Clockcat, if you're interested in this kind of thing and haven't read "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer, you're doing yourself a horrible disservice.

Can we get a couple million bucks of public cash to find out what explains Michael Moore and Al Franken?  IF not then that throws any pretense of equal treatment out the window.

"The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case."

Bush didn't follow fiscal conservatism at all. He didn't follow it in the slightest way. He did give empty, meaningless lipservice to social conservatism. But lets keep in mind that it was empty lipservice. When did he deliver on his empty promises of social conservatism? Those promises to push through and anti-gay marriage amendment never carried through because they were lies meant to fool people into voting for him. That is a pretty good example of the kind of faux social conservatism he offered to people.

He was a war-hungry corporatist. I honestly can't believe that people think that Bush was a conservative. He even admitted in his final week in office that he betrayed all free-market values that he should have had.

As far as I can tell, this report has taken the word "conservative" and used it to mean "authoritarian." The fascists were authoritarians, but I would not call them conservatives (seizing control of their economies is in no way a conservative move). Regan was a conservative, but I would not call him an authoritarian. I'll have to read the report, but this article makes it sound like they are confused about what the word 'conservative' means.

"George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism..."

Is that part a joke or is it revealing their desire to attack conservatives just for the sake of attacking conservatives? It is hard to take a source seriously when it writes something like that.

I have no idea about this article, but the guy who did the 20-odd years of research on authoritarianism before Reagan took office was a social scientist working across cultures and political borders.  The reason an attack on American political conservatives as fascist-like does not require a similar attack on the American political left is that the left is dominated by low RWAs and anti-authoritarians, who are both very un-fascist.  To put a solid point on it, Altmeyer spent several years specifically trying to find a left-wing authoritarian personality and couldn't find it.  It doesn't exist.

That is what I was saying. The authors aren't talking about conservatives as the guarding claimed. They are talking about authoritarians. If someone can be politically left and a RWA simultaneoulsy, then I suppose that this has nothing to do with conservaties in particular and is only about authoritarians.

And I do believe that people can be politically left and authoritarian simultaneously. Altemeyer's bullshit doesn't fool me. He made a LWA scale and RWA scale. Political leftists who score high on the LWA scale also score high on the RWA scale. This is because there are fundamental aspects of authoritarians that have nothing to do with left-right politics; so people who score high on one scale also score high on the other. But, and here is were Altemeyer's BS comes in, since people who scored high on the LWA scale also scored high on the RWA scale, Altemeyer said that no LWAs existed at all. He simply refused to admit that they were left-wing and authoritarians. He instead called them 'wild card authoritarians' and refused to let the fact that they were politically left allow them to be called LWAs. So he found LWAs, he just refuses to call them that and instead invented the term 'wild card authoritarian' in order to be able to say that he has never found LWAs. His 'wild card authoritarians' is just a newspeak attempt to not admit that there are inded LWAs.

The reason he could never find people who score very high on his LWA test is because the test focuses too much on following a leader. LWAs differ from RWAs in that RWAs flock to a leader while LWAs flock to an ideology. The LWA scale only counts you as very authoritarian if you are like and RWA and focus on following a leader. Recap: the scale was poorly made, it half-tests for RWA tendancies rather than actual LWA tendancies, people approaching the midpoint on his scale are LWAs and Altemeyer pretends that they aren't by calling them 'wild cards' rather than admit that they are politically left authoritarians.

So I guess what I am saying here is: P.S. Please do some research yourself.

Because they are indoctrinated to believe that aliens are stealing their jobs and spending their tax dollars. Most of the conservative, republican whack jobs I know are as delusional as theists.

It is hard to tell if you are trolling or are just earnestly crazy.

I know of nothing that can be done to quell your irrational fear. The health care is a right thread kind of proved that. There is plenty of evidence there that you choose to ignore.

I have noticed though that there is a trend in the U.S....liberals tend to want to prove they are not wrong by providing evidence, while conservatives feel satisfied if "other people believe it" too, and jump on the fear-obsessed bandwagon without hesitation. This happened during Bush's presidency as well. It went from Afghanistan, to Iraq, and then to Iran. 

