The bulk of Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion is devoted to examining how ethnocentrism influences how certain Americans approach various policy issues and hot button topics. Kinder and Kam are keen to note that ethnocentrism does not have an effect on every political topic. Rather, ethnocentrism is activated when a particular political issue, or a media framing of the issue, is presented as an "us against them" conflict. Sadly, this "us against them" frame fits many of the issues currently facing America. Thus, while ethnocentrism doesn't affect every political debate is does influence public opinion on a wide variety of topics. In Part 2 of Us Against Them, from chapters 4-10, Kinder and Kam use two different measures of ethnocentrism to predict attitudes on a variety of political topics. Summarising, ethnocentrism predicts the following:
- An aggressive, hawish foreign policy stance.
- Less empathy for foreign civilian casualties in America's wars (e.g., the deaths of Iraqi women and children in the War on Terror).
- Less support for foreign aid and assistance.
- Support for anti-immigration policies and protective measures to preserve "our American" culture from the effects of immigration.
- Opposition to gay rights.
- Opposition to policies, such as affirmative action, aimed at redressing historic inequalities between blacks and whites.
- Opposition to means-tested welfare (i.e., programs for low-income persons) such as Food Stamps or Medicaid.
- Support for social insurance welfare, such as Social Security and Medicare.
The contrast between these last two are the most interesting to me. Generally speaking, Americans like social welfare programs. Imagine trying to run for political office today on the platform that you would eliminate Social Security or Medicare. Think about how the GOP stirred up the fears of seniors that health insurance reform for "those people" would take away Medicare or Social Security. (One of the great ironies of the health reform debate: Republicans defending Medicare and Social Security.)So, we like the welfare state. More precisely, we like social welfare that is for us. But we are against welfare for them.
As liberals typically prefer to do, instead of dealing with an intellectual discussion of various issues on their merits, they prefer to paint those who would oppose those policies as suffering from some prejudice or defect (e.g, if you oppose "X" policy, you must be a racist, and if you oppose "Y" policy, you must be a sexist, or homophobe, or fill in the malady du jour).
They do so because to deal with a particular issue on the merits (employing logic and reason) typically leads to them losing the debate. Thus, the tried and true fallback is employed.
Ironically, it's the same tactic employed by Republicans that liberals tend to hate so much when Republicans use it (e.g., "if you oppose the Patriot Act, you must be unpatriotic", etc.).
This tactic, when employed by both sides (and make no mistake that it's being employed here) is perhaps the single leading factor to the coarsening and balkanization of American politics. I suspect that when the political winds change, and Republicans again hold the power and employ these types of arguments, Dr. Beck (and the book's authors) won't find it so powerful.
If, based on the blog post above, one cannot discern that the Kinder and Kam book is primarily political and secondarily social science, then perhaps one really shouldn't be reading books without pretty pictures.
Again, the data is pretty straightforward. Mostly just correlations on publicly available data sets. You could run the same analyses yourself to check their results. I encourage you to do so! Let us know what bias you find.
1. That still would not disprove anything in my post.
2. Did you have the same view of the "correlations on publicly available data sets" from "The Bell Curve" or any other work with conclusions that you preferred weren't the case? Have you read "The Vision of the Anointed"? How did you react to the empirical evidence presented there which was pretty "straightforward" and the conclusions based thereon? I'm curious. Or do you read only those that present conclusions based on empirical evidence which support opinions you already have?
3. From the 50 or so pages available on Google Books, which I have indeed read, see my first post again.
Also, we should add to the list from your main post:
9. More likely to give of their personal income to charitable causes for the less fortunate.
10. Probably more likely to adopt someone of another race.
11. More likely to be pro-life.
12. More likely to be self-identified, evangelical Christians.
I guess those must not have made Kinder and Kam's list.
I would also point out that while ethnocentrism may tend to produce these kinds of stances on policy issues, it is not the only basis upon which they may be justified.
For example, one could oppose gay rights because of a philosophical anthropology in which homosexuality is an aberration of human nature and should not be endorsed by the state (so as to confer rights of marriage, etc.). This has nothing to do with ethnocentrism.
Opposition to foreign aid and assistance might be based on their dubious effectiveness when the money ends up in the hands of corrupt third world governments, and/or on a policy of nonintervention in international affairs, as the Founding Fathers intended.
Opposition to affirmative action might be based upon fear of reverse discrimination and of hiring decisions being based on a quota mentality rather than the relevant qualifications of job candidates.
Opposition to food stamps and medicaid might be based on an economic belief that charity should be left in private hands rather than the government, which funds these programs through taxpayer dollars.
Really, the only policy stance that I can see which is intrinsically linked to ethnocentrism is the support for anti-immigration policies and a desire to preserve American culture from 'their' influence. All the others follow from certain quite plausible philosophical, political and economic intuitions.
Your premise is that humans can live without bias. I don't believe that we can, because we all have certain opinions or convictions which influence our judgments. We cannot live with any sense of "self" apart from these judgements.
American politics has to lend itself to an "either/or", because America has two predominant political views.
You take the stance that identification factors subvert compassion or globalist ideals. Compassion is always subverted if one does not feel secure in their sense of "self". So, you are biased against things that you deem to be uncompassionate and do not have compassion on those who do not feel secure.
Safety or security is a valid concern in a world of survival, evil and terror. And with evolution's premise, there is an intuitive fear or anxiety that security will be undermined.
Feelings are affected whenever we identify with certain issues, and they can lead us to impassioned action. But, our government has many ways to address differences of opinion, which can serve to dissolve passions.
I agree that the anti-immigration stance is one of an "us/them". Our country is a by-product of immigrants. The reason that we have such views today has more to do with our fear that resources will not outlast the influx of those who want to immigrate and our culture will suffer the effects of "strangers" that bring their own "laws" within our borders. This is not an irrational fear, as we must protect against subversion of our laws and way of life. Otherwise, we loose "our identity".
JD,
I think that is exactly right. There are lot's of reasons (good and bad) for coming out a certain way on issues such as these. And just because a person has a certain view we should not assume ethnocentrism is the reason.
What I find important to wrestle with in the book (as a Christian) is the evidence that ethnocentrism is a factor in American life and it affects a wide range of issues. The fact that we might not be able to say if ethnocentrism is operative for a given person in a given policy stance doesn't mean we shouldn't confront the "us versus them" dynamics that can hurt our common good.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Agreed. I think ethnocentrism is an irrational, destructive idolatry that is responsible for many evils. As Christians we definitely need to confront it, especially when it masquerades as 'defending the faith'.
@ iowa,
You said, "As liberals typically prefer to do, instead of dealing with an intellectual discussion of various issues on their merits, they prefer to paint those who would oppose those policies as suffering from some prejudice or defect"
"They do so because to deal with a particular issue on the merits (employing logic and reason) typically leads to them losing the debate".
So really what you are saying here is that the "merits" are what YOU and those on YOUR side of the arguement want to talk about. Furthermore, you suggest that to bring in any other aspect of a debate that YOU don't agree with is simply just not using logic and reasoning.
If WE would simply just employ said "logic and reasoning", WE would see that the only thing worth discussing are the "merits". (i.e. what YOU want to discuss) However, and this is where it gets complicated, WE have presumably already employed YOUR logic and reasoning because, as you have said, when WE do, this leads to US losing the debate and so WE fall back on OUR tried and true tactics of discussing issues that YOU don't want to talk about. (i.e. YOUR merits)
As Dr. Beck pointed out, "ethnocentrism is activated when a particular political issue, or a media framing of the issue, is presented as an "us against them" conflict".
I think you are probably right; ethnocentrism is not at work at all in these discussions. ;)
"I agree that the anti-immigration stance is one of an "us/them"."
- Except that very, very few, if any, are "anti-immigration". Anti-immigration and anti-illegal immigration are two separate things. The line between the is intentionally blurred by one political ideology for a reason.
Even so, by nearly any standards, the United States has some of the most relaxed immigration laws on the planet (even compared to Mexico), and thus by an objective measure we would be less ethnocentric than most, including our neighbors to the south.
"I think you are probably right; ethnocentrism is not at work at all in these discussions. ;)"
- And again, by your own measure, Dr. Beck's entirely one-sided approach to the issue (and any issue) would just as likely be ethnocentrism. I'd say that it's surprising that you don't see that, but it's really not surprising. :)
"And again, by your own measure, Dr. Beck's entirely one-sided approach to the issue (and any issue) would just as likely be ethnocentrism. I'd say that it's surprising that you don't see that, but it's really not surprising". :)
Actually brother, Dr. Beck's examples are of what ethnocentrism predicts. Never once did he present these predictions as "us vs. them". Had he presented them this way you would have had a case. Simply using an example of "us vs. them" committed by people who hold the same political ideology as you does not equal ethnocentrism.
