Loss Aversion, Fear and Right Wing Political Views

[Idaho]

There was an interesting bit of research a couple of years back. It correlated a strong connection between aversion to losses, fears and anxieties, and consequent right-wing politics. The affect of this increases with age - which explains the commonly seen tendency for older people to become more right-wing.

Conservative fears of nonexistent or overblown boogeymen — Saddam’s WMD, Shariah law, voter fraud, Obama’s radical anti-colonial mind-set, Benghazi, etc. — make it hard not to see conservatism’s prudent risk avoidance as having morphed into a state of near permanent paranoia, especially fueled by recurrent “moral panics,” a sociological phenomenon in which a group of “social entrepreneurs” whips up hysterical fears over a group of relatively powerless “folk devils” who are supposedly threatening the whole social order. Given that conservatism seems to be part of human nature — just as liberalism is — we’re going to need all the help we can get in figuring out how to live with it, without being dominated, controlled and crippled by it.

Consider the recent wave of hysteria over Central American children turning themselves in at the border. There were the hordes of angry demonstrators protesting busloads of children, like it was Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. There was the congressman/doctor Phil Gingrey’s warning letter to the CDC, claiming that the children might be carrying the Ebola virus — a disease unknown outside Sub-Saharan Africa. There was the ludicrous myth of the “$50 million illegal alien resort spa.” But above all there was the most basic, fundamental fact that the children were turning themselves in at the border — it was anything but a failure of border protection, although that’s what the right-wing hysteria portrayed it as.

Cambridge Journal Abstract

Conservatives see a different, hostile world - Salon/

Thoughts?

[Papewaio]

Great we have an aging society dominated by the me generation aka the Baby Boomers.

I too hail my grey haired facist overlords!

[rory_20_uk]

Indeed - since when one is young and is happy to have high taxes (for others), high minimum wage (for oneself), subsidised housing / tuition for themselves.

When one gets older they are worried about one's children and later on worried about oneself. Frankly, they suddenly have things to loose - much easier to be happy to share when one is getting things from others after all.

IF there are people earning loads of money that donate a significant portion of their salary they are able to truly follow their beliefs. Others, like Union bosses whose only left wing facet is continuing to live in a subsidised council house don't really count; the Millibands have levels of luxury few of us will ever get and yet purport to be left wing.

[Greyblades]

Really? You're using Salon as a source? M'kay then.

It sounds exactly like the "political orientation is related to DNA" crap all over again: A correlation based theory latched onto by ideologues wanting to explain away why people don't always agree with them. "I'm not wrong, they're just too old/rich/inbred to understand!"

[Idaho]

Indeed - since when one is young and is happy to have high taxes (for others), high minimum wage (for oneself), subsidised housing / tuition for themselves.

When one gets older they are worried about one's children and later on worried about oneself. Frankly, they suddenly have things to loose - much easier to be happy to share when one is getting things from others after all.

IF there are people earning loads of money that donate a significant portion of their salary they are able to truly follow their beliefs. Others, like Union bosses whose only left wing facet is continuing to live in a subsidised council house don't really count; the Millibands have levels of luxury few of us will ever get and yet purport to be left wing.

You are obsessed with mythical evil union bosses. It's like leafing through the Readers Digest in 1978

[Idaho]

Really? You're using Salon as a source? M'kay then.

It sounds exactly like the "political orientation is related to DNA" crap all over again: A correlation based theory latched onto by ideologues wanting to explain away why people don't always agree with them. "I'm not wrong, they're just too old/rich/inbred to understand!"

The research wasn't done by Salon. It's just that I could find a newsy summary of it on there.

[Greyblades]

It's just that I could find a newsy summary of it on there.

No surprise there, it's not very newsworthy as beyond confirming that the political stereotypes have a degree of basis in reality (assuming it's a genuine as I cant actually read any of it), the Cambridge article doesn't really say anything substantive, or at least not the bit that isn't hidden behind a £30.00 pay wall.

