Disclaimer:

I Cannot claim to be impartial, but I believe this write-up is rather fair (equally insulting) to both sides; I do not think that the insults have anything to do with the validity of the idea. It is not a method of psychological profiling, just an attempt to understand a bit of the group psychology motivating political support.

One of the most important steps in acheiving adulthood is the ability to recognize that other people are, on some truly fundamental level, different than yourself. While you may be athletic, other people not being so isn't necessarily due to laziness. While you may be good at mathematics, if other people aren't, it is generally not due to stupidity, but rather a lack of that specific ability.

This ability, however, is rarely truly realized, and while a person may see certain specific traits in themselves as different from those of specific other people, the generalization to all of humanity will typically come from themselves. It would be ludicrous to claim that all of politics is a result of one simple psychological generalization, but it is, at the same time, a viewpoint that may help understanding of the political viewpoints that populations hold. A person who has never been deprived will naturally have difficulty understanding the need for social welfare, and a person who has always perceived themselves as failures, or potential failures, economically, will clamor for a safety net.

On a philosophical level, the Republicans are much kinder to others, giving them the ability to be whatever they want. This, of course, is due partially do an inability to empathize with those who obviously in a different situation, or socioeconomic strat than themselves. Many Democrats fear, or even resent the Republicans attitude that if they can succeed, so can anyone else. In Fight Club, Tyler Durden, the liberator of the spirit, is the perfect paradigm for this; "We are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that some day we'll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but we won't." The democrat truly believes he won't, and wants to compensate with a forced equality. The southern gun-totin' church goin' $25,000 a year makin' republican, however, truly believes in his ability to "provide for his family" and doesn't need your goddamned charity in the form of a welfare check.

On an actual level, the Democrats are kinder, giving this day your daily bread, but crueler, taking away the perception that the recipient can emerge from what they have believed themselves to be. This empathy is commendable, but comes at the expense of the encourgement that a purely merit based system would contain. The democratic viewpoint is simply that those poor and uneducated who were denied the chance to earn what they need, have a right, at the least, to what they need to stay alive. The oppression of the minority by the inhuman capitalist system must be counterbalanced by a humanitarian political solution.

The paradigm, of course, does not explain everything about the various standpoints, but I believe it may be an interesting perspective on part of the psychological motivation for such debates as gun control, welfare, and international policy (in terms of personal feelings of security and vulnerability.)

I believe I was fair to both ends of the political spectrum, but if you feel otherwise, feel free to reply. Also, Feedback is appreciated, in addition to down or upvotes; I don't mind If you disagree, But it pisses me off seeing an idea get bombed, not even discovering what it was people disliked about it so much...