Understanding the Conservative Mindset

[Roger Ramjets]

Avoidance of Discomfort might be a very central part of the Conservative Mindset.
And of Uncertainty.

'Might' be.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Joe Biden and Bill Clinton were accused by specific named women, but liberal voters stayed on side. Evidently, being skeptical of such accusations is not remotely unique to the conservative mindset.

I have already shown that many democrats were not happy about Bill Clinton's proclivities, but we need to be fair here - the example in most people's minds was Monica Lewinsky, which was a scandal but not sexual assault. The affair became public only because Lewinsky was used as a political pawn by Republican operatives who cared only about how it could damage Clinton, not how it might affect her. Years later she explained how it did hurt her:-

He could have made it right with the book, but he hasn't... Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert. ... This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through. ... I don't accept that he had to completely desecrate my character.

At least in public, liberals tend to be more accepting of such mutual behavior than 'family values' conservatives, so trying to create an equivalence here fails because you don't expect liberals to be so uptight about it. The problem conservatives have is minimizing or denying far worse behavior only when it's one of their own.

In Joe Biden's case there was only one accuser whose credibility was such that major news outlets initially didn't feel confident enough to publish.

NPR's Asma Khalid wrote, "Some details of Reade's account have been inconsistent, and her story has changed over time", noting that in 2019 she did not mention sexual assault. Laura McGann of Vox, who conducted multiple interviews of Reade and other relevant sources, stated, "The story that both she and her corroborating witnesses are telling has changed dramatically." Joan Walsh, writing in The Nation, said Reade's allegation of sexual assault "doesn't stand up to close scrutiny". In New York Magazine, political commentator Jonathan Chait stated that at first, he found Reade's claims believable, but that the findings reported by PBS, Laura McGann in Vox, and Natasha Korecki in Politico cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations.

So in this case there was plenty to be skeptical about. Personally I want to believe her, but when the story broke liberals didn't have much of a choice - it was either Biden (who might have done something inappropriate once, a long time ago), or Trump, who was a clear and present danger that had to be stopped. This wasn't a matter of 'staying on side', but of choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[d4m10n]

the example in most people's minds was Monica Lewinsky

I was not thinking of Lewinsky when replying to a post about politicians "accused of sexual assault," but some of other women from the list of Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations^WP.

This wasn't a matter of 'staying on side', but of choosing the lesser of two evils.

This is definitely a justification I have heard from people exemplifying the conservative mindset.

(They believed both Broaddrick and Reade, of course, and presumably factored those beliefs into their calculus of evils.)

 

[dann]

Trump's niece in a YouTube short about the conservative mindset: It's trickle-down economics all the way down!
Billionaires (Aug 8, 2026 – 1:24 min.)

Here's the question for you:
Who needs the most help right now?
Americans who are struggling with high gas and grocery prices and increasing inflation?
Or billionaires?

She doesn't even get it quite right: Billionaires don't create jobs. They are trying to replace jobs with robots and AI centers – and fresh air with carbon dioxide.

 

[dirtywick]

Opinion | The bleak reason Max Miller didn’t drop out of his race

The embattled GOP congressman knows that allegations of domestic violence aren’t a death knell on the right.

www.ms.now

In the days leading up to the deadline, President Donald Trump praised Miller as a “good person” and said he wanted “to let the families figure that out.” House Speaker Mike Johnson said hepreferred a House ethics committee investigation play out (which can be a slow and drawn-out process), while Senate Majority Leader John Thune called it a “House matter” and a “family issue.” While some GOP senators did express concerns about the allegations, their numbers did not come close to achieving a majority view within their caucus.

republicans on the max miller abuse. this article references the polling i had shared earlier in the thread, seems to have held true as they stand by miller.

A recent Washington Post report published last week supports the idea that Miller may not have fallen out with the GOP base. The Post interviewed dozens of voters across his district, finding that, among those who knew of the allegations, they were “largely wary of wading into what they considered a family matter and reluctant to abandon Miller.”

Of course the foremost example of how accusations of violence against women are tolerable on the right is Trump himself. The president has been accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women, and it didn’t stop him from getting elected twice, or hurt his reputation with his core base. (Trump has denied the allegations.)

Miller even cited Trump’s behavior as inspiration to stay in the race.

 

[d4m10n]

this article references the polling i had shared earlier in the thread, seems to have held true as they stand by miller.

What is it about the conservative mindset that makes them more likely to tolerate spousal abuse? Is it that the progressives are always standing up for women's rights or is it something more than just reacting against the people who came along and encouraged women to have their own careers and checking accounts?

 

[Helen]

What is it about the conservative mindset that makes them more likely to tolerate spousal abuse? Is it that the progressives are always standing up for women's rights or is it something more than just reacting against the people who came along and encouraged women to have their own careers and checking accounts?

Family values, the republican version...

 

[dirtywick]

What is it about the conservative mindset that makes them more likely to tolerate spousal abuse? Is it that the progressives are always standing up for women's rights or is it something more than just reacting against the people who came along and encouraged women to have their own careers and checking accounts?

not sure, maybe a conservative could chime in with an idea.

it’s possible it’s simply in opposition to the left for some of them. then i look towards the concept of trad wives and the red pilled movement, manosphere, and things of that nature and it’s apparent that some conservatives simply think women are inferior to men, more objects than people. then there’s conservative religious types and their views on family and relationships to consider

it’s probably a complex answer.

 

[dirtywick]

Thread 'Trump’s Gift to the Money Launderers'

Aug 14, 2026

Trump’s Gift to the Money Launderers

Trump’s Gift to the Money Launderers

Treasury isn’t merely shutting down an anti-corruption database. It’s deleting the data so future investigators can’t use it.

www.thebulwark.com

In the latest (non-GI-related) development, the Department of the Treasury announced this week that it would destroy the government’s registry of shell-company ownership. This is an anti-corruption database that Treasury is by law required to maintain, so that law enforcement can more easily “follow the money” when investigating crimes.

Even worse, the Trump administration will also destroy all the data it has already collected, so that no future presidential...

• Ranb
• Replies: 9
• Forum: USA Politics

• 

conservatives don't care about white collar crime

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I was not thinking of Lewinsky when replying to a post about politicians "accused of sexual assault," but some of other women from the list of Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations^WP.

We are not talking facts here, but public awareness. The claim is that liberals voted for Bill Clinton even after knowing that he was a sexual predator, which makes the cutoff point 1996. Most of the claims went public after 1996, and they didn't receive much publicity because they were either not very credible or overshadowed by the Lewinsky affair. The nature of that affair also reduced interest in the others because it was consensual, which reduced the accusation to merely denying that it was sex - a victimless 'crime' that was prosecuted for obvious policital purposes. Several of the other accusations fall apart when viewed through that lens, with Bill Clinton coming accross as a 'horndog' rather than a molester.

However,

The scandal affected the 2000 U.S. presidential election in two different ways. Democratic Party candidate and sitting vice president Al Gore said that Clinton's scandal had been "a drag" that deflated the enthusiasm of their party's base, and had the effect of reducing Democratic votes.... Polling showed that the scandal continued to affect Clinton's low personal approval ratings through the election

More evidence that liberals tend to be less tolerant of their leaders behaving badly than conservatives are.

For a conservative parallel, consider the Stormy Daniels affair. This shouldn't have been (and wasn't) a big deal for liberals, but it should have been for 'family values' conservatives. The fact that Trump was willing to pay $130,000 of illicit 'hush money' to keep it quiet shows that he also thought it would be an issue for them. In practice though it wasn't. The Access Hollywood tape went public in October 2016, right when it should have done the most damage, but Trump still won the election despite being was caught on tape bragging about molesting women. This was a portent of the unwavering support he has since gotten for even more outragious behavior.

 

[d4m10n]

Most of the claims went public after 1996, and they didn't receive much publicity

Paula Jones lawsuit received ample publicity prior to the 1996 election, and there were even articles written attempting to justify why feminists need not take her claims seriously.

The claim is that liberals voted for Bill Clinton even after knowing that he was a sexual predator, which makes the cutoff point 1996.

No, my claim was that "being skeptical of [sexual harassment and assault] accusations is not remotely unique to the conservative mindset." Had the Democratic base voters thoroughly #metooed Mr. Clinton rather than treating Jones, Millwee, & Broaddrick as unreliable narrators, he would not have been given a prime time speaking slot at the 2000 Democratic National Convention^WP among other prominent gigs in the run-up to the Bush vs. Gore showdown.

More evidence that liberals tend to be less tolerant of their leaders behaving badly than conservatives are.

I did not say they were equally tolerant, I said they suffer from the same fundamental problem of motivated reasoning when accusations are made against their own leadership.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Paula Jones lawsuit received ample publicity prior to the 1996 election, and there were even articles written attempting to justify why feminists need not take her claims seriously.

Your link is behind a paywall, and it crashed my browser. Please quote relevant parts of linked articles so we don't have to guess what's in them.

Paula Jones

Jones alleged she was asked by an Arkansas State Police Trooper to report to Arkansas Governor Clinton's hotel room... where Clinton propositioned and exposed himself to her. She claimed she kept quiet about the incident until 1994, when a David Brock story in The American Spectator magazine printed an account. Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton on May 6, 1994, two days before the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations, and sought $750,000 in damages.

Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones could not demonstrate that she had suffered any damages. As to the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Wright ruled that Jones failed to show that Clinton's actions constituted "outrageous conduct" as required of the tort, alongside not showing proof of damages caused by distress.

A conservative Republican, Wright worked for the reelection campaign of Republican Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt in 1974.

At this time the public was not aware of any pattern of behavior from Clinton, and the incident was relatively mild. The Whitewater controversy received far more attention before the 1996 election.

The Special Committee hearings ran for 300 hours over 60 sessions across 13 months, resulting in over 10,000 pages of testimony and 35,000 pages of depositions from almost 250 people. The Senate investigation was generally partisan, with Republicans investigating Clinton and Democrats defending him. The Special Committee issued its 800-page majority report on June 18, 1996, which only hinted at one possible improper action by President Clinton

This kind of partisan 'witch hunt' was typical of Republican actions against both Clintons. Liberals could be forgiven for assuming that other accusations were just as bogus.

No, my claim was that "being skeptical of [sexual harassment and assault] accusations is not remotely unique to the conservative mindset."...

I did not say they were equally tolerant, I said they suffer from the same fundamental problem of motivated reasoning when accusations are made against their own leadership.

False dichotomy. I am talking about a tendency, not an absolute. The tendency to ignore bad behavior when one of your own is involved is much stronger among conservatives. Republicans did impeach Clinton over Lewinsky, while Democrats didn't impeach Trump over his numerous sexual improprieties. So Democrats are consistent, while Republicans aren't.

 

[dirtywick]

it all pales in comparison to what clinton was up to with epstein too. of course, nobody knew about epstein in the 90s and clinton didn't get involved with him until the 2000s after he had retired from politics.

now, there was another president who had an even greater and much more evidenced involvement with epstein, which was known before he was president and before he was president again. and it's like super obvious and absolutely vile stuff, and that doesn't even encompass all of his sexual crimes. he's done other ones. and he hired a bunch of guys that were involved in that stuff too.

conservatives don't even acknowledge that stuff out loud tho. if you want to get into overlooking bad behavior with regards to women.

and if we're going to compare liberals vs conservatives, there's no liberal epstein candidate. that's doa

 

[d4m10n]

The tendency to ignore bad behavior when one of your own is involved is much stronger among conservatives.

This may well be true, but I think you'll need better data than the handful of people who happened to hold power in two political parties over a couple decades in a single nation. This is doubly true since it is eminently doubtful whether people who've embraced Trumpism retain all or even most of the values embodied by traditional conservatism. With the exception of xenophobia, it's difficult to find much of a throughline.

Democrats didn't impeach Trump over his numerous sexual improprieties.

They had much more genuinely impeachable behavior to address, so it would have been improper and inefficient to focus on his sex life.

That said, if the question is whether Clinton or Trump have faced justice for sexual improprieties, only one of them really ever has.

A prominent blue state District Attorney formulated and prosecuted a criminal case against actions taken in furtherance of Trump's adulterous lifestyle, bootstrapping misdemeanor falsification of business records up to felony charges in an unprecedented way. Clinton lied (under oath, not just on paper) to cover up his adulterous ways, but was never criminally charged for doing so, instead facing the impeachment you mentioned above along with relatively small civil penalties and eventual suspension of his license to practice law.

They both would have been much better off keeping it in their pants, but it seems odd to argue Trump didn't face any (politically motivated) consequences for his sexual escapades, and that's before we even get into the $5 million judgment in favor of Jean Carroll.

 

[dirtywick]

This may well be true, but I think you'll need better data than the handful of people who happened to hold power in two political parties over a couple decades in a single nation. This is doubly true since it is eminently doubtful whether people who've embraced Trumpism retain all or even most of the values embodied by traditional conservatism. With the exception of xenophobia, it's difficult to find much of a throughline.

but you brought up those handful of examples to try and rebut the polling data, now you're saying a handful of examples means nothing and you need better data

They had much more genuinely impeachable behavior to address, so it would have been improper and inefficient to focus on his sex life.

That said, if the question is whether Clinton or Trump have faced justice for sexual improprieties, only one of them really ever has.

A prominent blue state District Attorney formulated and prosecuted a criminal case against actions taken in furtherance of Trump's adulterous lifestyle, bootstrapping misdemeanor falsification of business records up to felony charges in an unprecedented way. Clinton lied (under oath, not just on paper) to cover up his adulterous ways, but was never criminally charged for doing so, instead facing the impeachment you mentioned above along with relatively small civil penalties and eventual suspension of his license to practice law.

They both would have been much better off keeping it in their pants, but it seems odd to argue Trump didn't face any (politically motivated) consequences for his sexual escapades, and that's before we even get into the $5 million judgment in favor of Jean Carroll.

the question is whether or not clinton or trump faced political consequences, not legal ones.

 

[d4m10n]

but you brought up those handful of examples to try and rebut the polling data

Wait, someone ran a public opinion poll on whether politicians should be brought to justice for sexual impropriety or harassment or assault? With crosstabs by partisan alignment or ideology? ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ A, my bad. Go with whatever that said.

 

[d4m10n]

the question is whether or not clinton or trump faced political consequences, not legal ones.

The claim being put forward is that the "tendency to ignore bad behavior when one of your own is involved is much stronger among conservatives." This claim is independent of political systems, at least on it's face, since conservatives exist in all sorts of societies, times, and places.

ETA: That said, let's not pretend Alvin Bragg was an apolitical arbiter dispensing justice without an eye towards reelection in a heavily blue district.

 

[junkshop]

...conservatives don't care about white collar crime

I disagree, I think that they care very deeply about it, particularly about protecting their ability to continue getting away with it.

 

[dirtywick]

Wait, someone ran a public opinion poll on whether politicians should be brought to justice for sexual impropriety or harassment or assault? With crosstabs by partisan alignment or ideology? ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ A, my bad. Go with whatever that said.

no, you're all over the place here.

 

[dirtywick]

The claim being put forward is that the "tendency to ignore bad behavior when one of your own is involved is much stronger among conservatives." This claim is independent of political systems, at least on it's face, since conservatives exist in all sorts of societies, times, and places.

ETA: That said, let's not pretend Alvin Bragg was an apolitical arbiter dispensing justice without an eye towards reelection in a heavily blue district.

the claim is about political support amongst conservative voters, and pointed to a guy who faced legal consequences for i would say some of his most minor crimes as conservatives caring about bad behavior, but still enjoyed enough widespread support among conservatives to be elected president again. then you said, if anything, the legal consequences were partisan by a guy trying to please his blue district, so the conservatives apparently didn't have a lot to do with it anyway. so, where amongst that is conservatives not ignoring the bad behavior?

see, you're all over the place here.