Do you ever stop to think before you type out something like "HEALTH CARE REFORM IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER" ?

Thinking you might of made a mistake by not parroting verbatim from a talking head on TV doesn't count.

Another dodge, do you want to answer the question or just hurl insults since you have nothing else?

How is the authoritarian war on terror different than the authoritarian war on poverty?

And why do you even ask the question about Xenophobia if you've already got an answer in your head(Conservatives are crazy)? All you want is people to justify your conclusion. No rational discussion about the causes, just people that don't agree with you are all nuts. Well, you're nuts for pretending to ask a question for which you already have an answer.

Where did claim this was not the case??? Sounds like you need to take your own advise.

And why is the person that hurls the personal insults instead of debating the point not considered the troll?

Is anyone allowed to have any answer other than conservatives are crazy, evil, brainwashed by Fox news idiots? So why even raise the question? And of course only conservatives practice authoritarianism.

I know, respect your authority or I'm out.

Well Clockcat, the fact that EXC seems to be flaming this thread does not really help matters but then again, your spending time responding to his flames with your own does not move matters on either.

However, xenophobia is about the in group vs. the out group. On that basis, why would you give liberals a pass on holding to xenophobic traits? Any well defined and coherent group ought to be capable of showing the us vs. them distinction. In fact, for a confessed liberal to even ask questions about why conservatives seem to be xenophobic comes off to me as inherently xenophobic in itself.

I agree, actually with everything you said here. I am not giving anyone a "pass".

I don't hate, dislike, or fear conservatives, but I recognise at the same time that many of them are xenophobic. I am curious what causes this in such numbers among many conservatives? What in the philosophy of "keeping the status quo" demands division?

"Xenophobia is a dislike and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself. It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "stranger," "foreigner" and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe a fear or dislike of foreigners or of people significantly different from oneself, usually in the context of visibly differentiated minorities." from wiki.

The difference here is, many conservatives feel that EVERYTHING outside their bubble is dangerous, everything not american is against america, everything against god is against america, etc etc. Following this line of thought, it is easy to see the viewpoints they hold...but I don't understand HOW they come to this. What starts it, and why is intolerance accepted by other conservatives so easily towards other people for simply existing? 

Liberals do not have a free pass, but this thread isn't about liberals. I don't see a large grassroot liberal movement against people who are "different". Maybe if you compare/constrast against liberal social views some insight could be gained?

Does it have to do with a generational thing, since many conservatives are elderly..and they lived in a different world? I'm going to ponder this a bit. If anyone has answer answers or insight into this, please feel free to add!

Oh irony so lol. But I dont think you can hold ClockCat for this. He was asking a question about a particular group. It just happens that in America everyone falls into one category or the other... or in between... The fact of the matter is that hardcore conservatives are much more likely to be xenophobic than anyone else. This deserves an explanation.

I'm well aware. This is not intended to be as much an us vs them thread as it is myself trying to understand what causes the xenophobia so common in conservatives. 

Yes, I am a liberal because I believe that everyone should have the freedom to do what they want in life, so long as it doesn't directly intrude on other's freedoms. I do not hate or fear conservatives though, I just want to understand what causes the irrational fear of everything...well...not them. The mass labelling of "un-american" and the rhetoric of "do you hate america?" kind of things to everything that doesn't agree with them. Also, there is the utter contempt for nearly every minority, as well as the civil rights movement. I understand that the concept of the ideology is "to keep the status quo" but...the civil rights movement was a long time ago. 

I don't understand this.

As for the sharia law thing, no I would not be able to live under any religious law in all likelihood. Since I am not religious, and the abrahamic religions have a thing against gays... I would probably not do well at all. The same is true for mormon religious laws, or anything else for that matter. At least sodomy being illegal was overturned several years ago here in the states...but not that long ago, really.

Ironically enough, I used to be a conservative when I was very young (as my parents), and thought that all the gays in the country should be put to death. This is because the church my parents took me to told me that is what God wanted, and that since they aren't reproducing all they are doing is making disease and ruining society. When I was about 13 or so I kind of drifted away from religion, and the result of that is me as I am today.

I am not looking to my own experiences however, since I am expecting (and hoping...) that most conservatives were NOT raised like this. I am hoping it is just this area.

Also, please try to keep from preaching to me. Let alone paraphrased bible text....I did not make this thread to discuss my own issues. I am trying to understand why there is rampant unacceptance of nearly everything in one ideological group.
 

Am I the only one willing to bet $50 that if socialist ideas were part of the original Americian ideal instead of conservative ones, then most RWAs would be Democrat?

Thank you Hamby. This gives me some thoughts. If conservative americans want to make everyone like themselves....what caused this? Where does it stem from? 

Do they feel they are in some kind of culture war based on judeo-christian values then? Is that what this is about, trying to make everyone submit to their morals?

I'm not sure where to go on this. I know many people here locally that are conservative, and won't leave far from the town where they are born because it is "different". They never care to see a beach, a glacier...anything that isn't right in front of them already. They stay right in the immediate area. I can't fathom this kind of thing either. Is it just an utter, irrational fear of change maybe?

I couldn't ever live like that....I love travelling, and when I say something to that effect they just look at me with dead uncaring eyes. It is so strange to me....They go to the same church, work the same job, drink themself stuipid after the job, and sleep to wake up an do it again, in endless repitition...and it is "okay" to do this, because, I am told, their dad did it before them. 

I'm starting to ramble now. I'll stop. Maybe someone can get something from this that I missed and enlighten me. 

This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. 

Which party is made up more of conservatives or liberals has swapped a few times since creation of the parties. Republicans were the liberal party from the beginning of the last century until the civil rights movement, and then many conservative democrats left in an exodus...and the republican party which was struggling took them all in. They left because....well, honestly they didn't want to see blacks using the same things as whites. They were against ending segregation, and wanted a "seperate but equal" thing. 

Many republicans minorities then ended up pushed out of the party. Where african-americans almost exclusively leaned republican due to the ending of slavery...they now were mainly democrats, because of the want for equal rights. The original conservative democrats that didn't leave began calling themselves "blue dog" democrats after that. 

So, this is not about party. It is about an ideology. It just happens to be that the Republican party is, according to the GOP and Arlen Specter, "purifying itself" of people that they feel don't agree strongly enough with their current core issues. Basically, they are looking to get rid of the liberal republicans..the libertarians, from leadership roles. I'm not sure why, they are not doing well as it is...but then again, I don't claim to understand either of the main political parties in the country.

Also, the 50's and 60s are a long time ago...why would conservatives reach back in time? Aren't they supposed to "preserve the status quo" not "bring back ye olden times before the internet"?

I DO see a lot of worship among conservatives for this time period, but most of it seems to be due to it being before the civil rights movement... like this 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqY50ui2cMyfgF6uVbh5guKlDH1G;_ylv=3?qid=20090908151806AARwM62

question.

I'm studying on this as best I can to try and understand it.

Would it be better if I rephrased the question, "Why do so many racist homophobic immigrant hating people, that fear and/or dislike anyone that believes in anything different than they do, exist in the conservative ideology of the United States?" Not claiming I am unbiased, I will say that there ARE people that fit into these categories that subscribe to other ideologies.

Many liberals I have found do not care what other people believe so long as they don't actively try to stop them from living how they want, while many conservatives here I have found want everyone to live how they do...like the banning of gay marriage, gay adoption, sodomy laws, etc to make sure people CANNOT do things in their personal lives that they disagree with, purely in a subjective way. (As in, trying to make taking rights away from minorities a state interest when it has no rational reasoning to do so. Like claiming "Gay marriage destroys marriage" so you have to "protect marriage from the attack of sodomites" )

I know these people frequently claim biblical values, but surely religion isn't making people conservative...is it? I suppose every sharia-law state is very conservative by it's nature...

Whoa whoa whoa...same legal rights?

EXC, Civil Unions do not give EVEN CLOSE to the same legal rights as marriage.

How in the world could you even think that? 

Also, EVEN IF IT WAS THE SAME, how can you be for this "separate but equal" crap?  

