Suchergebnisse

Judge Amy Berman Jackson slaps a gag order on indicted Trump confidant Roger Stone after the latter posted a photo of the judge with what appeared to be crosshairs nearby. (Stone says it’s a Celtic symbol.) [script]%3Ciframe%20width=%22560%22%20height=%22315%22%20src=%22https://www.youtube.com/embed/AnSrw8rE-dU%22%20frameborder=%220%22%20allow=%22accelerometer;%20autoplay;%20encrypted-media;%20gyroscope;%20picture-in-picture%22%20allowfullscreen%3E%3C/iframe%3E[/script]
The post The Monks, ‘Shut Up’: The Week In One Song appeared first on The Monkey Cage.

Unable to get his way, the president announces that he will make an emergency declaration to finance his border wall. [script]%3Ciframe%20width=%22560%22%20height=%22315%22%20src=%22https://www.youtube.com/embed/zXdLCEjEAtg%22%20frameborder=%220%22%20allow=%22accelerometer;%20autoplay;%20encrypted-media;%20gyroscope;%20picture-in-picture%22%20allowfullscreen%3E%3C/iframe%3E[/script]
The post 999, ‘Emergency’: The Week In One Song appeared first on The Monkey Cage.

AbstractBetween 1990 and 2000, the foreign‐born population in the United States increased by 57 per cent, compared to a 13 per cent increase in the native‐born population. This growth has fueled considerable media attention and has fomented some anti‐immigrant sentiments. Although a number of authors have charted changes in support for restrictionist immigration policies, few have examined their determinants. In this paper, we focus on region of residence and use data from a 2004 telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of 1888 adults to test the hypothesis that rural Americans are more likely to support restrictive immigration policies than individuals in urban and suburban communities. In a series of regression analyses, this hypothesis is confirmed; rural residents hold the most restrictionist views. Additional analyses indicate that this effect of rural residence on policy attitudes is mediated by attitudes toward multiculturalism, the perceived traits of immigrants, and perceptions about the costs of immigration. Ultimately, the analyses indicate that the perceived cost of immigration is the single strongest predictor of support for restrictive immigration policies, and that it best accounts for rural residents'more restrictionist views.

This paper examines the ideological asymmetry hypothesis with respect tothe interface between legitimizing ideologies and psychological attachment to one's ethnic group. The ideological asymmetry hypothesis suggests that hierarchy‐enhancing legitimizing ideologies should be positively associated with ingroup attachment among high‐status groups, but that among low‐status groups these associations should be either less positive in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high‐status groups or negative in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The opposite pattern should be found with respect to the interface between hierarchy‐attenuating legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment: Among high‐status groups these associations should be negative, but among low‐status groups these associations should be either less negative in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high‐status groups or positive in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The presence of isotropic versus anisotropic asymmetry is hypothesized to depend on the degree of disparity in status between the groups being compared: Wider status gaps should tend toward anisotropic asymmetries. The relationships between legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment were compared for (1) relatively high‐status ethnic groups (European and Asian Americans) versus relatively low‐status ethnic groups (Latinos and African Americans) in the United States, (2) the higher‐status Jewish ethnic group (Ashkenazim) versus the lower‐status Jewish ethnic group (Mizrachim) in Israel, and (3) the high‐status Israeli Jews versus the low‐status Israeli Arabs. The data were largely consistent with the ideological asymmetry hypothesis. The implications of these findings are discussed within the theoretical frameworks of social dominance theory and other approaches to intergroup relations.

Why would individuals engage in or support contentious politics? This question is challenging to answer with observational data where causal factors are correlated and difficult to measure. Using a survey-embedded experiment, we focus on three situational factors: grievances, risk, and identity. We also explore how individual differences in sociopolitical orientations—social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)—impact action. Grievances influence engagement in and support for protests. Risk influences engagement in protest, but not support for it. Regardless of condition, SDO and RWA help explain why some people engage in protest while others do not, particularly within the same context.

What factors impact how people mobilize against state human rights abuses? Drawing on Image Theory, we examine how perceptions of an out-group, government abuse, and sociopolitical orientations impact political action. Using an online survey-embedded experiment with a sample of 2,932 U.S. adults, we manipulated two factors: (1) the level of government abuse and (2) the risk of punishment for taking action against the state, while also including social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) as covariates. Participants indicated their propensity to engage in and justify both protest and violence. Participants rated the out-group as oppressive and evil. State abuse of human rights was associated with more oppressive and evil out-group images. Oppressive out-group images increased protest engagement and justification, whereas evil out-group images increased violence engagement and justification. Abuse increased all forms of action and justifications for them. Oppressive and evil images mediated many of the relationships between abuse, SDO, and RWA on one hand and political action on the other.