I don't feel you have a problem with the definition of ethnocentrism but with the examples that were used. (i.e you feel your political views are being attacked and that is why your tone was, well...defensive) It should not surprise you that Dr. Beck uses these examples because he has spoken of them before. After all, it is his blog; we are just guests so lets all try to keep the discussions civil so we can continue having them.
Thanks for your contributions Iowa. :)
"Never once did he present these predictions as "us vs. them". Had he presented them this way you would have had a case."
Well that's demonstrably incorrect, "anonymous". No sentient reader of this blog would conclude that issues aren't presented in an "us vs. them" way. I'm not the only one to comment on that, of course. He approaches things from a liberal perspective. To me, that's not a negative at all. We need more people with opinions on these issues, liberal and conservative. But to argue that this isn't a highly partisan blog is silly. Thus, my point stands. One need only look at the examples he chooses (photos, examples) to realize that one of the primary purposes of this blog is to attack political conservatism. Thus, my point stands.
@Iowa,
As a experimental psychologist, I bet Dr. Beck holds to an evolutionary position regards the human race. This view is based in science, which is verifiable. Therefore, the predictions he makes are based on the social science frame, not a religious, political or "other" frame.
On the other hand, JD said that "philosophical anthropology" could argue against homosexuality. This position is based on religion, not science. Therefore, whatever the authority says is supported by philosophical surmising.
Therefore, the human sciences (anthropology/theology, psychology, sociology, law, cultural studies, etc.) would shed "light" on such questions.
Science is about questions, which evidence answers, while religion is about ideology, which "answers" questions.
Therefore, the question is should science be the only support that underwrites public policy? The answer is "yes", if ones subscribes to a solely materialistic world. The answer is "no", if one subscribes to other aspects that make for the "human", which includes art, religion, and laws that form culture.
Another important question to ask and answer for oneself is: are humans in need of "authoritarial control" in government? One side would suggest that the "nature of man" is only a beast, which is based on science or religion alone, that must be trained, while another position would support that man is a mystery that is complex and individual (philosophical position).
Like I said, simply using an example(i.e the GOP stirring up fears about medicade and social security) of "us vs. them" committed by people who hold the same political ideology as you does not equal ethnocentrism on the part of Dr. Beck.
You say, "One need only look at the examples he chooses (photos, examples) to realize that one of the primary purposes of this blog is to attack political conservatism. Thus, my point stands".
I think that illustrates your problem: you read what you want to read. Once you perceive your ideology is being attacked, you stop comprehending the point of the post.
You are right, Dr. Beck does tend to look at things from a liberal perspective. That's not a secret. However, to say that one of the primary reasons for this blog is to attack political conservatism makes this sentient reader perceive you to be a little paranoid. It's not a conspiracy dude.
"Like I said, simply using an example(i.e the GOP stirring up fears about medicade and social security) of "us vs. them" committed by people who hold the same political ideology as you does not equal ethnocentrism on the part of Dr. Beck."
And you'd be wrong. If the definition (or one of the many, apparently) is viewing issues through an "us vs. them" perspective, then 90% of the political entries on this blog would qualify. For example, his choice of photos to accompany the stories and the "medicare/medicare" example he used - to the exclusion of others - makes the point entirely. He views these issues through an "us vs. them" paradigm, and thus by the very definition presented, is ethnocentric.
You're free to disagree. But you'd be wrong.
Iowa,
Just a couple of points.
You said "I suspect that when the political winds change, and Republicans again hold the power and employ these types of arguments, Dr. Beck (and the book's authors) won't find it so powerful."
Donald Kinder (the books first author) is a political scientist/psychologist and has been publishing since the 1970s (if my memory serves me well). He has published on racism, ethnocentrism, and authoritarianism during many administrations. So yes, for Donald Kinder, I would suspect that he would make these arguments no matter the political winds.
