- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Are Trump Supporters Authoritarians?

Yes, according to the political scientist Matthew McWilliams. Writing in Vox [1], McWilliams argues that “Trump won South Carolina because of the overwhelming, unyielding support of authoritarian voters.” McWilliams’s conclusion is based on a survey of likely voters in the week before the South Carolina primary and a body of scholarship on authoritarian attitudes (major figures in the field include Robert Altmeyer, Stanley Feldman, and Marc Hetherington).

The piece has been widely circulated on social media. Most readers are probably unaware that the idea that “authoritarianism” plays a significant role in American politics has a long and controversial history.

The concept was introduced for academic purposes by researchers associated with the Institute for Social Research, founded in Frankfurt in the 1920s and moved to New York in 1934. In research leading to the publication of The Authoritarian [2] Personality [2] in 1950, Theodor Adorno and other researchers attempted to provide an objective measure of individuals’ susceptibility to fascism. The result was the F-scale: a battery of questions purporting to identify anti-democratic leanings. You can test your own authoritarian tendencies on a digital version here [3].

The F-scale and associated analyses had serious problems. One was their connection to a Freudian theory of personality that obsessed the Frankfurt School but has not aged well (authoritarians were supposed to suffer from uncontrollable ids and to seek the help of external ego in maintaining psychological balance). Another problem was political bias. Reflecting Adorno’s conviction that authoritarians were naturally inclined to the right (at least in the in the United States), the F-Scale includes leading questions about the role of business and religious authority.

change_me

To avoid these problems, more recent research concentrates on attitudes toward childrearing. The authoritarianism index [4] McWilliams adopts is based on preferences for “respect for elders” over “independence”, “obedience” over “self-reliance”, “good manners” over “curiosity”, and “being well-behaved” over “being considerate”.

These values are supposed to be separate from politics and social background in a way that the F-scale and some its successor theories [5] are not. It’s not clear that it succeeds.

After all, the new index measures approval for some old-fashioned ideas about raising children. These ideas were once widespread, but have become more characteristic of the working class, especially in the South. To be “authoritarian”, in other other words, means little more than endorsing the folk wisdom of a class and place that many academics find alien.

You might also ask how “real” these values are. People often respond to surveys by giving what they regard as the appropriate answer, rather than the one that most accurately reflects their behavior. This “social desirability bias” helps explain why people report voting [6] and going to church [7] more often than they actually do them.

So people who express authoritarian attitudes may not be more authoritarian in practice than anyone else (they may even endorse authoritarian values precisely because their lives are disordered [8]). Without some connection to other behaviors, the finding that people who like tough talk about children also like tough talk about immigrants and terrorists is not very suprising.

Finally, studies of authoritarianism almost always single out conservative and populist views for psychological explanation. In this case, the implication is that approval for Trump rests on an odd and disturbing mental profile–but not support for other politicians or positions. But couldn’t progressive views rest on a distinctive and potentially dangerous perspective, perhaps involving inadequate appreciation for discipline and indifference to risk? And what about the authoritarian basis of demands for censorship on college campuses? With the exception of Jonathan Haidt [9], not many social scientists seem interested in finding out.

These observations don’t discredit McWilliams’ specific findings, which are likely to be more qualified in their academic presentation than in the popular version. But they give ample reason to doubt that authoritarianism is very useful as an explanatory concept. Like many others, I think it’s more helpful to understand Trump as the latest expression of an old and influential “Jacksonian” tendency [10] in American life. Sometimes politics really is about politics, rather than a proxy for other factors.

Samuel Goldman is assistant professor of political science at The George Washington University.

29 Comments (Open | Close)

29 Comments To "Are Trump Supporters Authoritarians?"

#1 Comment By John On February 24, 2016 @ 12:35 pm

Never, never, never trust someone who visibly disdains, hates, admires, or loves the subject he or she is discoursing on.

This eliminates much of the media for the Trump campaign, needless to say.

#2 Comment By KD On February 24, 2016 @ 12:47 pm

It was a very good move to figure out the basic attitudes of those who oppose your own brand of politics, and then turn them into a psychological syndrome in order to demonize your enemies.

Did Adorno get his idea of classifying political dissent as a mental illness from the Soviet practice of hospitalizing dissenters for “mental illness”, or did the Soviets get the idea from Adorno?

In any event, the politicization of psychology is a wonderful development, because you don’t have to debate your opponents, you diagnose them, drug them, “treat them” while they are incarcerated in state facilities. The ultimate “no-platforming”.

That is biopower! Political control over the discourse of rationality itself!

#3 Comment By KD On February 24, 2016 @ 1:38 pm

Let’s stop being stupid for a second.

Centralization of decision-making is essential in a crisis to insure quick response times. Decentralization in decision-making is useful in balancing coalitions of interest groups.

Ideally, a Constitution allows for centralization of decision-making in times of war or national crisis, and decentralization when things are calm.

When a society breaks down and loses social cohesion, with increasing gaps between wealthy and poor, and increasing polarization between ethnic and religious groups, then the society is proceeding along a path to civil war. The only way out of it is for a strong leader to unify the Country before it comes to arms, or through arms if need be.

We have had a number of Constitutional Crisises, the first under Andrew Jackson, the second and worst under Lincoln, the third under FDR, and anyone paying attention can see all the trends in America are down, and the Government has been co-opted by the lobbyists and the gridlock is so bad they can’t even govern very effectively for the lobbyists.

Its not a question of whether you like dictatorship or dislike dictatorship, it is a question of whether the political establishment gets their act together, or whether we get a quasi-dictatorship to replace them. I personally wish the governing elites in this Country knew what the hell they were doing, but their record shows that they don’t.

More diversity, more ethnic tensions. More LGBT hegemony, more resistance from religious groups. More financial capitalism, more debt and falling standards of living. More globalization, more unemployment and lower wages. This will continue until the current leadership is shown the way to the door.

The reality is that elites use their power to enrich themselves at the expense of the People, and they use their power to expand and consolidate their power. They entrench themselves, and they take more, not less, the longer they are in office. They will only reform themselves out of a sense of self-preservation, and they often don’t recognize that they are in trouble until they are being lead to the guillotine.

This is why war and revolution and cycles of elite displacement are an inevitable part of the cycles of history.

#4 Comment By Antony On February 24, 2016 @ 1:42 pm

“And what about the authoritarian basis of demands for censorship on college campuses?”

It pales in comparison to the demand for torture, extrajudicial imprisonment and biometric screening for forcible deportation.

#5 Comment By philadelphialawyer On February 24, 2016 @ 1:53 pm

By all means, let’s keep it political and not psychological. But authoritarianism is a political concept, not primarily a psychological one. And Trump appeals to it in spades. The brutish, loud-mouthed, “leader,” with no time for nuance, or even civility, who shouts down his opponents, who revels in his “alpha male” status, who bullies, and brow beats, who employs violent imagery at every turn, and so on. That’s Trump. And that’s why his fans love him. Not because of his childishly simplistic, sloganistic “policies,” many of which they don’t even like, and the rest of which he merely converted to the day before yesterday. He is, he reminds us at every turn, a “winner.” That’s what they like: he wins, and they win vicariously by backing him. Nothing else matters. What he says, goes. No matter how stupid, illegal, immoral, contradictory, illogical, or whatever. Sure sounds like authoritarianism to me.

And I fail to see how the existence of authoritarian tendencies on the Left (they surely do exist), contradicts any of that. For that matter, Trump is NOT so easily identifiable as being on “the Right.” Cruz/Scalia exemplify more the traditional, authoritarian Right than does Trump. Trump is more of a neo fascist than a Falangist. A straight up “fuhrer” with no consistent ideological basis. It is all about Him, just as it was all about Mussolini and Hitler. NOT about “the Family” or the Church or other established authorities, as it was with Franco.

#6 Comment By Austin Rebreh On February 24, 2016 @ 2:02 pm

The greatest trick played on our discourse was the trick pulled on us by Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche. All three could deduce anything said as being a by product of a very particular — often hidden — sentiment.

For example:

“My job is tough.”
“It is because of your Mother!”

“My job is tough.”
“It is the false consciousness imposed by the bourgeoisie that tricks you to endure this torture.”

“My job is tough.”
“You suffer from the resentment and your inability to express your will to power.”

Basically, it doesn’t matter what you say because your opinion is just an illusion. You still see this thinking in our political discourse all the time.

