Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

The Science of SWRVs

I’ve men­tioned Scared White Repub­li­can Vot­ers a few times here. The idea is that Repub­li­can politi­cians play on fear to get peo­ple to com­ply with their plans in a way that politi­cians of other par­ties do not.

I didn’t mean to say that all, or even most, Repub­li­cans are scared, but it turns out that there is sci­ence cor­re­lat­ing tra­di­tional “con­ser­v­a­tive” Repub­li­can right­ist atti­tudes with fear­ful­ness:

Those indi­vid­u­als with “mea­sur­ably lower phys­i­cal sen­si­tiv­i­ties to sud­den noises and threat­en­ing visual images were more likely to sup­port for­eign aid, lib­eral immi­gra­tion poli­cies, paci­fism and gun con­trol, whereas indi­vid­u­als dis­play­ing mea­sur­ably higher phys­i­o­log­i­cal reac­tions to those same stim­uli were more likely to favor defense spend­ing, cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, patri­o­tism and the Iraq War,” the authors wrote. (ScienceDaily.com.)

Lest the Democ­rats / “lib­er­als” / pro­gres­sives among you start feel­ing smug and supe­rior, con­sider what politi­cians on the left use to secure your com­pli­ance:

Chronic fear is bad for our health in a way that chronic hope is not, but hope is not inher­ently more truth­ful than fear. Com­ing from a politi­cian, “things will be bet­ter if you elect me” is no less of a lie than “things will be worse if you don’t elect me.”

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

One Response to “The Science of SWRVs”

  1. Patrick says:

    In a short post, you’ve essen­tially summed up the rea­son why I gen­er­ally no longer engage in polit­i­cal dis­cus­sions of any sort. It’s not that I think such tac­tics (as you aptly point out, on both sides of the aisle) are any­thing new. Rather, I’ve come to real­ize that most peo­ple deny the exis­tence of these tac­tics, either know­ingly, or through their own igno­rance. The for­mer lack the intel­lec­tual hon­esty for ratio­nal debate, while the lat­ter lack knowledge.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply