- Reaction score
- 10,117
- Points
- 1,260
I ran across some interesting articles while reading about "Trump's base" today. John Dean, a former counsel to President Nixon, attempted to get to the heart of who the 62.9 million people who voted for President Trump were. The articles are here, here, and here. Those articles referenced a piece that is long, but well worth the read:
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
A fascinating article, predating President Trump's 2016 electoral win. I think it's profound enough that anyone attempting to understand the politics in modern democracies should read and digest it. Three key points:
1. Political values can be determined fairly well by ascertaining views on parenting. Those who prefer children to demonstrate respect for elders, obedience, good behavior, and good manners are more concerned with eroding social norms, demographic change, and external dangers. Those who prefer children to demonstrate independence, self-reliance, consideration, and curiosity are likely to skew the other way, being more comfortable with social flux and change.
2. People who are more concerned with eroding social norms, demographic change, and external dangers are likely to support authoritarian tendencies in leaders. They seek strong leaders who will "tell it like it is" and deal head-on with the sources to these concerns.
3. The U.S. experienced a demographic shift over the last generation, which saw white Christians lose demographic prominence in American society. As well, the Obama Administration ushered in a significant period of social change with regards to progressive politics. These have combined to drive people who prefer authoritarian leadership into the Republican Party, giving President Trump a solid coalition of folks concerned with some combination of progressive politics, race relations, immigration, religious values, economic stagnation, and foreign threats. This has polarized U.S. politics and has also divided the GOP. Many Democrats have dismissed this group as "deplorable" and mischaracterized their motives to their own peril.
This article and the research in it was concerned with U.S. electoral politics, but I think the model for predicting authoritarian preferences is useful for other societies as well. The Syrian migrant crisis in Europe explains why people begin to fear its effects and swing to the populist parties with authoritarian tendencies.
How about Canada. To what degree do those in Canada who prefer children to demonstrate respect for elders, obedience, good behavior, and good manners differ from those who prefer children to demonstrate independence, self-reliance, consideration, and curiosity? Is Canada vulnerable to such polarization? I suspect that our greater acceptance for multiculturalism helps mitigate this. We also lack the deep racial issues and the politically-religious complex that our neighbours to the South have. Maybe, for all our regionalism, "lingualism", and multiculturalism, we've actually lucked out and immunized our society against authoritarian politics and the polarization it brings?
But what could change this? Are there factors at play that could incite fear and push voters to more polarized positions? Social or economic trends? Should Canadians be vigilant against certain things?
Anyways, I thought the article was worth the read and figured it was worth some contemplation.
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
A fascinating article, predating President Trump's 2016 electoral win. I think it's profound enough that anyone attempting to understand the politics in modern democracies should read and digest it. Three key points:
1. Political values can be determined fairly well by ascertaining views on parenting. Those who prefer children to demonstrate respect for elders, obedience, good behavior, and good manners are more concerned with eroding social norms, demographic change, and external dangers. Those who prefer children to demonstrate independence, self-reliance, consideration, and curiosity are likely to skew the other way, being more comfortable with social flux and change.
2. People who are more concerned with eroding social norms, demographic change, and external dangers are likely to support authoritarian tendencies in leaders. They seek strong leaders who will "tell it like it is" and deal head-on with the sources to these concerns.
3. The U.S. experienced a demographic shift over the last generation, which saw white Christians lose demographic prominence in American society. As well, the Obama Administration ushered in a significant period of social change with regards to progressive politics. These have combined to drive people who prefer authoritarian leadership into the Republican Party, giving President Trump a solid coalition of folks concerned with some combination of progressive politics, race relations, immigration, religious values, economic stagnation, and foreign threats. This has polarized U.S. politics and has also divided the GOP. Many Democrats have dismissed this group as "deplorable" and mischaracterized their motives to their own peril.
This article and the research in it was concerned with U.S. electoral politics, but I think the model for predicting authoritarian preferences is useful for other societies as well. The Syrian migrant crisis in Europe explains why people begin to fear its effects and swing to the populist parties with authoritarian tendencies.
How about Canada. To what degree do those in Canada who prefer children to demonstrate respect for elders, obedience, good behavior, and good manners differ from those who prefer children to demonstrate independence, self-reliance, consideration, and curiosity? Is Canada vulnerable to such polarization? I suspect that our greater acceptance for multiculturalism helps mitigate this. We also lack the deep racial issues and the politically-religious complex that our neighbours to the South have. Maybe, for all our regionalism, "lingualism", and multiculturalism, we've actually lucked out and immunized our society against authoritarian politics and the polarization it brings?
But what could change this? Are there factors at play that could incite fear and push voters to more polarized positions? Social or economic trends? Should Canadians be vigilant against certain things?
Anyways, I thought the article was worth the read and figured it was worth some contemplation.