While to a large extent that is true, I think a larger part of the issue is that people actually have different foundational mental models of how the world "rea

While to a large extent that is true, I think a larger part of the issue is that people actually have different foundational mental models of how the world "really" works. Conservatives, for the most part, believe that a hierarchy of haves and have-nots is not only natural, but inevitable. It is consistent for them to therefore extrapolate that anyone claiming to work on flattening the hierarchy (by giving to the have-nots) must really be trying to get their in-group further up the hierarchy, at the expense of those currently benefitting from it. That's why "He’s not hurting the people he needs to be" can be rationalized as in their self interest. In their view, there is some constant, immutable amount of "hurt" that some demographic has to bear. "No such thing as a free lunch" and such. So deep down, conservatives interpret any calls to reduce that harm as instead being an existential threat to redirect that harm to their group. I really recommend Ian Danskin's videos on the subject, they explain it better than I can in one HN comment, with plenty of scholastic sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4&list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ&index=10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4&list=PLJA_jUddXv... (Linked is "Always a Bigger Fish". Many of the historical sources justifying the argument are discussed in the "endnote" video that follows, but this video is the one that lays out this particular argument, along with the later video "I Hate Mondays")