Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Men's Group
In reply to the discussion: Why don't more men identify as liberal? [View all]MicaelS
(8,747 posts)29. I think article speaks to the issue.
Why working-class people vote conservative
A lot of men I know have a very definite view of right and wrong, and the idea that issues are only endless shades of gray is anathema to them. The fact that many liberals are anti-death penalty means they are viewed as being "soft on crime". In other words being labeled as a liberal means you have a weak or poor moral compass. And many men do not want to be identified as having a weak or poor moral compass.
Too often liberals are seen as caving on personal freedom, which many men value highly. Many men have a strong libertarian (small L) streak for personal freedoms. Look how various people on DU want to to severely restrict or ban guns, erotica, tobacco, vaping (e-cigs), etc, all in the name of "the greater good", with nothing in return to the individual.
But on matters relating to group loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity (treating things as sacred and untouchable, not only in the context of religion), it sometimes seems that liberals lack the moral taste buds, or at least, their moral "cuisine" makes less use of them. For example, according to our data, if you want to hire someone to criticise your nation on a radio show in another nation (loyalty), give the finger to his boss (authority), or sign a piece of paper stating one's willingness to sell his soul (sanctity), you can save a lot of money by posting a sign: "Conservatives need not apply."
Even on the two moral taste buds that both sides claim fairness and liberty the right can often outcook the left. The left typically thinks of equality as being central to fairness, and leftists are extremely sensitive about gross inequalities of outcome particularly when they correspond along racial or ethnic lines. But the broader meaning of fairness is really proportionality are people getting rewarded in proportion to the work they put into a common project? Equality of outcomes is only seen as fair by most people in the special case in which everyone has made equal contributions. The conservative media (such as the Daily Mail, or Fox News in the US) is much more sensitive to the presence of slackers and benefit cheats. They are very effective at stirring up outrage at the government for condoning cheating.
Similarly for liberty. Americans and Britons all love liberty, yet when liberty and care conflict, the left is more likely to choose care.
Even on the two moral taste buds that both sides claim fairness and liberty the right can often outcook the left. The left typically thinks of equality as being central to fairness, and leftists are extremely sensitive about gross inequalities of outcome particularly when they correspond along racial or ethnic lines. But the broader meaning of fairness is really proportionality are people getting rewarded in proportion to the work they put into a common project? Equality of outcomes is only seen as fair by most people in the special case in which everyone has made equal contributions. The conservative media (such as the Daily Mail, or Fox News in the US) is much more sensitive to the presence of slackers and benefit cheats. They are very effective at stirring up outrage at the government for condoning cheating.
Similarly for liberty. Americans and Britons all love liberty, yet when liberty and care conflict, the left is more likely to choose care.
A lot of men I know have a very definite view of right and wrong, and the idea that issues are only endless shades of gray is anathema to them. The fact that many liberals are anti-death penalty means they are viewed as being "soft on crime". In other words being labeled as a liberal means you have a weak or poor moral compass. And many men do not want to be identified as having a weak or poor moral compass.
Too often liberals are seen as caving on personal freedom, which many men value highly. Many men have a strong libertarian (small L) streak for personal freedoms. Look how various people on DU want to to severely restrict or ban guns, erotica, tobacco, vaping (e-cigs), etc, all in the name of "the greater good", with nothing in return to the individual.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Yeah, I've noticed that DU doesn't always gel real well with the actual, objective outside Universe.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2014
#9
Honestly, in my experience political divisions break more on geographic and religious lines
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2014
#6
I hear you. And it's a question which has been broached, in various forms, in here before I think.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2014
#12
I suppose talking about the 80% of men who voted for Romney was accidental?
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2014
#21
To accept an ideology but refuse the name implies some sort of associational shame...
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2014
#23
Unfortunately, I think "emotional remoteness, physical violence and anti-intellectualism" is
nomorenomore08
Mar 2014
#43