Interesting research... based upon teacher's assessments of school children... these same children were interviewed 20 years later as adults to determine their political affiliations... ( the teacher's childhood assessments had no political parameter... just socialization parameters ) Striking patterns emerged correlative between how children behaved, and what political party they tended to endorse later in life. Tellingly "As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics." And also: "The study’s authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn’t to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I’m the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative." Whereas: "Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information,..." Of course... the republicans accused the researchers of being "liberals" But then, the researchers did not author the teachers' assessments of the subjects' behavior as children... nor did the researchers assess the subjects behaviors and attitudes as adults... they simply asked their political affiliations, and correlated teacher's commentary with those 20 year later party identifications. The teacher's assessments of the future republican children tended to use more pejorative terminology, as the traits they were seeing are seen as problematic in young children. While the same authoritarian, and inflexible traits that result in republican worldviews can be hugely negative... they also result in steadfastness, and reliability. There are positive aspects to these traits. However... when it comes to a world leader, in a dynamically changing world with rapidly evolving technology, choosing a leader who is intractable, inflexible and incapable of dealing with a nuanced situation is probably a very bad idea. In a world that requires courage... the timid and fearful are the last folks you want in charge.