PDF Why I Voted For Trump: An essay to give your Liberal friends

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Why I Voted For Trump: An essay to give your Liberal friends file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Why I Voted For Trump: An essay to give your Liberal friends book. Happy reading Why I Voted For Trump: An essay to give your Liberal friends Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Why I Voted For Trump: An essay to give your Liberal friends at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Why I Voted For Trump: An essay to give your Liberal friends Pocket Guide.
I know many liberals, and two of them really are my best friends. Liberals make good movies and television shows. Their huge numbers of Americans — specifically, the more than 60 million people who voted for Mr. Trump.
Table of contents

A Republican. A Christian. The same goes for those relatives of mine who post anti-immigration stuff on Facebook. These people are terrible, I think — I should bin them. Then I come over all 19th century missionary and think I should try to understand them as a prelude to converting them to my version of reality. Then I glance back at their political posts and get a cheap surge of superiority. The crucial stage in this cycle is the last but one.

I could watch Fox News until the cows come home and my conclusion would still be that people are idiots.


  • Account Login!
  • Temptation Games (Seduction, Sex games, MF Erotica).
  • The Great Revolt review: Trump-approved study of 2016 is key reading for Democrats;

The thing about allowing in friends, relatives and acquaintances with other views, rather than just partisan news sites, is not the reminder that their views have value but that the people who hold them are as real as we are. This was the promise of social media: that it would open up the world to us, not seal us more firmly inside our own narrow groups.

The most recent articles on PolitiFact

And for that to happen, we have to have an open door policy. Of course, I also recognise that life is short and who needs the aggravation. All I can say is that it is possible, with a little effort, to persuade oneself that life is more interesting when it comes in more than one shade; that the story is better with more voices in it. And the gaps are, in places, less radical than we think. Of all the coverage I have read of people who voted for Trump, the thing that hit home was not sober analysis about the post-industrial landscape, the poverty and desperation of the struggling white working class, nor the entreaty to sympathize with these poor deluded souls, but a throwaway remark in an interview the New York Times did with a retired small-business owner from Minnesota.


  • The Long-Term Disaster of Trump's Foreign Policy;
  • LAnalogie de la Religion Naturelle et Révélée.
  • The Friday Cover.
  • Spider Phobia: Read to be freed (Hypnotic Hiprocom Books Book 14).
  • Perfect Architect.
  • Rescuing Her.
  • ‘I don’t want to hear it’.

He followed a bunch of rightwing news sites, he said, some of which, he could see, were either very silly or actively mad. None of this is to say that all opinions are equal, nor that one should excuse hateful behaviour or indulge the trolls although I do think one should learn to ignore them. We might hate organized religion because it was shoved down our throats as children or because our parents are atheists, not because we have interrogated every thought system known to man and decided that this way is best.

Complicating matters, conservatives highly valued self-reliance, which weakened their discrimination toward liberal groups, perhaps because self-reliance is associated with the freedom to believe or do what one wants. And liberals highly valued universalism, which weakened their discrimination toward conservative groups, likely because universalism espouses acceptance of all. Louis University and Jarret Crawford at The College of New Jersey have also found approximately equal prejudice among conservatives and liberals.


  • Giggle Porn: Because Married Sex should be Fun!
  • What's Related.
  • The Corner | National Review.
  • Site Index.

Newer research has rounded out the picture of two warring tribes with little tolerance toward one another. Not only are conservatives unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than liberals, but religious fundamentalists are to some degree unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than atheists, according to a paper Brandt and Daryl Van Tongeren published in January in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. To be sure, they found that people high in religious fundamentalism were more cold and dehumanizing toward people low in perceived fundamentalism atheists, gay men and lesbians, liberals and feminists than people low in fundamentalism were toward those high in perceived fundamentalism Catholics, the Tea Party, conservatives and Christians.

Otherwise, each end of the fundamentalist spectrum looked equally askance at each other.

Other researchers have come forward with similar findings. Filip Uzarevic, from the Catholic University of Louvain, in Beligium, has reported preliminary data showing that Christians were more biased against Chinese, Muslims and Buddhists than were atheists and agnostics, but they were less biased than atheists and agnostics against Catholics, anti-gay activists and religious fundamentalists with atheists expressing colder feelings than agnostics. So, again, the religious and nonreligious have their own particular targets of prejudice.

[Essay] | Four More Years, by Thomas Frank | Harper's Magazine

Perhaps more surprising, atheists and agnostics were less open to alternative opinions than Christians, and they reported more existential certainty. In a study published last year in Social Psychological and Personality Science , he confirmed earlier findings linking low intelligence to prejudice, but showed it was only against particular groups.

Low cognitive ability as measured by a vocabulary test correlated with bias against Hispanics, Asian Americans, atheists, gay men and lesbians, blacks, Muslims, illegal immigrants, liberals, whites, people on welfare and feminists. High cognitive ability correlated with bias against Christian fundamentalists, big business, Christians in general , the Tea Party, the military, conservatives, Catholics, working-class people, rich people and middle-class people.

Conservatives are prejudiced against feminists and other left-aligned groups and liberals are prejudiced against fundamentalists and other right-aligned groups, but is it really for political reasons? Or is there something about specific social groups beyond their assumed political ideologies that leads liberals and conservatives to dislike them? Feminists and fundamentalists differ on many dimensions beyond pure politics: geography, demographics, social status, taste in music.

Were 30 Navy SEALs lost in a helicopter crash

First, Brandt used surveys of Americans to assess the perceived traits of 42 social groups, including Democrats, Catholics, gays and lesbians and hipsters. How conservative, conventional and high-status were typical members of these groups? And how much choice did they have over their group membership?

Then he looked at data from a national election survey that asked people their political orientation and how warm or cold their feelings were toward those 42 groups. Conservative political views were correlated with coldness toward liberals, gays and lesbians, transgender people, feminists, atheists, people on welfare, illegal immigrants, blacks, scientists, Hispanics, labor unions, Buddhists, Muslims, hippies, hipsters, Democrats, goths, immigrants, lower-class people and nerds.

Liberal political views, on the other hand, were correlated with coldness toward conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, rich people, the Tea Party, big business, Christians, Mormons, the military, Catholics, the police, men, whites, Republicans, religious people, Christians and upper-class people.

No Sympathy for the Hillbilly

Social status is the group respected by society? It appears that conflicting political values really are what drive liberal and conservative prejudice toward these groups. Feminists and fundamentalists differ in many ways, but, as far as political prejudice is concerned, only one way really matters.

In another recent paper , in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Crawford, Brandt and colleagues also found that people were especially biased against those who held opposing social, versus economic, political ideologies—perhaps because cultural issues seem more visceral than those that involve spreadsheets. Social identity is strong—stronger than any inclination to seek or suppress novelty. Supporting this idea, he and collaborators reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in that, although openness to new experiences correlated with lower prejudice against a wide collection of 16 social groups, it actually increased prejudice against the most closed-minded groups in the bunch.

Research consistently shows that liberals are more open than conservatives, but in many cases what matters is: Open to what? Knowing all this , can we change tolerance levels?

No problem? No need for a solution

You might think that the mind-expanding enterprise of education would reduce prejudice. But according to another presentation at the SPSP meeting, it does not. It does, however, teach people to cover it up.