The salon article is an extreme left propaganda piece typical of Salon.

[Husar]

Indeed - since when one is young and is happy to have high taxes (for others)

Haha, good one.

Because young people don't use roads or schools or tax-subsidized public transportation, right?
You even say yourself later that young people get things from others. The thing about taxes is that they are just a pooling of money to pay for things most people benefit from. Even welfare payments benefit everyone by lowering criminality. Ever been to a country without a proper welfare system where the poor will do whatever it takes to get your money? I wouldn't call it a preferable aspect of such a society. If social security is too large, then maybe it's because you're bleeding out too large a proportion of your citizens with your current economic rules.
Fix the problem, not the symptoms.

[Fisherking]

I don’t see the people on the political right to be any more susceptible to fear mongering than people on the left. In fact I would say your first example, WMDs, was a ploy by Neo-Cons to bring in the left.

Today, it appears as though the right is more concerned with individual liberties and preserving them, where as the left is concerned with safety and protecting minorities, to the point of giving them special privileges. At least in the US, which is what this seems to point to.

I just see fear being used to activate one side or the other for political motives, be that immigration, health insurance coverage, or gun control.

American society is sick and extremely polarised by fear mongers on both sides. One side wants a government that cares for their every need and whim because they fear everyone else is incompetent and one side fears more government encroachment and control over every aspect of life. What little truth there may still be in either argument is distorted to the point of rendering it moot.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There was an interesting bit of research a couple of years back. It correlated a strong connection between aversion to losses, fears and anxieties, and consequent right-wing politics. The affect of this increases with age - which explains the commonly seen tendency for older people to become more right-wing.



Cambridge Journal Abstract

Conservatives see a different, hostile world - Salon/

Thoughts?

I recall this, and I recall that it doesn't necessarily correlate with age.

There are a number of things going on here though, and it's important to remember that there are peoiple who believe in certain political system on the "left" or "right" of the spectrum of political thought and there are people on the "Political Left" and "Political Right".

For example, Thatcher was "on the Political Right" but her politics were not all that Right-Wing so much as ego-centric

Likewise the the people who picketed the Conservative party conference were "on the left" but used classic Fascist tactics of violence and intimidation, up to and including physical assault.

[rory_20_uk]

You are obsessed with mythical evil union bosses. It's like leafing through the Readers Digest in 1978

That's it? And no insight that you're obsessed with the mythical right wing situation?

Haha, good one.

Because young people don't use roads or schools or tax-subsidized public transportation, right?
You even say yourself later that young people get things from others. The thing about taxes is that they are just a pooling of money to pay for things most people benefit from. Even welfare payments benefit everyone by lowering criminality. Ever been to a country without a proper welfare system where the poor will do whatever it takes to get your money? I wouldn't call it a preferable aspect of such a society. If social security is too large, then maybe it's because you're bleeding out too large a proportion of your citizens with your current economic rules.
Fix the problem, not the symptoms.

Erm, yes. Which is why as one gets more one tends to resent a disproportionate amount getting taken away. I never said remove all taxes as if this was some sort of utopia.

[Idaho]

How is it that these older, richer people have more? How is it that companies are able to turn good profits in a country?

It is because that country has invested in infrastructure, education and social support. These people and companies have benefited but then don't want to pay for its continuation. The Thatcher government broke with previous orthodoxy - that we continue to pay in and develop national infrastructure. She told the rich that they could cash out, and the middle class that they could stop paying in. All except roads and bombs - she lavished money on those.

[rory_20_uk]

Given that the current rate of high tax is 40% with NI on top of that - and of course most things one purchases has VAT on top of that makes me wonder how the middle class is not paying in since some will be paying tens of thousands annually.

Yes, the super rich are able to have offshore trust funds / tax exile companies and all the other weird and wonderful things and get their percentage to extremely low levels.

