Here's a link to an article that proposes the theory that conservatives may actually be sociopathic in nature, and makes some good arguments for the proposal:
Basically it raises some mainstream conservative views, and shows how each appears to be selfish and disregards society, thus qualifying as possibly sociopathic.
I've always believed a lot of conservative views, not to mention conservativism's mutant spawn, libertarianism, are in fact a form of sociopathic behavior, it's nice to see someone else agrees.
And I'd appreciate it if this post wasn't deleted like the last few I've tried to make were!
So conservatives are selfish and liberals are the very paragon of altruism. Right. That's why an intensive study by the General Social Survey found that conservatives are eight per cent more likely than liberals to volunteer their time for charitable organizations, and that conservatives give more than three times as much money to charitable organizations as liberals do.
Conservatives in congress right now will tell you that abortion will not paid for using public funds and in the next breath tell these same women to get off their lazy asses and take care of your kid, while cutting any funding that would help raise that child.
Conservative politics today is about I have mine, too bad for you.
Now let me say that the politician from left is no better, they make their money from the same bankers that pay the right.
If you are fighting left/right in America, you are not paying attention.
8 percent more likely? Is that any better than 7%? Or 6? Very soon you get to a number that is quite meaningless.
As for charity ... is that based off income ratio of per person who give to charity? Millionaires giving away 5% of their income is not the same as average income earner giving away 10% ... of course the Millionaire will give more TOTAL. So Conservatives may just be more wealthy. Or more indoctrinated into believing they HAVE to give to charity.
Also , does giving to Church 'charities' count? What is the percentage of conservatism and church charity giving?
So many questions ....... to stop these statitiscs dead in their tracks and render them absolutely meaningless.
I've seen some of those survey results, and, yes, conservatives DO tend to claim they spent as much as three time more on "charitable deductions" (Where the GSS Survey data came from).
So, either conservatives simply claim a higher number to reduce their taxes, which, historically, in other surveys, they claim are unfairly high...or, they do not claim more to reduce taxes, even though they historically feel taxes are unfairly high.
If they do not simply claim more to get a higher deduction, despite studies that say they do, then, perhaps, they are more generous than liberals.
There is also a factor that can come into play where liberals are more likely to vote for social spending (More taxes), than conservatives (Less taxes), and, may actually prefer to pay more in taxes, to fix the system, than in charity, which empowers the giver instead.
So, that is one rubric, and, I've seen data that goes both ways, and, personal anecdotal evidence that goes both ways.
IE: I don't actually think conservatives are sociopathic, as that implies they don't care...and, from the one's I know, they DO care.
The differences are more likely to be about what each side considers to BE "in our best interests".
There are also different shades of liberal and conservative, just as there are different shades of religions, etc.
For example, a fiscal conservative is not "evil", he just KNOWS the gov wastes a LOT of money, and want it to stop wasting money, and spend it on important things.
After that, its up to the individual to have the opinions as to what ARE the "important things"...as some want more defense, or more SS, or more education, etc.
Surveys of education priorities, by the same GSS for example, break down priorities, and BOTH liberals and conservatives AGREE that educational funding should be increased.
Its NOT a black and white "good vs bad" issue for liberals and conservatives...they simply differ on SOME issues...and then demonize the "enemy".
I am both conservative on some issues, and liberal on others...and what is LABELED as either varies with the political climate.
NIXON is the one who, as far as presidents go, who sounded the warning about global climate change.
The Republican party is the party that brought up the dangers, and started the process of regulations to protect against it.
So, the global climate change issue, was, initially, a conservative issue.
When the fossil fuel industry designed an agnotological campaign to fight the Republicans, they found money was really really good at changing people's minds.
Something as straight forward as rewarding a congressman with a check, for even just holding up a snowball and smirking about global warming for a photo op....worked.
Ironically, that made the republican party, who sounded the alarm, turn into the largest political force with a vested interest in the agnotological campaign....it put money in their war chests.
Once politicized, and the science diluted with that vested interest, people started to double down on their beliefs/alliances.