#7 Comment By Dave-IL On February 24, 2016 @ 2:25 pm

Trump supporters are trying to blow up the political class, which is a pretty understandable impulse at this point. Sanders supporters are doing the same thing. Indeed, I am sympathetic to Sanders, even though I am not convinced that European social democracy is the answer to economic problems in the US.

The difference between these two candidates is that Sanders actually has principles. Trump is a pathological narcissist who believes only in getting attention and gaining power over others. He is a swaggering man-child. If he were not born into wealth and privilege, he would probably be a parolee at this point in his life.

Trump supporters are not alone in being charmed by antisocial personalities. It happens all the time, whether you are talking about Trump, dictators like Mussolini or sadistic sociopaths like Ted Bundy. People are taken in and distracted by the force of their personality, then used and discarded. If anything, I feel sorry for most of these folks.

Are Trump supporters authoritarians. Some are for sure, particularly those who openly espouse white nationalist views. But most of the Trumpistas are people who have just kind of given up and are looking for a brash, rich strong man to protect them from all of the things they fear (economic insecurity, terrorism, “political correctness,” etc.). And fear is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye.

Beyond the appeal to fear, which many political leaders exploit, Trump supporters are consumed by anger about unfulfilled promises. As the TAC has discussed in its latest issue, the false promises of neoliberal capitalism are becoming obvious to people, whether they lean Left or Right. NAFTA and other (corporatist) trade deals have enriched the employing class while telling US workers that they need to be more “flexible” in order to compete with impoverished people working in maquiladoras. Wage workers know this know matter how often Forbes and The Wall Street Journal reproach them for their economic ignorance.

#8 Comment By Feathered Horse On February 24, 2016 @ 2:31 pm

Wow. I never suspected so many South Carolinians, New Hampshirites and Nevadans were hard line authoritarians. I probably wouldn’t believe it if representatives of the PC Police hadn’t told me I better think so.

#9 Comment By grumpy realist On February 24, 2016 @ 3:26 pm

I think it’s even simpler: Trump and Sanders are the only ones who are speaking for the Common Man. All the others (including Hillary, unfortunately) keep muttering “just wait and endure a little longer, at some point you’ll get your turn. We just have to cut taxes more/indulge Wall Street more/invade more countries, but at some point Utopia will show up, we guarantee it.” And the poor bastards trying to piece together a living wage from three part-time low-paid service jobs at the same time while they keep getting harangued for not having “good family lives” and “not going to Church” have finally had enough. No wonder.

#10 Comment By Tyrone Slothrop On February 24, 2016 @ 3:31 pm

Data from Public Policy Polling show that a third of Mr. Trump’s backers in South Carolina support barring gays and lesbians from entering the country. This is nearly twice the support for this idea (17 percent) among Ted Cruz’s and Marco Rubio’s voters and nearly five times the support of John Kasich’s and Ben Carson’s supporters (7 percent). Similarly, YouGov data reveal that a third of Mr. Trump’s (and Mr. Cruz’s) backers believe that Japanese internment during World War II was a good idea, while roughly 10 percent of Mr. Rubio’s and Mr. Kasich’s supporters do. Mr. Trump’s coalition is also more likely to disagree with the desegregation of the military (which was ordered in 1948 by Harry Truman) than other candidates’ supporters are. The P.P.P. poll asked voters if they thought whites were a superior race. Most Republican primary voters in South Carolina—78 percent—disagreed with this idea (10 percent agreed and 11 percent weren’t sure). But among Mr. Trump’s supporters, only 69 percent disagreed. Mr. Carson’s voters were the most opposed to the notion (99 percent), followed by Mr. Kasich and Mr. Cruz’s supporters at 92 and 89 percent. Mr. Rubio’s backers were close to the average level of disagreement (76 percent). According to P.P.P., 70 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters in South Carolina wish the Confederate battle flag were still flying on their statehouse grounds. (It was removed last summer less than a month after a mass shooting at a black church in Charleston.) The polling firm says that 38 percent of them wish the South had won the Civil War. Only a quarter of Mr. Rubio’s supporters share that wish, and even fewer of Mr. Kasich’s and Mr. Carson’s do. Nationally, the YouGov data show a similar trend: Nearly 20 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters disagreed with the freeing of slaves in Southern states after the Civil War.

