I.? The empirical findings: The difference between liberals and conservatives as measured by the American National Election Survey over decades on issues such as the respective obligations of business, government, and individuals in regard to health insurance is well explained by two socio-economic hypotheses and poorly explained by two other socio-economic hypotheses.?? The hypotheses that work poorly to explain liberal and conservative positions are "Conservative elites vs. Liberal non-elites" and "Liberal elites vs. conservative non-elites."? The two that work well are "Conservative high-income elites vs. liberal high-education elites" (or "Executives vs. professors"), along with "Conservative low-education non-elites vs. liberal low-income non-elites" (or "Dropouts vs. the poor").?
2.? Some alternative normative stories consistent with the data: a) An MFT story, in which liberals and conservatives are both understood as biased, argumentative natural lawyers drawn from the lower ranks as well as the upper ranks of society.? b) An SJT story, in which liberals are understood as people benefiting from the way in which more education offers a broader, more reality-based, less system-justifying perspective, and conservatives are understood as people affected by the way in which more money relative to one's education leads one to have a greater interest in wanting to uphold a system that has allowed one to succeed financially. ? c) An Arthur Brooks story, in which liberals are understood as less well-adjusted people who value an oppositional, anti-business, pro-government culture associated with education and government employment, and conservatives are understood as better-adjusted people who value business and a well-functioning social order in which hard work and skill are rewarded.?? Variations on the MFT story: a1) business-skeptical libs and pro-business cons are both doing useful social work; it's all good!;? a2) libs and cons are keeping us away from harmony and truth with their ugly conflict--it's all bad!; and a3) libs and cons are simultaneously good and bad, comic and tragic in their oppositional passion; their emotions and their energy often help the social search for truth but create individuals who are fools in their dogmatism and whose us-them antipathy toward the other side can be destructive.
3.? Aesthetic/critical synthesis.? Intro material toward a synthesis: Beauty of opposites.? The truth finding that non-elites do seem to play a role in explaining the positions taken by American liberals and conservatives exists along with other truth findings that non-elites matter little or not at all (e.g., Bartels, 2010) and do not negate those other findings.? The different normative stories corresponding to the findings may be seen not as true or false but as corresponding to different people with distinctive characters.? No normative story covers all ideological believers; even if one believes that MFT and its balanced perspective on lib and con attitudes on business and other subjects provides a better take than SJT or Brooks, there are believers for whom the latter approaches get at truths that MFT does not.? What is beautiful is not the truth findings of this study in themselves, or any of the normative stories associated with it by itself, but the combination of these truths with other truths and the stories with other stories.??
Golf Channel Andy Enfield La Salle University Denny Hamlin My Chemical Romance Olympus Has Fallen Arnold Palmer Invitational 2013
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন