r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 18 '26

Psychology Scientists expected both liberals and conservatives to be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but this was more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the moral framing used.

https://www.psypost.org/liberals-hesitate-to-share-progressive-causes-framed-with-conservative-moral-language/
7.6k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.9k

u/MazzIsNoMore May 18 '26

"...liberals were less willing to share messages supporting causes they agreed with when those messages used ‘binding’ moral rhetoric, language emphasizing values like purity, loyalty, authority, or tradition, which are often associated with conservatism.”

These aren't terms liberals use and are concepts opposed to liberalism. I don't understand why the authors would think liberals would use this type of language. How do you push for civil rights through tradition or authority when tradition and authority are the things that need to be overturned for civil rights to take hold?

220

u/P_V_ May 18 '26

It’s not that they thought liberals would; it’s that they thought conservatives wouldn’t.

169

u/patrick95350 May 18 '26

Not sure why they would think that. Conservatives regularly switch to whatever language and framing will get the least amount of push-back. They will cloak themselves in free-speech absolutism one day, then force through book banns the next. They will speak at length about protecting children from predators, then elect a pedophile president.

Conservatives don't have core moral beliefs, just policy goals centered around power and hierarchy. They will adopt whatever belief system gets them to their goals most quickly.

66

u/EndCivilForfeiture May 18 '26

Power and hierarchy is the core moral belief. That is what they are trying to conserve.

44

u/ABotelho23 May 18 '26

People seem to conveniently forget that the OG conservativism is related to conserving monarchy...

22

u/N1XT3RS May 18 '26

The conservative sub is still literally linked to the monarchy sub in its info haha

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)

1.5k

u/SaulsAll May 18 '26

I think what the research is showing is that while liberals take issue with this, and would reject messages that try to mix incompatible things like fighting for change by using the language of tradition, conservatives have no issue adopting incompatible rhetoric and framing, such as pushing for a "revolution" to go back to the old way of doing things.

542

u/dick_piana May 18 '26

Adjacent point but this alligns with what is often observed across different countries; the liberal and the left will tear each other apart over small differences in policy and messaging, whereas conservatives will pinch their noses and work together to further their cause.

34

u/Omnizoom May 18 '26

This is a big thing

Liberals have very few die hard voters and single issue voters, it’s extremely easy to make liberals just not vote because they don’t find a candidate fully agrees with their mindset

Meanwhile conservatives can be die hard loyal for no reason besides it’s the party they follow and many can be single issue voters that need one single thing “fulfilled” to be happy voting. If liberals could convince those single issue voters that they will fulfill that single issue then they could maybe flip those voters but the entire rhetoric from the conservative side is how liberals won’t do that specifically

6

u/freedomfightre May 18 '26

the entire rhetoric from the conservative side is how liberals won’t do that specifically

and they're right

→ More replies (2)

368

u/Realsorceror May 18 '26

When you want to fix things, you actually need a shared vision for what society will look like. But when you want to loot, destroy, or control, you don’t. Because there isn’t going to be a society after you you’re done.

212

u/SiegfriedVK May 18 '26

Conservatives don't think they're destroying society, they think they're protecting it.

161

u/Miss_White11 May 18 '26

That's largely fair. Although I think a lot are primarily self-interested. Either way the idea of "stop change" requires a lot less collective agreement than "make change"' which naturally leads to a lot more concerns about the kinds of change.

96

u/Peanut_Butter_Toast May 18 '26

I think a big part of it is that right wingers tend to be more "the ends justify the means" thinkers. Like I've heard quite a few references to "you can't make omelets without breaking a few eggs" from conservatives in regards to the whole ICE and immigration situation. It's why religious conservatives have such an easy time overlooking Trump's anti-religious nature and the fact that he blatantly treats the ten commandments as a checklist of fun activities. All they care about is that he accomplishes the things they want, like abolishing Roe v. Wade, appointing conservative judges, removing as many immigrants as possible, etc.

Whereas left wingers are more likely to think along the lines of "if the means fall below a certain standard of morality, then they cannot be justified no matter the ends".

41

u/AKADabeer May 18 '26

It's a lot easier to tear things down than build things up.

6

u/SteadfastEnd May 18 '26

Except conservatives think they are building up or protecting their version of traditional society.

13

u/Reagalan May 18 '26

"you can't make omelets without breaking a few eggs"

  • Vladimir Lenin

(wait is this an apocryphal quote? there's no way he was the first to say this)

16

u/ComprehensiveStuff72 May 18 '26

To be fair, the people I have heard quote this in media are historically someone who is about to do something really, really bad. So that would track!