#11 Comment By Fran Macadam On February 24, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

Democrat President Wilson’s Col. House famously proposed that a Teutonic authoritarianism was needed for the American people, if not wanted by them, and ought to be imposed. We have the antique authoritarian Espionage Act of 1918 as a result, more used by the ‘liberal’ Obama regime than by all others in our history. We have a Supreme Court, by no means either liberal or conservative, that arbitrarily and by usurping authority makes wide reaching decisions on how we are allowed to live by specious personal political preference, the very definition of untethered tyranny.

Most often, ‘authoritarian’ is an epithet applied to challengers to the status quo, rather than an accurate description, by those who have a monopoly on power. In truth, these fear their own authority being challenged through democratic accountability, with ironically enough, populism filling the role of villain. Somehow, challenge to oligarchy and plutocracy by grass roots support not under their control, is pronounced to be some sort of fascism!

Now as for Trump, it’s not that people are supporting a strong man to rule them, but appreciate strong support for the people’s own interests. It’s clear it will take some strong minded individuals to stand successfully against an entrenched status quo that’s willing to stoop to any level of deception in order to preserve their sinecures.

Who’s willing? It doesn’t just have to be Donald Trump who takes up supporting most Americans’ interests, does it? But in the meantime, while waiting, the perfect ought not to be considered the enemy of the possible here and now.

#12 Comment By Fran Macadam On February 24, 2016 @ 4:20 pm

“Trump is more of a neo fascist than a Falangist. A straight up ‘fuhrer'”

Where is the military decoration, the artistic failure, the poverty? Where are the street riots, the brownshirts, the Beer Hall putsch, the demand for violence against opponents, the trial for sedition and prison incarceration, the Mein Kampf? Where is the upstart minority party that seized power by violence? The demand for foreign wars of conquest?

Th Art of the Deal? The Apprentice? Real Estate development and enterprise? Republican Party primaries and debates with other contenders? Criticizing the waste of foreign wars?

The whole false meme of Trump as outlier authoritarian Nazi owes less to ‘law and order’ than ‘Godwin’s Law’:

“The theory that as an online discussion progresses, it becomes inevitable that someone or something will eventually be compared to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, regardless of the original topic” – Oxford Dictionary

#13 Comment By Fran Macadam On February 24, 2016 @ 4:29 pm

I might point out that fascism was supported by corporate and financial elites, because it created a combine of big business and government authority. That’s even the origin of its name, that bundling together to create the unbreakable.

Yet it’s just this plutocracy – the fascists in fact – that Trump is criticizing as corrupt and hostile to the American spirit.

#14 Comment By bt On February 24, 2016 @ 5:04 pm

Strip it away, and the message is that some people want a “STRONG LEADER”. Think of that as another way of saying “Authoritarian”.

Trump is at home in the the GOP, because the GOP has always pursued “Strength”. And has always ridiculed Democrats as “Weak”.

That’s the main point, and it sort of fits Trump and the GOP as a whole.

There are some “STRONG” leaders around. Vladimir Putin, for example, very popular in his country, seen be Russians as “STRONG”. And funny thing is, lots of conservatives (our own Pat Buchanan) were sort of fawning over Putin, and comparing him favorably to Obama. Until he started invading other Countries that is.

Hitler also had his domestic admirers, at first. He was just the sort of “Strong Leader” Germany needed. Not that trump is Hitler, no, no, no. But there is an enduring appeal to “Strength” for some.

Chances are, at this point, if you are looking for a “Strong Leader” you are a Republican. So don’t be shy people – embrace it!

Remember, only the weak compromise.

#15 Comment By Thomas Parker On February 24, 2016 @ 5:19 pm

Christopher Lasch demolished the F Scale twenty five years ago in his book, The True and Only Heaven. I wish he were around to see what’s going on today. He certainly wouldn’t approve of Trump, but he certainly wouldn’t be baffled by him either.

#16 Comment By philadelphialawyer On February 24, 2016 @ 5:33 pm

Fran:

Every word out of Trump’s mouth is a call for violence. Waterboarding, and worse. Attacking the families of terrorists. Punching folks who protest at his rallies. Belligerence is his stock in trade, no matter what the topic. And, beyond the violence, the demonizing of the Other…Mexicans, Muslims, etc.

