Some are “wisdom from babies' mouths,” and some are what CNN discovered in a recent study. In other words, even though liberals are excited about their “tolerance,” they are not the ones raising tolerant children. Oh, and it's not just that “Democrat-leaning” kids are far more negative about Donald Trump than “Republican-leaning” kids are about Kamala Harris. This is also:
Children of liberals are five times more likely than children of conservatives to say they would not visit their parent's “other” candidate's home.
charity gap
The study was conducted by Arizona State University psychologist Ashley Landrum and Stanford University political science professor Shanto Iyengar. Landrum interviewed 10- and 11-year-olds, showing them pictures of candidates and asking for their reactions. For example, children were asked what was the first word that came to mind when they heard the name of a particular candidate. In response to “Kamala Harris,” the boy responded, “Liar.” One girl's reaction to “Donald Trump” was “pure evil” (perhaps indicating that conservative kids are better at math).
In fact, CNN-News 18's video corner states:
In this study, these Democratic-leaning children were more likely to express negative feelings toward Donald Trump than Republican-leaning children were more likely to express negative feelings toward Kamala Harris. It was found that the sex was approximately 9 times higher. Why? Psychologist Ashley Landrum has some ideas. “So Donald Trump is a very polarizing figure, and I think it's important that parents react to Donald Trump being a very different kind of political figure than what we've seen before. , it's very likely that the children are reacting,'' she said.
So do kids in red states hold the same strong attitudes? “Well, we're not talking about Kamala Harris,” Landrum said. “That may be partly because they don't know much about her.”
Polarized light?
Of course, it is well known that to the extent that preteens express political feelings, they usually reflect the passions of their parents. But the idea of being “polarized” is interesting. It's true that Trump has a “big personality” and is often brash and rude. However, it is also true that it takes two people to tango.
In other words, if everyone agreed with Trump, he could not be “polarizing” because there would not be two political groups, each occupying different poles. Moreover, isn't the media largely responsible for polarizing people by lying about Trump in order to make him seem more extreme? (Example: “Fine people” hoax.)
As for Harris, Landrum is certainly right that children don't know “that much about her.” But why is this so? For example, why don't they hear about how badly Democrat Terry McAteer treats his subordinates? (She reprimands them and won't let the junior staffers “look her in the eye” like some weird ancient powerhouse.) Why do they say Harris has a drinking problem? Don't you know what seemingly credible claims? Is this because she mostly refuses media interviews, and when she does, reporters don't ask tough questions? Is it because the mainstream media's strong, persistent, and well-documented bias against Trump and conservatives in general? Is it because of this?
In other words, isn't it because news organizations (of which CNN is a prime example) simply refuse to do the job?
Note here: 32 percent of the kids actually knew and “brought up (Trump's) legal issues,” CNN reports.
“No one is more illiberal than a liberal.”
Talking about prejudice brings us to the main topic of this piece. “The study found that Republican-leaning children were more willing to visit Democratic-leaning homes,” CNN reported. In fact, “Democratic-leaning kids were about five times more likely to say they didn't want to go to a pro-Trump house.” (Video below.)
So what can we say about people who cannot “agree to disagree”? For one thing, “Democrats really need to abolish the 'party of tolerance' itself,” said the top commenter on the video above. This may be especially true since CNN's findings come as no surprise.
Take, for example, a 2020 Dartmouth College study that showed Democrats to be far more intolerant than Republicans. As an example, “Democrats are consistently more likely to suggest that adversarial politics have a negative impact on potential relationships,” the researchers found.
Then there was a 2016 study by the Public Religion Research Institute that focused on online behavior. result? “Liberals are almost three times more likely than conservatives to block or unfriend someone over a political post,” the left-leaning CBS reported in a headline.
proof of pudding
None of this should surprise the keen cultural observer. After all, it's the left that has it
It enacted censorship and speech regulations on college campuses, known as “hate speech laws” (in other countries). It has created a relentless “cancel culture” that often persecutes those who speak the truth. Disrupt lectures on college campuses by speakers with whom you disagree. And as I demonstrated in 2020's “Violence, Inc.: A Leftist Enterprise,” it carried out much of the political violence.
Author Peter Schweitzer isn't surprised either. After all, in 2008 he wrote, “Don't listen to liberals — new research shows right-wingers are actually better people.'' What's the result?
There is a lot of data showing that conservatives are “happier, more charitable, (and) less likely to commit suicide,” Schweitzer summarized. For some reason, they “even hug children more than people on the left.”
All of this may seem puzzling if you think of liberals and conservatives as just “political” groups. But in reality, the political reflects a deeper realm: the philosophical/spiritual/moral realm.
Liberals are less likely than conservatives to believe in God, and this has serious implications. Simply put, it correlates with moral relativism, which itself boils down to the criterion “what is good for me.” And without truth as a standard for action, emotions become the primary arbiter. So why not just hate things that are politically incompatible if it feels right?
Moreover, if we are not created by God in body and spirit, then we are just organic robots, a few pounds of chemicals and water. And what's wrong with hating a robot that despises its programming?
In fact, if there is no truth, what is the problem with hatred?
In short, the problem is a lack of virtue, which, sadly, is inherited. And children who are pickled in vices are not very good in the end.
