Are you sure about that? I looked up the questions and there are quite a few about religion and traditional values that a communist, even a very authoritarian one, would likely answer ‘disagree’ to. Which is kind of my issue with it: if you ask specifically about right-wing authoritarianism, then it’s completely unsurprising people who score highly on it would vote for the right-wing party.
There can’t be, really, since morality is inherently not objective. You can determine how well a person lives up to their own moral beliefs, or to someone else’s, but there’s no objective way to determine which set of beliefs is correct.
You realise there’s a whole world of crimes and ways to hurt other people that have nothing to do with bigotry, right? Arguably the worst thing Trump has done was try to overturn the 2020 election result, and that was merely self-interest.
I don’t think the issue is that liberals value moral foundations more or less than conservatives so much as that each group applies them differently. Eg, liberals consider it unfair for some people to have plenty of money and others very little, while conservatives consider it unfair to take money from someone who earned it and give it to someone who didn’t. Liberals worry about the harm to criminals from giving them long sentences, conservatives worry about the harm to future crime victims if criminals are not locked up.
Possible. Having argued with both on TwitteX, I’ve found them equally assholish towards anyone who disagrees with them, but it’s more jarring from left-wingers since they generally appear more caring.
I don’t think that’s an answerable question. Nobody sets out with the goal of giving fewer rights or less acceptance and integration to outgroups; you need to look at specific examples and see what the motivation is. For example, if you were hiring someone for a job, you might refuse to employ a Trump supporter, because you think supporting Trump indicates bad judgement. Here’s a thread where some people say they would engage in this form of discrimination, and give various reasons for it:
Similarly, many left-wingers want to ban certain kinds of speech. The effect is to take away the right to free expression disproportionately from right-wingers, but their goals are to stop misinformation and/or prevent harm (including psychological harm) to oppressed minorities.
For a right-wing example, consider the homeless people I mentioned earlier. Conservatives want to break up homeless encampments not because they enjoy oppressing the homeless, but because homeless camps create a nuisance that reduces quality of life for other citizens and even for the homeless themselves. Here’s an actual conservative argument for this:
In general if you want to understand conservatives’ motives for supporting policies you consider harmful or exclusionary, looking at specific examples and picking out the common themes is probably the way to go.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. We support corporations being profit driven because that’s the best system we know of for generating wealth and meeting demand. Its much easier to channel people’s self-interest in pro-social directions than to try and force them not to act on it, and a bunch of smaller separate actors are far more able to adapt and respond to circumstances than some distant and necessarily bureaucratic central planning department. That doesn’t mean we should just ignore negative externalities like environmental damage.