Sure, some Dems and some Repubs, were on the "other side" from their buddies, that's normal...and some did the archetypal double speak that politicians are famous for...so they can sort of sound like they agree with you, no matter what...and so forth.
But a politician taking money to say something is not called "sociopathy" as much as its called "politics".
There is an EXCELLENT chance that if the DEMS had come out with the warning first, THEY would be the one's taking the checks from the fossil fuel industry.
For example, when the exact same plan was in use by the Tobacco Industry, to confuse people as to the science on tobacco, the DEMS took the money AND the Repubs took the money, as BOTH were given a turn at the trough.
When the Asbestos Industry had THEIR agnotological campaign to confuse people about the science on asbestos, the same thing happened.
So, just because the Fossil Fuel Industry's campaign to confuse the public about the science on global climate change, is mostly a conservative issue, it doesn't mean that liberals are immune to the same thing, historically.
Both sides have been, historically guilty of doing things in their own best interests.
Everyone in the Trump Administration sure is, Ha!
I do think that narcissists are naturally sympathetic to conservatism, as they have no empathy or concern for others and only care about themselves. Of course, not all conservatives are like this.
Narcissists are not naturally sympathetic to any thing per se.
Trump, as he's a local guy to me, is simply a lying ass hole scumbag con man.
You can always tell if he's lying...he has a "tell".
Basically, he says anything at all he thinks will resonate with a target......and when confronted, has zero problem is simply insisting its true, and that YOU know its true but won't admit it, etc...and, its impossible to truly argue with a party that doesn't listen, and simply waves off any point as meaningless.
Its worked for him in business, where he has leverage.
On the public stage, he has a demographic that will, statistically, believe anything he says even if they "know its false"...a seemingly impossible task.
A Republican (conservative) in Vermont has a lot in common with a Democrat (liberal) in Alabama. Conservative means different things in different places. A conservative in Canada or France or Portugal wouldn't be recognisable by most American conservatives. Canadian conservatives would never dream of ending universal healthcare, subsidised day care, housing and allowances for the mentally disabled or single parents etc.) Conservatives in New England in general support a minimal social safety net where ideally people won't end up on the street and is not tossed to the drug infested streets if they wisely use government support they will receive. That doesn't mean unlimited money thrown at the lower classes. But In general, the ethos is: there are losers, unfortunates, screw-ups, mentally-disabled or lost people who are extremely unlikely to leave miserable subsistence without assistance...and some amount of social spending is necessary.
A Republican in Alabama on the other hand is loathe to vote on new social programs that help the marginalised (though that doesn't mean they vote against all of them). While there are some conservatives who show a sociopathic like attitude, I believe most conservatives show a "tough love" attitude. That is, a caring (though misguided) approach where people will never improve unless they learn from their mistakes, take responsibility for their decisions and start making better ones. This is done out of concern for these people. The percentage of conservatives who extend this stance into the extreme of "they deserve their fate for their bad decisions so fuck them" or "poor people are poor entirely because of their own choices so fuck them" or "helping the less fortunate is an attack on the responsible so fuck them" and therefore no assistance at all should be offered...is a minority. To extend that harsh brutal mean nasty ethos to all of conservatives would be to straw-man them. Most right leaning people support a more minimal government because they care (as silly as that may seem to others).
I agree with most of this, however to really understand the South you have to go a bit deeper. It's not that the people of the South don't care. On the contrary, it is expected that families take care of their own ( not the government.) That is the real difference. Don't put Grandma (or crazy cousin Seth) out to services or in a home like them Yankees do. Take care of it yerself.
So you don't see homeless people in rural areas across the South...and you don't see much random crime either. No, Southerners only murder the ones they love. ;)
And if you really listen to the words.....
"In Birmingham they love the guv'ner, Boo! Boo! Boo!", we all did what we could do."
You would probably be surprised how many liberal minded Southerners are around, they just express it in a local manner. And really, liberals are to blame for this shitstorm wave sweeping across the US, UK, and the Netherlands with all this PC coverup all reality crap.
At some point someone has to protect democracy from itself. Those folks are the conservatives.