Block credits differences in ego-control for much of the shaping of adult orientation. Conservatives tended towards overcontrol, and as such, gravitate toward that which is safe and predictable, supporting decisive leaders. Block asserts that liberals – who had been described as relatively undercontrolled – “will often encounter in the everyday world constraints and frustrations that do not appear to be sensibly or societally required. As a first line of adaptive reaction, they will wish these
constraints removed or the world rearranged to be less frustrating.” As a result, however, “the sheer variety of changes and improvements suggested by the liberal-minded under-controller may explain the diffuseness, and subsequent ineffectiveness, of liberals in politics where a collective single-mindedness of purpose so often is required.” Remember, this predates Haidt’s article, so… Good Stuff.

This also speaks to your more recent post on “satisficing” and the heuristics of choosing a candidate: “protection from external threats” is indeed a “visceral concern,” and dichotomous thinking is an easy visceral shortcut to knowing which side you’re on. One might wish that people weren’t quite as “viscerally-stimulated” into their policy choices, but as you (and Block)(and Haidt) point out, this is simply human nature, and democrats need to find less flowery, less intricate ways to make direct and meaningful connections to these instincts.