in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Free Beacon | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Power Line | 0 | |
| B’berg | 2012 Watch: Gingrich Seeks to Ease Fundraising Woes as Las Vegas Checks Slowing Down |
0 |
| The Hill | Scandal: Pelosi might have skirted House ethics rules on campaign solicitations |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Challenging liberal myths that are commonly assumed to be fact
Australia’s Neil Brown, described in the following opinion piece as a ‘Melbourne QC and former federal minister and deputy leader of the Liberal Party’ in the land down under, takes a look at two recent studies that, among other things, examined the racial attitudes of the participants. The results, as Brown correctly asserts, shatter the liberal myth about conservatives and race, as well as (finally) turn the microscope on liberals and their attitudes on racial issues:
[...] Shanto Iyengar, a professor of communications at Stanford University, has just completed some experiments in partnership with The Washington Post on the attitudes of people to giving aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina.
The ABC here and its handmaiden lefties in the US have never let us forget that the evil George W. Bush did nothing to help in New Orleans and deliberately so because the victims were mostly black or Hispanic. But what does the research actually show?
Democratic voters, of course, voted to give more money to hurricane victims and for a longer period. Hardly surprising, that: Democrats, like Labor voters here, are keen on giving away other people’s money and, for them, a natural disaster is as good an opportunity for doing so as anything else.
But wait, what’s this? The research shows Democrats were prepared to give $1500 more to victims if they were white than if they were black. What, give less money to innocent victims just because they were black? I’m afraid so. Moreover, Democrats would give more money to whites than to other minorities such as Asians and Hispanics.
So it was left-wingers who used race as the big test.
Republicans, on the other hand, were not influenced by race at all. The Republicans’ view, as Iyengar put it, was more principled, as they supported individualism instead of handouts: “Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues.” Even The Washington Post, on June 23, had to concede that this evident bias was disturbing.
But it gets worse. Iyengar’s study matches perfectly with an earlier study by Franklin Gilliam Jr of the University of California, Los Angeles, that shows although Republican voters support tough treatment of criminals, Democrats and others “support harsher measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white”.
Now that’s not the way things are supposed to be. But if left-wingers and liberals use race in a way that right-wingers do not, in crime and now in something as deserving as hurricane relief, how about their attitudes on, say, social welfare? Surely, the Left would not discriminate on the grounds of race in that essential field?
Disturbingly, to use that ominous word, it turns out that Gilliam has done another study that looks at whether attitudes on welfare bludging are influenced by race and, you guessed it, they are influenced by it, but only if they are liberals. His exact words: “Depictions of white welfare queens also seem to induce whites who describe themselves as having liberal views about gender roles to arrive at extremely harsh views of African-Americans.”
This has to stop. Unbridled research such as this will end up destroying all our cherished myths.
When I read opinion pieces, I’ll generally do some research on the assertions made in them because opinion pieces (being what they are) sometimes contain facts that aren’t quite as clear-cut as the author makes them out to be. But in this case, Brown is exactly right. Here’s the Washington Post piece Professor Iyengar and and the WaPo columnist Richard Morin wrote about their study, with links to tables and figures included. Morin wrote a follow up to that piece here:
[Re: Katrina aid]: Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.
But for Democrats, race mattered — and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) “Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. “However, their position is ‘principled’ in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues.”
[...]
Iyengar said he’s not surprised by the latest findings: “This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime” with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. “Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white.”
Can’t believe I missed this study the first time around, so I’m glad Brown revived it with what he wrote in The Australian.
Not that I needed the confirmation, but if I had needed it, this just goes to show that members of the Democratic party pander to the black community not because they actually believe Republicans don’t have black citizens’ best interests at heart, but do it instead because of the guilt they feel over their own secret attitudes towards the black community – in addition to making the Republican party the scapegoat for beliefs that they (Democrats) harbor themselves. Mind, I’m not making a blanket condemnation, nor am I saying that there are no racists in the Republican party – I’ll be more charitable towards the Democratic party on the whole than they ever have been towards Republicans when discussing racial issues. But the problem does appear to be a little more widespread than ‘just a few’ liberals.
