Trump Is Just About Trump-- His Supporters On The Other Hand, Are Looking For A White Valhalla

Yesterday, Nick Kristof offered 5 reasons why certain types among our countrymen and women might want to vote for Trump:

• voters who worship at the alter of ignorance
• voters who feel it's time to embrace a paragon of fraud
• voters who want to be entertained by the country's leader
• voters who feel extremists have a role to play just like everyone else (diversity)
• voters who want a new approach to psychological norms

Deep in our heads, resting on the spinal cord, is what scientists sometimes call our “reptilian brain.” In evolutionary terms, this is the oldest part of our brains and it governs primal instincts such as hunger, sex and fear; it helps trigger the fight or flight response.

This reptilian brain has been updated with a cerebral cortex and other modern brain structures that are the seat of reason-- but Trump is bypassing them. Neuroscientists have noted that he preaches directly to the lizard in our heads.

“We do experience a primitive apprehension welling up from our ‘reptilian brain,’” Steven Pinker, the Harvard psychology professor, tells me, but we still interpret it in light of our belief system. The modern world has developed science, journalism, a judiciary and similar institutions to curb our primal impulses-- but Trump blows these off.

Our reptilian brains evolved to be hyper-alert to dangers, which was lifesaving in an age of pterodactyls. Trump activates these vigilant instincts, Pinker says, and channels them into the most primitive interpretive circuits of our cortex, the ones rooted in tribalism. And so he wants us to join him in making scapegoats of Muslims, refugees, Mexican “rapists” and black “thugs.”

This historic election thus presents a choice: To decide how to cast our ballots, do we rely upon our reptilian brains or our human brains? To put it another way: Are we fearful, instinctive reptiles? Or nuanced, reasoning humans?

John Cassidy is an Englishman who's been writing for the New Yorker for just over two decades. He decided to tackle a question many people have been asking themselves and everyone they know: why does Trump still have do much support? It was inspired, at least in part, by his wife asking him "how can Hillary Clinton be losing to a mentally unstable megalomaniac and sexual predator who doesn’t pay income taxes?" Fair question-- and one we need to get to the bottom of for the good of the country, once he's been defeated Tuesday. One never goes wrong by pointing out "it's the economy, stupid."

In the past few days, Clinton supporters have offered up at least three explanations, or culprits, for why the race is so close: James Comey; “false equivalence” in the media; and sexism. In each case, they are onto something. But the bigger story is one my colleague George Packer wrote tellingly about last week in the magazine: an America bitterly divided along class, racial, and cultural lines. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, the nineteenth-century British statesman, we now have “two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets.”

Disraeli was writing about the rapidly industrializing England of the eighteen-forties, and the two nations he referred to were the rich and the poor. In the United States, because of its history of slavery, the Civil War, and mass immigration, the divisions have never been that simple: vertical cleavages along racial, ethnic, and regional lines have often trumped the horizontal class divide. But the gulf between Clinton’s America and Trump’s America, even though it can’t be traced entirely along economic lines, is now a yawning chasm.

The polls say that just less than forty per cent of voters in America have a favorable opinion of Trump. Whatever their views of him as an individual, they like what he stands for: nationalism, nativism, and hostility toward what they consider a self-serving élite that looks down on them. In addition to these confirmed Trump supporters, there are a number of other folks-- moderate Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, mainly-- who may harbor serious reservations about Trump personally, but who may also be willing to vote for him to keep Clinton out of the White House.

When members of this latter group have been confronted with the most grotesque aspect of Trump’s behavior-- such as his willingness to attack the family of a U.S. serviceman who died in Iraq, or his history of treating women like chattel-- they have tended to back away from him, causing his poll numbers to falter. But whenever Clinton takes center stage in the news, and Trump fades into the background for a bit, her numbers also tend to fall. Thus the “sine wave” pattern we’ve seen in the polls over the past few months.

...Some of Clinton’s defenders blame the media for this. News outlets, they say, treat her minor transgressions, or alleged transgressions, in the same way they treat outright demagoguery, mendacity, and grotesquery on Trump’s part. This is another argument that needs some context. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has accused Clinton of operating a fraudulent business that bilked tens of thousands of dollars from people on modest incomes, stiffing tradespeople on a routine basis, making a mockery of the tax laws and not paying a cent of income tax for twenty years, boasting about charitable giving while not donating any of her own cash, or sexually assaulting women. Who brought these stories to the public’s attention? The news media. During the Republican primaries, some outlets, particularly on television, indulged Trump shamefully, while using him as a ratings booster. Ever since he got the nomination, though, much of the print media’s coverage, and even some of broadcast media’s, has been negative.

...From Trump University to Trump’s tax records to the parade of women alleging that he harassed and assaulted them, reporters have done a pretty thorough job of illuminating and investigating Trump’s checkered past, the hollowness of many of his claims, and what sort of person he is. Meanwhile, the pundits, including many conservatives, have portrayed Trump as an existential danger to the Republic. And yet none of these journalistic endeavors has had the desired effect: to snuff out Trump’s candidacy.

Some of the blame here may belong to the Clinton campaign. While it has done an effective job of highlighting Trump’s race-baiting and sexism, it hasn’t done enough to exploit his other vulnerabilities, to paint the Republican candidate as a con man whose schemes have victimized many ordinary, hard-working Americans. To be sure, the Clinton campaign has gone some way in this direction. But they should be ramming home every day the message that Trump is a serial chiseler of the little guy, not his savior. Why isn’t Clinton regularly appearing alongside some of the people who lost their savings to Trump University? Where are the ads featuring tradesmen and suppliers and charities that Trump has stiffed?

But the explanation of Trump’s enduring appeal must go beyond political tactics. In a divided but social-media-saturated America, people on either side of the divide communicate over each other, rather than with each other. They regard news stories not as new information to be ingested and considered but as potential ammo to hurl at the other side. They see their political opponents not as well-meaning if misguided fellow-citizens but, to borrow a phrase, as deplorables who have no political legitimacy.

On the Trump side, there is a siege mentality, evident in the constant vilification of the Clintons, the chants of “Lock her up,” and the fury toward the mainstream news media. If you tune in to conservative talk radio, as many Trump supporters do, you will hear a constant discourse of resentment, conspiracy theories, and alienation from the institutions of economic and political power-- including the Republican Party establishment. Sean Hannity, of Fox News, for example, daily presents the vote on November 8th not merely as a chance to select a new President but as a last chance to save the country from politicians and liberals who are out to destroy its very essence.

The Trump movement, like the Tea Party movement it supplanted, is a reaction to the socially liberal, polyglot America that is rapidly emerging in the twenty-first century. Representing an older, whiter, and more embattled tradition, it is constantly evoking what it sees as a lost Valhalla-- a place of plentiful jobs, rising living standards, conservative social values, fewer immigrants, and minorities who knew their place. To a large extent, this lost America is a myth. Since its inception, practically, the United States has been roiled by technological change, large-scale migration, economic conflicts, and ethnic and religious tensions. But it is a powerful myth, which Trump-- Mr. Make America Great Again-- plays to shamelessly and effectively.

On the Democratic side, the liberal mentality comes out in suggestions that Trump’s supporters, almost by definition, are uncouth, ill-educated bigots. If you adopt this attitude, vigorously opposing Trump isn’t just a political decision; it is a moral duty and a social necessity. To assert your identity as part of the enlightened America, you need to disassociate yourself from the racist hillbillies, rednecks, and suburban dolts supporting Trump.

“Liberals and Democrats are not really part of a party, as much as they are part of a new America that looks and thinks differently and has little interest in looking back, wherever that might be,” Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who spends much of his time studying Islamic societies, pointed out in a thought-provoking piece a few months back. “More than a party, it is a lifestyle, a culture and a sensibility, with its own media, institutions, norms and values.” Hamid probably understates the importance of policy differences that divide the two parties, especially now that Trump has proposed things like introducing religious tests for immigrants and reintroducing the use of torture in interrogations of terrorist subjects, as well as promising to appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia. But the larger point, about the gaping cultural divide, stands.

Despite the recent narrowing in the polls, liberal America still has demographics, early-voting patterns, and the Electoral College map on its side. But even if Trump loses next week, the great divide his campaign has brought to the fore won’t go away. Indeed, as Hamid noted, “The risk is that as whites become a smaller majority-- and eventually an outright minority-- the tendencies toward ethnic politics we’ve witnessed in this election season might very well intensify.” And if, in the coming years, robots and algorithms provide another big shock to the economy, destroying tens of millions more decent-paying jobs, how many former truck drivers and displaced white-collar workers will be receptive listeners to a future Trump?

WHY NOT JUST TRUST DEMOCRACY IN KENTUCKY INSTEAD OF SHOVING A REACTIONARY DOWN DEMOCRATS' THROATS, CHUCKIE?

As we've mentioned before, DSCC chair Chuck Schumer is trying to shove the worst possible reactionary down the throats of Kentucky Democrats in the battle to win the Senate seat now being held by Mitch McConnell. Why? Schumer doesn't expect to win the seat and he doesn't want to put any resources into it but he knows a fat turkey ready to be plucked when he sees one. And there are few turkeys fatter or more pluckable than Bruce Lunsford who has committed to spending as much as $5 million of his own dollars to fight McConnell. Schumer just wants to see McConnell-- and his huge corporate warchest-- tied down and unavailable to help endangered Republican targets like Norm Coleman (R-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Gordon Smith (R-OR), John Sununu (R-NH) and even red state reactionaries like James Inhofe (R-OK) and John Cornyn (R-TX).

Yesterday the Lexington Herald-Leader's Ryan Alessi took a look at how traditional anti-Lunsford Democratic groups, like labor unions, have been coerced into selling out their members interests by Schumer.

In March 2007, amid the Democratic primary for governor, key unions in Kentucky not only wrote off the possibility of backing Lunsford, some openly campaigned against him. Many in organized labor remained steamed over Lunsford's 2003 run for governor, in which he dropped out of the Democratic primary and later backed Republican Ernie Fletcher in the general election.

But all appears to be forgotten, or at least disregarded, now that Lunsford is the best-known Democrat in the U.S. Senate race and has the blessing of the Washington Democratic establishment. After all, at stake in this primary is the chance to take on U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, which automatically makes it a nationally watched race.

...So why the about-face?

First, the message from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and its chairman, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, was unmistakable: Lunsford is their guy. Schumer and the national AFL-CIO, therefore, had a keen interest in Kentucky's labor unions getting behind him, and they made sure to say so, said Bill Londrigan, president of the Kentucky AFL-CIO.

"There may have been a phone call or two," he said.

Second, the unions made the same political calculations that Schumer already has. Lunsford's vast personal wealth can help catch up to McConnell's $10 million fund-raising head start, and his millions of dollars' worth of TV ads run in two previous statewide races made his name familiar to voters.

Londrigan said those qualities became more important because Lunsford and his chief Democratic rival, Louisville businessman Greg Fischer, espoused similar views.

"Let's be honest, there's not a whole lot of difference in how they stood on our working-family issues," he said. "But on balance, we measured Bruce to be a candidate that had more capability to challenge Mitch-- money, name recognition, the support he's going to receive from the ... big players in D.C., the DSCC."

OK; let's be honest. Lunsford does have more money but it's disgusting to hear a labor union leader buckling under to that premise-- that only multimillionaires belong in the U.S. Senate. This song was written by someone in Harlan County, KY. Please give it a listen to understand why I'm dedicating it today to Mr. Londrigan. As for name recognition, yes, Lunsford has that-- but it is entirely negative name recognition. He is despises by Democrats throughout the state. As for positions on key issues, it’s impossible to be sure where Lunsford is. He is talking the talk but with no actual voting record to judge from; you have to take him at his word-- a word that has proven less than worthless in the past.

The one policy Lunsford has out there to compare with the grassroots Democrat, Greg Fischer, regards the Iraq war. Lunsford is playing it safe and vague while Greg has endorsed the Responsible Plan to End the War. Lunsford also claims to agree with Greg that universal health care is something that must be implemented, although here too, people who have watched Lunsford in the past are dubious that once in office he would be a forceful advocate for meaningful universal healthcare.

In terms of labor, Greg is an owner of a Steelworkers union-affiliated company and has an excellent record of working with organized labor in his entire business career. As for Lunsford, he too has a record of actions to look at in this regard. And they're very clear-- the very reasons why KY organized labor has always fought him.

When Lunsford lost his primary against Ben Chandler he became a modern-day Benedict Arnold, endorsing right-wing Republican Ernie Fletcher. He took it one step further by leading his transition team that abolished the Environmental Protection Cabinet position and the Kentucky Labor Cabinet position, downgrading both to department level status. If policy speaks, he has a lot of explaining to do.

So now in 2008 the new Lunsford is supposedly a strong Democrat working to change Washington, but he's been making hefty political contributions to Republicans (so they could defeat Democrats) for his entire miserable life. And as recently as last year he was still donating to his very good friend and ally, Mitch McConnell.

And while Greg Fischer has built award-winning companies and added several thousand good paying manufacturing jobs to the Kentucky economy, Lunsford has dumped employees, nursing home residents and his company causing what is locally known as a mini-Enron. Lunsford was sued by the shareholders of his company, Vencor, because he engaged in insider trading and made misleading statements about the company's status.

So Lunsford, a businessman has spent $14 million to find it's not enough to be governor now he wants to be a Senator? I would say his behavior is simply transparent; power for the sake of power and apparently now he'll say or do anything to achieve it. It's obvious why Chuck Shumer loves this guy-- they share a brain. They're two power-hungry, careerist Insiders with severe ego problems. Kentucky Democrats should tell Chuck Schumer to mind his own business, just like Montana Democrats did when he tried forcing DLC hack John Morrison down their throats in 2006. Instead, much to the Lizard's chagrin, they nominated Jon Tester who then went on to beat a powerful and entrenched Republican incumbent-- just like Greg Fischer will do if Schumer will just get out of the way.


UPDATE: HORNE SUPPORTERS SWITCHING TO FISCHER

Although Schumer and his allies were apparently able to make Andrew Horne an offer he couldn't refuse to get him to withdraw from the race and back Lunsford-- forever impugning his credibility-- grassroots Kentucky Democrats are flocking to Greg Fischer.

BROOKLYN LIZARD-- A DAY IN THE GLORIOUS LIFE OF CHUCK "MEAT AND POTATOES" SCHUMER

Today's Hill has a puff piece on the Senate's most shameless publicity hound, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat with the kind of reptilian brain usually only found in Republicans. Reporter Aaron Blake is going to have to get the excrement sandblasted off his head. He makes Schumer sound almost as mythical as Rahm Emanuel or Tom DeLay!

Lizard Man is modestly claiming he might not be able to deliver a 60/40 Senate split-- and, by the way, he still defends his vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General.

While Schumer has shone as DSCC chairman, he went through a rough patch as a legislator in recent months over the man he suggested the White House nominate as attorney general.

A former federal judge and a fellow New Yorker, Mukasey appeared to be sailing through his confirmation hearings in October until he struggled to explain whether he believed waterboarding constitutes illegal torture under domestic and international law.

Mukasey said he could not answer since the CIA had not briefed him on any U.S. program that employs the simulating drowning technique. His hedging infuriated Democrats.

Under enormous pressure, Schumer stood by Mukasey, and he continues to do so today.

“I had a difficult time,” Schumer said. “I don’t mind people having disagreeing views, but … a lot of the blogs said there was no courage.

“But believe me,” he added, “the easy decision for me would have been to go against Mukasey. I just thought it was wrong.”

Schumer, along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), voted for Mukasey, saying he represented the best possible Bush administration successor to Alberto Gonzales to restore the integrity of the Justice Department. Their votes allowed the nomination to advance from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate.

“It became a symbolic issue, you know: ‘Vote against torture,’ ” Schumer said. “I tend not to be a symbolic politician. I’m a meat-and-potato politician.”

They didn't get into how he feels about having supported Joe Lieberman in 2006 and how that old chicken has come home to roost of late.

[P]ressure is nothing new for the man who oh-so-narrowly delivered the Senate to his party in 2006, and it’s clear Schumer is enjoying the ride and wearing each of his hats with pride.

...“Here’s what I think: We get 55, 56, 57, 58, you will pick up enough Republicans on any single issue,” Schumer said, adding: "Yeah, you’d have to make certain compromises, but not give away the store." [Compromises, of course, are Schumer's stock in trade... deal making, triangulation, that which allows him to be Senator Wall Street and still represent one of the deepest blue, progressive states in the nation.]

Nothing has served Schumer quite as well in his campaign role as his pragmatism and heavy hand.

Though irritating to certain parts of the party [the Democratic wing], Schumer has consistently picked his horses early, largely based on their electability, and rode them through to the finish line.

No mention of Montana DLC hack John Morrison here, who grassroots Montanans told Schumer to shove up his Insider butt, nominating their own populist candidate, Jon Tester, and then beating a very Schumer-like Republican in November, Conrad Burns. Instead he recounts the triumphs of Bob Casey, Claire McCaskill and, oddly, since I don't recall Schumer backing him, Jim Webb. [Update: a friendly DSCC employee reminded me that Schumer did indeed get behind Webb early on.] And then Blake writes about the corporate shills Schumer is trying to foist on Democrats in North Carolina and Kentucky, Kay Hagan and Bruce Lunsford. He recruited Hagan because he insists a gay candidate-- Jim Neal-- can't win Jesse Helms' old seat and thinks the way to beat Elizabeth Dole is to confuse voters by presenting them with a candidate so similar that no one can tell them apart. That worked out real well in Tennessee in 2006, when Schumer's reactionary candidate, Harold Ford, was so much like a Republican that the voters just figured they might as well stick with an actual Republican. Schumer is trying to replay that same scenario in North Carolina and Kentucky.

In Kentucky he has been personally-- and quite unethically-- clearing the field for the state's most detested Democrat, Bruce Lunsford (a Zell Miller kind of reactionary) and strong-arming local unions-- who know better-- into endorsing the hated Lunsford over a genuine Democrat Greg Fischer. When asked if he takes heat for interfering in local primaries to pick reactionary candidates, Schumer went right to Kentucky. "Some people are very upset about [Iraq war veteran Andrew] Horne [dropping out] in Kentucky. … We obviously pick candidates who are in the Democratic mainstream, and we like candidates who will be good senators, but winning matters. And so, do I occasionally take some flak? Sure. But that’s part of the game and I don’t mind it. That’s my job." Actually, it isn't. He's supposed to be neutral.

Even one candidate Schumer didn’t initially like, comedian Al Franken, has won him over.

The Democratic race to face Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) is now all but clear with the exit of attorney Mike Ciresi-- a development Schumer said he was pleased with-- and Republicans were quick to go on the offensive this week, distributing a video of Franken faking an Asian accent.

“To be honest with you, I was really worried when [Franken] first announced,” Schumer said. “I was worried that his jokes would get him in trouble, but more importantly that he was just running from the left and not serious. He is a very serious candidate, and he gets it and he knows how to talk to average people.”

Notice the reptilian brain at work: "more importantly that he was just running from the left and not serious." I wonder if he meant that running from the left (i.e., representing regular people instead of business interests) is something he doesn't like AND that he doesn't like someone he judges not to be "not serious" (the same tact Coleman is taking on his attacks against Franken; Coleman and Schumer grew up within blocks of each other-- as did Ken, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, and myself.) He also marvels that Coleman knows how to talk to "average people." Imagine that; maybe he can give lessons when he gets to the Senate.

My favorite part of the story was when we are reminded that "Schumer is up for reelection in 2010." Maybe someone who runs from the left and knows how to talk with regular people will decide to take him on in a primary. If you hear of anyone considering it, send them to Blue America.

HEY CHUCK... YOU DON'T REMEMBER ME?

Click on Chuck's nose to get a better view of Puff the Magic Dragon

Oh, I don't expect you to remember me from our old alma mater, Madison in Brooklyn. But it wasn't that long ago that I was questioning you on a blogger conference call when, after a brittle and ice-cold few moments you unceremoniously slammed down the receiver leaving poor Rahm Emanuel to take the brunt of blogger angst. Anyway, I assure you, I have never lived in Kentucky so you can stop slamming the progressive bloggers of the Blue Grass State.

Seems, Chuckie Cheese, didn't like the references to him having a lizard brain at Down With Tyranny this week. Or maybe he hated Adam's artwork of him peeling off his facial skin, ala V, to reveal his true reptilian self. According to our pals at Ditch Mitch today, Schumer gave a speech at Yale Law School-- do they have superdelegates there??-- and he "took the time in his talk to single out a progressive Kentucky blogger for calling him a lizard."

Now, even though Kentucky’s progressive blogosphere has had unkind truths to speak of Schumer as of late, I think the senior senator from New York is mistaken here.

It’s Down With Tyranny that has correctly identified Schumer’s genus and species as Phrynosoma modestum.

Last I checked, he’s not based in Kentucky. He–- like many others–- just happens to share some opinions about Schumer.

In fact, Ken, another James Madison High School alum-- who swears he has no recollection of any Chuck, Charles or Charlie Schumer, nor of his mom Selma or his dad Abe, nor of his claims to have scored a 1600 on his SAT test-- has suggested that we ask the readers for suggestions in a new DWT feature: Call Senator Schumer a Name a Day. Any suggestions?


UPDATE: MEANWHILE BACK IN KENTUCKY...

Our friends at Ditch Mitch and BlueGrassRoots are examining an interesting hypothesis about why Schumer was so heavy-handed in forcing Andrew Horne out of the race:

Sen. Chuck “Lizzy” Schumer (D) doesn’t care about defeating Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) in Kentucky so much as keeping him bogged down here and spending his loads of cash, and in Lunsford, Schumer found a man who was willing to part with millions of his own dollars on yet another ego trip. In short, Schumer manipulated Lunsford, and the KDP and Gov. Steve Beshear (D) played along because one more disastrous electoral showing from Lunsford in Kentucky should finish him off politically, and Kentucky democrats would therefore never have to worry about him again.

Let's not count out Greg Fischer, though. He's also loaded-- but not loaded down with the kind of Republican baggage Lunsford is. We need to find out more about him and his positions-- and we're looking into it now. Stay tuned.

THE LIBERAL MIND vs THE CONSERVATIVE MIND-- IS IT GENETIC?

Earlier today, I referred to McCain as having a "reptilian mind." I admit that I wasn't being literal... just sort of impressionistic. However, some interesting new data has come my way since then and I'd like to share it with you-- the literal, non-impressionistic stuff.

I suspect that there aren't enough DWT readers who subscribe to the British weekly science magazine New Scientist. One who does, however, who is also a candidate for Congress, and reads very widely, sent me a fascinating new study from the magazine, "Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative?" It's the cover story and delves into the serious scientific research on the formation of political opinions. My attention was immediately focused on several conclusions which I had been noticing since my student days when I was president of the freshman class at college and of the school's Young Democrats:

"...a rather unflattering view of conservatives emerges from the studies. They are portrayed as dogmatic, routine-loving individuals, while liberals come across as free-spirited and open-minded folk."

The story suggests that it's probably pointless to try to change most people's minds about politics. "According to an emerging idea, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. 'These views are deep-seated and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be liberal is like trying to persuade someone not to have brown eyes. We have to rethink persuasion,' says John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas... [O]pinions on a long list of issues, from religion in schools to nuclear power and gay rights, have a substantial genetic component. The decision to vote rather than stay at home on election day may also be linked to genes. Neuroscientists have also got in on the act, showing that liberals and conservatives have different patterns of brain activity."

In 2003, John Jost, a psychologist at New York University, and colleagues surveyed 88 studies, involving more than 20,000 people in 12 countries, that looked for a correlation between personality traits and political orientation (American Psychologist, vol 61, p 651). Some traits are obviously going to be linked to politics, such as xenophobia being connected with the far right. However, Jost uncovered many more intriguing connections. People who scored highly on a scale measuring fear of death, for example, were almost four times more likely to hold conservative views. Dogmatic types were also more conservative, while those who expressed interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. Jost's review also noted research showing that conservatives prefer simple and unambiguous paintings, poems and songs. 

...A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity and an interest in different cultures. When these traits are combined, people with high openness scores turn out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.

Combine the genetic influences on personality with the political tendencies of different personality types, and the idea that genetics shapes political tendencies seems very plausible indeed. All of the big five personality traits are highly heritable (Journal of Research in Personality, vol 32, p 431), with several studies suggesting that around half of the variation in openness scores is a result of genetic differences. Some traits that are linked to openness, such as being sociable, are also known to be influenced by the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain. And levels of these chemicals are controlled in part by genes. So while there isn't a gene for liking hippies, there is probably a set of genes that influences openness, which in turn may influence political orientation.

So now we know something about Eric Cartman's genes but so far "no one has yet identified a gene that correlates with liberalism or conservatism." However if Jost's work is correct, the difference in measures of certain brain activities between liberals and conservatives between liberals and conservatives should be marked. "Tasks that involve dealing with conflicting information, for example, are known to activate an area of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Since liberals are generally more open to conflicting ideas, activity in this area of the brain would be expected to differ between them and conservatives. According to a study in Nature Neuroscience (vol 10, p 1246) that is exactly what a study last September by NYU's David Amodio does show. His research links that difference to brain activity. "Electrodes placed on subjects' skulls revealed that liberals had greater ACC activity... Liberals also had higher activity immediately after making a mistake, and the greater the activity, the better their performance over many rounds. The results, says Amodio, suggest that basic brain mechanisms, such as those that control habit formation, may distinguish liberal minds from conservative ones."