# What is the psychology behind the right wing fear of disenfranchisement
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 16, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111 "2013-03-16T19:12:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/61 "2013-03-27T16:19:54Z")
> [@HumanBear](#):
>
> Isn’t is more that the term right-wing has changed in recent years to mean the crazies who are currently the Republican party base. This is by definition a minority of far-right people who have been attracted to and courted by the Republican party by the very fact that they’re feeling disenfranchised.
Oh, yes . . . that’s another thing . . .
In [_The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted,_](http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Over-Republicans-ebook/dp/B007V65OLG) [Mike Lofgren](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lofgren) – a lifelong Republican who was a Capitol Hill staffer for 28 years – writes:
> [@](#):
>
> Let us now dispose of the quaint notion that the present-day Republican Party is conservative. It has no vestige of conservatism as I once knew it, meaning prudence, caution, the tried and tested. The 1950s, when a Republican president occupied the White House, was a period of substantial real economic growth and shared prosperity – along with a 91 percent top marginal tax rate on invidual incomes, while corporate tax revenues were a markedly higher share of total federal revenue than today. President Eisenhower denounced attempts to reduce the tax rates as fiscally irresponsible. In view of the current $15 trillion national debt, perhaps Ike was right after all. Can one imagine a Republican officeholder today advocating Eisenhower’s tax policies?
>
> A seemingly trivial but telling clue that the Republican Party is no longer a conservative but rather a radical right-wing party lies in the popular choice of colors to denote the two parties. It may not have been a conscious decision, but it is in retrospect appropriate that during the 2000 election all the television networks settled on red for the GOP and blue for the Democrats. Since the French Revolution, red has consistently been the emblem of upheaval and disruption in Western nations. The traditional psychology of colors in areas of life outside politics would seem to confirm this choice. Corporate directors do not wear red pinstriped suits to connote solidity, trustworthiness, and a reliable dividend for shareholders. Only blue will do, for red is the color of instability and change. “Better dead than red!” used to be the conservatives’ mantra.
>
> How is it that the media upended this social convention in 2000 with its selection of colors to designate states on studio graphics? Why do self-described conservatives now proudly proclaim themselves as “red,” or “red staters”? By the 2000 election, and certainly after 9/11, the Republican Party was no longer a conservative party in the traditional sense, as that word has been understood in Western political culture. Its belief in polarizing language and tactics, a militant and militarized foreign policy, and a constant search for mortal enemies, foreign and domestic alike, qualifies the current GOP as a radical right-wing party, not a conservative one. In his flawed but occasionally insightful book _Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred,_ historian John Lukacs reminds us that “right wing” is not a synonym for conservative, and is not even a true variant of conservatism, although the right wing will opportunistically borrow conservative themes as the need arises. Hence, red is an appropriate color for a radical party like the present-day GOP.
>
> But isn’t that clue contradicted by Republicans’ constant invocation of a “better” America that supposedly existed in the past, along with their appeal to traditional values that our ancestors allegedly kept better than we do? One branch of the American so-called conservative movement, the paleoconservatives, has honed this fetish for a lost Arcadia to an almost comic extent. As the images of imagined pasts are sullied by some ideological defect, the paleocons keep pushing further back into the mists of time. The 1950s of _Ozzie and Harriet,_ which most conventional right-wingers see in nostalgic soft-focus, was spoiled by paleoconservatives by the statist legacy of FDR. Most paleos have settled on pre-Civil-War America as the golden age of their imaginations. Scratch many a paleoconservative and you will find a neo-Confederate at heart.
>
> This romanticization of an idealized time, coupled with a ruthless leveling of traditional institutions, such as Medicare, the departments of energy and education, and the regulatory framework that has been around since the Progressive Era, has been an ever-present feature of radical right-wing movements during the twentieth century. Republican figures such as Sarah Palin, who appeal to a backward-looking “real” America in their rhetoric, somehow manage to reconcile themselves to the less romantic destruction of tradition and social stability by laissez-faire capitalism. Let’s face it: The Republican Party is no longer a broad-based conservative party in the historically accepted sense. It is an oligarchy with a well-developed public relations strategy designed to soothe and anesthetize its followers with appeals to tradition, security, and family even as it pursues an agenda that would transform the country into a Dickensian corporatocracy at home and a belligerent military empire abroad.
---
### Author:  [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/62 "2013-03-27T17:27:04Z")
> [@Hottius\_Maximus](#):
>
> My claims of being called racist came from my own personal experiences with some liberals that I sometimes encounter.
Translation: My post is my cite!
Very compelling.
---
### Author:  [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/63 "2013-03-27T22:11:05Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#):
>
> In addition to Pat Buchanan with his racist pseudo-science, plenty of right-wingers have written for both \*The Washington Post \*and _The New York Times_. To give some obvious examples Rowland Evans, Robert Novak, George Will, Bill Safire, Bill Kristol and David Brooks.
>
> I recommend the next time you spout off on a subject you actually do some research.
If you think Pat Buchanan represents a similar view to neo-conservatives like Bill Kristol or …well, I am not sure David Brooks can really be described as any kind of conservative… then you need to stop spewing vitriol and do some research yourself. Also, I am happy to debate you on “racist pseudo science”. From previous discussions I am aware that you have not done much research on the topic and cannot back up your position.
There is an excellent article by Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine on the media and popular culture aspect I discussed above.
> [@](#):
>
> You don’t have to be an especially devoted consumer of film or television (I’m not) to detect a pervasive, if not total, liberalism. Americans for Responsible Television and Christian Leaders for Responsible Television would be flipping out over the modern family in Modern Family, not to mention the girls of Girls and the gays of Glee, except that those groups went defunct long ago. The liberal analysis of the economic crisis—that unregulated finance took wild gambles—has been widely reflected, even blatantly so, in movies like Margin Call, Too Big to Fail, and the Wall Street sequel. The conservative view that all blame lies with regulations forcing banks to lend to poor people has not, except perhaps in the amateur-hour production of Atlas Shrugged. …
>
> **In short, the world of popular culture increasingly reflects a shared reality in which the Republican Party is either absent or anathema. That shared reality is the cultural assumptions, in particular, of the younger voters whose support has become the bedrock of the Democratic Party.**
> …
>
> This capacity to mold the moral premises of large segments of the public, and especially the youngest and most impressionable elements, may or may not be unfair. What it is undoubtedly is a source of cultural (and hence political) power. Liberals like to believe that our strength derives solely from the natural concordance of the people, that we represent what most Americans believe, or would believe if not for the distorting rightward pull of Fox News and the Koch brothers and the rest. Conservatives surely do benefit from these outposts of power, and most would rather indulge their own populist fantasies than admit it. But they do have a point about one thing: **We liberals owe not a small measure of our success to the propaganda campaign of a tiny, disproportionately influential cultural elite.**
> **[Jonathan Chait on Hollywood’s Liberal Propaganda -- New York Magazine - Nymag](https://nymag.com/news/features/chait-liberal-movies-tv-2012-8/index4.html)**
>
> Two decades ago, conservatives howled that Hollywood was engaged in a propaganda campaign to spread liberal values across America. For better or worse, they were exactly right.
---
### Author:  [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/64 "2013-03-27T22:18:50Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#):
>
> Not necessarily. Using “racism” [to mean](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t) “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement”
Which is a ridiculous definition because, as David Friedman [notes](http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.de/2008/08/who-is-against-evolution.html), that means understanding evolution and its potential implications maybe racist.
---
### Author:  [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/65 "2013-03-28T00:36:25Z")
People will notice that Chen has deliberately ignored how he embarrassed himself by claiming Pat Buchanan could never get to be a talking head on CNN when in fact he was a talking head on not one but two CNN shows, The Capital Gang, and Crossfire.
