"The politics of fear" (not what you think)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/918/2

Researchers at the Univ. Nebraska did a study of 46 local middle-aged white people surveyed to have strong political beliefs. They subjected them to sudden, startling visual and auditory stimuli (such as loud static noise or violence-themed images), then measured skin conductivity due to finger perspiration and eye blinking amplitude, as estimates of fright/alarm.

They found that the more "skittish" people were also more likely to be politically conservative ("protective"). Those who had a stronger physiological reaction to the disturbing stimuli were more likely to favor typical GOP political views, such as anti-abortion/immigration and aggressive law enforcement/national security. I guess anthropologically speaking, it seems logical that individuals who are predisposed to panic from sudden threatening stimuli also favor policies that are ostensibly designed to neutralize threats to their perceived security, whether personal, social, or national. So there may be a biological element to political support for policies aimed to "protect" family/ideology/nation such as strict immigration control, strict interpretations of marriage, aggressive counterterrorism, and such. A person with a strong fear response might be inclined to favor a swift bombing of Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 and its associated emotional trauma, while a less fearful person might prefer to deliberate and analyze instead.

Of course this is not to say that people vote Republican because they're scaredy-cats. Maybe it applies to some, but on the flipside, you could also insinuate that Democrats are more naive or blase to the dangers of the world. Obviously, the middle ground is preferrable to an over-reaction or indifference to the many threats out there. Respond strongly to serious threats, but tolerate smaller or false threats. Nature and evolution function to improve survival fitness over time. It's not biologically advantageous for super-jittery organisms to freak out every time they feel the least bit alarmed (like a lapdog), nor to be indifferent to real threats (like a Dodo bird). And we see this in the social experiment of human civilization too. Warmongering, paranoid, fanatical nations destroy each other (Nazi Germany vs. USSR, The Crusades, Arab-Israeli Wars). And passive, complacent peoples get easily conquered (Native Americans, Chinese during the Colonial Era).

Maybe all of this seems brutally obvious, but it's interesting to see a controlled scientific study on the subject. Of course there are many limitations/flaws in their work, and correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Their sample size was very small and homogeneous. There are plenty of fearful liberals and relaxed conservatives. Hearing a sudden uncomfortable noise or seeing a picture of a bloodied man may elicit different levels of fear/discomfort in different people, depending on their personality and background. And probably political beliefs are more heavily molded by social influences than biological ones. But scientists have identified genes that predispose people to certain behaviors (violence, infidelity, obsessive traits, etc.), so it seems reasonable that our genes may affect some of our politics too. The amygdala region of the brain is active in both threat responses and political decisions via the epinephrine pathway. Maybe this study is an early step in explaining why political beliefs aren't very malleable and why political conflict seems so universal. My genes may not allow me to see the world as you do, and therefore I can't understand or agree with your views. But then again, I'd hope that our education, reason, communication, and tolerance can overcome humanity's genetic limitations.