Companies are equally guilty and this is largely due to the tax complexity. Governments for decades are culpable for not fixing this - I fail to see how this has anything to do with right / left wing unless there are no left wing companies.

[Fragony]

Reads like they refuse to make a difference between conservative and the extreme right. All extreme rightists are conservatives,. But not all conservatives are extreme right.

Nigel Farrage is called extreme right, but I just think he's a realist, and his concerns valid.

[Idaho]

Reads like they refuse to make a difference between conservative and the extreme right. All extreme rightists are conservatives,. But not all conservatives are extreme right.

Nigel Farrage is called extreme right, but I just think he's a realist, and his concerns valid.

Farage is a fascist with a surface coating of "reasonable bloke next door" painted on. I would agree with him on many of his criticisms of the EU but he is operating in defence of privilege and him and his ilk are a coiled spring of violence and repression waiting to happen.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Farage is a fascist with a surface coating of "reasonable bloke next door" painted on. I would agree with him on many of his criticisms of the EU but he is operating in defence of privilege and him and his ilk are a coiled spring of violence and repression waiting to happen.

No, he is not a Fascist and his supporters are generally not Fascists either.

You talk about fearmongering, but fear is what you're peddling here.

Compare UKIP to the people picketing the Conservative Party Conference.

[Fragony]

Farage is a fascist with a surface coating of "reasonable bloke next door" painted on. I would agree with him on many of his criticisms of the EU but he is operating in defence of privilege and him and his ilk are a coiled spring of violence and repression waiting to happen.

I don't see how, when it comes to facism you might be looking the wrong way

Leftists and europhiles see facism everywhere, but they don't recognise it when looking into the mirror. Farrage is a democrate through and through untill the marbles of his bones.

[Greyblades]

I get the feeling no one on this forum is entirely clear on what fascism actually is.

[Gilrandir]

I get the feeling no one on this forum is entirely clear on what fascism actually is.

I refer you to Russia Today. These guys know a thing or two.

[Fisherking]

I get the feeling no one on this forum is entirely clear on what fascism actually is.

This is great! Let’s go through Fascism. Most definitions say that it is an authoritarian government run by a dictator that surprises its opposition. That is a little too broad, don’t you think?

The interesting thing is that Benito Mussolini said that his form of government might be more rightly termed Corporatism as it was the perfect partnership between corporations and the state. It was a managed economy for the benefit of the state.

We seem to place emphasis on strong Nationalism but it was not the nation that was of ultimate importance. It was actually the State or Government.

The State became ultimate arbiter of disputes and intervened in matters to suppress class and level society.

Fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler spoke of the need to create a new managerial elite led by engineers and captains of industry—but free from the parasitic leadership of industries.

Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronising itself with the economic goals of the state.

Other than being ,nominally, Democracies, it doesn’t sound too much different than most western governments today.

[Idaho]

No, he is not a Fascist and his supporters are generally not Fascists either.

You talk about fearmongering, but fear is what you're peddling here.

Compare UKIP to the people picketing the Conservative Party Conference.

Yeah what terrible people, protesting at government policy. Farage would soon put a stop to that.

Fascism is characterised by corporate control over the economy, removal of union and worker rights and repression of protest, political expression and democratic rights. There is usually accounted some xenophobia to.

[Idaho]

Reads like they refuse to make a difference between conservative and the extreme right. All extreme rightists are conservatives,. But not all conservatives are extreme right.

Nigel Farrage is called extreme right, but I just think he's a realist, and his concerns valid.

The far right's mandate is always predicated on valid and reasonable concerns.

[Idaho]

For the benefit of those outside the UK, there is group of UKIP and Tory fellow travellers called the Taxpayers alliance. They came out with this policy statement:

Ministers should waste no time to make unpopular cuts to pensioner benefits, a think tank director has said.
Many of those hit by a cut to the winter fuel allowance might "not be around" at the next election, said Alex Wild of the Taxpayers' Alliance.
And others would forget which party had done it, he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965

This is the nature of the British (actually English) right wing. They have the compassion and morality of alley cats.

