The one most predictive trait of Trump voters

It's not education, race, income, religion, or gender.

It's  authoritarianism. 

Matthew MacWilliams has a political communications firm and is writing his dissertation on authoritarianism as a graduate student in political science at U. Mass at Amherst.    His research has found that "a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump . . . .  authoritarianism."    And, because of the prevalence of people with authoritarian inclinations, he predicts that Trump's fan base will continue to grow. 

MacWilliams conducted a national poll last month of 1,800 registered voters across the political spectrum.   Only two of the variables he measured (such as religion, age, sex, ideology, religiosity) were statistically significant in predicting whom they support for president:   authoritarianism and fear of terrorism.   Authoritarianism was by far the more significant.

Since Nazi Germany, authoritarianism as a political factor has been widely studied.   One finding is that "they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.  From pledging to 'make America great again' by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations."

Previous national surveys have shown that authoritarians exists in Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, although they have been steadily moving to the Republican Party "since Democrats embraced civil rights, gay rights, employment protections and other political positions valuing freedom and equality."

One way of measuring authoritarianism, which MacWilliams used in his survey, was to ask these four questions, all pertaining to child-rearing:  "whether it is more important . . . to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian."

MacWilliams says that "Donald Trump was the only candidate—Republican or Democrat—whose support among authoritarians was statistically significant."   He writes: 

"And in a general election, Trump’s strongman rhetoric will surely appeal to some of the 39 percent of independents in my poll who identify as authoritarians and the 17 percent of self-identified Democrats who are strong authoritarians.

"What’s more, the number of Americans worried about the threat of terrorism is growing. In 2011, [political scientist Marc] Hetherington published research finding that non-authoritarians respond to the perception of threat by behaving more like authoritarians . . . mean[ing] more voters are susceptible to Trump’s message about protecting Americans. In my survey, 52 percent of those voters expressing the most fear that another terrorist attack will occur in the United States in the next 12 months were non-authoritarians—ripe targets for Trump’s message.

"Take activated authoritarians from across the partisan spectrum and the growing cadre of threatened non-authoritarians, then add them to the base of Republican general election voters, and the potential electoral path to a Trump presidency becomes clearer. . .

"Conditions are ripe for an authoritarian leader to emerge. Trump is seizing the opportunity. . . . 

"It is time for those who would appeal to our better angels to take his insurgency seriously and stop dismissing his supporters as a small band of the dispossessed. Trump support is firmly rooted in American authoritarianism and, once awakened, it is a force to be reckoned with. . . ."

*     *     *     *     *

Thanks to Politico.com for the article and quotes from Matthew MacWilliams.    I would add that the less robust predictive trait of fear of terrorism only adds to Donald Trump's appeal.   He hits both the authoritarian and fear buttons better than anyone else.   That is really scary.

I've been saying for some time that the Democrats should easily win this general election -- UNLESS there is a major terrorist attack on our country between now and the election.   Although I didn't identify the key explanation in terms of authoritarianism, that is exactly what was implicit in my concern:   that people would flock to the one who stoked the fear and then shouted loudest that he would protect us with his simplistic pseudo-solutions.

This study provides statistical concurrence.  It's a scary prospect, but it's better to be clear about what is behind Trump's appeal.

Ralph  

More on the Democrats' debate

This is from Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, a liberal blog, on Sunday night's debate.   I agree with what he says.: 

*     *     *

"One of my big questions going into tonight was whether Clinton would really bring her recent kind of hard-charging, aggressive . . . attacks on Sanders into the debate hall. Mostly she didn't. She hit hard at a few points at the beginning. But her critiques, especially on health care were more subtle and refined and sounded less desperate than recent headlines generated by her campaign.

"On the other side of the equation, I think she's somewhat defused by Sanders himself. He simply doesn't have that kind of brass knuckle politics in him. Even when he gets his hackles up a bit, every response from him is inherently defusing. There's less charge in the air, less animus after he speaks than before. . . . 
 
"I thought Hillary Clinton did very well in this debate. She was quick on her feet, deeply knowledgeable. She shows herself as unflappable. Several times I heard her answering questions in ways that were subtle, knowledgeable and showed a tendency not to go for the political answer but to highlight complexities in highly politicized questions which are often ignored. I was impressed.

"But Sanders did well too. His words and his very manner communicate a fundamental decency and impatience with bullshit which is deeply appealing. If you believe the country needs deep and even radical reform, particularly on economic policy, he is your guy. . . .  [W]hile his message is radical and he speaks about "revolutionary" change there's little in the man that seems impulsive, hasty or trigger happy. There's a certain temperamental caution which balances that deep-seated belief that only thorough-going change can address the nation problems."

*   *   * 

I'm finding it really hard to make up my mind, and I have plenty of time yet.   Our primary isn't until March and, being a progressive in Georgia, my vote isn't going to sway the results.   I may vote for Sanders to show support for his goals and his spirit of progressive change, knowing that Clinton will win the Georgia Democratic primary and that she might be the more effective chief executive and commander in chief.

Perhaps the place for Sanders is right where he is, and doing just what he is doing in this primary -- pulling the pragmatic liberal to the left -- and then being the loyal opposition to the president from his enhanced position of power in the senate.

