Skip to main content

Donald Trump Explained - He is a Classical Social Dominator Oriented Leader - Are You? Take the Survey and Find Out.

ME has spent most of his retirement from service to the United States studying, thinking, and writing about the country he served.

What Is a Social Dominator Orientation

IF THE FOLLOWING HIGH profile Conservatives took the quiz below, I suspect, but don't know for sure, that all of them would score above 90%: Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum (maybe), Paul Ryan (maybe), and Eric Cantor. Ones who I think would score lower would be Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ron Huntsman, Scott Brown, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney (all, but Ron Huntsman and Scott Brown might be high RWA scorers, however). But today, the champions, in fact the poster children, are Donald Trump followed by Ted Cruz.

So, what is a Social Dominator Orientation (SDO)? Wikipedia says: "Individuals who score high in SDO desire to maintain and, in many cases, increase the differences between social statuses of different groups, as well as individual group members. Typically, they are dominant, driven, tough, and relatively uncaring seekers of power. Often, people who score high in SDO adhere strongly to belief in a "dog-eat-dog" world."; they are often leaders, either directly or of opinion ... think Rush Limbaugh. It is very important to understand SDOs because they lead a large segment of the American population; their army is largely made up of another group of people who have a different psychological profile called Right-wing Authoritarian (RWA) followers. I have written about RWAs in several other hubs.

The idea of Social Dominance Orientation derives from Social Dominance Theory (SDT), which attempts to explain why group-based inequalities and group-based social hierarchies in the world are so darn stable. According to SDT, individual people differ on the extent to which they desire group-based inequality. That is why so many questions in the quiz below are oriented in that direction. Also, as you may guess, this deals with social conservatism rather than fiscal conservatism; you can be quite fiscally conservative while still be rather socially liberal.

Research has shown that these social hierarchies can be classified into three types, age-based, gender-based, and culturally-based. Examples are, adults are held in higher esteem and have more power than children; men have more power and higher social status than women; White Americans have more power and higher social status, than Black Americans. The higher an individual ranks on the SDO scale, the more they believe this is the way things ought to be.

People who rank high on the SDO scale can come from all parts of society, but, are most often seen associated with fundamentalist-oriented religious groups of all flavors and conservative politics. In politics, an SDO often professes a strong religious belief, but a high-scoring SDO is only using this as a means to an end, it is the power they are seeking and the social order they are trying to maintain, not subservience to a Supreme Being. That is not saying they are atheist, it is only saying religion is sometimes not as important in their lives as their claims would lead one to believe.

There is nothing particularly or necessarily mean in their outlook, at least in a purposeful way; this is just what they think "normal" ought to be. In 500 B.C.E., no one thought twice about the abhorrent nature of slavery, including the slaves themselves; it was just the natural order of things. Of course, this isn't the way we think today, but it was then. SDOs are surprised when they are told their behaviour may be anti-social; they simply don't see it that way and by any measure, they are psychologically normal.

This Is The Book That Led Me to Write This Hub and One on RWA's

Understanding the SDO Personality

THE FOLLOWING IS FROM A STUDY TITLED Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Predicting Social and Political Attitudes. It is a statistical study of a hypothesized set of attitude characteristics that may be common to those who SDO. All I want to do is share the results which they found significant and not go into the statistics behind them.

In the left-hand column of the table below are the attitudes the researches considered.

ATTITUDE or CHARACTERISTICCORROLATIONSTRENGTH

GENDER

POSITIVE

STRONG

PERSONALITY VARIABLES

 

 

CONCERN FOR OTHERS

NEGATIVE

STRONG

ALTRUISM

NEGATIVE

WEAK

COMMUNALITY

NEGATIVE

MODERATE

TOLERENCE

NEGATIVE

MODERATE

IDEOLOGIES

 

 

ETHNIC PREJUDICE

POSITIVE

STRONG

NATIONALISM

POSITIVE

STRONG

CULTURAL ELITISM

POSITIVE

MODERATE

SEXISM

POSITIVE

STRONG

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

NEGATIVE

STRONG

PATROTISM

POSITIVE

STRONG

POLITICO-ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVISM

POSITIVE

MODERATE

NOBLESSE OBLIGE

NEGATIVE

STRONG

JUST WORLD

POSITIVE

WEAK

PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC

POSITIVE

VERY WEAK

POLICY ATTITUDES

 

 

