Academics think they've figured out why people voted for Trump and Brexit

[Soph0571]

After Trump's victory, pundits debated the influence of factors such as economic hardship and racial anxiety. With the absence of hard evidence, Professor Diana Mutz of the University of Pennsylvania questioned 1,200 voters.

She observed:

Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups.

Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change.

Mutz concluded that the people most likely to vote for Trump, after either voting Democrat previously or not voting at all, were those who felt their place in the world was being threatened.

------------

Brexit voters were found to have greater nationalism, conservatism, and support for authoritarian policies. The paper concludes that these reasons accounted for almost half (47.6 percent) of the variability in support for Brexit.

Zmigrod added:

In today’s politically-polarised climate, it is important to understand more about the psychological processes behind nationalistic and social attitudes if we are to build bridges between communities.

[link:https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-brexit-vote-study-science-race-nationalism-8326876|

Polite way of saying they are the very least xenophobic?

[sharedvalues]

1. We already know: PROPAGANDA

A big big reason so many vote for the GOP is because of years and years of the Republican propaganda machine.

Fox and Limbaugh told republicans that Hillary was worse. Fox and Limbaugh talked about emails and Benghazi enough that the real press started to talk about it all the time. Bannon got a propaganda book written and got the NYT to cover it. Mercers funded propaganda at Breitbart and anti Muslim propaganda. American oligarchs fund Hudson and Heritage and Cato and Bradley and AEI to generate fake pro-billionaire propagaanda ideas they then launder into the media. Sinclair is propaganda. Add in Wash Ex, NY Post, WSJ, IJR, Gateway Pundit, etc etc etc.

I don’t know why all these articles about trump voter motivation skip the OBVIOUS huge effect of propaganda.

Any one of us who has ever met a GOP voter knows that they use right wing propaganda talking points to justify their votes and views.

[rainin]

4. Yes!!! Thank you.

[sharedvalues]

7. As someone who works in a big city with fancy media people

And who grew up in what is now a GOP base area,

It continually shocks me how little most academics and media people know about the GOP voter.

Most media people don’t know any real GOP voters. The media has had no idea about how GOP propaganda works. That is finally starting to change in academia, where media studies are happening. But the corporate media is still flummoxed. The NYT articles about the GOP voter that talk about economics without mentioning propaganda are journalistic malpractice. It’s embarassing for them to be so out of touch with what makes GOP voters tick.

[rainin]

16. I live with one and it is clear as day to me.

I wish someone would talk to me.

[sharedvalues]

18. How do we get someone to do this?

Write a letter to the NYT? I’d help you edit it if you want... that would be a really good way to get exposure and fight back.

[lunatica]

28. That's a really good idea!

I hope she takes you up on it.

She could probably write a book about it.

[sharedvalues]

29. Start small :) I bet the NYT or another national paper would publish a letter/oped like this

[lunatica]

32. I agree

I was already jumping ahead because it’s such a good idea.

[Bradshaw3]

27. The propaganda is what makes them anxious

The propagandists know what they are doing. That doesn't negate the study. It just means the anxieties of the GOP are unfounded because they believe the untrue propaganda. They should include Fox news, etc. however in studies because it plays such a pivotal role in the control efforts of the repubs and the oligarches. The RW media is a cancer on our democracy.

[sharedvalues]

31. There is one very good academic study showing Fox is propaganda

It's an economics study. Which actually makes it better than most political science studies. But I think it hasn't gotten the coverage it deserves.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/bias-cable-news-persuasion-polarization

[Bradshaw3]

35. Interesting and confirms what one would expect

In that "cable news contributed 2/3 of the increase in polarization" to paraphrase. That was an inclusive statement for all cable news but most of the paper was on Faux News. Interesting too that channel position plays such a role.

Thanks for posting.

[sharedvalues]

38. Yup

The coefficients they estimate actually show it's only Fox - not the rest of cable news.

To be precise, only Fox significantly influences voting/polarization. CNN and MSNBC influence is not statistically significant.

This is a really high-quality study due to the way they use channel position as an independent instrument. Should get more coverage.

[EffieBlack]

42. That's a little too neat and let's people off the hook

The “propaganda” works because these people are receptive to it.

Right wing talk radio is about money. If they thought their audience wanted to left wing liberal programming, that’s what they would provide.

Racist audiences created talk radio, not the other way around.

[Meowmee]

45. This

You only believe what you are already inclined to believe in the first place.

[sharedvalues]

47. How do you explain Murdoch in 1980s UK? Or 1930s Germany?

Propaganda works. If we want a less racist society, we need to stop people from amplying hate and racism using propaganda media.