You also suggested that simple correlations are not valid because liberals would not accept the simple correlations in a couple of famous pieces of conservative scholarship. Simple correlations are indeed valid assuming plausible alternative explanations have been ruled out. While I cannot speak to the current book (I have not read it), Kinder's past work has painstakingly attempted to rule out plausible alternative explanations. The simple correlations in the books you reference are, however, not up to the same rigorous task as many subsequent publications have discredited the theory, data, and analysis presented in those works.
I join in Dr. Beck urging you to find the plausible alternative explanations that explain these simple correlations.Indeed, having critics interrogate data is a good way to confirm (or reject) scientific findings. Such an analysis would be insightful into the politics of publishing. But more interestingly, they would help us understand more about ethnocentrism.
Libertarians have been preaching against the welfare-warfare state for a generation now, but we're still "fringe" and "kooky." At least to the media vanguard for the regime.
Let's talk about LIBERAL COMPASSION, shall we? How about all the Predator drone massacres in Pakistan, a supposed ally of the United States? Obama has increased the number of bombings in STRIKE Laos /STRIKE Pakistan compared to the Bush adminstration.
Let's talk about LIBERAL ASSISTANCE, shall we? Foreign aid goes to support dictatorships such as that of Egypt. Only foreign aid props up these regimes; they would collapse without American hand-holding and a democracy might just bloom from the ruins. I'd rather have a year of anarchy than a hundred years of dictatorship.
Let's talk about LIBERAL TOLERANCE, shall we? They're freaking out about law-abiding citizens carrying guns in public, as if holding a gun transforms you into a crazed psychopathic killer. If you're not a murderer, gun ownership isn't going to make you one. Frankly, I'd feel safer knowing I'm surrounded by armed citizens than armed police, given the insane number of abusive incidents that have taken place lately.
Let's talk about LIBERAL WELFARE, shall we? Their ultimate welfare fantasy has taken place in the inner city in places such as Detroit for generations now. What is the result? UTTER, UNMITIGATED FAILURE. Urban blacks live in crushing poverty their entire lives, with the government providing food stamps and housing and a little extra every month for every kid they have out of wedlock. If you want definitive proof that welfare KEEPS PEOPLE POOR instead of lifting them out of poverty, just LOOK at the inner city and the supposed benificiaries of liberal welfare policy. I'm not a racist - I want to see black people rise up alongside whites but LIBERAL POLICY is a proven failure when it comes to increasing their wealth and standard of living.
Where have liberals succeeded? Have they done even one thing right? Has there been a successful liberal regime ever, anywhere in history? I have other criticisms against the red-state fascists (who are closet liberals, wanting the gov't to protect us from marijuana and teen pregnancy and etc.) but if it comes to asking where the liberals have gone right, I don't see one instance.
Let me put this another way. Here's what bothers me about these posts, Richard, and I think posters like iowa agree. We feel that we're being politically marginalized. That we're being told that our views are the result of some kind of aberrant, anti-human psychological state. I feel that my views are the natural response to the failure of the welfare-warfare state to live up to its promises, and the actual impossibility for it to do so. I think my views are the result of careful consideration of the facts and frustration with the current political system, NOT the result of a racist, homophobic, pathologically aggressive psychology. The Soviet Union was famous for the medicalization of dissent - after all, the Soviet State was the finest form of government known to man; you would have to be mentally unbalanced to criticize it
Dammerung,
Thanks for your clarity, conviction and conciseness. You have done your homework and it is based on the realities of evidence, not philosophical, ideological speculations.
Going to Dammerung's point, I again put forward "The Vision of The Anointed". The subtitle is "Self Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy". The thesis is that those liberal programs are designed not to "help people" but rather to make the advocates feel good about "helping people". In point of fact, an empirical analysis of those programs shows that they've actually, in many cases, done damage to those groups in the name of "helping" them. That goes to Dammerung's point, of course. Thus, historically, the same people who so desperately crave the self-congratulation that comes with "helping people" have actually very little regarding as to whether their proposals actually do.
Moreover, given that Obama himself qualifies for 3-4 on that list in the original post (examples happily provided upon request), I'd like to hear from those above on why they'd so openly support someone with ethnocentric tendencies.
"very little regard"
sorry, we need to be able to edit typos.