SOCIAL WELFARE

NEGATIVE

STRONG

MILITARY POLICY

POSITIVE

STRONG

RACIAL POLICY

NEGATIVE

STRONG

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

NEGATIVE

MODERATE

GAY/LESBIAN RIGHTS

NEGATIVE

MODERATE

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

NEGATIVE

MODERATE

CHAUVINISM

POSITIVE

MODERATE

MISCENEGY

NEGATIVE

WEAK

REPUBLICAN PARTY PREFERENCE

POSITIVE

WEAK

LAW AND ORDER

POSITIVE

WEAK

The way to understand the table above is to compose a positive question regarding one of the items. For example, say you pick "Altruism"; then you can formulate a question like, "Altruism is a good thing."; also assume the scoring is 1-strongly disagree and 5-strongly agree. Then you can read the next two columns this way:

  • If the correlation is Positive, then SDO's will score 4, 5, or 6. Further, each score will be weighted heavier if it is a strong correlation than if it is a moderate correlation, and so on.
  • If the correlation is Negative, then SDO's will score 1, 2, or 6. Further, each score will be weighted more if it is a strong correlation than if it is a moderate correlation, and so on.

What Role do SDOs Have in Politics Today?

A BIG ONE! For the most part, they run the Republican party today and the RWA's make up their army of followers. It didn't use to be that way. Prior to 1980, the Republican party was largely in control of those who would probably score between 50% and 80% on my quiz below.

On the other hand, RWAs, Right-wing Authoritarian followers that make up a large part of the hard-core of the Conservative movement, were around in probably the same numbers prior to 1980, as they are after 1980. The difference is the authority figures they follow were prone to follow are the Social Dominators who, prior to 1980, were in the minority and they largely sat on the sidelines. With Ronald Reagan and the Christian Coalition, that all changed.

As the SDO leaders began to take control of the Republican party in the 1980s and 1990s, the army of RWA supporters came off the sidelines and entered politics in a huge way, either as politicians themselves or as voters and activists and most recently, Tea Party members. By 2000, probably earlier, the SDOs finally dominated the Republican party. (BTW, I wouldn't say either of the Bush's were SDO's, but Vice President Cheney probably was.) One of the fallout's of that sea-change in the political landscape is the political gridlock on Capital Hill; a characteristics of how SDOs play politics.

The Double High

I JUST FINISHED MY research on Right-wing Authoritarian (RWA) followers, the army of the Social Dominators. I say "army" because it is this group of people who have this particular psychological make-up that are particularly willing to follow, without question, the Social Dominator. Studies by Professor Robert Altemeyer have shown, via surveys, that the median score on his RWA assessment for American State legislators, he is Canadian, for Democrats to be about 92, while the Republicans had median score of around 117; an average score on the scale is 100. (Not to be outdone, Altemeyer found that the Canadian legislators had medians around 65 and 115, respectively; it would seem the Canadian New Democrats make our Democrats look almost conservative; Rush Limbaugh would be apocalyptic if he lived there.)

BTW, conservatives don't have a lock on this RWA and SD phenomenon. Liberals can show the same score high on both scales as well, just not in anywhere the same numbers; the only ones that seem to be immune are us moderates.

I bring this up, because in the same surveys, Professor Altemeyer also asked questions that would give him some ideas of the legislatures degree of social dominance as the scale had not been formally developed yet. What he found was that many of the high scoring RWA legislators would also be high scoring SDs. This was not surprising to him because one of the principal characteristics of an SD is the drive to power and being elected to political office is clearly on the path to this goal. A person who scores high on both the RWA and SD assessments is called a "Double High" and, if allowed to reach his or her pinnacle of success can wreck societal havoc; history is full of unfortunate examples.

More in future hubs.

I Fear SDO's, Why?

I ADMIT IT, I FEAR WHAT SDOs WILL DO TO AMERICA, even if you set the "Double High" phenomenon aside. Though there is nothing intrinsically evil in having a Social Dominator orientation; it is, in my view, antithetical to what America is all about; it violates the core values of what America is supposed to project to ourselves and the world. To have the attributes that come with a SDO can be of great benefit to those who want to become captains of industry, corporations are run by a lot of SDO individuals. Those same attributes in a politician and their followers, however, can be devastating to the cause of liberty.

Scroll to Continue

Americans have always prided themselves on using reason and logic to come to the proper conclusions in life; SDOs shun this, consider Senator Cruz (TX), and RWAs follow them. To me a clear example of what I am talking about is in my hub "Who has the better Employment and Job Growth Record? Conservatives or Moderate/Liberals (1945 - 2008)". It is obvious to me, the moderate/liberals, when in power, have done a demonstrably better job at handling America's economy and I present pretty stark statistics to back up that hypothesis; it simply isn't even a close call. Yet, out of the 15 people who have voted in my poll, 4 disagreed that the Conservatives do a poorer job in managing the economy. This is a primary characteristic of both SDOs and RWAs, denial of the assertion when the supporting facts are clear and convincing. More simplistic, if they believed 1 + 1 = 3, and not 2, then neither heaven nor hell will convince them otherwise. If difference between SDOs and RWAs, however, is the SDOs know 1 + 1 = 2, while the RWA will only believe it when their particular SDO leader says to believe it.

History is full of examples of SDO personalities who rose to power only to become dictators and tyrants; some ended up being megalomaniacs, an entirely different condition, and wrecked great havoc and misery on those they ruled. The same is true when groups of people who exhibit these traits raise to power; think the Soviet Politburo. Whether SDO or not, it goes without question, the leadership of virtually every totalitarian society, whether good or evil, would probable max out the SDO scale.

I firmly believe, those in the Conservative movement who are SDOs and are in power today, exhibit those same tendencies; whether they know it or not, it is just part of their nature; that is how they simply see life and they think it is correct. If we are continue as a free society, Americans must understand this danger, and no, I don't see us becoming a dictatorship, but I do see a severe restriction on individual liberties if today's Conservatives gain and maintain power in this country. At stake are parts of the 1st, IVth, Vth, VIth VIIIth, and XIVth Amendments to the Constitution; there has already been talk from the current set of Conservatives that these Amendment go too far and need to be limited to "what the founding fathers meant them to be" or that they are in violation of the principals of the "founding fathers"; to me, this is very scary talk; to an SDO, it makes all of the sense in the world.

Social Dominance Orientation Scale

For each question, choose the best answer for you.

  1. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  2. In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  3. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  4. Increased social equality is beneficial to society.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  5. It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  6. No group should dominate in society.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  7. Inferior groups should stay in their place.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  8. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  9. It would be good if groups could be equal.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  10. Group equality should be our ideal.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  12. If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  13. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  14. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  15. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure
  16. It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.
    • Agree
    • Disagree
    • Not Sure

Scoring

Use the scoring guide below to add up your total points based on your answers.

  1. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
    • Agree: +1 point
    • Disagree: -1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  2. In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.
    • Agree: +1 point
    • Disagree: -1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  3. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.
    • Agree: +1 point
    • Disagree: -1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  4. Increased social equality is beneficial to society.
    • Agree: -1 point
    • Disagree: +1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  5. It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.
    • Agree: +1 point
    • Disagree: -1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  6. No group should dominate in society.
    • Agree: -1 point
    • Disagree: +1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  7. Inferior groups should stay in their place.
    • Agree: +1 point
    • Disagree: -1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  8. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.
    • Agree: +1 point
    • Disagree: -1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  9. It would be good if groups could be equal.
    • Agree: -1 point
    • Disagree: +1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  10. Group equality should be our ideal.
    • Agree: -1 point
    • Disagree: +1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life.
    • Agree: -1 point
    • Disagree: +1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  12. If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.
    • Agree: +1 point
    • Disagree: -1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  13. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.
    • Agree: -1 point
    • Disagree: +1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  14. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.
    • Agree: -1 point
    • Disagree: +1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  15. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.
    • Agree: -1 point
    • Disagree: +1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points
  16. It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.
    • Agree: +1 point
    • Disagree: -1 point
    • Not Sure: +0 points

Interpreting Your Score

A score between -16 and -7 means: ?

A score between -6 and 3 means: ?

A score between 4 and 9 means: ?

A score between 10 and 12 means: ?

A score between 13 and 16 means: ?

I DECIDED TO START A NEW RESULTS POLL in order to obtain a finer gradient of answers. At the same time, each bucket is now the same size which allows for much easier analysis than in the previous format (we learn as we grow). Once enough results are given in this new format, I can use them to figure out how to redistribute the previous poll into this format so that I can incorporate all of those results as well.

Thank you for participating.

Please, Let Us Know How You Scored

Results in Numbers

New N = 328

N = 975 when combined with the previous poll (647). The bolded numbers are the total of two polls for each 10% bucket.

RESULTS

91 - 100%: 13 + 33 ( 5%) = 46 (5%)

81 - 90%: 13 + 21 (3%) = 34 (3%)

71 - 80%: 10 + 23 (4%) = 33 (3%)

61 - 70%: 20 + 23 (4%) = 43 (4%)

51 - 60%: 13 + 27 (4%) = 40 (4%)

41 - 50%: 16 + 27 (4%) = 43 (4%)

31 - 40%: 39 + 65 (10%) = 104 (11%)

21 - 30%: 26 + 65 (10%) = 91 (9%)

11 - 20%: 46. + 120 (19%) = 166 (17%}

1 - 10%: 131 + 243 (38%) = 374 (38%)

As one would expect, the scores are weighted to the low end (80% <= 50) as opposed the higher end (20% > 50)

I HAVE CLOSED THE SURVEY BELOW IN FAVOR of the one above with the new format. Once enough data has been accumulated in the new survey, I can incorporate what has been obtained in the one below with it.

