Author- Vladimir Zark
I admit that I’m not a biologist, and don’t know the finer subtleties of genetics, or the connection between biology and ideology. However, as a philosopher, the idea of a ‘biological politic’ fascinates me. After all, humans are clearly wired to exist in divisions, allying themselves with one group or another – nobody is voting for a party that isn’t formally established. My fascination comes about because the general attitudes of voters on both sides are skewed in a particular direction: a direction clearly shaped by upbringing, of course, but maybe it is tracked back to previous generations? Could there be a connection, for example, between the nurturing natures of women and the humanitarian politics of the progressive Left? Could there be a connection between poverty and individualist conservative politics? There are fascinating questions that are most definitely worth asking.
For instance, there is compelling evidence to suggest that the female vote depends on what the party in question will provide for them as sexual agents – mind you, Planned Parenthood has always been on the Left’s side. In the 2012 election, 79% of single women chose Obama over Romney, while 69% of those in a committed relationship chose Obama. These are drastic numbers that suggest women’s collective trust in Obama and his party, probably because the sort of message he offered appealed to them personally. Women also vote for the party that has government programs to help the old, the young, and the poor. Women are also said to be more for gun restrictions and more against police brutality and capital punishment.
This is all according to Psychology Today. If we just take this information at face value, we can conclude that women will always vote majority Left and will continue to do so, simply because there’s no benefit for them to vote Right – women are both more compelled to support selfless humanitarian efforts, no matter how unrealistic, and they’re looking out for their children and everyone around them. What was the last time you heard a young woman, especially on the Left, talk about the economic implications of a government program? They are not wired for that. They are wired to protect themselves and anyone in their immediate vicinity. To process an abstract idea about costs and foreign policy is surely a task for a man, no matter whether women are making great strides in every field – which they are, and far exceeding men in doing so. But it is not sexist to say, for example, that men outperform women in chess – as a chess player, I can say for sure that female players, while they do exist, are a great minority in the chess world. It would not be sexist to say that men are still much more often taking fields in mathematics and STEM than women. So what’s the issue with politics? Conservatism is for individualists who want to change society, who want to keep the good things good and do away with the bad – women want everything at once with no effort. It’s much more sensible for women to vote Left because it just makes sense. Their biological program is fulfilled, their abortions are government-funded and legal, and feminism continues to artificially be relevant. And all is well in our system, which is gynocentric anyway.
Not to be too cynical on the whole ‘woman voting’ issue. Over half of white women voters had voted for Trump. Let’s note this point: WHITE women. This makes for a good transition. The insane political divisions by race truly are worrying, and make for a great case for ‘biological politics’. According to Pew Research Center, in the 2016 election, Clinton had 88% of the black vote to Trump’s 8%. Obama had 93% to Romney’s 6% in 2012. Now isn’t that scary? Anyone can understand the tribal instinct to vote for Obama, but Clinton? This is the same Clinton who called blacks ‘super-predators’ in a leaked wikileaks segment? This is the same Clinton whose husband signed a crime bill in 1994 that disproportionately punished blacks for petty crimes? Either the Left is putting something in the black voter’s water, or the average black voter is very poorly educated about the way politics operates. My guess is that the alliance blacks had with Obama, as well as the fact that historical figures like MLK and Malcolm X were traditionally against the Right, prompts an overwhelming tidal wave of support. And who could forget the tribalism? Aren’t black conservatives still ruthlessly punished with labels like ‘house-nigga’ and ‘Uncle Tom’? Aren’t black conservatives, who have an overwhelming desire to escape their oppressive ghettos and police-driven cities, pressured by definition to be trapped in the same matrix as their friends and family? It is scary that conservatives are kept down by their primal brethren.
Right, but over 2/3 of whites without a college degree and 49% of degree-owning whites voted for Trump. Perhaps this is a sort of tribalism too – this nationalistic mentality of “our country is rightfully ours, and everyone else is secondary”. Whites are still the great majority in the U.S., and most of my coddled progressive friends in New York or California act as though the South literally doesn’t exist, or is too stupid and uneducated to matter. I’m one of the native New York City dwellers who believe the South is full of great, heartfelt people, working-class people, who voted for Trump out of a preservationist need to keep themselves, their family, and their country going. What’s wrong with this kind of tribalism, after all? It’s one thing to bring an aspiring person down to your level out of hatred or jealousy (as in the example of the black conservative), but it’s another story entirely to want to defend your country from invaders. This is the MOST POWERFUL biological instinct – sometimes my father talks about the Russians and how we can’t stand certain groups on the basis of being Russian. I usually think about it cynically, but at the same time, isn’t it true that the Japanese don’t admit almost anyone from foreign countries? They’re one of the most nationalistic countries on the planet. There was a time when my dad lived in USSR-era Russia, and never saw a black person until the age of, say, 25. He is not racist against blacks, but because of his tribal instinct, he keeps his distance. Is this racist or rational? The same applies to America and white Trump voters. We voted for Trump because he offered us the classical ‘white’ values that we were used to – financial security, a better economy, a tough foreign presence, and most of all, love for our country. It was not racist to vote for him on these grounds – it was RATIONAL.
Plus, Russia has always been a very conservative country, to this day. So, in my case, voting for the Left makes no sense because my parents would argue with me that it makes no sense. My dad would sometimes lecture me about enjoying Tchaikovsky, the classical Russian composer, because he was a homosexual. We mustn’t forget that your family values and even your cultural upbringing are deeply important in shaping your political values. I would argue that that very conservatism is what keeps Russia so stable and proud today, even though its economy and overall safety leave something to be desired. Poland is similar, as most of you probably know – a nation with an absolutely established Roman Catholic center. They are so nationalistic, so focused on closed borders, and so religiously motivated, that their conservatism is most definitely GENETIC. Perhaps that’s part of the reason they’re safe, after all. A completely contrary example would be Sweden, where the intermixing of migrant and native cultures and values is creating a new genetic politics in the country – and, to the dismay of many conservatives, a much less white one. I personally think the alt-right has a completely sound argument on this, even if many people misrepresent it as racist: there’s nothing fundamentally wrong, in my mind, with the idea of “securing a future for our white children”, as their message says. After all, it’s just an appeal to tribalism. It’s not like the Muslims in Saudi Arabia aren’t concerned with securing a future for their Muslim children or the Jews in Israel aren’t concerned with securing a future for their Jewish children. It’s not racist, it’s RATIONAL.
Our political preferences are simply shaped by our predispositions towards certain things. For instance, the poor are much more prone to vote Republican because, I’m sure, they’re looking for opportunities to succeed in a better market. The rich liberals are comfortable, and don’t suffer all too much if they have to pay a bit of money in taxes for the satisfaction of their egos – but for the poor voter, it’s do or die, and he’d rather do. This is very important to me, as a low-income white student who works himself to the bone in school to maintain good grades. I get free education at Hunter, the greatest opportunity I’ve ever had, and I relish in every minute of it. I voted for Trump not because I necessarily like him or the Republican party, but because the conservative framework screams out at me, beckons me to be self-reliant, motivates me to break my back for a real achievement. In one way, it keeps the illusion of the ‘American Dream’ going, too.
If I was voting Left these past elections, I’d essentially be selling myself to the machine, paying taxes in outrageous amounts, losing any sense of dignity I have left. I took the plunge, voted for the first time under the Republican banner, and hadn’t regretted it once – not even when I was shamed in front of an English classroom of minorities who were very keen on making me feel guilty for my choice. It was a lingering pain, too, not one that faded immediately, since they pushed it in a few times. But I have no regrets. My genetic desire is now realized: I am free, and nothing can keep me down. Why should my politics interfere with my true nature? Thus, I encourage you to think about the connection between biology and politics. All the best to you!