Iowa,
Propaganda is rampant, and is important because of science's "need" to investigate their questions about human identity, human sentiment, human experience, and how all of that defines human religious experience. Because no one in their right mind, would choose to go into territories that breed terrorists, it is a secret "mission" to recruit those who might subscribe to humanistic "compassion", or religiously driven "concern". So, these play on huan emotion to "control" or manipulate choices about such "global engagement".
I may need a translator for that.
Sorry, a few corrections myself: sorry for the double post. I got an error message when I posted my last response so I typed it again. I also said medicaid instead of medicare. My bad.
Iowa, my responses have been to the comments made by you on THIS post. I don't know if Dr. Beck's motivation for the examples he used were as a result of ethnocentrism, and neither do you. My response is still valid because just because you don't like the example does not mean its ethnocentic. My guess is you would not have had the same problem with it if the example he used was reversed. By the way, it is interesting how you sound so hurt when you perceive Dr. Beck as being ethnocentric, but have no problem responding with ethnocentrism.(i.e your first post)
Look guys, I can see how these posts seem one-sided on Richard's part, but keep in mind I really don't feel they are meant to forward a political agenda. I think they are meant to be read in the light of where politics and theology/Christianity and psychology intersect.
I find his insights very helpful because in our religious background,(CoC) there have always been undertones(at least in my experience) of Christian = politically conservative. So maybe I'm pushing back from that a bit to see a different perspective. I find this study really no different than his study on death anxiety; it shows underlying reasons why some people are shaped the way they are in their beliefs and perceive things the way that they do.
"Look guys, I can see how these posts seem one-sided on Richard's part, but keep in mind I really don't feel they are meant to forward a political agenda. "
- And I again assert that to a majority of readers, that is a ridiculous claim. And I don't even really think it's a bad thing, as I've stated several times. But to ignore the obvious seems silly.
"And I don't even really think it's a bad thing, as I've stated several times".
If you don't think it's a bad thing, then what, may I ask, was the purpose in all of your posts? (Especially the first one that kicked this whole thing off)
The point? lol. Did you read it? There are several points, including but not limited to:
1. When we define a terms we control the outcome. If I can define what ethnocentrism is (or any other term), then I can define who fits into that category.
2. As in any poll, the questions more often than not determine the answer. For examples of that, read any critique of political polling.
3. Combining 1 and 2, when we define a term (in this case 'ethnocentrism') and then select those responses to questions which 'identify' ethnocentric attitudes, we completely control who gets labeled as an ethnocentrist.
4. People of both political persuasions often use these tactics to influence opinion. When liberals do it, as here, they typically use arguments such as "well, if you don't support immigration reform, you're anti-immigrant" or "if you don't support expanding social welfare programs, you hate poor people" and a host of others. When conservatives do it, it goes like "if you don't support the war in iraq, you don't support the military" or "if you don't support the patriot act, you're not patriotic." Both sides employing these tactics do so in order to avoid a discussion of the real, underlying issues. That is, it's easier for a liberal to win a policy debate if they can say "well, you don't support this, so you must just be a racist" and the same for conservatives. For daily examples of this in society and political life, look all around you. Both are equally vacuous, and are mainly designed to avoid discussing substance. There's much more to this point, but I'll cut it off here.
5. This blog (at least in terms of the political posts) focuses exclusively on promoting liberal political ideals and mocking conservative ones. Again, that's great and I support it. But to ignore it and pretend is ridiculous. Thus, it's not so simple as to merely say "hey guys! come on, this isn't really political, I'm just interested in the social science angle of these findings!" People who've read this site know better.
6. A rational view of a host of readily apparent facts from our daily life would indicate that Americans (or whites, or Christians, or conservatives, or whomever) are arguably less ethnocentric than other identifiable groups.
7. The same traits that "predict" ethnocentrism under the study - assuming that the authors accurately defined and measured it - would also predict other, very positive traits. See me numbers 9-12 for a few examples. Those who promote these findings to advance an ideological or political agenda tend to prefer not to deal with those.
8. We all look to undermine conclusions from data that we don't like (see my "Bell Curve" examples) and don't question conclusions from data we do like.
Those appear to be the major points I've asserted.
iowa,
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in all these comments:
Are you saying that the analysis of Us Against Them is wrong? If so, well, I'd rather wait to hear your opinion after you read the book.
Or are just pointing out that I have liberal views? If so, well, okay.
