearistarchus is the "free" in "free jazz"
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:41PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @05:41PM (#606888)

    I'm not sure that the Tea Party hijacked the republicans, so much as gave notice to the party bosses that they couldn't just arbitrarily ignore their constituency.

    In a way, it was a populist democratic wave in the republican base. They demanded purity, not a total policy base change. Their slogan was that they were going RINO-hunting.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @09:08PM (#606992)

      Disagree strongly.
      The Tea Party was a bunch of White suckers, funded by the Koch brothers.
      They put the Republican mantra Increase inequality via tax cuts for the rich on steroids, i.e. working against their own best interest.

      (The main GOP mechanism doesn't do Joe Average a bit of good, BTW.
      The latest scam is big tax cuts for billionaires and corporations that are permanent and tiny tax cuts for a small number of folks--with the latter expiring quickly, after which Joe Average's share of costs goes up while programs that benefit him have been cut.)

      their constituency

      Last count I saw said that 29 percent of USAians say they approve of the #GOPTaxScam.
      (...and the poll was taken while the Repugs were still scribbling things into the margins of the bill).
      That number doesn't seem to indicate to me that they're serving their base in an acceptable way.
      It certainly doesn't sound "populist".

      Republicanism[1] only works if your goal is to further empower The Ownership Class (The Oligarchy).
      If you're looking to shift power to Joe Average, you bet on the wrong horse.

      [1] ...and voting Democrat wasn't significantly better last time around--and for a lot of elections before that.
      Neoliberals of all stripes suck.

      -- OriginalOwner_ []