[Greyblades]

15 years and he still cant learn how to use the freaking edit button.

[Fisherking]

Fascism is characterised by corporate control over the economy, removal of union and worker rights and repression of protest, political expression and democratic rights. There is usually accounted some xenophobia to.

I would say Fascism is government control of the economy. Corporations are allowed a lot of latitude only so long as it coincides with governmental wishes. Unions may also be in the interest of the government in its levelling and conflict resolution.

Governments today all seem to be Totalitarian in scope and interpose their desires on every aspect of society.

Remember that Fascism had its beginnings in Socialism. It didn’t take on any rightwing aspects until it was in power and became of the interest of the State to maintain its power and broaden its base of support.

[rory_20_uk]

For the benefit of those outside the UK, there is group of UKIP and Tory fellow travellers called the Taxpayers alliance. They came out with this policy statement:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965

This is the nature of the British (actually English) right wing. They have the compassion and morality of alley cats.

The sentiment is extremely unpleasant... but they are advocating cutting giving money to extremely wealthy pensioners. I would have thought that you'd agree this sentiment to redistribute wealth to the poor and needy.

[Fragony]

Yeah what terrible people, protesting at government policy. Farage would soon put a stop to that.

Fascism is characterised by corporate control over the economy, removal of union and worker rights and repression of protest, political expression and democratic rights. There is usually accounted some xenophobia to.

The EU is facist then (minos xenophobia), and Farrage an anti-facist

[Greyblades]

Yeah what terrible people, protesting at government policy. Farage would soon put a stop to that.

Where do you get the idea that Farage would suppress protest? Frankly most of the time its been his opponents that have been trying to suppress him, remember the Kent pub incident?

[Idaho]

15 years and he still cant learn how to use the freaking edit button.

The edit window is awkward to use on the mobile.

[Beskar]

Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism, usually leading to a hierarchical system of those on top at various degrees over those at the bottom. It tends to use variables as bloodlines, wealth, ethnic-tensions, map boundaries, religion/ideology. This allows ambition and disparity to flourish.

Left-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self in cooperation with others, the goal to create an open and fair society. This would be to treat your fellow human as equals and tend to promote a shared unity. This limits ambition and forces a parity.

Central position is an attempt to straddle these two views, promoting greater betterment, but preventing the extremes from occurring by limiting the power and excesses of those on top whilst promoting independence of those at the bottom. This usually is slow to change and react, but allows ambition limited by keeping an acceptable parity.

Fascism in History was classified as a '3rd way' but it is a bastardisation of extreme right wing views. Totalitarian systems don't fit the scale well as they demonstrate a fixation and extreme on right wing politics by having an elite far above everyone else whilst aiming to promote a symbolic unity such as nationalism to entrench and support the elite from those wading in mud. This is why it is called the 'extreme right' or 'far right'. This allows no ambition and fosters great disparity.

As an off-note, whilst different groups can be classified as on the left or the right, it does not mean they are compatible in working together. In fact, there are examples where those on the opposite sides are more alike than their peers. This demonstrates a lot of the fundamental issues which causes problem in clarification.

Example: tea-party libertarian can find a lot more in common with an anarchist than a royalist. Anarchists tend to believe in individualism to the point there is no one above them, rejecting all authority and free to live in their own at patch and communities, thus creating a parity, whilst Tea-party liberatarian generally against regulation and control of the political sphere authority, granting extra freedoms but removes any restrictions to these which tend to cause economical corporate powers to exploit and fill this vacuum unopposed. Anarchist is on the left due to the parity being enforced including rejecting economical supremacy, whilst tea-party liberatarian is on the right as it promotes economical supremacy. This again is more akin to the royalist who values the supremacy being encouraged but by different actors.

(Yes, I am aware this is simplified.)