Let Us Know How You Scored

BREAKING DOWN THE PERCENTAGES

N - 647

RANGE

- 95 - 100%: 26

- 85 - 94%: 13

- 60 - 84%: 58

- 41 - 59%: 52

- 16 - 40%: 162

- 6 - 15%: 175

- 0 - 5%: 155

What are your political leanings?

DEMOGRAPHIC POLL

A Little Analysis of the Above Survey

BECAUSE I CANNOT link the SDO survey results with the participants political persuasion, I can only deal hypothetically as to whether there is a relation, in other words, I can show you roughly what it would be like IF there were some sort of relationship between political orientation and Social Dominator orientation. Other studies I have read and presented show this to be the case, but the Hub polling and survey instruments are too limited to make this convenient to accomplish.

Below are two Chi-Square tables; Chi-Square is a statistical technique to determine the hypothesis of whether there is a statistically significant relationship between two events or not. I can't do that in this case because I don't know from our sample which person who scored a certain way on the SDO survey

Table 1 represents the hypothetical distribution of results IF there was ZERO bias because of political orientation or any other factor; this table is actually part of a real statistical analysis. The fourth column represents how many people should score in each percent grouping based on the 31 votes cast so far. The fifth column represents how those 50 votes are actually distributed in my sample.

Because there are now more then 30 responses, I can begin saying, with some degree of statistical certainty that there IS bias somewhere; the question is, of course, where. I don't believe I need to bore you with numbers at this point, because it should be extremely obvious just by comparing the two columns.

Table 2 presents a hypothetical distribution we might see from our survey if there was the kind of bias toward Conservative orientation that I know exists. What happens in a real analysis is a difference is taken, squared, and further manipulated. The results are compared to some statistical tables which will determine, within a predetermined degree of certainty, if a relationship exists.

The problem I have is that the mechanics of hubpage polling doesn't let me, easily at least, ask a given respondent what group there SDO survey results fell into and, at the same time, what their political orientation is. If I could, then I could do some neat statistical analysis to test whether political orientation actually does correlate with SD ratings. Instead, I must now infer a relationship based on what the numbers are telling me and what makes common sense.

First, let me note that even considering the reticence one might have of reporting, albeit anonymously, a very high score like 95% or higher, I am not surprised it is zero; extreme SDO's are rare indeed. I do appreciate those two readers, so far, who did report their relatively high scores, and want to thank them for the information.

If you have read the survey questions, it should be obvious Liberals would generally not answer them in such a way as to score high on this survey because most of the ideas contained in those questions run counter to a liberal philosophy. Consequently, it would be very reasonable to assume that most of the 22 self-identified Liberals scored somewhere between 0 and 40%. You cannot say the opposite about those who identified themselves as Moderate or Conservative with anywhere near the same amount of certainty; you may suspect it, but you can't say it, at this point in time, like you can about the Liberals, e.g., you can't say it would be very reasonable to expect Conservatives to score between 60 and 100%, it simply wouldn't be true.

What can you say? At the moment, with only 18 Moderate and Conservative responses, you can't say much; just hint at it. So, what I will hint at is that the data is beginning to show there might be a relationship between political orientation and SD orientation. I say this because IF Liberals account for most of the survey results between 0 and 40%, then it stands to reason that the Moderates and Conservatives are spread among the higher scores. There are, at the moment, 10 scores 41% or greater and, as I suggested, it is highly unlikely that Liberals were the ones who ended up with those results. Therefore, I can infer that the Moderates and Conservatives did.

6/22/2012: There are now 60 survey results which is a milestone of sorts. There are at least enough votes distributed between the three political groupings where there should be at least one result (rounded) in reach range, 0% - 5%, 6% - 15%. etc.. When the numbers rounded to zero anywhere in my statistical matrix, it caused problems, not that you care much, but I do. Anyway, what I wanted to point out that in the second chart, it should be obvious that the results are highly skewed, depending on which political leaning you have. This is not because I made them that way as some of you who might be skeptical might think. What you are seeing is about the only distribution of numbers that will work to make the totals of each column and each row of the 3 x 7 matrix I have to build to solve this statistical problem to come out right.

If you have questions, please leave a comment, you know I will answer, lol.

