I reckon Democrats are not pushovers so much as many of them have different values than many Republicans, and are relatively less likely to have strong RWA tendencies or be social dominators.
Pretty much. The rapist (he who gets the girl that the Democrat gives up on by simply keeping on asking as she becomes more and more under the influence) who works out in the Affliction Tshirt at the gym is more likely to be Republican than Democrat. Same thing with the fat kid at the party who eats the last peice of pizza. Of course, it could just be someone coming off as inconsiderate because they are having a lapse in their very limited attention scope and span.Well, the one thing I'd stress is that it is quite complicated and not very well understood yet. From what little of the social psychology literature I've picked up on the differences seem to be more in terms of who is more likely to be like
this than
that. There are plenty of exceptions, the party in which one is a member does not happen to be a great gauge of who will have which traits (not enough research has been done outside of the States, and major parties in a two-party system are hard to discuss without generalizing since each party tends to be broad coalition), and in a community like this I would expect that many - if not most - of the forum members are not representative of the masses of people in the groups studied. Nonetheless, one could argue that at least a few of the following attributes are significant.
Secular liberals generally seem to be a bit more: interested in promoting values of caring and fairness while being less than enthusiastic about those of loyalty, respect for authorities, and purity; open-minded and intellectually curious; tempted to use utilitarian reasoning and betray their principles when the consequences for doing so seem great; convinced that everyone contributes something valuable to society and deserves respect; fixated on using government to promote happiness, freedom from social domination, and opportunities for personal growth regardless of who one is; express the kinds of humanistic attitudes that culturally encourage what folks often refer to as political correctness; likely to build a wall between their faith and political convictions, and; often convinced that people are mostly good.
Social conservatives generally seem to be a bit more: likely to settle on a balanced set of values that includes caring, fairness, loyalty, respect for legitimate authorities, and purity; courteous, self-disciplined, and neat; willing to resist strong incentives that encourage the violation of taboos; vulnerable to becoming the faithful followers of or being people who would say and do just about anything to have more power over others; of the persuasion that some folks are worthier than others; likely to believe in traditions inspired by national myth - e.g., in the U.S., the people need an outside source of morality in their lives - lest they abuse their rights and liberties, America is exceptional, and folks ought to be self-sufficient; prone to taking political pointers from their religious teachings, and; often convinced that people are sinful.
These two groupings do not cover a lot of people in either major party in the States and, though I have seen at least one study finding some of the same patterns in Canadian politics, have yet to see any that back them all up well for application in other parts of the world. Still, the main point is not that one faction is more nurturing or domineering than the other so much as the differing biases, strengths, and weaknesses of different people are going to lead them - regardless of how rational they attempt to be - to differing perspectives about reality. I figure most of the nastiness in Western politics comes from folks not understanding how their opponents think, why they make certain political decisions, and how those choices are intended to help build up a better future.
