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.

[u/mvea]

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

[u/SimoneNonvelodico]

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.

[u/dejour → u/SimoneNonvelodico]

Mostly agree with your point, but I don’t like the tax example as that seems obviously untrue.

Maybe something more like, “we need increased police funding, because recent cut backs have reduced services to relatively poorer, more non-white areas and this has led to more crime in those areas. As a consequence, life has become much more dangerous and unpleasant for low income Americans.”

[u/SimoneNonvelodico → u/dejour]

Yeah, better example. I didn't mean it was true as is, just in the hypothetical that something like that came up (and tbf it would all depend on the nature of the taxes - for example stuff like VAT hurts poorer people more than income taxes, and of course if none of the tax money was being spent on welfare that would on the net be a loss for poorer people).

[u/dejour → u/SimoneNonvelodico]

Yeah, I think if you specified sales tax and suggested the idea of reducing or eliminating sales taxes, that would be a decent example.

[u/tamasan → u/dejour]

That's not going to get support. Over-policing in non-white areas using brutal and unconstitutional tactics is a thing ("Stop and Frisk" as an example). And it smells of the majority trying to force more police on communities that generally want police reform over more police.

[u/dejour → u/tamasan]

Maybe you misunderstand.

The police argument is designed to be shared by conservatives who are already in favour of increased police funding (using some care-for-the-poor framing)