Anonymous: I really don't feel they are meant to forward a political agenda.
iowa: And I again assert that to a majority of readers, that is a ridiculous claim.
Interesting. You speak for "a majority of readers" now? How do you figure?
I just assume - perhaps wrongly - that people can read, Tim.
"I'm not sure what you are trying to say in all these comments:"
- I'm responding to a direct question that was asked of me. It would be better if more people did that.
"Are you saying that the analysis of Us Against Them is wrong? If so, well, I'd rather wait to hear your opinion after you read the book."
- Read 1-8 again.
"Or are just pointing out that I have liberal views? If so, well, okay."
- No, I'm saying that, like all of us, because we're human and political animals, it likely colors your view of what is and what it not (a) credible correlations drawn from data (b) the veracity of the underlying data and (C) the conclusions drawn from the correlations and data.
I guess I didn't think it was that hard.
I'd also like your opinion on whether you believe that my 9-12 above could also be predicted. Be honest and don't fall back to the "the data doesn't tell us that so I can't say". :)
And also please address the ethnocentrism that led to Obama's making an impenetrable border fence a central plank of his immigration policy during the campaign and his public opposition to gay marriage and how you overcame that.
iowa,
I guess I didn't think it was that hard.
I've always found a bit of introspection to be helpful at moments like this. It's possible that your interlocutors are dolts, but perhaps the source of communication difficulty lies elsewhere.
Possible, but unlikely. But sidestep of the main points noted.
Iowa,
This question of yours has been addressed by others. You said: "And also please address the ethnocentrism that led to Obama's making an impenetrable border fence a central plank of his immigration policy during the campaign and his public opposition to gay marriage and how you overcame that"
The posts on ethnocentrism, and Kinder's work generally, does not suggest that support for these policies equal ethnocentrism. Rather ethnocentrism is one predictor of these policies. Other concerns (both rational and irrational) also drive these policy positions. Knowing someone's support for a particular policy does not necessarily imply ethnocentrism. Obama's support for a fence may be driven by ethnocentrism or a rationale view of the political climate (or something else). Frankly, I feel uncomfortable attempting to intuit another's motivations (in data and on blogs).
However, on average, we know that ethnocentrism predicts these policies. The motivations for each individual person are likely different. Its not possible to test that hypothesis with the current data. Longitudinal data sets are needed for that.
Clearly, if you have problems with polling data and the operationalization of terms then this doesn't mean anything to you. But, again, I urge you to do your own analyses and tell us where Kinder is wrong.
iowa,
I guess you can count me among the illiterate Other then.
Iowa,
thanks for the recap, but that is not where I was going with my question. My question should have been: What is your goal with all of these posts? I ask because it seems that the real purpose of your post is more in line with trying to defeat liberalistic thinking. To ideologically win, as it were. I got no beef with anyone with differing views, but I don't really care for the "I am the only enlightened one in this discussion" tone that I have sensed right from the start. Its this tone that I have been responding to. (see my first post)
To be honest, I think it's that tone/attitude that is the true "leading factor to the coarsening and balkanization of American politics".
Peace to you Brother
Moreover Iowa,
I know you think your list from 9-12 is clever, but given that Kinder & Kim measure ethnocentrism by measuring the tendency to apply favorable stereotypes to your ingroup over all other outgroups would predict charitable giving, adoption, pro-life, and evangelical Christian beliefs.
Frankly, these appear to be more speculations based on the faulty assumption that the researchers equated ethnocentrism with conservatism. Clearly, given how the variable is measured, this is not the case.
Oops, forgot to complete a sentence.
Should read: "I know you think your list from 9-12 is clever, but given that Kinder & Kim measure ethnocentrism by measuring the tendency to apply favorable stereotypes to your ingroup over all other outgroups, I haven't seen any research to suggest how increased ingroup favoritism would predict charitable giving, inter-ethnic adoption, pro-life attitudes, and evangelical Christian beliefs."
"The irony of accusing me of sidestepping while you argue against a book you've never read is pretty rich."
- Except that you most certainly have. Several issues and questions posed to you routinely go unaddressed. There are several in this comment thread alone.
To be honest, I think it's that tone/attitude that is the true "leading factor to the coarsening and balkanization of American politics".
The trouble with this view is that it implies that nobody is right, that there isn't a better way forward.