One will also note that he foolishly insisted that conservative columnists couldn’t be found at The New York Times or The Washington Post she in fact, as I pointed out, they’ve had a number of conservative columnists.
Sadly, Chen doesn’t do the research he should.
---
### Author:  [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/66 "2013-03-28T01:50:12Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#):
>
> People will notice that Chen has deliberately ignored how he embarrassed himself by claiming Pat Buchanan could never get to be a talking head on CNN when in fact he was a talking head on not one but two CNN shows, The Capital Gang, and Crossfire.
>
> One will also note that he foolishly insisted that conservative columnists couldn’t be found at The New York Times or The Washington Post she in fact, as I pointed out, they’ve had a number of conservative columnists.
My apologies. I’m not from the US, but as far as I’m aware Buchanan got axed from MSNBC last year because in his latest book he suggested that the demographic changes in the US were not a good thing. In other words, a concern that presumably a significant portion of those on the right hold about immigration was deemed illegitimate.
Whatever the merits of that view ( [the majority view in the 47 countries Pew Global looked at is that immigration should be further restricted](http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/)), it’s an example of people having that viewpoint marginalized.
Similarly, Lou Dobbs is another who appears to [have been pushed out for having views on immigration that accord with the majority](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120351492), but in terms of the cultural/media elite are seen as unnacceptable. In other words, that view just gets marginalized as illegitimate.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/67 "2013-03-28T04:10:59Z")
> [@Hottius\_Maximus](#):
>
> My claims of being called racist came from my own personal experiences with some liberals that I sometimes encounter.
You being called a racist comes from your racism.
---
### Author:  [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/68 "2013-03-28T12:23:30Z")
> [@Chen019](#):
>
> Which is a ridiculous definition…
Hey, take it up with [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com).
> [@Chen019](#):
>
> because, as David Friedman [notes](http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.de/2008/08/who-is-against-evolution.html), that means understanding evolution and its potential implications maybe racist.
Friedman writes:
> [@](#):
>
> And yet, when differing outcomes by racial groups are observed, it is assumed without discussion that they must be entirely due to differential treatment by race. That might turn out to be true, but there is no good reason to expect it.
It is most certainly not “assumed without discussion”; [_The Bell Curve_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve) was published in 1994. [_The Dream and the Nightmare_](http://www.amazon.com/The-Dream-Nightmare-Sixties-Underclass/dp/1893554023/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364473065&sr=8-1&keywords=the+dream+and+the+nightmare) in 1993, and [_The g Factor_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_g_Factor) in 1998.
When someone proves that inherent genetic differences explain differing individual and cultural outcomes for different races, the definition can be modified.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/69 "2013-03-28T15:49:54Z")
> [@Chen019](#):
>
> My apologies. I’m not from the US, but as far as I’m aware Buchanan got axed from MSNBC last year because in his latest book he suggested that the demographic changes in the US were not a good thing. In other words, a concern that presumably a significant portion of those on the right hold about immigration was deemed illegitimate.
>
> Whatever the merits of that view ( [the majority view in the 47 countries Pew Global looked at is that immigration should be further restricted](http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/)), it’s an example of people having that viewpoint marginalized.
>
> Similarly, Lou Dobbs is another who appears to [have been pushed out for having views on immigration that accord with the majority](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120351492), but in terms of the cultural/media elite are seen as unnacceptable. In other words, that view just gets marginalized as illegitimate.
Having a given RW political POV “marginalized as illegitimate” != disenfranchisement of the RW.
---
### Author:  [@Hottius\_Maximus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hottius_Maximus)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/70 "2013-03-28T22:42:41Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#):
>
> Translation: My post is my cite!
>
> Very compelling.
Fine. now would like to address the contents of my rant?
---
### Author:  [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)
#### Post date: [March 29, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/71 "2013-03-29T02:12:53Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#):
>
> Hey, take it up with [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com).
>
> Friedman writes:
>
> It is most certainly not “assumed without discussion”; [_The Bell Curve_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve) was published in 1994. [_The Dream and the Nightmare_](http://www.amazon.com/The-Dream-Nightmare-Sixties-Underclass/dp/1893554023/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364473065&sr=8-1&keywords=the+dream+and+the+nightmare) in 1993, and [_The g Factor_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_g_Factor) in 1998.
>
> When someone proves that inherent genetic differences explain differing individual and cultural outcomes for different races, the definition can be modified.
You seem to be under the impression that this is a self correcting system 🙂 It’s not a question of evidence, it’s a question of sacred values. It’s similar to religion in that respect.
> [@](#):
>
> **BrainGlutton**
>
> Having a given RW political POV “marginalized as illegitimate” != disenfranchisement of the RW.
But it does in some respects, I’m not sure that is a controversial observation.
Above it was pointed out that Buchanan had been on CNN shows. If you look at the time period it seems to date from 1982 to 1999. That’s consistent with the gradual pattern of disenfranchisement. I’ve just touched on some areas above:
- academia (social sciences)
- popular culture - Chait’s NY Mag article above
- talking heads/columnists (Buchanan on CNN in the 1990’s, now axed from MSNBC, Lou Dobbs pushed out)
Then there is the obvious one of demographic change and a permanent Democrat majority. Apparently using 1992 demographics Romney would have won the election. So in a very real sense the right wing have been disenfranchised through demographic change reducing their political power.
---
### Author:  [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)
#### Post date: [March 29, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/72 "2013-03-29T03:21:13Z")
> [@Chen019](#):
>
> You seem to be under the impression that this is a self correcting system 🙂 It’s not a question of evidence, it’s a question of sacred values. It’s similar to religion in that respect.
>
> But it does in some respects, I’m not sure that is a controversial observation.
>
> Above it was pointed out that Buchanan had been on CNN shows. If you look at the time period it seems to date from 1982 to 1999. That’s consistent with the gradual pattern of disenfranchisement. I’ve just touched on some areas above:
>
> - academia (social sciences)
> - popular culture - Chait’s NY Mag article above
> - talking heads/columnists (Buchanan on CNN in the 1990’s, now axed from MSNBC, Lou Dobbs pushed out)
>
> Then there is the obvious one of demographic change and a permanent Democrat majority. Apparently using 1992 demographics Romney would have won the election. So in a very real sense the right wing have been disenfranchised through demographic change reducing their political power.
Wrong again Chen.
Buchanan wasn’t pushed out by CNN, he left to devote himself to the Reform Party. As for his tenure at MSNBC, it wasn’t because he said nasty things about Brown people in his 2012 book “Suicide of a Superpower”. He’s been making racist comments about non-white immigrants for decades including when running for President when he openly whined about “Zulus” coming to America and how right outside the house he grew up in “those people” were “playing bongo drums”.
Buchanan was kicked out of MSNBC because he whined about the US taking in too many Jews leading to “the death of Christian America” and on the anniversary of the Holocaust he on the air started vociferously arguing that A)Britain shouldn’t have attacked Germany and B)the world would have been better if Hitler had won the war.
Again, I recommend doing more research next time.
Beyond that, why are you so certain that people who share your racist beliefs are somehow persona non grata in the modern media.
I assume you’ve heard of _The Washington Post_ which has had as one of their leading columnists the bigoted Richard Cohen who insists that business owners in Washington DC shouldn’t allow young black males in to their stores because they are “probably criminals.”
The thing is Cohen and Buchanan can write very well and they’re the exception.
Almost without a single exception, scientific racists are horrible writers unable to put together an argument that doesn’t completely fall apart with the slightest scratching and spend most of their time regurgitating discredited bullshit put forth by others.
If scientific racists and bigots were able to produce more writers like Cohen and Buchanan then Cohen and Buchanan then we’d have more of them at _The Washington Post, NY Times_ etc.