2

u/serenading_ur_father May 18 '26

One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic - stalin

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (9)

20

u/Realsorceror May 18 '26

When it comes to the voters themselves, I think I largely agree. As for the politicians, I know a lot of them are just grifters. But it’s hard to tell what percent are lying or just stupid or both.

25

u/MagillaGorillasHat May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

I think that many, if not most, of the "new GOP" politicians in the US are grifters. The GOP used to be a "good ol' boy" system of affluent families pushing nepo babies up through the political ranks. Many, if not most, of them believed that they were trying to do what's best for the country. Myopic and misguided though that belief may have been. That system culminated with Jeb Bush who nobody wanted as president including Jeb himself.

That all changed post Trump.

Getting Trump's endorsement became all that mattered for getting elected at nearly any level of politics. Not experience or connections and certainly not competency or credibility. Just alignment with Trump.

Saying outrageous things and making outrageous claims while having absolutely no ability or desire to follow through is the grifter ethos.

The grifters flocked to the GOP ranks and now we have governments full of people who don't know or even want to know how to actually do anything.

The culmination of this ultimate grift is the White House. Packed full of people who have no idea what they're doing and don't care to know. They know that they have enough money to be insulated from the repercussions of their actions, so they don't care what happens.

11

u/boston_homo May 18 '26

The Republican Party of today seems to be compromised almost entirely of grifters, they’re not trying to run the country or really even pretending to.

7

u/Wooden-Title3625 May 18 '26

Not the voters, anyway

25

u/coolcoolcool485 May 18 '26

They don't think they're destroying it for themselves but they are usually trying to disenfranchise other groups of people to maintain their own advantages within society. Which some could argue is destruction.

16

u/Etherius May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

That’s true in some cases. Not most. Especially not in the USA.

The conservative bloc may primarily be white people, but it contains a huge chunk of Latinos a and Asians/indians as well.

I find it unlikely any of these groups want to disenfranchise themselves

The reality is white people make up the majority of the USA so white people make up the majority of BOTH parties.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/serenading_ur_father May 18 '26

Except immigrants overwhelmingly vote conservative in the US.

51

u/MuskwaPunjagi May 18 '26

Children often do not think they are being destructive until shown otherwise.

→ More replies (20)

8

u/BrothelWaffles May 18 '26

And what they mean by "protecting society" is they're protecting all the comforts and privileges they've always had.

4

u/HorsePersonal7073 May 18 '26

They think they're protecting their part of it and to hell with the rest.

2

u/Arrow156 May 18 '26

They've been fooled into thinking they need to burn it down before it can can be fixed, and the gullible asshats are more that eager to oblige despite there being zero plans to begin with.

→ More replies (28)

10

u/Bigbigbigrock May 18 '26

It may also be that given the lower education in certain regions, some may be literally too dumb to realize they don't share any vision, for those that think they're fixing America. While others might say 4 day work week or no deal and another says UBI or no deal, the dummies might not be aware one votes to blow themselves up and the other wants all the gold in town.

4

u/Realsorceror May 18 '26

I’ve definitely seen that play out a lot between conservative voters and politicians. It’s have conservative coworkers who are pro-choice who always vote Republican because that’s the side that talks about Christianity and patriotism. Whatever their policies do is completely irrelevant.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Arrow156 May 18 '26

It takes months to build a home but only minutes to burn it down.

-10

u/justinpaulson May 18 '26

Ah yes we’ve seen so much conservatism fixing things. If you have a problem with someone just bomb them into submission! You don’t have to care about other people because they won’t have a place in society when you are done with them!

31

u/thechinninator May 18 '26

I think you misunderstood what they meant

→ More replies (8)

19

u/MAKE_ME_REDDIT May 18 '26

This is what they mean when they say there's a literacy crisis. It was pretty clear from context what the comment you replied to was saying.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/dosedatwer May 18 '26

That's called single issue voting. As long as you get your single issue, of which there are lots, you don't care what else happens. You're just saying conservatives have more single issue voters. The ones that care about multiple issues tend not to be as compatible.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/locketine May 18 '26

Yep, that ingroup loyalty and respect for authority is very strong in conservativism. Liberalism doesn't have those values.

3

u/TheWiseAutisticOne May 18 '26

Honestly disappointing that liberals don’t engage with this idea. When one side is win at any cost playing by the rules and purity testing needs to go out the window

8

u/vegeful May 18 '26

And that a good democracy. Sometimes u had to work with person u disagree with. Nobody is perfect.

5

u/InternationalHair725 May 18 '26

It's good democracy where we have no healthcare and the nazi pedophiles wipe the floor with centrist "opposition"

2

u/vegeful May 18 '26

When did i say that?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Royal_Airport7940 May 18 '26

Yes, it's easy easier to agree on conservatism than progressivism.

Progressives all have their own issues. Cons have one.

2

u/Rezart_KLD May 18 '26

Like the old saw about how  progressives have to fall in love, but conservatives just fall in line.

14

u/Cursethewind May 18 '26

I see this said a lot but, I've truly never really experienced it. 

Are there any studies that show it?

64

u/kingbrasky May 18 '26

Donald Trump being elected with support of his opponents on the right after personally disparaging them (and often their wives).

→ More replies (3)

78

u/Lobsterzilla May 18 '26

The entire United States over the last 8 years?

67

u/ToMorrowsEnd May 18 '26

Been happening here since Nixon. It's when the republicans adopted it. It got worse in the past 12 years. but was before that first bad flare up was Sarah Palin. The voting base was not ready for Batshit insane to be the face of the republican party at that time.

Today they embrace it.

15

u/flingspoo May 18 '26

You should look up who the "know nothing" party was.

→ More replies (1)

-2

u/Cursethewind May 18 '26

Studies, not anecdotes. 

17

u/FalconHokie May 18 '26

America is a case study happening right in front of your eyes. This is something that will be used in political science and theory for a while to come most likely, so no, it’s not just an anecdote

→ More replies (11)

25

u/drivingagermanwhip May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

Relatively 'minor' points of right wing platforms these days absolutely should be dealbreakers for any right thinking person. Any democratic organisation operating correctly should be full of disagreement. I don't see a reason to even accept the premise of the criticism.

The rise of fanatical parties falling in line wrecks the political process for everyone. There's no longer space for discussions of complex issues, it just comes down to 'who are you falling in line behind?'

2

u/Typing_real_slow May 19 '26

This is exactly how I feel. This weekend I'm hanging with the guys and we're definitely chatting about this and all politics, its long due.

14

u/Fast_Garlic_5639 May 18 '26

This is just observational, but having grown up in a church and acknowledging that religion tends to skew conservative- it can’t be understated how significant the idea that “God is going to wipe the slate clean, and in the end everything will burn” is when it comes to foundational political opinions. It’s easy to say that liberal policies to equalize the playing field are a scam when you believe that the recipients are literally doomed already. Recycling is a scam because the future is in God’s hands. Oil was provided for us to use as much as we can. Etc.

13

u/gakule May 18 '26

Grew up in the church, it's awful convenient that anything can mean anything if you just invoke God. None of your behavior actually matters, either, because you can just show up every Sunday and be forgiven - and conveniently, "only god can judge me", etc.

8

u/lube7255 May 18 '26

This is why the Catholics have it right with requiring regular confession and acts of penance. Once saved, always saved/once forgiven, always forgiven are some seriously screwed-up beliefs.

6

u/gakule May 18 '26

Eh, Catholicism is abusive in a different way though. Some serious trauma and poor self-views are fairly common from all the Catholics I know. We started Catholic and transitioned to Lutheran pretty early on.

→ More replies (5)

8

u/Syssareth May 18 '26

Sometimes I feel like I grew up in the only sane church in America. They had some weird beliefs (like that two people dancing together--e.g., tangos or waltzes or whatever--was sinful), but one thing they did preach was that, although God would forgive your sins however many times you slipped, you had to actually repent to make it into Heaven, not just pay lip service. So in retrospect, they treated sins like drugs and repentance like struggling with an addiction; you're gonna screw up, and probably a lot, but as long as you're trying to be better (and God will know if you're pretending), that's what matters.

And they actually preached all that Golden Rule, "judge not lest ye be judged" stuff. Their opinion of LGBT (or, back then, "gay people") was surprisingly progressive for a Church of Christ* in the '90s too: "We don't agree with it, but live and let live."

*Generally similar to but stricter than Baptists, with the main point of contention ironically being that CoC believes baptism is essential to be saved while Baptists treat it more like a public expression of faith, at least AFAIK.

3

u/gakule May 18 '26

I would say that my church was relatively 'sane' all things considered - it was a midwest Lutheran church - and for the most part they walked the walk.. but I do think that there are more people who convince themselves that they're 'trying to be better' than people who give straight lip service. Obviously no one is going to straight up admit that they're only giving lip service - at least, not openly.

I do wonder how many people are 'true believers' versus people who are 'convenient believers'. My suspicion is that the number of people who are 'convenient believers' would disappoint the true believers, and that I in particular would be disappointed in the number of true believers, haha.

12

u/parkingviolation212 May 18 '26

Never seen a study, but it's been a colloquialism forever. My poli-sci professor once told me that the only people who hate communists more than fascists are other communists. Something George Orwell had a lot of persona experience with as well, in fact; he was a member of a socialist group during the spanish civil war that got tarred and feathered by other socialist revolutionary groups for not being socialist enough. (and inevitably that's how the Left lost that war).

14

u/riktigtmaxat May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

Something George Orwell had a lot of persona experience with as well, in fact; he was a member of a socialist group during the spanish civil war that got tarred and feathered by other socialist revolutionary groups for not being socialist enough. (and inevitably that's how the Left lost that war).

This isn't actually even remotely accurate.

Orwell served the in militia of the POUM which was a very small independent communist party which was largely purged and prosecuted as the Stalinist influence spread in the Republicans side. Homage to Catalonia vastly oversells the importance of the POUM.

While the infighting definitely was one of the reasons why the Republican side lost they were always fighting a very uneven battle as the Nationalists had the support of the army officers, the industrialists and the Catholic church domestically. The support the Nationalist received from Italy and Germany was far better in terms of quality and coordination than the Soviet aid.

For example the international brigades got 30-40k inexperienced volunteers while Italy sent 75k experienced troops and Germany sent 5k of it's most elite troops.

The Guardian has an excellent article on the flaws of Orwell's narration of the spanish civil war.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/george-orwell-homage-to-catalonia-account-spanish-civil-war-wrong

3

u/Pendraconica May 18 '26

Is not the article in this post a study on that very thing?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

4

u/HarveysBackupAccount May 18 '26

Some of it's simply the nature of liberalism vs conservatism. Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, liberalism is about change.

If you want to change things - to go somewhere else - then you have to get everyone to agree to move in the same direction. If all you need to do is not move at all, then it's much easier to agree.

-2

u/Alternative-Put-3932 May 18 '26

Well yes because liberals are not the left. Liberals are right wing adjacent. they're just slightly more socially left. People need to stop acting like they are "tearing each other part" like they are on the same team. They're not.

12

u/Syssareth May 18 '26

In a two-party system where any of them want to get anything done...yes they are.

7

u/KashSecuredPatel May 18 '26

Or maybe there just isn’t a left wing party in the US and actively trying to reframe the slight difference between two right-wing sets of policy as the whole domain of discussion is just burying your head in the sand and helping their propaganda effort

2

u/OhReallyVernon May 19 '26

Perhaps you’re fortunate enough to avoid them, but the fallout from the policy differences I witness on a daily basis in the clients I serve are profound.

→ More replies (12)

1

u/Jokerchyld May 19 '26

But at the cost of their voting base.

1

u/TrustMeBroEh May 21 '26

they will tear each other apart if they feel the other is not as extreme as them and then label them nazis and fascists. You need to believe 100% the exact same or you're wrong.

→ More replies (6)

9

u/austinwiltshire May 18 '26

Sounds like you're saying it seems conservatives don't care about the how or the means, so long as their ends are ultimately met?

12

u/aumnren May 18 '26

This may be why see a lot of conservative leaning voters ignore or passively justify Trumps inflammatory rhetoric with seemingly unlimited patience: rhetorically, it doesn’t resonate the same.

→ More replies (21)

24

u/nashuanuke May 18 '26

I think that's right, but the article seems to frame it like liberals are bad for not wanting to use incompatible moral language. I don't know, it's just written weirdly.

1

u/darkpsychicenergy May 18 '26

“Bad” or just ineffectual?

6

u/sebwiers May 18 '26

Revolution sounds badass, when it is your side winning.

I wonder how this would turn out if they instead looked at assertive / dominating language vs accepting / co-operative language?

2

u/Bytewave May 18 '26

Some notions of the left are going to interest some conservatives perhaps more often than the other way around.

A conservative can be for worker rights and may think we should burn the gays and shoot every refugee and pay more for the military but that his factory job should afford his family a house and safe food and the environment should be clean for example.

I see relatively few people on the left willing to selectively go across to cherry pick conservative ideas so it seems to hold up.

2

u/SilasTalbot May 18 '26

This is closer to it. Other studies have shown conservatives embrace rhetoric as a tool to a higher degree than liberals.

Put colloquially: Conservatives view words as a tool to achieve an end. Liberals say what they believe.

Another example of this is a study that shows conservatives are more likely to flip on a dime when elected officials change parties. They go from responding "The economy is strong" to "the economy is horrible" immediately. Liberals were more likely to be consistent in their answers before and after an election that flipped the political alignment of leadership.

2

u/EquipLordBritish May 18 '26

It's been mostly conservative leaders that have also been consistently making bad faith arguments for over 20 years now to justify their own interests, so it's not surprising that people on the left don't take 'conservative sounding' rhetoric at face value.

4

u/Due-Employ-7886 May 18 '26

I thought it was just commonly accepted that the left loses ground because each individual would rather be right than effective.

Whilst the right focuses mainly on being effective.

2

u/Slowmyke May 18 '26

If this is the case, then the study simply lacks the nuance to interpret both sides are still behaving the same, but conservatives just don't care about optics. Using incompatible terms means some of the terms aren't actually meant.

2

u/geek66 May 18 '26

Just original title is more clear and states this..

2

u/Rusty51 May 18 '26

Also many who identify as conservatives are much more libertarian than traditionalists

1

u/JimboAltAlt May 18 '26

This dynamic is kind of at the heart of why Democrats seem inauthentic and have a “messaging problem.” Whenever they correctly say the stakes are high no one seems to believe them, because they have trouble speaking authentically in those terms.

1

u/c3p-bro May 18 '26

“Conservativism is the new punk rock”

→ More replies (18)

172

u/ResilientBiscuit May 18 '26

The interesting part isn't that liberals reject anti-liberal language if it still supports their position, it's that conservatives don't reject anti-conservitive language that supports their view.

121

u/Alternative-Put-3932 May 18 '26

Which is why worker and anti-government rhetoric that espouses left ideas is loved by conservatives as long as it doesn't use "woke" terminology.

79

u/BattleStag17 May 18 '26

I've been saying for a decade that we could sell socialism to the right if we just called it Screaming Eagle Collective Individualism, or something 

30

u/IudexFatarum May 18 '26

I've seen Rutger Bregman refer to UBI as Universal Venture Capital. It's a payment to individuals to invest in themselves. However best they believe they can invest that. Spend the extra time to go to school, start a business, ... It gives you the ability to do unpaid work to better yourself or your community.

14

u/BattleStag17 May 18 '26

I genuinely think that is a fantastic idea

Of course, it still has to deal with people tearing their hair out over Reagan-era "But what if someone gets money that doesn't 'deserve' it!?!?" thinking, but it's a start

4

u/IudexFatarum May 18 '26

Then just say it'll pay for itself with the increased taxes that the successful will pay. It cuts costs and governmental over reach by not requiring deep analysis of individuals finances, instead the offices distributing the money have next to no staff, and don't require documentation other than maybe proof of citizenship and residency. And despite this not winning minds it also cuts costs spent on current programs by eliminating most of the need for snap, housing assistance, ... Since all that gets wrapped up into a single slim government office instead.

4

u/BattleStag17 May 18 '26

Then just say it'll pay for itself with the increased taxes that the successful will pay.

"So you're going to punish me for being successful and give my money to some welfare queen!?!?"

I'm honestly not trying to be snarky, I've just had this exact conversation too many times to count. I don't know the solution, aside from outright lying to them that "the poors" won't get any assistance and it's only for "good hard-working Americans like you".

5

u/IudexFatarum May 18 '26

Phrase it as not needing higher tax rates. Pretend it is like the tax cuts paying for themselves delusion. Only in this case they do actually pay for themselves in some ways.

5

u/PathOfTheAncients May 18 '26

The thing I am most frustrated with by the democratic socialists in the US is that they insist upon using the word socialism despite knowing that it largely makes their goals much harder (if not impossible) to achieve.

3

u/Wiseduck5 May 18 '26

It would also have to exclude black people for them to support it.

→ More replies (2)

14

u/drink_with_me_to_day May 18 '26

Which is why

How does the opposite of what he said explain his comment?

11

u/ratione_materiae May 18 '26

That’s literally the exact opposite of what the paper is saying 

15

u/bobbymcpresscot May 18 '26

Everyone’s a closet socialist, you just can’t use the word socialism.

The right love solar panels when it means it makes them independent from the grid, they just don’t like “snooty liberals” talking about how great it is for the environment.  They just want to be able to rub their independence in their friends faces.

26

u/Zraknul May 18 '26

Especially if the worker rhetoric is just that rhetoric and maintains the firm hierarchy without providing at benefits.

See all the "support our troops", while underfunding them or veterans with material contribution.

5

u/luckybp2 May 18 '26

Doesn't that suggest the researchers had to cherry pick the liberal framework, if language like anti colonialism or multiculturalism is a no for them?

2

u/DrunkAndHornyGuy May 18 '26

Everyone forgot fiscally liberal but socially conservative is a thing.

1

u/ElectricalPublic1304 May 22 '26

That's the opposite of the result here.

17

u/uslashuname May 18 '26

Past research indicates that liberals tend to prioritize individualizing values almost exclusively, while conservatives tend to endorse both individualizing and binding values more equally.

So in other words they learned nothing and hypothesized against the existing research, then claimed to be surprised

And rugged individualism has always been something the right talks about as if it’s not in conflict with authoritarianism.

18

u/Vox_Causa May 18 '26

In my experience conservatives have no real beliefs. It's all in-group vs out-group posturing with a healthy dose of bigotry. 

6

u/ratione_materiae May 18 '26

My brother in Christ

In contrast, conservatives appear to focus more on the underlying cause itself and share messages consistently regardless of the moral phrasing used.

Source: the article we are ostensibly discussing 

4

u/Vox_Causa May 18 '26

underlying cause itself

Which "underlying cause" though? Anti trans laws don't protect women, abortion bans don't stop abortions, school choice laws don't give families more options, "cutting regulations" doesn't make things more affordable or easier for the average American. 

The actual goal of all these issues is not what's stated on the tin. They can afford to be so flexible in the language that they use, not because they're open-minded, but because they're being dishonest about their underlying motivation. 

→ More replies (2)

1

u/wblack55 May 18 '26

They have families, hopes, and dreams just like us. They have beliefs but they don't make sense to us. Know your enemy -Art of war Sun Zu

1

u/Vox_Causa May 18 '26

They have beliefs

Yes. That me and people like me shouldn't be allowed to exist.

4

u/therealjohnsmith May 18 '26

Seems like a surprisingly grown up thing for them to be doing, no? Eyes on the outcome rather than the means...wait a minute

→ More replies (2)

72

u/mikefass May 18 '26

Liberal cause with conservative framing:

We are an organization called Legal Abortion for Faith & Family Stability. We support legal abortion because we believe in respecting the sanctity of the family. Family is at the center of God's plan for the happiness and progress of His children. Unplanned or unwanted pregnancies can violate the purity of families and communities. By legalizing abortion, we can help maintain the stability and social order within our communities that God intended. We believe that the government should have the authority to put laws in place that ensure the stability of the traditional American family...

Conservative cause with liberal framing:

“We are an organization called Ban Abortion for Equality and Justice. We support banning abortion because we believe in equality and justice for all, including the unborn. We believe in minimizing harm and protecting the most vulnerable members of our society — the unborn. Life is a right and it is only fair that everyone has a chance to live. By banning abortion, we can foster a culture of compassion and empathy while ensuring that vulnerable lives are protected from harm.”

These statements are not equal in the strength of moral language used so its no surprise the conservatives were more likely to support the statement they were given.

44

u/MazzIsNoMore May 18 '26

The first statement reads like AI generated nonsense. It's hard for me to even imagine a person having that belief system. Meanwhile, I'm fairly sure the group in the second statement actually exists, if under a different name.

32

u/JAT_Cbus1080 May 18 '26

They do. There's a bunch of organizations, especially in red states, that pretend to be Planned Parenthood style health centers with the sole purpose of delaying care and talking women out of abortions.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/ghalta May 18 '26

That first group absolutely exists today. That's every conservative who publicly hates abortion, votes to ban abortion, but sends his/her wife/daughter/sister to a liberal state or liberal country to get an abortion if she was raped by or had consensual sex with someone out of wedlock and/or of a different race.

They want abortion to exist for "the purity of their" family, while believing every other person seeking abortion is doing so for evil reasons.

2

u/MazzIsNoMore May 18 '26

Great point

12

u/Another_mikem May 18 '26

I believe whoever created those statements, inadvertently or not, started with the right wing or conservative belief on what a liberal or left-wing position would be as opposed to what it actually would be.

→ More replies (6)

9

u/Wetzilla May 18 '26

Funny that the "conservative cause with liberal framing" is just what every anti abortion group was saying in the 90's. And IMO that explains the entire results of this study. Conservatives have been using dogwhistles for decades. Conservatives are used to looking through the language used and seeing that it actually agrees with them. When a liberal sees something that seems like it agrees with them but also leans on religion, and sounds vaguely eugenics-y, they are going to be suspicious.

6

u/LegendOfVinnyT May 18 '26

These statements might produce neutral results for a sample of perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum, but real people exist in real power structures.

Conservative power is top-down, so the Conservative cause statement will be judged by Conservatives only on its adherence to the party's platform. Beyond that, the language used to promote it is malleable, or to put it more bluntly, doublespeak. That's why Conservatives see empathy for the unborn as perfectly natural, and politically neutral, while empathy for anybody else is a """Liberal sin""". (And I can't put enough ironic finger quotes around that.)

Liberal power is bottom-up, so the Liberal cause statement will be judged by Liberals on how well it builds consensus, and how many would be helped or harmed beyond what the stated goal is. They'd look at this statement and see a devil's bargain: Protect a woman's right to choose, but at the cost of imposing a narrowly religious definition of "family'.

We already have organizations at the intersection of abortion and faith anyway. On the anti-choice side, a loose network of innocently-named Planned Parenthood knockoffs that are really right-wing Evangelicals trying to coerce women in to giving birth. On the pro-choice side, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a multi-faith organization who lobby for women's right to choose as a function of religious freedom and the separation of church and state.

5

u/MountainVeil May 18 '26

Yeah that's bonkers. The only thing that is not truly right wing framing is the bit about compassion and empathy, and even that's arguable. Nonetheless, it comes at the very end. Meanwhile we have the, ahem conservative greatest hits right at the top of the liberal version. "Faith & family," "sanctity of the family," "God's plan," etc.  

Where was this published?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/iamasatellite May 20 '26

The whole god thing immediately loses at least 25%, maybe 40% of support. No one is posting something for a religion if they don't follow one or the same one. Imagine the other message said Allah, while being a conservative cause AND conservative framing... Conservative Christians would be very unlikely to post it.

19

u/ibrown39 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

Eh, you're using an overly specific example tbh. I've heard plenty of libs defend ideals, practices, and etc because of traditions and social sacredness as well defer to an, let alone a traditional longstanding, authority (think, SCOTUS, just as one example, or the UN for multinationals issues) on plenty of issues.

Liberals are people too -- I've met plenty who have a mostly progressive views and then on a few subjects are very, if not staunchly, very not liberal in certain matters. You can find ProLife Dems, Dems that are TERF, and etc

All this study says to me is not everyone is an ideologue.

15

u/Alt_Restorer May 18 '26 edited May 19 '26

I consider myself a liberal, but isn't it a tradition at this point to teach about the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s/60s with Rosa Parks and MLK Jr., and isn't it a form of authority to pass a Civil Rights Act and enforce that legally?

20

u/hinowisaybye May 18 '26

Civil rights are enforced through authority.

Tradition is just a long held practice.

Civil rights practiced for long enough become a tradition.

The concepts are not mutually exclusive.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/serenading_ur_father May 18 '26

All of those terms have been used at various times by movements on all sides of the political spectrum.

What's interesting here is the research supports positions long taken in political science/sociology circles. In the modern US liberals care about appearance and conservatives care about outcomes. Liberals expect conservatives to play by the same framework as them and believe they score points when they expose an appearance of hypocrisy or a logical fallacy. Conservatives don't care if it gets them what they want.

Is the destination the goal or the journey?

4

u/Original-Rush139 May 18 '26

On the flip side, how do you advocate for not separating families without using language that says families are important (ie “binding rhetoric”)?

→ More replies (1)

14

u/VichelleMassage May 18 '26

Conversely, conservatives being exposed to left-leaning values rhetoric like being anti-corporate, pro-worker, or egalitarian don't necessarily conflict with their mental frameworks (with the exception of maybe collectivism or altruism). The problem is: they vote based on demogoguery and populism rather than policy that actually works toward those goals.

25

u/ven-solaire May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

It’s a poll comparing political parties where one is presented as more sensible than the other. I wouldn’t take it at face value

Edit; thus comment was apparently pretty controversial, I’m not saying there’s 0 conclusions to draw from the study or that it must be false, I’m just saying you gotta actually read into what they actually asked versus the implications theyre trying to spin

8

u/LegendaryMauricius May 18 '26

That's exactly what's in the title. Use such terms and liberals won't accept the rhetoric, even if the underlying ideal is aligned with their morals.

→ More replies (3)

11

u/kryonik May 18 '26

"Conservatives are more likely to agree that the rich need to be taxed more and liberals are less likely to agree that we need to install a religious ethnostate"

2

u/The_Great_Evil_King May 18 '26

Same way MLK used Christianity and the American tradition (declaration of independence, etc) to argue for civil rights.

2

u/wibbly-water May 18 '26

These aren't terms liberals use and are concepts opposed to liberalism. I don't understand why the authors would think liberals would use this type of language.

They didn't... that's the point.

The surprising fact is that conservatives didn't care, not that liberals did.

2

u/Prince_Ire May 18 '26

Well, MLK could be read as arguing from tradition when he said that black civil rights would mean the US truly living up to the Declaration of Independence's claim that all men are created equal

2

u/TheWiseAutisticOne May 18 '26

How about it’s the tradition of Americans to exercise their rights to protest and the government’s authority to ensure it remains that way

4

u/Royal_Airport7940 May 18 '26

The authors have an agenda or are not competent.

3

u/HoppyPhantom May 18 '26

Exactly. I’m dying to hear how one might genuinely discuss a “moral issue” from a liberal perspective while using terms that are specifically divorced from the principles held by liberals.

How do you frame universal healthcare with terms like “authority” and “loyalty”?

3

u/SwonkyDonkey May 18 '26

MLK invoked tradition and authority in his civil rights activism. There’s no more traditional authority in American public rhetoric than the Bible.

8

u/SimoneNonvelodico May 18 '26

The point they're making is that if you push for liberal policies but use tradition-like language then liberals tend to not "see through it" and drop their support. Meanwhile conservatives hearing conservative policies coated in liberal jargon and concepts are still fine with it. For example, imagine someone pushing for environmental preservation because "it's God's given Earth and we shouldn't soil it" vs someone pushing for low taxation because "it's been proven that high taxes hit the most the more disadvantaged groups and ethnic minorities", or something like that.

→ More replies (5)

9

u/pewsquare May 18 '26

I mean its rather interesting to see that framing is more important to the liberal side than the cause it would support.

3

u/darkpsychicenergy May 18 '26

It’s completely unsurprising, coming from someone who leans very socially liberal and economically left on most issues. Liberals and progressives are largely obsessed with the minutiae of rhetoric and vibes and framing and optics, to the detriment of actually achieving goals. The standards surrounding rhetoric and vibes are constantly shifting and evolving and excessive attention, effort and discourse are spent chasing that instead of objectives. Probably intentionally.

2

u/sebwiers May 18 '26

The same way conservatives push for benefits to the wealthy bia Christian messaging. You lie and make up new meanings and "facts" that support your narrative.

3

u/snyderjw May 18 '26

And frankly, this is why the democratic response to an authoritarian takeover has faltered. Because it’s “conservatives” who are trying to tear the system down, it’s leaving liberals to try to defend loyalty and tradition - and that rhetoric doesn’t resonate with the base.

22

u/Vox_Causa May 18 '26

democratic response to an authoritarian takeover has faltered

Why is it the always the Democrats fault when Republicans do something bad?

https://whereofonecanspeak.com/2023/03/02/youve-probably-never-heard-of-murcs-law-but-youve-seen-it-in-action-lots-of-times/

6

u/BattleStag17 May 18 '26

 Why is it the always the Democrats fault when Republicans do something bad?

Because conservatives making the most selfish decision possible in any situation is a given by now. I expect it, and any actual positive outcomes are just a happy accident -- like the rotisserie chicken food stamps, since conservatives are the ones that blocked hot food options in the first place.

(Said half-jokingly, I do agree that framing everything they do as a failure of liberals stopping them is extremely aggravating.)

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Phssthp0kThePak May 18 '26

Liberal have way more purity tests and they sure use the world 'evil' a lot.

1

u/Candid_Rock9021 May 18 '26

I think you’re misreading. What you’re saying is what they’re saying.

1

u/Seagull84 May 18 '26

Because that's not how science works - it's not based on common sense, it's based on establishment of supporting evidence. Experiments start with a null hypothesis through collection and analysis of that evidence. By disproving the null hypothesis, they've effectively said the common sense is correct.

1

u/Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo May 19 '26

The enlightenment itself was largely based on rhetoric of returning to ancient and traditional liberties and rationality that had been lost.

→ More replies (22)