9/8/2013: With 317 responses to the survey (AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE IT) I can show you with a degree of confidence that Liberals, Moderates, and those who call themselves Conservatives (most of them aren't really) see the world through different colored glasses; once I can get an equal number of results from the RWA survey, this can be shown from a different direction as well.

If you look at the Tables and Charts below (which have been explained above a bit). you will see what I mean. I am going to focus on the Charts, they are easier to understand and quite visually obvious.. First flip through the series of Charts labeled, THEORETICAL vs ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SDO SCORES BY POLITICAL GROUP; it presents the results of Table 1.

These charts, with the last one representing the latest data, compare the actual data with a "theoretical unbiased" distribution of results. This means that if the only factor influencing the outcome is random chance, then the Actual and Theoretical bars on the graphs would be identical. A quick glance shows you they are not, in fact they are not even close to being the same. They are so different, I don't even have to present any numbers to prove anything. What these charts clearly tell you is there is some non-random mechanism going on that introduces an obvious bias toward non-SDO behavior in the general population; that is what it means to have the bars skewed to the left as they are.

BUT, these aren't the most interesting charts, it is the next set of Charts that hold the key to this Hub. These charts, labeled DISTRIBUTION OF POLITICALLY-BASED BIASED SDO SCORES, compare the different self-reported political preferences and scores and are a graphical representation of Table 2. In normal surveys, there is a one-to-one correspondence to a political preference and Social Dominator Orientation; unfortunately, in Hubpages, this cannot be easily accomplished. I can, however, come close using one of the other surveys on Political Persuasion, which is what I did here.

It is an gross understatement to say the differences between SDO scores of Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives is dramatic! By the time you get to the chart where the sample size is 317 responses. it becomes patently obvious that each political view has charted out its own unique pattern and position on the graph. Liberals are grouped with a strong bias toward low SDO scores, while Conservatives have a strong bias toward higher SDO scores. Moderates, as would be expected, fall in-between, but with a low score bias.

Keep in mind, everybody is answering the same set of questions so it is clear perceptions are very different as you move across the political spectrum. This isn't to say one is bad and the other is good, it is simply how people are genetically wired and how those genetics have interacted with the environment over the person's lifetime to form their worldview. Having said that, these worldviews lead to extremely different types of governments, leadership styles, and how legislatures accomplish their work.

STATISTICALLY UNBIASED DISTRIBUTION OF MY SURVEY RESULTS

 LIBERALMODERATECONSERVATIVETheoretical DistributionActual Aggregate Distribution

95% - 100%

17

9

35

31

12

85% - 94%

29

14

8

51

8

60% - 84%

73

36

19

128

24

41% - 59%

55

27

15

97

22

16% - 40%

70

34

18

122

73

6% - 15%

29

14

8

51

92

0% - 5%

17

9

5

31

86

Total

291

143

79

511

317

HYPOTHETICAL BIASED DISTRIBUTION OF MY SURVEY RESULTS

 LIBERALMODERATECONSERVATIVEActual Total

95% - 100%

0

0

19

19

85% - 94%

0

1

14

15

60% - 84%

8

10

24

42

41% - 59%

19

15

12

46

16% - 40%

72

41

6

119

6% - 15%

93

54

2

149

0% - 5%

91

23

0

121

Total

291

143

77

511

REPRESENTATIVE STEVE STOCKMAN

REPRESENTATIVE STEVE STOCKMAN

A PROFILE IN HIGH SCORING SDOness - Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX)

12/21/13: I JUST FINISHED READING A PIECE FROM POLITICO titled Steve Stockman Can't Lose: The political genius of the wackiest firebrand in Texas.. Who the heck is Steve Stockman and why is Politico crucifying him? As it turns out Mr. Stockman is the Representative from Texas' newly created 36th Congressional District; he assumed office January 13, 2013, the second time he has been a Congressman. The first time was as the Representative from Texas' 9th Congressional District.from 1995 - 1997. Filing his papers on the day of the deadline, where just a few weeks before he told friends he was not going run, Congressman Stockman is now challenging Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) . Also, along with being a newly minted Senatorial candidate, Stockman is a poster child for possessing high-scoring SDO personality.

I draw that conclusion from reading the particulars about Stockman's life and political career, it is classic SDO. While you may not have actually heard of Representative Stockman directly, you probably do recognize some of his SDO such as tweeting “Obamacare is less popular than Chlamydia” and producing a bumper sticker which reads "If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted!” You frequently here this kind of outlandish hyperbole from both serious SDO and RWA personalities. But this find of rhetoric does not make an SDO, it just puts up a red flag.