These are just a few of the issues that are problems with civil unions, copied from http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

What is marriage?

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.

• Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
• Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
• Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
• Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
• ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
• Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
• Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
• Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
• The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization.

What is a civil union?

A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".

Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling Out Forms:
Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate and Unequal—Second Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws in is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.

I live in California and as a compromise, moderates have proposed that civil marriage would mean all the same legal rights as marriage. No legal difference, only semantics. There is actually a large number of gay people that are libertarian and found this acceptable, they don't want to have a war with the rest of society over semantics. But there is a group of gays here that want a war, they want to put it in the face of religious people that they are married. 

I'm not. I'm against strait marriage as well. Marriage has come to mean some kind of religious union, like it's only OK to have sex if you have a document on file with the government that says "marriage". Government needs to stay out religion. So I'm for same and equal, no "marriage" for anyone in legal documents, only civil unions. 

You keep assuming a a right wing nut, I'm not. I'm someone that thinks things through., so I don't believe things just because they are right or left wing.

I take it you did not read that list, at all.

One of the first things is the lack of support from ALL FEDERAL programs, not to mention that STATE benefits only are with you while in that state.

I'm not assuming you are anything, I'm noticing you repeat yourself and tell me that "gays don't need marriage". Marriage is not a religious thing, and never has been unless you wanted it to be, or had a state religion. I don't think a drive-through elvis impersonator marriage in vegas has anything to do with a religion, and yet look how popular that has been.

Why you want to keep marriage from gays, ignoring the glaring inequality in that, and then use the excuse "Well I am against it for straight people too..." is beyond me.

Why are you in favor of strait marriage given that "marriage" has such religious connotations? Shouldn't the government stay out the religion and relationship business? What is wrong with just using the term 'civil unions' for everyone?

Because legally, straight marriage has significance. I don't care about the church part, just the part with the signing of the papers.

So let's go through this step by step:

1) Marriage is already set up as an institution, with paperwork and forms and associated legal procedures.

2) We figure out that it's ridiculous to ban two people from that institution simply on the basis of sex

then

3) We change the name of the institution for everybody?

Why? The simpler version is to just extend the existing institution to all people of the [already existing] age of consent. Same forms, same legal procedures, same deal. That's it. It's so simple that I don't understand the problem.

But that's crap. Let's say I get the right to vote, but you get the right to "emphatically endorse". They're completely the same in terms of rights, but for some reason, we've decided to give what you do a totally different name. How about I can have a credit card, but you can have a "debt incurring card"?

The reason you should find those cringe-worthy is because like anyone else, you would smell a rat. Having a different name for something is an obvious signifier.

Wow, is this ever not the point. (Of course, it's the point in a massive derail, but I might be the only moderator who doesn't know how to separate content properly, so ... sorry about that.)

Why don't limited partnerships have the same rights as corporations? You're asking a legal question about forms of agreements and the status of legal entities. Corporate entities, for example, have the benefit of virtual immortality, and the self-determination of their dissolution, two rights which do not exist for other legal individuals.

Not concerned with the church part. Said that earlier. Do you mean an institution that leads to discrimination?

I don't know if that does bar you from adopting children, does it? An active night life might not be the best lifestyle for raising children, though.

That might be the lamest slippery slope I've ever seen. Oh wait -- there was that one about "What's next? People marrying their pets?"

Let me get this straight (no pun intended): asexual people aren't able to adopt?

Let's say they're exactly the same thing in everything but name. Nobody says "that is for gays", the person behind the desk just gets a different form. One form has "Civil Union" on it, and one has "Marriage" on it. If the two people applying are the same sex, they get a Civil Union form, and if they aren't, they get a Marriage form.

I think the problem should be obvious. Let's say in 10 years, a suddenly powerful group of people want to retroactively annul all gay marriages. They'd be pretty easy to identify. It would be significantly more difficult to annul marriages on that kind of whim, because then the stability of the marriage contract is called into question for everybody.

I'm still flabbergasted that it matters, though. It's two people, and they're entering into a type of partnership that has existed for centuries. The fact that they share the same sex should be legally irrelevant.