Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote

Summary by Djibouti

 

• “the importance of looking beyond theories emphasizing changes in issue salience to better understand the meaning of election outcomes when public preferences and candidates’ positions are changing”. This is attributed to the fact that the salient issue may be explained by other factors; like, low education equaling a higher propensity to feel threatened by minorities socially rather than from an economic concern.

http://amerikabulteni.com/2011/09/01/us-muslims-have-urged-hamas-to-release-israeli-soldier-gilad-shalit/ levitra on line Benefits of Kamagra Oral Jelly Taking Kamagra oral jelly offers result inside few minutes. Did you know that the main childbearing age for typical ladies is 32? Now that is definitely on a radical decline reaching to 35 as an alternative to the popular generic viagra cheap medicine. One of the great tadalafil price medicines that we find in the online pharmacies. As a result of certain factors, the endometrial may grow in other parts of the uterus. levitra properien
 

• “when confronted with evidence of racial progress, whites feel threatened and experience lower levels of self-worth relative to a control group. They also perceive greater anti-white bias as a means of regaining those lost feelings of self-worth”. This is offered as an answer as to why someone like Trump could be elected after the country elected its first black president. This is surprising to see as I have recently read that race is not a major factor in one’s voting habits. Though I have long suspected that it has, it is reassuring to read literature supporting this claim.

 

• “It is not racism of the kind suggesting that whites view minorities as morally or intellectually inferior, but rather, one that regards minorities as sufficiently powerful to be a threat to the status quo. When members of a dominant group experience a sense of threat to their group’s position, whether it is the status of Americans in the world at large or the status of whites in a multiethnic America, change in people’s sense of their group’s relative position produces insecurity”. This provides an explanation for those who genuinely view racial minorities in a positive manner; or at the very least, not a negative one but whom voted for Trump and or continue to vote on issues in a manner which disproportionately affect minorities negatively. Also, this speaks directly to those who deny Van Jones’s claim of Trump’s victory as a, “blacklash” of Obama.

 

• “For a dominant group to be threatened by an outgroup, the outgroup needs to be perceived as powerful. Traditional racial stereotypes of poor, uneducated, or unintelligent minority groups do not fuel the sense that one’s dominant group status is being challenged. As a result, immigration is unlikely to trigger dominant group status threat, particularly in a country with relatively few new immigrants”. I disagree with this assertion. As the article eluded to, some whites (and most of Trump supporters polled in the article) in America fear being the racial minority. I don’t believe that those who are concerned with this, care whether or not they (racial minority) will be equal in status or not. I contend, their focus is more on their presence alone.

 

“The 2016 election was a result of anxiety about dominant groups’ future status rather than a result of being overlooked in the past. In many ways, a sense of group threat is a much tougher opponent than an economic downturn, because it is a psychological mindset rather than an actual event or misfortune”. If true, which I believe it is, creates grave concern. As this suggest that, this response will be more difficult to reverse or undo, than if it were truly a response to external circumstances.

 

 

 

“What’s you bias?” Summary of DeWit’s Lecture

Summary by Chicago

• Genetics affect the way people vote. Variability in the way non-identical twins vote is higher than identical twins who were raised apart which suggests similar genetics lead to similar vote preferences.
• Jonathan Haidt, who wrote “The Righteous Mind”, thinks people need to look beyond the view that intelligence and religiosity explain why half the American population “votes badly”. It’s too simple to think that way and we should learn moral psychology instead.
• DeWit uses a metaphor to express how liberals and conservatives might view the world: the infamous dress that people either perceive as black and blue or white and gold.
• There are 5 Moral Foundations that influence decisions made by the left and right (though he only discusses loyalty and fairness during the lecture):

-Fairness – Was someone treated differently? (left lean)

-Harm – Was someone harmed? (left lean)

-Loyalty – Did someone betray his or her group? (right lean)

-Authority – Did someone disrespect a legitimate authority? (right lean)

-Sanctity – Were the standards of purity and decency violated? (right lean)

• A study asked liberals and conservatives “How bad is it to publicly bet against your favorite sports team?” as a measure of ingroup loyalty. Conservatives felt it was bad while liberals didn’t seem to care, which suggests that conservatives are more sensitive to loyalty than liberals.
• DeWit gave an example of how loyalty may explain why pro-Trump conservatives might be fans of the “Make America Great Again” slogan, as it paints Trump as the Pro-America candidate.
• A different study looked at the effect of using fairness or loyalty as a arguments against voting for Trump. When Conservatives were told not to vote for Trump because he was disloyal (rather than unfair) they were less likely to vote for him. Liberals were less likely to vote for Trump when they were told that he was unfair (rather than disloyal). Moderates seemed to be indifferent to both arguments and showed little change.
• DeWit points out that Pew research has data indicating that Conservatives are more likely to attribute financial success and failure to personal results, whereas Liberals attribute it to external circumstances.
• The Liberal and Conservative views on individual vs contextual attributions for actions extends to capital punishment. Conservatives approve of it because they see criminality originating from irredeemable personality traits. Liberals are generally against it because they see criminality as a consequence of economic difficulties.
• The last bit of research DeWit discusses is about Social Conservatives being more likely to believe fake news when it’s regarding a threat. DeWit hopes to replicate this study.