Mediaboss Marketing

Recent political history has shown that United States conservative leaders tend to vote against the expansion of federal welfare, or social safety net, programs. But are conservative-leaning citizens less likely than their liberal-leaning peers to enroll in said programs and accept aid for themselves?

Thats the question that Virginia Techs Shreyans Goenka answered with his recentlypublished research, Are Conservatives Less Likely Than Liberals to Accept Welfare? The Psychology of Welfare Politics.

This research shows that conservatives are less likely than liberals to enroll in federal welfare programs only when the welfare program does not have a work requirement policy, said Goenka.

Shreyans Goenkais an assistant professor of marketing in the Pamplin College of Business. His research investigates consumer morality. He examines how moral beliefs shape consumption preferences and economic patterns. In doing so, his research produces implications for understanding how morality can help inform policy decisions, marketing positioning strategies, and prosocial campaigns.

The researchers analyzed how participation rates in the federal Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, was influenced by a change in the work requirement policy. When SNAP had a work requirement from 2005-08, the Republican-leaning states and Democratic-leaning states recorded similar levels of welfare participation. However, when the work requirement was waived from 2009-13, the Republican-leaning states recorded lower levels of welfare participation than the Democratic-leaning states.

Follow-up controlled experiments show that conservatives believe it is morally wrong to accept welfare if they are not contributing back to society in some manner.

Conservatives tend to believe that accepting welfare without reciprocal work can make them a burden on society, explained Goenka. Therefore, conservatives are less likely than liberals to enroll in welfare programs without work requirements.

Importantly, the research also shows how policymakers can utilize marketing messaging strategies to boost conservatives' welfare participation.

When welfare brochures highlight how welfare programs can serve the interest of society as whole, conservatives welfare enrollment increases, added Goenka. Policymakers can utilize this research to redesign welfare marketing materials and boost participation in welfare programs.

Journal of the Association for Consumer Research

Are Conservatives Less Likely Than Liberals to Accept Welfare? The Psychology of Welfare Politics

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

See more here:
Pamplin professor explores psychology of welfare politics - EurekAlert

Should Canada be purist or practical when it comes to climate change?

Over the next few weeks, there will be some key indications about which path the federal Liberals will choose, and the smart money is on the practical despite pressure from some environmentalists.

Of course, the energy security problems raised by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and attempts to embargo Russian energy heavily favour the practical approach.

The world is looking to Canadian oil and gas producers to increase their production right now in the hopes of offsetting some of the strain of high prices and cutting off Russian supplies, even if it means emissions wont go down as much as hoped.

But theres more to the practical approach than geopolitics.

In a paper to be published this week after two years of looking for a consensus among industry, government, environmentalists and Indigenous communities, the Public Policy Forum argues that a purist approach would just hurt too much.

Two overarching visions of the energy transition are competing for the hearts and minds of Canadians, say lead authors Ed Greenspon, who heads the PPF, and Wayne Wouters, the former clerk of the Privy Council and now a strategic policy adviser at McCarthy Tetrault LLP.

The purist approach an accelerated phaseout of oil and gas, replacing it quickly with renewables and clean electricity risks disrupting the way we live, our jobs and our international relations, they say.

On the other hand, a practical approach an aggressive decarbonization that promotes renewables and clean energy while cutting emissions from oil and gas would be more conducive to a smooth transition for workers and investors, and open the door to a boom in private-sector activity supported by public-sector measures.

But in order to make it work, says Wouters, we have to be all in large emitters, policy-makers, taxpayers, consumers, investors and Indigenous communities. And we have to be organized, setting out strategies that will carry us through the next decades despite election cycles and the Conservative leadership race that is throwing climate policy into question, he added in an interview.

The paper goes on to outline the many steps that need to be taken in order to wrestle our emissions to the ground, from mass electrification to mass marketing in order to sell consumers and the world on the benefits. A transparent price on carbon is only the beginning.

The ideas are frequent refrains in the speeches we hear from government and business leaders. To make them real, though, the decisions in the next few weeks are central.

By law, the government needs to produce the first instalment of its plan to meet Canadas 2030 emissions targets by the end of March. And in the first half of April, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland will table the federal budget, which will include substantive new measures to fight climate change.

The telling move will come in what those documents say about carbon capture and storage (CCS). By capturing the carbon dioxide that comes from producing things like oil, gas, cement or steel, and then storing it underground, the technology could allow the continued use of fossil fuels with a much lower emissions profile.

Last years budget promised to create an investment tax credit to encourage companies to build CCS facilities, and this years budget is widely expected to set out the parameters of that measure.

The thing is, purists dont like CCS. A group of 400 academics wrote recently to Freeland saying tax credits are akin to subsidies for oil and gas, breaking our international commitments and prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels.

The federal government looks like it will go ahead with the measure anyway. It has consulted widely and is clearly in the midst of crafting policy. On Monday, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson co-wrote an opinion column for the National Observer, touting the benefits of carbon capture and storage.

But whether the government decides to go big or go small will be a clear indication of whether it is bending towards the practical or the purist route to climate change.

Alberta wants the tax credit to cover up to 75 per cent of eligible investments, but the current system of tax credits for research and development applies to just 35 per cent. The new credit will probably fall somewhere in between, in true Canadian style not quite going all in, but signalling support for ongoing long-term oil and gas production all the same.

That would make sense in todays environment.

Oil prices are sky high, and so are profits. With Canadas carbon price set to climb steeply and capital markets around the world rewarding companies that transition to low carbon, there are already incentives in place to push companies towards cutting emissions. A tax credit will help too, but it doesnt need to carry the entire burden.

Regardless, its only a start on the many things business and government will have to do together if they want a practical approach to climate change to succeed. Electrification alone will cost many, many billions in private and public money, and the plan to find that money is scattered and nebulous.

A signal on carbon capture and storage is one thing, and a full-blown vision to steer the economy, the public, and politics towards a net-zero world is another.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

Read more:
When it comes to emissions, Liberals will choose the practical not the purist route - Toronto Star

Quebec Liberal leader Dominique Anglade proposed on Sunday to lift the QST on electricity bills "up to $4,000" on a temporary basis.

"The cost of living situation is extremely difficult for everyone," she told a news conference in Montreal, citing economic uncertainty, high inflation and the Ukrainian conflict. "It's not a luxury in Quebec to have heat and electricity."

Criticizing Premier Francios Legault's decision, which in 2019 indexed the rates of Hydro-Quebec to inflation, she proposed to "put a freeze" on them.

The rates were frozen in 2020, but must be indexed from 2021 to 2024.

The consumer price index inflation rate was 5.1 per cent in January, according to the Bank of Canada.

The official opposition leader also wants to abolish once and for all the provincial tax on certain necessities, such as soap, shampoo, toothbrushes and non-prescription drugs.

In total, she estimates that these measures would cost the government $1.5 billion, but she says the additional revenues generated over the past year are more than enough to cover the new expenses.

Anglade called on the premier to "take the proposal we are making today and apply it to the budget."

The budget is scheduled for March 22.

-- This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French on March 13, 2022.

See more here:
Quebec Liberals want to suspend taxes on electricity and nix QST on some basic necessities - CTV News Montreal

The 2022 midterms are here. Its likely that the Republican Party retakes the House and possibly the Senate. With Bidens appalling approval numbers and the likelihood that not much else is going to get done on the Hill, Democrats face a thin record to sell to voters who only see inflation rising, a supply chain crisis that remains out of control, and a president who is totally aloof. The Democrats only have a four-seat majority in the House. Its going red. So, what will be the fate of the January 6 Select Committee? It should be trashed. I think it will since we all know its a Democratic Party circus being used as a fundraising ploy. Its also a shoddy and transparent push to convict Trump onsomething to prevent him from running for president again. The irony is the more aggressive this committee gets on their January 6 hysterics; it only increases the likelihood that Trump runs out of spite. Yet, former Speaker Newt Gingrich went even further, suggesting that the committee members could be jailed for their involvement in the anti-Trump witch hunt (via Newsweek):

Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, responded with a warning after prominent Republican Newt Gingrich suggested that members of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack against the U.S. Capitol could face jail time if the GOP returns to power.

Gingrich, who served as House Speaker from 1995 to 1999, made the remarks during an interview with Fox News on Sunday morning. He predicted what will happened to the January 6 committee if Republicans take control of Congress. "The wolves are gonna find out that they're now sheep, and they're the ones whoin fact, I thinkface a real risk of jail for the kind of laws they're breaking," Gingrich said.

Cheney, a staunch Trump critic, serves as the vice-chair of the House select committee investigating the January 6 violence. She tweeted a response to Gingrich's threat later on Sunday.

Yeah, I dont know about jail, but if remarks like this ruffle the feathers of liberals and anti-Trump RepublicansIm all for it. And Liz Cheney is the perfect person to fall for this because shes just obsessed with de-Trumping the GOP. Its not going to happen, Liz. Maybe that will sink in when you get primaried out of your seat. Leaving out the straight to jail aspect of this, the committee has been saddled with eye roll-worthy moments. The texts that Mark Meadows turned over would probably bear more weight if key members of the committee didnt peddle doctored versions of them. The credibility of this whole act was shoddy, to begin with, and Democrats spewing fake texts just embodies the ethos around this whole production. The truth doesnt matter if Trump goes down. Hes not. How many times have we heard that the walls are closing in, and nothing happens?

Original post:
Gingrich: If GOP Retakes the House, 1/6 Committee Members ...

Jonathan Haidt researches ways to understand the way we make moral value judgments, and he's working to use that understanding to help us bridge the conflicts and divisions threatening us. I've just finished reading his 2012 book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion." I want to share a few insights in hopes that you'll be intrigued to read more from him.

Much of our moral thinking is coded into our genetics. People who inherit brains that delight in novelty, variety and pleasure and who tend to be less sensitive to signs of threat are predisposed to grow up to become liberal. People whose brains are alert to potential threat and not so disposed to novelty tend to ripen as conservative. Think of a continuum, not either/or. Life circumstances can influence and change our development, but we come pre-wired to some extent.

Humanity needs both kinds of brains.

Haidt says human beings have "taste buds" for six psychological sensitivities that form our moral values. Liberals tend to focus on three of these moral tastes; conservatives value all six. Much of our conflict and division comes from our holding different core values and misunderstanding each other's perspective.

He describes these six moral foundations in terms of values that we treasure and in terms of their opposite negative triggers. The shared three are:

(1) Care/Harm: All of us intuitively desire to protect our children and the people and things that we love. When triggered by threats that may harm them, compassion motivates us to act in their defense through protective caring and kindness.

(2) Liberty/Oppression: We all desire liberty; we yearn to be free from oppression and oppressors.

(3) Fairness/Cheating: We value reciprocal cooperation that enables trustworthy relationships. Fair-dealing should be rewarded; cheating and deceiving should be restrained.

Liberals and conservatives all embrace these three sets of values. Liberals focus more strongly on the care/harm and liberty/oppression foundations: social justice, compassion for the poor, the struggle for equality, defense of the vulnerable. Conservatives often resent liberal programs that infringe on their liberties or tell them how to run their business and lives under the banner of protecting workers, minorities, consumers and the environment.

Conservatives care more about fairness/cheating and believe in proportionality. Work hard and you earn your rewards. Do the crime, do the time. Liberals will often trade away proportional fairness if it conflicts with compassion or the desire to fight oppression.

The other three sets of moral foundations appeal especially to conservatives.

(4) Loyalty/Betrayal: All humans are descendants of successful tribes who formed coalitions. We value the sacrifice of our loyal team players; we punish traitors or anyone who threatens our group.

(5) Authority/Subversion: Maintaining order and justice requires stable traditions, institutions and values. Respect legitimate authority and rank; hold subversion accountable.

(6) Sanctity/Degradation: The world is complicated and threatening. Some things are noble, pure and elevated; others are base, polluted and degraded. It is a sacred duty to preserve institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community. Protect the sacred; avoid and purge the toxic.

Haidt believes liberals and conservatives are both necessary for healthy political life. Liberals are experts in care. They "see the victims of existing social arrangements, and they continually push to update those arrangements and invent new ones." Social conservatives understand "you don't usually help the bees by destroying the hive."

We all tend to gravitate toward groups that share our values. We create narratives and principle to justify our own group's beliefs.

Haidt says our minds are designed for "groupish righteousness." Shared values bind us to like-minded people. Shared values also blind us. Within the echo chamber of our groups, we often fail to see and hear the values and morality of other temperaments.

Lately I've been reading the letters to the editor with these six "taste buds" in mind. When I find myself triggered by something annoying, I ask myself, "What moral foundation value is motivating this writer?" It's easy to see what they are against, I need to ask, "What are you for? What values are you defending or promoting." I think people are usually right in what they affirm and often wrong in what they deny.

Frequently the people I instinctively disagree with are sensing a threat that I may not recognize yet. Maybe a threat to values and traditions that do help sustain a strong community.

How can we recognize the moral foundation grounding another's belief? If we can slow down, even for two minutes, the flash of reaction can yield to a calmer, reasoned curiosity. We need conservative and liberal minds. Can we listen and help one another?

Here is the original post:
OPINION | LOWELL GRISHAM: Author suggests liberals, conservatives have more in common than many people think - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette