That'd be me.
After reading fake analysis by leftists pretending to delineate the psychodynamics of the Trump voter, labeling us with Authoritarian Personality Syndrome for example, as well as five other universal attributes, I decided the same can be done with the Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton glass ceiling voter.
The fake study cited by Bobby Azarian of Raw Story, discusses a
review paper by Thomas Pettigrew in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology.
Pettigrew is a professor of psychology at UC Santa Cruz, a school noted for its May Day protest this year and leftist teachings.
Pettigrew has been blaming authoritarianism for much of the problems with racism since the 1960s. He means well but he's obviously tunnel-visioned.
So let's look at what the study cited and decided that Trump voters share, and let's see if we can make sense of it for Hillary voters too.
1. Authoritarian Personality Syndrome:
"Authoritarianism refers to the advocacy or enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, and is commonly associated with a lack of concern for the opinions or needs of others," the study says, pointing its middle finger at Trump voters.When conservatives such as Ben Shapiro and others have tried to speak at college campuses, there have been riots that have kept them from speaking. The leftist rioters apparently displayed their indifference or lack of concern for the personal freedom (as per our First Amendment) and the opinions and needs of conservative speakers.
Not one of those protesters was a Trump voter.
And speaking of the syndrome itself the author says that those who display it display aggression toward out-group members, submissiveness to authority, resistance to new experiences, and a rigid hierarchical view of society. Although the study agrees that liberals can suffer from it, the syndrome is more common among right-wing folks.
Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton want to see an even bigger authority in the form of bigger government. In fact, they want it to be so big, with them at the top, that it provides government leaders with enormous power over the people, those who the government would treat as children needing all-encompassing assistance for most of their needs.
2. Social dominance orientation (SDO):
Although it is distinct from authoritarian personality syndrome, it is related to it because Pettigrew believes everything sociological is related to it.
People with SDO have a preference for the societal hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups (White) have dominance over the low-status groups. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest.
In Communist terms SDO refers to something resembling the Collective.
In terms of reality, the people who tend to support Trump are not the high-status groups at all--they're the coal miners in West Virginia, unemployed folks seeking work, conservatives who may not have voted for Trump in the primaries, but couldn't stand socialist Sanders or elitist Clinton.
True, some Trump supporters are white supremacists, but that doesn't make Trump a white supremacist.
If it were true that those who voted for you defined who you are, then that would make Hillary Clinton an idiot, because anyone who would vote for someone without a real platform other than her vagina, and who has clearly violated the Espionage Act due to her arrogant use of a personal email server, and who allowed four Americans to die in Benghazi and blamed a video for the attack, is an idiot.
The study says that "It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that every one of Trump's supporters have prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that many do not. It is a well-known fact that the Republican Party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon's "southern strategy," used strategies that appealed to bigotry, such as lacing speeches with "dog whistles"--code words that signaled prejudice toward minorities that were designed to be heard by racists but no one else."
This has been a claim made by leftists when nothing else works. The whole idea of "dog whistles" is just another way of saying "Republican use 'trigger words' that upset me."
If a leftist says only a certain group can hear the "dog whistle," and he or she hears it, then how is that possible unless the leftist is defining what the word supposedly means?
Azarian claims Trump's dog whistles are "sometimes shockingly direct." He says that "There's no denying that he [Trump] routinely appeals to bigoted supporters when he calls Muslims "dangerous: and Mexican immigrants 'rapists' and 'murderers,' often in a blanketed fashion.
Except he never actually did. He was very clear about who in each group he was referring to--not all Muslims and not all Mexicans. Azarian dishonestly twisted Trump's words.
You don't have to be a bigot to be concerned about Islamic terrorism. It's simply a fact of life (or death, depending if the cup's half full). Trump even went on to explain that he wasn't referring to all Mexicans, "just the bad ones."
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, actually called Trump supporters 'deplorables' and that's really the definition of prejudice (pre-judging people you haven't met).
4. Intergroup contact:
Refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one's own, which is shown to reduce prejudice. "There is growing evidence that Trump's white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans," Azarian asserts.
What 'growing evidence'?
How can any study know that without actually interviewing most of Trump's supporters and ask them if they work with or hang out with people of different races. And then take a 'Google-look' at Chris Matthews' son's wedding group photo and check out the absence of anyone other than caucasian people.
In fact, it's the Democratic Party that uses identity politics, that has resulted in a disunited country and this study is a good example of it.
5. Relative deprivation:
This one made me chuckle.
It refers to the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes they are entitled (such as the presidency). Nothing more need be said on this topic.
Basically, what this fake study shows is that results in political-sociological studies are nearly impossible to undertake without experimenter bias. And when studies are performed in obviously left-leaning academic institutions, this is even more problematic.
Everything the study applied to Trump supporters can just as easily be applied in spades to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters.
It all depends upon who the authors of the study voted for.