However, they are, with few exceptions, terrible writers with even worse imaginations.
Perhaps there is a genetic reason for this, but I doubt it since there were plenty of brilliant racists in the past. It’s just that nowadays most racists tend to be mentally and psychologically stunted who feel that way due to their own fears of being inferior mentally, physically, and/or (of course) sexually to minorities.
---
### Author:  [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)
#### Post date: [March 29, 2013, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/73 "2013-03-29T12:23:40Z")
> [@Chen019](#):
>
> You seem to be under the impression that this is a self correcting system 🙂 It’s not a question of evidence, it’s a question of sacred values. It’s similar to religion in that respect.
Unless you can prove that those values are actually _wrong_, then it doesn’t matter how vigorously people cling to them.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [March 29, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/74 "2013-03-29T22:14:15Z")
> [@Chen019](#):
>
> Then there is the obvious one of demographic change and a permanent Democrat majority. Apparently using 1992 demographics Romney would have won the election. So in a very real sense the right wing have been disenfranchised through demographic change reducing their political power.
No, sir. “Losing” != “Disenfranchisement”. Racial/ethnic minorities in America often have been disenfranchised by being denied the vote; they never have been disenfranchised by their numerical-minority status as such, even if the latter means they often ended up voting (if at all) for the losing side.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [March 29, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/75 "2013-03-29T22:22:08Z")
> [@Chen019](#):
>
> You seem to be under the impression that this is a self correcting system 🙂 It’s not a question of evidence, it’s a question of sacred values. It’s similar to religion in that respect.
If the question is the existence or nonexistence of statistically significant genetically-determined psychological differences between “races” or population-groups, then it is a question of evidence to the nay side and a question of sacred values to the yea side. We’ve [been through this before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=677863) many times and it’s always **your** side that is religiositous on the point.
---
### Author:  [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/76 "2013-04-02T04:30:03Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#):
>
> Wrong again Chen.
>
> Buchanan wasn’t pushed out by CNN, he left to devote himself to the Reform Party. As for his tenure at MSNBC, it wasn’t because he said nasty things about Brown people in his 2012 book “Suicide of a Superpower”. He’s been making racist comments about non-white immigrants for decades including when running for President when he openly whined about “Zulus” coming to America and how right outside the house he grew up in “those people” were “playing bongo drums”…
>
> Again, I recommend doing more research next time.
>
> Beyond that, why are you so certain that people who share your racist beliefs are somehow persona non grata in the modern media. …
>
> The thing is Cohen and Buchanan can write very well and they’re the exception…
The reports I’ve seen conclude that it was the chapter about the negative implications of ethnic changes in the US that was the final straw for MSNBC. Here’s another [explanation I’ve seen](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100138130/msnbc-made-a-big-mistake-in-firing-pat-buchanan/):
> [@](#):
>
> But Buchanan has been saying this sort of thing for over a decade, so why does it only bother MSNBC now? The answer is that US television is moving in a new, worrying direction. As viewers abandon the networks in droves, they are realigning themselves away from balanced news-making and towards becoming propaganda arms for either Left or Right. Fox pioneered this strategy with his “fair and balanced” style that translated into a primetime lineup of witch-finders, tax-cutters and bomb-throwers. MSNBC spotted an opportunity. With no space for liberals given by its biggest rival, the network moved to monopolise the liberal viewership. Its primetime lineup is now dominated by socialists, hippies and an insane shouting man who thinks he’s the reincarnation of Ed Murrow (message to Keith Olbermann: you’re not).
>
> MSNBC dropped Pat Buchanan to preserve the purity of its brand. That’s its prerogative and it can hire and fire whoever it likes. But the move is only going to increase the vapid partisanship of American news broadcasting.
The idea that Richard Cohen is a conservative writer is absurd - ([exhibit A](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302629.html), [exhibit B](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102504311.html), [Exhibit C](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/04/AR2010100403856.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)). If this writer can be mistaken for a Conservative, then it emphasisis just how much the right wing has been disenfranchised!
