If we go back to the very basics, there seems to be a difference in personality between the typical left/right voter.
Largely, the left tend to have higher openness (open to new ideas, likes to discover new cultures, meet new people, etc.), high agreeableness (likes cooperation, group harmony, dislikes competition) and high neuroticism (worries a lot, sees potential issues everywhere).
Conversely, the right tend to be higher in conscientiousness (like efficiency, does a thorough job), lower in openness (dislikes change and is suspicious of new ideas) and lower in agreeableness (likes competition, does not care that much about group harmony).
Seems to me to be fairly good descriptions of the typical left/right voter. :)
The centralization/decentralization aspect of politics muddies the waters a bit for me, but maybe that is part of the cooperation/competition picture...
One thing not exactly-contra this, but interesting, is that I think I've seen data recently suggesting democrats are less likely to date a republican than vice versa, so where does the left's antipathy to right fit in here?
I don't think this correct because it collapses in on itself when you consider that there have been right wing movements that are anti market, yet also anti left wing. How can that be? Your ur example of Nazis being a prime one, considering that they were against a global Marxism but in favor of nationalist socialism that very much preached and expected all Germans to repress their individual interests in the name of the collective German good. MAGA is pro tariffs etc.
Hyrum and Verlan Lewis make a surprisingly robust case that there is no single issue or underlying ideology to right v left and that in every country and throughout history their respective basket of issues has changed so much that there's no common thread, and they give enough counterexamples to be convincing (they also explicitly take on Sowell's theory and are persuasive than he is, IMO). Their conclusion is that there is no common thread or definition whatsoever and that it is entirely just tribal identification no more meaningful than what sports team you root for, and premised on mostly arbitrary things like family and friend tribe, single salient issues that happened to be held at the time the tribe was selected, etc.
I don't go all the way to their conclusion though I find their evidence compelling. For myself, I break it down quite simply. In every society and regardless of the particular issues of the day or what ideology is espoused, the right represents the interests of the powerful men in that society and how they would arrange things to best suit them. And the left represents the interests of everyone else...women, non powerful men, children, and non-humans. There are non powerful men on the right bc they are hoping to become powerful one day and take the lead of those who already are. And there are women on the right mostly bc they are the wives (or aspiring wives), daughters, or mothers of powerful males (or boys they expect to become so one day).
Most people I tell this theory to bristle at and reject it (on both sides), but can't come up with any good counterexamples.
If we go back to the very basics, there seems to be a difference in personality between the typical left/right voter.
Largely, the left tend to have higher openness (open to new ideas, likes to discover new cultures, meet new people, etc.), high agreeableness (likes cooperation, group harmony, dislikes competition) and high neuroticism (worries a lot, sees potential issues everywhere).
Conversely, the right tend to be higher in conscientiousness (like efficiency, does a thorough job), lower in openness (dislikes change and is suspicious of new ideas) and lower in agreeableness (likes competition, does not care that much about group harmony).
Seems to me to be fairly good descriptions of the typical left/right voter. :)
The centralization/decentralization aspect of politics muddies the waters a bit for me, but maybe that is part of the cooperation/competition picture...
One thing not exactly-contra this, but interesting, is that I think I've seen data recently suggesting democrats are less likely to date a republican than vice versa, so where does the left's antipathy to right fit in here?
I don't think this correct because it collapses in on itself when you consider that there have been right wing movements that are anti market, yet also anti left wing. How can that be? Your ur example of Nazis being a prime one, considering that they were against a global Marxism but in favor of nationalist socialism that very much preached and expected all Germans to repress their individual interests in the name of the collective German good. MAGA is pro tariffs etc.
Hyrum and Verlan Lewis make a surprisingly robust case that there is no single issue or underlying ideology to right v left and that in every country and throughout history their respective basket of issues has changed so much that there's no common thread, and they give enough counterexamples to be convincing (they also explicitly take on Sowell's theory and are persuasive than he is, IMO). Their conclusion is that there is no common thread or definition whatsoever and that it is entirely just tribal identification no more meaningful than what sports team you root for, and premised on mostly arbitrary things like family and friend tribe, single salient issues that happened to be held at the time the tribe was selected, etc.
I don't go all the way to their conclusion though I find their evidence compelling. For myself, I break it down quite simply. In every society and regardless of the particular issues of the day or what ideology is espoused, the right represents the interests of the powerful men in that society and how they would arrange things to best suit them. And the left represents the interests of everyone else...women, non powerful men, children, and non-humans. There are non powerful men on the right bc they are hoping to become powerful one day and take the lead of those who already are. And there are women on the right mostly bc they are the wives (or aspiring wives), daughters, or mothers of powerful males (or boys they expect to become so one day).
Most people I tell this theory to bristle at and reject it (on both sides), but can't come up with any good counterexamples.