Ralph 

Democratic debate wrap-up

This third Democratic presidential debate was substantive and spirited.   All three candidates were winners, and there were no losers. The bottom line is that all three are on a whole different, higher plane than what we hear when the Republicans take to the stage.

Ralph

"Georgians pay high price for stubborn leaders"

Jay Bookman, in his AJC column on Jan 20th said that we Georgians are paying a high price for our stubborn leaders in government.    He was referring to the continued refusal by the legislature and by Gov. Nathan Deal to accept the federal government's help in expanding Medicaid health coverage .

In his State of the State message, Gov. Deal repeated his reasons, saying that it would have added $209 million to this year's budget alone to cover the state's part.   That sounds like a lot of money -- but, it's not in relative terms.   As Bookman explains, $209 million is only 0.88% of the $23.5 Billion budget for 2017.   And it would leverage billions of federal dollars coming to the state, which would create thousands of jobs, help keep rural hospitals open, and improve the health and lives of hundreds of thousands of our citizens.

Other Republican governors who joined Deal in resisting it at first have come around to accepting federal dollars.   Why are our leaders so stubborn?    As Bookman says:

"[T]his is not a case of 'can’t'; it is a case of 'won’t.'   It is a case of Georgia’s leadership feeling trapped into a bad decision by their own rhetoric. It’s bad politics getting in the way of good governance."

And I suspect that even some Republicans regret it, although I'm not sure Gov. Deal would be one of them.   He seems to have a lot of empathy for prisoners, leading some pretty good prison reforms, including a bold plan to help prepare them for taking charge of their lives after release.    Why does he not have the same empathy for the 'working poor,' who would be the target group this would help?


Can the answer lie anywhere else other than the Republicans' stubborn refusal to accept anything that represents a success for President Obama?   I'm open to suggestions.   It's got to be something other than Deal's given explanation that we can't afford it.   Simple math shows the lie in that.

Ralph

Imagine this scenario -- it will probably happen.

Bloomberg Business Week ran Joshua Green's article about Elizabeth Warren and her place in the politics of 2016.   The big question, of course, is whether she will endorse either;  and if so, who and when.    Ideologically, she's seems closer to Bernie Sanders;   but she is also a practical politician -- and she may decide not to take sides, at least not this early.

It was Green's final paragraph that caught my attention:

   "It's an added source of comfort to the party's Warren wing -- and a silver lining to the propsect of a Sanders loss-- that the two most powerful Senate Democrats in a future Clinton presidency would be committed liberals."

He means, of course, Warren and Sanders.  With Sanders now nationally known and with a big following, they would be a formidable pair to push through some good legislation -- especially if the Democrats win back control of the senate.

But let's also imagine a different ending that has President Sanders in the White House.   Warren would be the ideal ally for him to have in the senate, because the anticipated leader of the Democrats will be Chuck Schumer, who tilts more toward Wall Street.  And we need another, more progressive strong voice pushing Sanders' policies.

Ralph

Planned Parenthood fights back with a lawsuit

Planned Parenthood has filed a federal lawsuit against the Center for Medical Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLCX, David Daleiden, and others for engaging in a "complex criminal enterprise conceived and executed by anti-abortion extremists."   That's the group that made the faked video that falsely slammed Planned Parenthood's integrity.

The suit further alleges that the "express aim of the enterprise -- which stretched over years and involved fake companies, fake identifications, and large-scale illegal taping -- was to demonize Planned Parenthood, harass and intimidate its dedicated staff, and interrupt its operations, all with the ultimate goal of interfering with women's access to legal abortion."

Kathy Kneer, CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California added:  "CMP's reckless and dangerous actions have created a poisonous environment that fuels political attacks on access to reproductive health care and feeds threats against our health centers."

These attacks on PP were similar to the sting operations against the community organizing, voting rights activist group ACORN, which did contribute to its demise.

Ralph

Information for this post came from the blog Crooks and Liars.

Some random weekend thoughts

1.  The Iranian nuclear deal has now been implemented, and the Iranians have thus far lived up to the agreement, according to a U.N. assessment.  This was a triumph for diplomacy.   The prisoner swap was a triumph for diplomacy.   The return of our 10 sailors and two ships in the Persian Gulf was a triumph for diplomacy.    Would the war hawks prefer that we had gone to war instead?

2.  Hillary Clinton is about to lose me.   I think she has a formidable working knowledge of issues, and she is a pragmatic liberal.   I could support her.   But her nasty attacks on Bernie Sanders this week are the wrong way to go.   She's going to lose more votes than she gains by deliberately distorting the positions of her fellow liberal Democrat.  They both want to get to universal health care;  they just differ on how to get there.   Sanders emphasizes the goal and agrees that we can't get there overnight;  Clinton emphasizes the pragmatics of dealing with congress and the necessity of incremental steps.   She should say that instead of bleeting that "Sanders wants to do away with the ACA."

3.   If you haven't yet seen the film "Spotlight," go see it.   Sure, we already know the story of the Roman Catholic Church scandal of priests abusing children and the coverup by the heirarchy.   But this film puts faces on all the stories.   It's very moving, besides being a superbly crafted movie.  A compelling story of the triumph of good journalism exposing the truth against the opposition of an extremely powerful, entrenched institution.

Ralph