Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Are alpha males intrinsically right wing?
I'm reflecting and collecting thoughts and examples on alpha males these days.
All in preparation for the upcoming PU lesson.
As I reflected on it, something didn't add up:
- Most communities that idolize "alpha male" status are markedly more right-wing
- Right-wing men rarely come across as stereotypical beta males
- Extremist right-winger, fascists, are often seen as "extreme alphas"
- Guys on the left and progressive side are more likely to come across as beta males
This can't be all coincidence, but so far I couldn't yet see the mechanism why.
Now all of a sudden it seems obvious:
Alpha males are intrinsically right-wing because reaching the top is intrinsically antithetical to redistribution and equality.
On the "darker" side, some aspects of power are antithetical to the "peace and love" ideal coming from some corners of the left (in itself a naive ideal, but a different topic).
The right is very comfortable with dominant men leading -even likes them-. On the other hand, you can't conceivably have a liberal leader that is too high in dominance as that would defy the whole point of being liberal/democratic/leftist/for the people. Could you envision Trump as a democratic leader? (exceptions for revolutionary leftists apply, but those are more like despots themselves).
If you take the extreme right-wing, fascism, that's all about power and imposing one's will -also linked to the drive to power and reaching the alpha male top-.
As of now, like it or not, it seems to me that the alpha male is a lot more linked to the political right.
Of course, exceptions always apply and there are important caveats.
For example, among the younger generations, the "left side" is more associated with rebelling, and it's conservatives who come across as dorks who don't get laid.
However, that's more the extreme left that's "cool and rebel", and that's a lot more similar to high power right-wing, actually.
And the "boring" right-wing concerns more the economically and philosophically conservative side of right-wing.
Very different than the right wing that's more about "male honor", power, military, empire, and controlling others.
So, among adults, the general tendencies outlined above stand.
As a matter of fact, the left desperately needs more high-power men to shed that feel of low-powerness.
Still early days as I reflect on it and need to research it more.
But happy to read more thoughts on it.
Spot on.
Also, the right-wing is also about the established hierarchies. So they gain by having order. The extreme left is about having less structure in societies or a more fluid one.
Also, if everyone is equal (left ideology) then there is little benefit of climbing a hierarchy. Like in northern european countries. However, those who do will always have an advantage. In the US (right leaning) there is more difference between rich and poor than in Sweden (left leaning). For instance, being a doctor in the US pays way more than being a doctor in Sweden compared to the average national salary (could not find the reference anymore, but it's like 2-3 times in Sweden vs 5-6 times in US, ballpark).
The right is associated with conservatism and conservatism is about keeping the current hierarchies in place, which benefit those who want to climb them ("alpha males").
Great great post, John thank you so much!
So helpful getting input from smart folks.
As I (re)view some of the literature, it seems to confirm the same indeed.
If anyone has anything to add (or even more, to disagree) please do share.
Most of the prominent, highly visible "alpha leaders" of right-wing politics to me seem toxic-masculinity fake alphas (like dark triads).
Sure, they may come across as more "powerful" than most left-wing politicians, but I would not argue they are "high-power models" - they are just focused on "hoarding power".
As a matter of fact, I suspect that the inherent "mobility" that is present in politics (especially in democracies) makes it more likely for "toxic leaders" to stand out and to be pinpointed as "powerful men" - they are more likely to stick in the minds of observers and be remembered, if nothing else because they focus on "remaining in office" more than anything else.
By the same token I suspect that there are countless politicians, both in right-wing and in left-wing parties (and, probably more in left-wing parties), who are also able, during their mandate, to exercise high power (which is the ability to influence people) for legitimate purposes and with a high degree of warmth and "straightness/honesty" - who, however, are not focused on "hoarding" this power and therefore may be quickly forgotten after their mandate.
These to me are the real alpha men, not the toxic ones.
To me, right-wing parties seem also more likely than left-wing parties to attract people focused on "hoarding power".
Quoting Lucio from this thread (and I think this has already basically been said above):
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 30, 2020, 9:52 pmFrom "Virtue Signaling" by Geoffrey Miller:
People use political orientation as a proxy for other people’s character.
Usually, people read political orientations like this:
- Liberal: caring, and empathic. Good for child care and relationship-building
- Conservative: ambitious and self-interested. Godo at protecting and provisioning
Miller says that men use political conservativism as a (subconscious) tool to advertise their social and economical dominance, or their propensity to acquire social and economical dominance.
And women use political liberism to advertise their nurturing abilities.The shift from liberal youth to conservative middle age, says Miller, is not so much about rationality, but as a better advertising tool for the increased social dominance and earnings power.
Without being very well versed on this subject, I personally feel that since the alpha male community teaches men to have a lot of masculine energy (and frames feminine energy in men as beta behavior), alpha males avoid liberalism because, as that thread states, it's currently a (subconscious) sexual strategy used by women (and would therefore be "beta" for men to start using).
Thank you Bel and Ali!
Bel, what you say is largely true, and it seems to me that it confirms the original case of this thread.
That right-wing parties attract more of certain personality types that like to hoard power is exactly why the right is also more linked to certain alpha types.
OFF-TOPIC
The argument of "good (role model)" VS "not good (role model)" alphas is a different issue, and a diversion when first looking at "what's true" (which is what this thread was for).
We may use the label "toxic" in some cases, but that doesn't make one any less "alpha" simply because we -I put myself in the category as well- may not like them, or not see them as role models.
One may be a poor role model and a son of a bitch and still be alpha.
OFF-TOPIC
Ali,
Good point.
I personally think that the right-wing virtue signaling is a minor contribution tough (and you also have the other side of the coin, the left-wing virtue signaling, which may even be larger).
And even then, it's a chicken or egg kind of thing.
(Some) people virtue-signal being more right-wing because being right wing signals higher power / higher drive to power and personal success (and not necessarily the other way around).
So, if true, that also may confirm the original thesis here since it suggests that some people unconsciously and instinctively know that being right-wing signals a higher likelihood of acquiring more status, climbing hierarchies, amassing more resources, and generally enjoying higher personal success.