As for the military decorations, they only came into play after the fascists took over.

Same with the business and corporate support, which, by the way, is NOT the origin of the fasces. And, of course, Trump is himself a crony capitalist, corporate tool, plutocrat, despite his new found love of the little guy, the workers and so on.

And Hitler and Mussolini took part in ordinary, liberal politics, too. Indeed, they both more or less came to power that way…

#17 Comment By Junior On February 24, 2016 @ 6:33 pm

“Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others.”

A prime example of Psychological Projection would be these Establishment supporters who support and vote for Psychopaths that pathologically lie to them to further the Psychopaths own interests and yet even with overwhelming proof of these lies continue to support them, but falsely accuse Trump supporters of supporting someone with a mental illness when they are actually the ones doing it.

[11]

The definition of Psychopathic Establishment Politicians:

“Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.

When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan out every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue. Intelligent psychopaths make excellent white-collar criminals and “con artists” due to their calm and charismatic natures.”

i.e. Hillary Clinton

[12]

Stop supporting the pathological lying Psychopaths of the GOP and Democrat Establishment.

Trump 2016

#18 Comment By Clint On February 24, 2016 @ 6:36 pm

Just one more liberal Democrat/Media attempt to marginalize Trump and the many Americas who are attracted to his Presidential Candidacy.

Apparently, playing the race card, playing the feminist card, playing the PC card, playing The 1 percenter card, playing the ……..card are failing to successfully marginalize and smear Trump and the Americans who are attracted to his Candidacy.

It appears that the opposition is getting all panicky and aflutter because Trump keeps on winning.

#19 Comment By TB On February 24, 2016 @ 6:52 pm

“Electoral support is better explained by political reasoning than pseudo-Freudian psychological projections.”
______________________________

Wrong.
Elections are exercises in mass decision making. Emotion plays a vastly larger role in both the individual’s and the collective’s choice regarding important questions than does rationality. The latter is used to justify the former.
Ad agencies and political pros have known this from before forever.

#20 Comment By the unworthy craftsman On February 24, 2016 @ 8:06 pm

I just scored 4.83 on the F Scale (a high score) and in all fairness I’m planning to vote for Trump.

#21 Comment By Fran Macadam On February 24, 2016 @ 8:57 pm

Godwin’s Law grows stronger:

“Hitler also had his domestic admirers, at first. He was just the sort of ‘Strong Leader’ Germany needed.”

The Nazi Party had only a tiny bit of electoral support, “at first.” Hitler relied upon the outsized cudgel of street violence and assassination. Even in the manipulative way he came to power, the Chancellor that Germans universally trusted was the elderly Paul von Hindenburg, not Hitler. Hindenburg’s death paved the way for Hitler’s one party, ideologicaly “pure” Nazi party and its obsession and hatred of Jews, who were blamed when the German parliament was burnt down – but a Nazi provocation convenient for abolishing the remains of Weimar.

It’s a libel to compare Donald Trump to any of the above. We’re not speaking about the absolute calumny of Der Fuehrer, we’re talking about The Donald.

If we want to speak about assassinations, we could talk about those Tuesdays when the current President decides who gets to live and who gets to be rubbed out via secret CIA drone assassination.

#22 Comment By AndyG On February 24, 2016 @ 10:15 pm

It’s not at all baffling that one would wonder why so many Americans are willing to support a candidate whose ideas are utter nonsense, and who (in Trump’s words) is like a clock that is only “right once a day.”
Though Freud has been left behind by current behavioral science, the question is a valid one- “What do people who believe that the wheat will grow tall, the rains will come on time, and our enemies will run in fear if only we have a studly enough leader, have in common with one another, that they don’t with the rest of us?”

#23 Comment By bt On February 24, 2016 @ 11:03 pm

“The Nazi Party had only a tiny bit of electoral support”

I think my post was a little ambiguous there. When I wrote “domestic supporters”, I was actually calling out American domestic supporters. Fran’s reading of the text is perfectly reasonable, given the way I wrote it. And the way it happened in Germany is not really what I was talking about.

Among others, Henry Ford was a fan. There were many in America and in England. There were lots of people who admired Hitler from afar, at first. For his strength – That’s the point here, the allure of the “Strong Leader”. A man who takes charge. An authority figure. Someone who gives orders. This is Trump, it is one of the bases of his appeal to his supporters. And it is not something exclusive to Hitler, it’s just one of the tools in the toolbox, you know what I mean?

For a counter-example, this is NOT the appeal of someone like Obama. Leaving policy aside, a leader with Obama’s personality wouldn’t get elected to much of anything as a Republican. The quiet brainy type is just not where it’s at for the GOP, leading from behind and all that. (Jeb!’s problem perhaps?).

And once again, that does not make Trump a Nazi, OK? I think he is a closet Democrat, as many have accused him, for what’s it’s worth. Since he is the Chaunce Garnder of this election cylcle, I think we are all free to impute anything we want from his various and vague statements about making America Great Again.

But one and all are feel free to mis-characterize me as calling Trump a Nazi. I knew when I wrote those words that such an outcome was inevitable. In fact, I welcome them.

#24 Comment By Alex On February 25, 2016 @ 1:14 am

@Clint

It appears that the opposition is getting all panicky and aflutter because Trump keeps on winning.

That’s the main point. It’s a pure delight to see how progressively inconsistent the establishment media become in their hysterical fear of Trump. Suffice it to say that lumping Mussolini together with Hitler is an utter nonsense.

#25 Comment By connecticut farmer On February 28, 2016 @ 11:29 am

Junior–and here I thought I was the only one who thought that H. Clinton has, er, “issues.” Glad there are at least two of us out there. Hopefully there are others.

#26 Comment By Quinn the Eskimo On March 2, 2016 @ 8:36 am

Fascinating and excellent comments on both sides of the issue.

The authoritarianism index as described in the article has a teensy-tiny problem. People who score as non-authoritarians nevertheless adopt the political positions of authoritarians.

Does this invalidate the theory? Of course not! The non-authoritarians are reclassified as “latent authoritarians,” who are “triggered” in the same way as authoritarians, and presto-change-o, the theory is saved from obliteration.

With the theory thus saved, they can get on with the business of pathologizing what is driving the Trump phenomenon.

#27 Comment By Quinn the Eskimo On March 4, 2016 @ 4:35 pm

A follow up:

I decided I am going to make myself in to a famous academic by developing a clever four-question survey for a Gullibility/Stupidity Index.

The Gullibility/Stupidity index will explain how so many seemingly sentient individuals could be drawn to history’s most preposterous and thoroughly disproven economic theory, viz. that the government can give everyone unlimited amounts of free stuff forever and ever by redistributing from the piles of money that rich folks don’t need but have stacked up anyway, and that the government can more “rationally” and “efficiently” and “fairly” allocate resources.

The predictions of my theory are that people who score high on the Gullibility/Stupidity Index (“GSI”) will self-sort into the Democrat Party, and those with low GSI scores will self-sort into the Republican Party. I will, in addition and at no extra charge, offer furrowed-brow ruminations on the Bad Things that will happen to our great country from the susceptibility of those who score highly on the GSI scale to manipulation by charlatans and frauds who promise unlimited free stuff to be paid for by the top 1%. I will also offer a tasteful and nuanced view on the intellectual and moral superiority of those who have low GSI scores.

Here is my preliminary four-question Gullibility/Stupidity Survey:

1. Do you agree that from each according to his ability and to each according to his need is a great plan.

2. If you spend $3,000 to buy an item that is normally $6,000, would you agree that your net expenditure is $0 since you’ve saved $3,000?

3. In the story about the Ant and the Grasshopper, who’s side are you on?

4. Do you agree that all the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?

#28 Comment By Paula On March 6, 2016 @ 3:42 pm

That F scale quiz was pretty bad. I am a Cruz supporter and got “liberal airhead” with a score of 2.567 lol.

#29 Comment By Chris On March 8, 2016 @ 7:19 pm

I take issue with the claim that the child rearing values associated with authoritarianism (by social scientists) are “old fashioned” as claimed by the author. Fostering curiosity and self reliance isn’t some new fangled liberal idea. I know a lot of old fashioned conservatives who hold these values.