The same racism and xenophobia was exploited via propaganda in 1930s Germany and in 1980s UK. Whether there’s a kernel of hate in the propaganda targets already, or whether it’s created entirely by the propaganda media almost doesn’t matter. The propaganda outlets inflame that racism intentionally.

[Meowmee]

52. Youre not listening

People only believe (and go along with) what they ALREADY have a propensity to believe in the first place. In all of those cases.

[sharedvalues]

53. You need both. But propaganda is an essential ingredient.

I’d slightly argue with your assertion as well. The Milgram experiments support the idea that all humans react similarly to instruction and information — not just 1930s Germany but also 1950s Americans. An inference is that the main cause of 1930s Germany was not bad people but good propaganda.

That’s why propaganda is so scary and why we must change the GOP propaganda machine.

[sharedvalues]

46. Murdoch did the exact same thing in the UK

In the UK xenophobia was the issue of the day, but racism was a factor. In the US racism is a bigger issue, so Murdoch pushes that. But in both cases Murdoch used his media empire to propagandize the working class, all to get votes for billionaires like him. The propagandists had a lot to do with creating the propaganda, it wasn’t the other way around.

As for profitability:

The WSJ isn’t that profitable.
The NY Post loses money.
Breitbart is unprofitable.
Wash Examiner: unprofitable.
Fox: sacrifices profit for propaganda (Econ studies show this)
Sinclair: profitable in part because GOP administrations have allowed them to squash local stations.
All of the above are subsidized by GOP billionaires or helped by GOP politicians. This propaganda is not grass roots, though over time they’ve built up and brainwashed an audience they now can make money from.


This is a fight for the hearts and minds of Americans, with billionaires on one side and democracy on the other.

[EffieBlack]

48. They didn't create racism. It's been right there all along. They just exploit it.

[sharedvalues]

49. True

But for kids born since 1990 that grow up on Fox and Limbaugh and hate radio and Prager “U” who don’t have all racist relatives... it’s fair to say those media outlets create racism in those kids.

[OnDoutside]

2. I wonder how many of them have bought a timeshare or something

on teleshopping ?

[elias7]

3. I'm not sure you can call it xenophobia if the threat is real

The entire US is projected to be majority-minority by around 2040. If White Christians believe that what defines the identity of the country historically is White Christian, there is no irrationality in fearing this change. It is happening.

The assumptions that undergird this fear are what me must address. Unfortunately and ironically, subverting the constitution is what will destroy the US, not the makeup of its population.

[sharedvalues]

8. "Melting pot". "Bring me your tired, your poor..."

That’s what America stands for. In the 19th century your statement wouldn’t have been about the white majority shrinking, it would have been exactly the same - but about the Protestant majority shrinking.


America is about immigrants. Views to the contrary are xenophobia. Let’s call it what it is: racism and xenophobia. Our Protestant forbears had to deal with a Catholic president in 1960, and our current fellow citizens will have to deal with a black president, a female president, a Hispanic president, and a lot of minority lawmakers as well. Tough for them. This is America, a nation of immigrants.

[mnhtnbb]

11. I was out walking the dog in my downtown Raleigh neighborhood yesterday and overheard

a conversation between a guy sitting at an outdoor table in an Italian restaurant and the waiter.

I just heard a snippet. The (white) customer said if he was living in Italy, he would learn Italian. Presumably, he was talking about immigrants coming to this country and not learning English. I was sorely tempted--as I passed the table--to stop and ask him which Native American language he spoke? Apache? Cherokee? Iroquois? What? Or maybe Spanish, since much of the country was part of Mexico originally?

Arrogant white male jerk. Undoubtedly, a Trumpster. He wasn't an old guy, either. 40ish, I'd guess.

[IluvPitties]

13. You should have asked. By the way

Having visited several Latin American countries with sizable American communities, I've noticed they barely speak Spanish...

[Igel]

15. And how did the locals feel about that?

Czechs that I talked to in the '90s (v Praze a Brne) really resented that Americans were going over there and setting up shop, requiring that everybody accommodate the immigrant language and culture while getting no respect in return. They were also driving up rents, but that's another story.

I agreed with them.

[IluvPitties]

12. So what? The world changes, so does life.

[elias7]

17. So what?

Acknowledging where each other is coming from helps forge a dialogue and understanding between those of different race, gender, age - you name it. I’m sure the Native American population felt similarly threatened by the influx of Europeans.

