This is also known as “common sense.”
Democrats are already doing all of that. How are Republicans connecting to evangelicals?
Democrats are starting to, but they’re playing a little bit of catch up, and having to reframe a few things in these new lights. What people on the Left do is, largely, explain how. Instead, they need to explain why. The Left likes to cite studies, talk about things they read in a paper or journal, bring facts, figures, and numbers, but that doesn’t resonate with folks. That’s why making these things personal is important. That’s why using your own personal story is integral to reaching out to other folks, even folks that are “brainwashed”.
And that is . . . well, it’s all very arguable, but “common sense” just don’t seem to apply.
I don’t think there’s any way of framing abortion and gay rights and all that nasty stuff in a way that would appeal to evangelicals. Just mention the words and up go the shields. “But the bible says…” (That was my father-in-law’s response to the news that we humans originated as Africans and spread out to the rest of the world from there. The idea that that should make us less racist was lost on him simply because of what his bible told him.)
Talking about what we’re trying to become is exactly what liberals do and conservatives do not. That’s pretty much the core of the difference between liberals and conservatives: Liberals talk about what we can become, while conservatives talk about what we have been. If that were really what evangelicals wanted, then they’d be solidly in the Democratic base, and the Republicans wouldn’t even have a hope of catching up.
There have been 2 or 3 recent studies which claimed physical differences between the brains of “liberal” voters and “conservative” voters. (IIRC, the studies found different differences. :dubious: ) I don’t have the URL’s (which I might have found first here at SDMB.)
I hope a smart Doper can track down those studies and offer a critique.
I applied my stellar library-science research skills and googled “liberal conservative brain differences.”
This one says they actually have different, well, brains.
See also here.
And this Wiki article.
Compassion and care and responding to suffering aren’t going to reach evangelicals, because they leave those things at home when they go to vote.
Thank you. As so often it seems, the Wiki link seemed best – indeed one of the other links seemed to point to the Wikipedia article for detail!
The phenomenon seems very interesting and very relevant. It may help explain why liberals and conservatives often argue at cross-purposes here at SDMB, unable to understand the other’s viewpoint.
I hope someone starts a thread to discuss this biologic correlation. But the thread should be started by someone better informed … (or even more opinionated ) than me.
Two statistical questions I don’t see clearly addressed: (1) how strong is the correlation? (2) are the relevant brain-feature distributions bimodal, or are we still dealing with a “bell-shaped curve”?
(The Wikipedia article suggests that matings tend to be of politically similar, which I suppose might drive toward a bimodal population, but are we there yet?)
BTW, our own Leader was mentioned in the Wikipedia article
This just shows how out of touch the anthropologist is. Highlighting suffering is not going to work because conservatives think about it in a different way than liberals. When a conservative sees suffering they think “I should try to help or give money to people who help”. When a liberal sees suffering they think “We should raise taxes on the rich and use that money to help”
The approach recommended just reeks of Lakoff’s reframing idiocy. Politics through euphemism.
Not according to the just world hypothesis. If they’re in a rut, it’s their own fault.
You’re really gonna have to provide a cite for this one.
You are aware that one of evangelicalism’s core tenets is a fallen world, that is in fact unjust? :dubious: And that evangelicals donate more to charity than the average?
Evangelicalism is not Ayn Rand with a bible, any more than liberal Christianity is Marxist.
He wrote “conservatives”, not “evangelicals”.
From the Hoover institute:
That doesn’t preclude a religious motivation. My father visits prisoners to minister, would that count as nonreligious volunteering?
And if the donations that the evangelicals make go to air conditioning the pastor’s doghouses or to defeating California Proposition 8, or to passing the latest constitutional amendment in North Carolina who was helped by that? That’s the reason evangelicals score so high on charitable giving yet so low on charity.
I thought this was well known.
Here is a column about it
Many of those households tithe 10% to their church. I’m sure that they call that charitable giving, but since it’s ‘required’ I don’t see it as truly ‘charitable’. It’s a requirement.
Not IMO, or AFAICT in the study.
Didn’t read the cite before venting your bigotry, did you?