Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
Fredösphere ·
May 1, 2012 at 9:22pm
From an astonishing article in the New York Times:
One theory is that conservative urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as republiphobia--the fear of the Republican Party. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” — the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. [. . .]
It’s a compelling theory — and now there is scientific reason to believe it. In this month’s issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchers provide empirical evidence that republiphobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of right-wing desire.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '11
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
Republican really is the new gay.
Oct '10
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
What a maroon!
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
My favorite part of this was that "homophobic" included everything from holding traditional Christian views on sexuality to voting to retain the definition of marriage as a heterosexual union. The word clearly has no meaning.
Jul '11
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
The science is settled now I guess.
Mar '11
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
If Obama's new slogan "Forward" seems incomplete to you until you add the words "Great Leap" in front of it, you might be a Republican.
If having a president spend more than all of the 43 presidents preceding him combined disturbs you, you might be a Republican.
If your first response to any problem is not "call the government," you might be a Republican.
If following the green jobs policy of Spain (current unemployment rate: 24%) doesn't strike you as a winning strategy, you might be a Republican.
If you suspect that Elizabeth Warren's Cherokee name probably translates out to be either "Annoying White Chick" or "Dances With Feckless Crapweasels," you might be a Republican.
Feb '12
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
No, no, no! Her Indian name is "Sits with Tenure." Or possibly "Dances with Quotas."
Those evil white people. First they steal the red man's land; then they steal the red man's identity.
Oct '10
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
Ha, Fredo, good one. Had me going for a minute there, but then, I'm notoriously slow.
Aug '10
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
So, if I really want to advance conservatism, I should get a job with one of the liberal parties?
It's not necessarily that far-fetched. As with so many things in politics, it's a problem of definitions.
In Canuckistan, government spending dropped under the Liberals, and they did balance the budget in the 90s, while deficit spending is back under the Tories. However, when compared to the other G7 nations, Canuckistan's government finances are simply superb ... but when compared to the OECD, we're kinda middle-of-the-road.
There are issues where the Liberals pushed things to the left (gun control, same-sex marriage), but they were also very pro-free-trade. They also had massive, criminal scandals. Is being a crook left-wing or right-wing?
The Tories aren't nearly as fire-and-brimstone as the opposition claims. They consistently resist attempts by social-conservative members to bring up the regulation of abortion, and they allowed a free vote on gay marriage when they could have whipped that vote.
And yet, the opposition argues that simply allowing free votes on social issues is actually proof of an extreme right-wing agenda.
Sigh.
Aug '10
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
As for the "homophobes are actually gay" hypothesis, my beloved Cracked.com tackled that hoary chestnut in their article, Six B.S. Facts About Psychology That Everybody Believes (the homophobia thing is Fact #1).
Like most Cracked.com articles, it's not CofC compliant, but it is factually robust.
Apr '12
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
Misthiocracy, it is cruel to link to Cracked. I have lost whole weeks on that site.
Fredösphere, brilliant! I love it. I may use this on some lib friends.
Aug '10
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
One last comment:
In any population, you're going to have outliers, and when the topic is so highly-charged, the outliers are going to get a lot more publicity.
1) Lemme see the comparative figures.
For example...
2) How do we define "gay rights"?
How do we classify openly gay people who campaign against gay marriage? How do we classify openly gay people who oppose forcing religious institutions to adopt particular "pro-gay" policies.
How do we classify people who are in favour of protecting gay people under hate speech laws, in favour of gay adoption, in favour of gays in the military, in favour of gay civil partnerships, but draw a line at the definition of "marriage"?
These people are out there. Are they homophobic, self-hating gays?
May '11
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
... not that there's anything wrong with that!
Apr '12
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
Misthiocracy-
I thought we called open homosexuals who are against "gay marriage"Sir Elton John. (at least several years ago; apparently his current guy is loudly for it)
This "study" managed two bits of bad psychology-- it's based on subliminal messages, #3 on Cracked's list. (Not going to read the bloody article, but I heard some discussion of it on the radio yesterday-- the obvious conclusion is that folks who are highly opposed to homosexual mainstreaming are more likely to be accurate in identifying it. Meh, it's useful, so it will get airtime.)
Apr '12
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
The New York Times: pull out studies that were covered better by TV Tropes. (Another site that will eat days of your life.)
Aug '11
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
I hate tripe; can't stomach it. So on this Cinqo de Mayo, after a few shots, I'm going for the menudo.
Oct '10
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
More inane garbage from the NY Times. The writer leads off with 3 examples:
"In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men’s bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man."
Only the first one holds serve. The next two are non sequiturs. It is not inconsistent to oppose hate-crime legislation for anti-gay acts while simultaneously choosing to engage in gay acts.
It is not inconsistent to oppose same-sex marriage while being homosexual (or, considering the idiotic example, to oppose SS marriage while sexually assaulting another man).
The writer tries to make a point using 2 of 3 examples that do absolutely, positively nothing to support his point. Well done, NY Times! You never fail to live down to expectations!
Jul '11
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
hilarious.
Sep '10
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
You're just a [Republican] with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of ours. It's science.
Mar '11
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
Not to worry - they have mental hospitals and drugs for such illnesses. If those fail, there are the salt mines. Oh, wait, that was the USSR.
Forward!
Jun '10
Re: Republiphobic? Maybe You're Conservative
dittoheadadt:
"In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute;
Only the first one holds serve.
I don't even think the first one is a very strong point. A central premise of Christianity is that we are all sinners. The fact that Ted Haggard was revealed to be a sinner should not surprise anyone who believes we all stand in need of redemption, nor does it in any way invalidate his preaching that the acts he committed were, in fact, sinful.
In fact I think a preacher or minister has a duty to preach the truth even though he will inevitably fail to fully live up to it. Doing so is more consistent than someone who, to justify his own conscience, becomes a dissenter and preaches something consistent with his own behavior but contrary to the official doctrine of the church he is supposed to represent. It is better to teach the truth, even when you fail to live up to it, than to mislead others and so cause them to sin as well.