My point was that a home built on a set of core principles and values will thrive regardless of the color of the skin of the person calling that place home. What Trumpians cannot see is the irony and destructiveness of subverting those principles and values to maintain a status quo in a world ever changing.

[EffieBlack]

44. I'm also sure "the Native American population felt similarly threatened by the influx of Europeans"

Because the Europeans were KILLING THEM AND STEALING THEIR LAND, PROPERTY AND CULTURE.

Of course, this was AFTER the Native Americans welcomed them and helped them stay alive.

So, really DUMB comparison

[lunatica]

30. We need to ask why the growth of minority populations is such a threat

There isn’t any real reason for fear is there? Unless they fear their status will end up being what they’ve been forcing on minorities for centuries. But where is the evidence of that, except in their brainwashed minds?

It’s not real. They are not being persecuted, lynched, or oppressed by anyone that isn’t already white. Their paranoia is not based on anything other than Xenophobia. And xenophobia is based on fear. In this case the fear is not based on anything except lies and propaganda.

[meadowlander]

36. The xenophobia comes from the assumptions that:

1. the country is historically White Christian (ignoring the fact that there were no Whites or Christians here before the 15th Century and that even after that, the Founding Fathers did not envisage either a White or Christian nation).
2. that somehow not being a White Christian nation threatens White Christians in a material way.

[LanternWaste]

40. You may safely call it xenophobia if it is not in fact, a threat.

You may safely call it xenophobia if the reality of changing demographics is not in fact, a threat.

[loyalsister]

5. The disappearing middle class

We've been hearing about that for a very long time. The GOP shifted the blame away from those who are responsible for it.

[sharedvalues]

9. Shifted the blame away from billionaires- using their propaganda machine

Exactly. The biggest purpose of the GOP propaganda machine is to get Walmart employees who work 30 hrs a week with no benefits, to hate liberal elites rather than the CEOs and billionaires that are making their jobs bad.

[loyalsister]

14. Sort of

It would not have been effective without the US mythology that defines "middle class."
More people see themselves as middle class than is reflected in income distribution.
When politicians have been talking about a disappearing status they are referring to a social status as much as income bracket. That rhetoric made the propaganda effective.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/why-americans-all-believe-they-are-middle-class/278240/

[sharedvalues]

19. Many causes of course. But why

But why does the 30hour a week, poverty level Walmart employee hate “liberals” and “Harvard professors” rather than the Walmart CEO and board who are actually screwing them?

That is purely due to right wing propaganda.

[Hortensis]

6. Different academic disciplines identify different factors from

research within their discipline. As a partial explanation this stands up to peer review and other research with the same findings.

Btw, the various results I've read in different ways put the lie to the idea that Democrats could have held onto those resentful white men who went to Trump without abandoning some of our most cherished principles and without betraying our own, ourselves. I'm a woman, and those who are still unrepentant at opposing Democrats in 2016, because equal opportunity threatens their place in the world, belong in the white man's party and should stay there. I'd be very interested to know how many realize they made a horrible mistake, though.

Btw, how about the "incel," involuntary celibacy, phenomenon? Greater freedom of choice for women means not just that more men aren't getting any, but that more aren't able to marry, have wives and children, a welcoming home to return to each day. This is a significant problem.

[sharedvalues]

20. There is a way

There is a way Dems could have held on to more angry white voters without changing our principles : counter Fox and Limbaugh. The right wing propaganda machine radicalized a lot of white people.

Merely exposing the lies of Fox and right wing propaganda radio would have helped keep some of those voters.

[Hortensis]

23. Why do you imagine we didn't? Cannot force people to listen,

much less believe what they've already decided not to. Truth is boring compared to hice juicy, entertaining lies. Truth is usually complex and requires attention. Remember the old, "A lie will travel halfway around the world while truth's still getting its shoes on?"

Now, how about your own assumption that these people's grave faults -- and sins -- should be laid at the feet of Democrats -- because we were of course too stupid and feckless to just point out a few basic realities in the many tens of thousands of speeches, ads, articles and TV and radio spots we did in 2015-2016? What would it take to educate that peculiar misconception that we didn't constantly speak important targeted truths?

Tell me, and I'll write it quick. I'm tired of the type of person who imagine we're always ultimately to blame for what everybody else does. We who don't share that peculiar bias all are. But I'll tell you now what I know: That quick little string of magically enlightening words doesn't exist. We all see things the way we're disposed to, not as others inform us we should.

[sharedvalues]

24. Write where?

First, let's put the blame where it is deserved: the people to blame are GOP billionaires like the Koches and Rupert Murdoch who built a propaganda machine to use fear to cover up their greed.

That said, you offered to write something. Where? Letter to the editor? Local or national paper? Academic journal? Or blog or Medium? Or talking points? Or something else? Based on what you say there might be something to do.

[Hortensis]

25. Have a nice day.

[sharedvalues]

26. I'm serious. Counter-propaganda can be effective. It's not instant gratification, but it works.

The GOP built a propaganda machine over the course of four decades.

Wa Po in 2010:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013102860.html

CAP also worked unsuccessfully to defeat David F. Hamilton, Obama's first appellate judicial nominee. A Nov. 9 CAP memo calling Hamilton "an ideologue first and a jurist second" helped trigger blog blasts from Erickson and an anti-Hamilton speech at the conservative Federalist Society by Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Judiciary Committee Republican.

Another prime networking venue is the Wednesday breakfast at Americans for Tax Reform, a D.C. institution led by Norquist. Among the speakers at a recent "Grover meeting," as they are known, were Republican congressional candidates; the president of the Jesse Helms Center; and Christine Hall of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who said her organization was offering former vice president Al Gore $500 to debate global warming.

"We're challenging Gore to a duel," she said to laughter.

About 90 minutes in, people filed out and headed to Ebenezer's Coffeehouse, near Union Station. There they attended the weekly "Weyrich lunch," named for the person who started the meetings, conservative veteran Paul M. Weyrich, who died in 2008.

Conservatives say the invitation-only lunch allows strategic planning with Republican congressional staff members. One example: an amendment in July from Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) that would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms across state lines. It divided Democrats but fell just short of passage. "That was really under the radar until it got to the Weyrich meeting, and everyone said, 'Hey, we need to help Thune out on this,' " Erickson said.

There is much crossover among leading D.C. organizations. Tony Perkins, the Family Research Council president who hosts CAP meetings, is a board member of the Council for National Policy, the organization's most recent tax filings show. Becky Norton Dunlop, the council's president, is a key CAP member -- and a Heritage Foundation vice president. Blackwell is a director of CNP Action, a sister organization to the Council for National Policy.

Conservatives do a LOT of small stuff. Blogs, letters to the editor, etc.


We can do the same. When you say you wanted to write something ... fast, where did you mean? We can help you.

[Hortensis]

33. This is not what I was talking about, but

think of what propaganda is. Massive dissemination of lies and distortions meant to deceive is inconsonant with the values of liberal voters and what we will accept from those we elect to represent us in government. The same for most of the liberals who run for office and work in campaigns.

There are reasons propaganda has worked so much better on the right, and on the dissident left, than among the liberals who make up most of the Democratic Party. Our message experts know far better than we do the tremendous disadvantages a relative preference for truth and relative disgust at being lied to causes them (compared to the right-wing smear machine's advantages), but they have to work with the electorate they have.

(I just happened to be thinking of that snide, nasty, insinuating voice so many attack ads intended to influence conservatives have been using for years. Don't know if you're thinking of the one I mean, but it's not used in our ads targeted at our voters, even attack ads, for a reason.)

[sharedvalues]

37. Fair. Yes. You have to speak to liberals and conservatives differently.

While I agree with everything you've written, I also think the Dem message experts are, frankly, not very good at messaging.

I think part of that is young Republicans often get a little business training and PR and media relations exposure comes with that. While young Dems don't get the same.

But here's my example at poor Dem messaging. Frank Luntz is practically a god inside the GOP. He wrote a few books that the whole GOP knows and listened to. (Luntz is the one who told the GOP to use "Washington" instead of "government" because many voters have had good experiences with their local government. And the GOP electeds listened!)

The Luntz corresponding figure on the Dem side is George Lakoff. He wrote a few books and the whole Democratic party ignored him. He tried to start a political consulting firm and couldn't drum up business. As far as I can tell, only Elizabeth Warren has taken his advice very seriously. He has spoken at a few Dem retreats, but has gotten no real traction inside the party.

So there you are. The GOP loves Luntz and listens to him and that has helped them. The Democrats have ignored Lakoff, to their great detriment.

Democrats need a lot of help on messaging.

[Hortensis]

39. Right wing leadership CANNOT message without lying.

What the donors intend has become SO inimical to what their voters want that they cannot tell the truth.

They are forced to lie about everything they are for, like destroying Social Security.

They also have to lie about all the issues they are against, such as universal healthcare being possible.

They find their greatest tool in demonizing their opposition by lying constantly, and more outrageously every year. They not only cannot tell the truth about us, but they must swamp the electorate's vision of who we are and what we do with unending waves of very expensive lies.

This is why the Luntz's have become so important. This also gives them enormous freedom to create profoundly shocking, entertaining, horrifying, enjoyable, energizing, personally validating lies directed at their voters.

Democrats don't have that freedom but are limited to the truth, and the amount of stretching, editing, etc., they can get away with doesn't begin to begin to overcome that disadvantage. Our own acquaintances have been spreading political emails for decades now, but almost none are from those on the left because they're about issues and we all know where we are on those. The really juicy, enjoyable stuff is from the right. And the taste for it and what satisfies only grows.

Almost twenty years ago now, conservatives my husband and I knew on both sides of the country were chortling in fake outrage over Hillary decorating the White House Christmas tree with condoms and having a lesbian affair with her pet groomer. Now Hillary's cutting the faces off children for sexual pleasure in her child trafficking ring.

Presenting them with PROOF, exploding repeated messages on the nation, that Trump was a career criminal, sexual predator, and likely traitor was worth, in the end, nothing. Nor, might I ad, was that personal corruption confined to voters on the right. A small but critical minority among the dissident left also ignored it to vote against Democratic candidates, or refuse to come out knowing full well who that would benefit.

But if you know someone who can word our plan to make family caretakers eligible for Social Security benefits in such a way that millions of people will send it out to their email groups and the media will discuss it several times a day, for the sake of your nation please send the name immediately to the DNC.

You won't, though, because there is no such wizard and there are no such magic words.

Never have been, but fwiw, look at the history of our nation. Decency and democracy have always won out more than indecency and attempts to overthrow our liberal democracy. We're on the right side of not just history, but just about everything. And they have massive money and massive lies, as long as those'll work for them.

[sharedvalues]

41. Interesting analysis

I agree with almost all.

I’ll add one thing.

There ARE ways to better frame what Democrats stand for. Basically, ways to use better words for the same ideas . George Lakoff has written several books about this. For example, talking about a fair shake for all, and the value of taxes to build roads and schools that we all benefit from. And to build a social safety net. (Any democrat that uses the e-word- entitle&;$(& - should be ashamed of themselves).

Beyond words, there is also a better media strategy available to Democrats if they would choose to use it- it is coordination. In other words, all Democrats should use the same talking points, just like the GOP does (that’s the other side of Luntz’s business). If Schiff and Pelosi and Schumer and Swalwell and Lieu all used the same words for a few days it would get their words covered by the media - at least much more than now.

[Oneironaut]

10. Its all socioeconomics. Were no different from ppl in the Middle East, or Africa.

America’s stability is only due to its Middle Class. The same is true of Europe. The problem is, while American society was more economically blended since post-WWII, we’re now seeing an increasing stratification between the super wealthy and normal people.

When you start shrinking the middle class, and pushing those people into the working poor (or worse, unemployed poor), things start to go out of wack. The absolute worst thing you could have happen is an increase in the number of “military-aged” men who are unemployed and have no job prospects. That means that all-out conflict can break out.

I’m not saying the middle class was destroyed yet, but there is a troubling trend happening now.

[sharedvalues]

21. New Gilded Age

“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.”
Louis D. Brandeis, circa 1928

[ucrdem]

22. Short version: they built a better dog whistle

and made sure we all heard it.

[Donkees]

34. Also known as: Marketing to the Reptilian Brain

Reptilian Brain Characteristics
Territoriality, hierarchical structure of power, control, ownership, wars, jealousy, anger, fear, hostility, worry, stuck or frozen with fear, aggressiveness, conflict, extremist behavior, competitiveness, cold-blooded, dog-eat-dog beliefs, might is right, and survival of the fittest.

It’s all about survival when it comes to the reptilian brain. Emotional responses based on the fear of not surviving.

Power, status, reputation, basically the sense of self. The reptilian brain doesn't like change or new viewpoints. That is why it seems near impossible to enact any real change as far as politics goes. The reptilian brain fears change and any real change as far as policy goes can be a real ''nightmare'' to get enacted.

New views in science, politics, religion, education, medicine, the reptilian brain sees this as a threat and will always defend itself.

The reptilian brain doesn't know the difference between real and imagined. It’s thoughts about events are just as real as the ''real thing.'' Anxiety is a state caused by the reptilian brain even when nothing is happening that should cause us to feel anxious.

http://www.mazzastick.com/are-you-behaving-like-a-reptile/

[Takket]

43. anyone want to break it to PRof Mutz that we already knew all this? lol

[Major Nikon]

50. Demagoguery is extremely effective

It should be called out and condemned whenever it happens.

[Turbineguy]

51. Like studying the brains of

idiots.