Look, if somebody points a gun in my face, they've got a problem (some might say I have a problem, but that's defeatist thinking.) Now, I don't really care why there is a gun in my face. I don't care if it's because they suspect me of dealing drugs. Or if they want to pick my pocket to fund a health care mandate. Or if they want to take money from me to bomb Iraq. Or if they're an Iraqi looking for revenge.
Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Anybody who says different is naive. It's like an updated version of the golden rule - he who's got the gold makes the rules. And they enforce rules. EnFORCE compliance. That's how it works. Without the gun in my face, I would mostly behave the same but there's things I'd do differently.
To say that politics is Balkanized because people want to be right is to ignore the presence of the omnipresent gun. It's debating philosophy at a mugging. Let's push the guns away from our faces first, then we can discuss what kind of political philosophy naturally arises from a free people.
This is new:
- President Obama should be sent "back" to Kenya.
- Senator Graham favors immigration reform because he is gay.
More data for the ethnocentrism file.
Strong argument, Tim. Gee, I wonder if I can find examples of crazy liberals saying crazy stuff.
Oh, I'm sorry. Were we talking about "crazy stuff which people with whom I disagree have said", or the psychology of ethnocentrism?
I seem to have wandered into the wrong conversation.
It is a problem when what is being debated is who has the biggest ego, and not "Which is the correct way forward" or "Is this characterization of a gestalt accurate"
"Oh, I'm sorry. Were we talking about "crazy stuff which people with whom I disagree have said", or the psychology of ethnocentrism?
I seem to have wandered into the wrong conversation."
- I thought the same thing when I brought up Obama's ethnocentrism. We're apparently only talking about Republican ethnocentrism.
Iowa said "- I thought the same thing when I brought up Obama's ethnocentrism. We're apparently only talking about Republican ethnocentrism."
Facinating, because I thought this kind of question presented a nice illustration of what the data was showing vs. not showing. Thus, several posts ago I said ...
"The posts on ethnocentrism, and Kinder's work generally, does not suggest that support for these policies equal ethnocentrism. Rather ethnocentrism is one predictor of these policies. Other concerns (both rational and irrational) also drive these policy positions. Knowing someone's support for a particular policy does not necessarily imply ethnocentrism. Obama's support for a fence may be driven by ethnocentrism or a rationale view of the political climate (or something else). Frankly, I feel uncomfortable attempting to intuit another's motivations (in data and on blogs).
However, on average, we know that ethnocentrism predicts these policies. The motivations for each individual person are likely different. Its not possible to test that hypothesis with the current data. Longitudinal data sets are needed for that."
"Knowing someone's support for a particular policy does not necessarily imply ethnocentrism."
- Interesting, given this snippet from the original post: "ethnocentrism is activated when a particular political issue, or a media framing of the issue, is presented as an "us against them" conflict. Sadly, this "us against them" frame fits many of the issues currently facing America. Thus, while ethnocentrism doesn't affect every political debate is does influence public opinion on a wide variety of topics."
Actually Iowa, that quote supports my point.
It suggests that
a) ethnocentrism does not impact every issue.
b) ethnocentrism may be especially important to issues framed in "us" vs. "them" terms.
c) Many issues are framed as us vs. them
d) Thus ethnocentrism plays a role in a variety of issues.
However, the argument you are making suggests that the authors are suggesting that supporting or opposing the policies give someone precise information about their ethnocentrism. So for example, if I know you oppose affirmative action then I can know with exteme certainty that you are ethnocentic--the relationship would be a one to one relationship.
However, the correlations presented are not perfect correlations and suggest that other variables play a role, including principled ideological beliefs and other criteria (both rational and irrational).
Personally, if I was principly opposed to social welfare policies and I knew that some people were joining me just because they didn't like some groups of Americans I would be quite frustrated. Not with the people reporting (or summarizing) the research, but instead with the ethnocentrics that would dare give my principled position a bad name.
"Personally, if I was principly opposed to social welfare policies and I knew that some people were joining me just because they didn't like some groups of Americans I would be quite frustrated. Not with the people reporting (or summarizing) the research, but instead with the ethnocentrics that would dare give my principled position a bad name."
- I agree completely and that's a great point. Unfortunately, as exemplified here, determining individual motivations appears to be quite difficult, and more often than not, it appears, ethnocentrism itself seems to be aiding people in making such a determination.