---
### Author:  [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/77 "2013-04-02T04:35:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> If the question is the existence or nonexistence of statistically significant genetically-determined psychological differences between “races” or population-groups, then it is a question of evidence to the nay side and a question of sacred values to the yea side. We’ve [been through this before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=677863) many times and it’s always **your** side that is religiositous on the point.
That hasn’t been my experience. In my experience multiple lines of evidence are presented to suggest a partial genetic cause for group differences. The response is generally cries of heretic (or in the case of the researchers themselves, getting punched in the face, bomb threats at Berkeley, pressure from politicians to sack them, [attempts to break their tenure etc](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009academicfreedom.pdf) - that is the type of response that is to be expected when sacred values are threatened).
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2013, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/78 "2013-04-02T05:04:39Z")
> [@Chen019](#):
>
> That hasn’t been my experience. In my experience multiple lines of evidence are presented to suggest a partial genetic cause for group differences. The response is generally cries of heretic (or in the case of the researchers themselves, getting punched in the face, bomb threats at Berkeley, pressure from politicians to sack them, [attempts to break their tenure etc](http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009academicfreedom.pdf) - that is the type of response that is to be expected when sacred values are threatened).
Nah, many psychologists even investigate how the fallacies you push don’t amount to much, they do however demonstrate how off base your ideas are. The most religious like bias is observed and researched on the side that tries to continue to assign mystical abilities to genes.
> **[Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3394457/)**
>
> This paper introduces the notion of genetic essentialist biases: cognitive biases associated with essentialist thinking that are elicited when people encounter arguments that genes are relevant for a behavior, condition, or social group. Learning ...
> [@](#):
>
> People rarely appreciate that the expressions of genes are probabilistic, and governed by experiences and interactions with other genes, nor do they generally consider how genes can influence the ways we interact with, and are thus shaped by, our environments (e.g., Johnson, 2007). Likewise, most people are probably not aware of the role that epigenetic factors play in the development of complex traits and diseases (e.g., Petronis, 2010). Perhaps if the relations between genes and outcomes were conveyed in all their intricate richness people would respond to genetic accounts in less deterministic ways. Of course, an associated consequence of more complex explanations is that people might not feel that they understand how genes relate to outcomes. However, it is arguably less problematic for people to conclude that they do not really understand the complexity of genotype-phenotype relations than to incorrectly assume they understand the gist of these relations, because they frame the argument in essentialist terms. Scientific arguments are often complex and few people outside of those researching the questions can understand them. Most people, for example, do not understand string theory, but at least in this case they likely do not lead their lives with the mistaken belief that they understand the general idea, or make life decisions based on their faulty understanding.
>
> Educational interventions of this kind would seem to be most appropriate during science classes in middle and/or high school. At this age adolescents do not show as strong nativist attributions as do younger children (Gelman, 2003), whereas the adult form of misinformed genetic determinism is unlikely to have yet set in. This is also the age at which the vast majority of future generations are educated in school about genetics, unfortunately, often in incorrect and oversimplified ways that may have provided the foundation for genetic essentialist thinking. As research identified that increased education in general is sometimes associated with a reduction in genetic determinism (Singer et al., 2007), we argue that specific education programs may yield even better outcomes. A reduced emphasis on examples of monogenic phenomena, such as Mendel’s pea experiments, which suggest a strong genetic explanation, combined with increased emphasis on gene-environment interactions (e.g., Caspi et al., 2002; Miller & Chen, 2006) could be, at least, a starting point, to enhance people’s understanding of weak genetic explanations. A full revision of the manner in which genetics is taught in the classroom (e.g., Dougherty, 2009) may go a long way towards a solution. Further, genetics researchers need to be more cautious to avoid essentializing their findings in press releases. The reduction in deterministic media portrayals in recent years (Bubela & Caulfield, 2004; Condit et al., 1998) indicates that responsible media outlets may be willing to play their part.
>
> In addition, given people’s tendency to make the naturalistic fallacy when considering genetic-based conditions with moral implications, perhaps it’s the case that being reminded about the naturalistic fallacy while learning of a genetic basis of a human quality will lessen essentialist thinking (but see Friedrich, 2005). Likewise, essentialist biases may be less likely to emerge if genetics research is presented alongside with a disclaimer highlighting the nondeterministic ways that genes relate to life outcomes. Such kinds of framing messages may serve to inoculate people from priming their essentialist biases. Future research into the effects of message-framing and genetic essentialism will shed light on this important topic.
>
> Conclusion
>
> People are motivated to make sense of their social worlds. They encounter much human diversity, and in making sense of this, people are affected by at least two broad classes of etiological accounts, nativist and environmentalist explanations. These two kinds of explanations seem to be differentially emphasized across contexts and historical periods. While the pendulum continues to swing between these two classes of explanations, recent indications suggest that nativist perceptions are gaining the advantage in contemporary Western societies (e.g., Nelkin & Lindee, 1995; Paul, 1995), arguably reinforced by the zeal with which scientific explorations into the genome are communicated by the media. How people come to make sense of this information is a topic that psychologists have only recently begun to address.
>
> There is much evidence now, in a variety of domains such as sexual orientation, criminality, mental illness, obesity, gender, race, and ethnicity, of causal relationships between genetic attributions explaining group differences and perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. \*\*The common theme among these attributions is that they go beyond the scientific evidence, with weak genetic explanations being interpreted as strong genetic explanations, which results in the gene being endowed with an almost mystical ability to shape individual and group characteristics, and sociocultural and environmental elements largely being ignored. \*\*
---
### Author:  [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2013, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/79 "2013-04-03T04:17:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Nah, many psychologists even investigate how the fallacies you push don’t amount to much, they do however demonstrate how off base your ideas are. The most religious like bias is observed and researched on the side that tries to continue to assign mystical abilities to genes.
>
> [Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA - PMC](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394457/)
Probably more to do with the results of [various twin & adoption studies. Or more recent studies like the ones by Davies and Visscher](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/heritability-20.html). Height and intelligence for instance are heritable quantitative traits.
> [@](#):
>
> Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.
> **[Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21826061/)**
>
> General intelligence is an important human quantitative trait that accounts for much of the variation in diverse cognitive abilities. Individual differences in intelligence are strongly associated with many important life outcomes, including...
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2013, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111/80 "2013-04-03T08:04:11Z")
> [@Chen019](#):
>
> Probably more to do with the results of [various twin & adoption studies. Or more recent studies like the ones by Davies and Visscher](http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/heritability-20.html). Height and intelligence for instance are heritable quantitative traits.
>
> [Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic - PubMed](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21826061)
Nope, not the point. The fallacy is not in the inheritance, but in the idea that this applies to differences in intelligence among races, as usual the attempt is to tell others that most researchers agree that the heretical traits are affected by differences in “race”. But that \*\*\*is \*\*\*the fallacy, most researchers do not follow or agree with that, hence the reality that even psychologists today do wonder what is wrong with the ones that still have a beef with science not supporting anymore the cherished beliefs of the ones that liked the old race status.
Of course, if you are just concentrating in the inheritance of intelligence this is really irrelevant to the thread, only if you are referring to the significant loss of power the white race had in the USA is that your reply would make sense; but suffice to say, very few right wingers now would like to keep that specific old power structure. In fact most right wingers are united in condemning the ones that appear that they did not get the memo that regarding race, it is necessary to get over the old fears of disenfranchisement.
> **[Latino News | Fox News](https://www.foxnews.com/category/latino)**
>
> Latino News
Or in other words, the loss of power you are fearing here is something that only the \*\*fringe \*\*of the right wing is following nowadays.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-psychology-behind-the-right-wing-fear-of-disenfranchisement/653111.md?page=3)