Related:
- Did you hear the news? White men ‘can’t help it’
- DNC playing their favorite card: the race card
- The politics of fear: Hillary goes over the edge
- Media bias on display at WashPost in Coretta Scott King funeral reporting
- NAACP chairman makes GOP/Nazis comparison
- On group think and how it threatens our freedoms
- Black Democrats in MD make candid admission
- Former NCSU visiting prof calls for extermination of white people
- Race-baiting Democrats and the media’s complicity
- State rep gets more coverage than Rangel
- “We’ve gone from fire hoses to levees.”
- More nonsense from Charlie Rangel
- Media pushes “white guilt” angle
- Exploiting the Katrina tragedy
- The race card is officially on the table
RSS feed for comments on this post.
16 Responses to “Challenging liberal myths that are commonly assumed to be fact”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
No big surprise is it? The liberals are the same people who claim to support minorities, but jump to label conservative minorities “house n*****s” or “oreo cookies.” Yeah, that’s indicative of true color blindness.
The left always seems to harbor the true racists, be it on the basis of skin color or bashing the “Jooooo’s” you’ll see liberals right there with their hatred on their sleeves.
Conservatives look at the individual first, not the group that person allegedly belongs to. Liberals are all about the group, it’s easier than thinking of people as individuals, and supports their simplistic brand of thinking about issues. Personal responsibility and individuality are not traits valued by the left.
Great post, ST!
Well, color me amazed! Heheheee! We knew it all along!
Outstanding post ST!
Aren’t these the same people that called two of the most distinguished individuals this world has ever seen, Gen. Colin Powell, and Sec. Condolezza Rice, Uncle Toms?? How about their treatment of Justice Thomas?? – Lorica
No surprise here, though it is always nice to have confirmation. Conservatives are all about personal responsibility and that usually gets us labeled racist but the fact is, we want personal responsibility from everyone, not just certain minorities. Liberals, on the other hand, want the government to be responsible for everyone and for them, minorities are the least qualified to make decisions for themselves. That has always seemed racist to me. I’ve never been able to figure out why minorities so often don’t see that.
It’s a question for the ages, Ron. But I’d like to think the tide is turning, aleit slowly.
These loons only do this s$#t WHEN THEY ARE PANDERING FOR VOTES — PERIOD.
Look how the loons support bobby klansman, byrd and if a Republican was found to have been a former pointed head guy it would be on every front page for eternity. GOOD GRIEF.
This is a fascinating and underreported result, if true. It runs contrary to the stereotyped assumptions we are faced with almost daily. In academia, a finding contrary to conventional wisdom is usually broadcast with gusto. That doesn’t seem to be the case with this one. The prior research is reported in Gilliam, F. D. & Iyengar, S. (2000). Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 560-573. The effect mentioned above is not mentioned in the abstract. It does not seem to be in the full article, either, at least not in an obvious way. If anyone reading knows more about this, please leave a comment.
-KENT SCHEIDEGGER AT CRIMEANDCONSEQUENCES.COM
James Tarranto of the WSJ Opinon further debunks this study and says:
We should say, though, that although these results are consistent with our own prejudices about those on the liberal side of the political spectrum, we doubt this study comes anywhere near proving anything. This is for several reasons:
LOL! “Debunked”? This is the second time I’ve had to point out to you that you haven’t read something carefully. From Taranto’s piece:
Taranto’s comments after that simply stated that the results didn’t mean it was necessarily true that liberals were subconciously racist towards black people, because other factors may or may not have been present.
Keep hope alive, tom.
ST -
Who’s not carefully reading? Try starting with the original WSJ article by Taranto on June 23 where he states
We are skeptical of the entire enterprise of trying to measure something as intangible as racial attitudes. Clegg’s criticism (with which we neither agree nor disagree) illustrates one reason why: Even if you assume that these numbers are meaningful, how much of a difference would constitute “proof of a racist society”? We can’t think of an answer to the question that isn’t entirely arbitrary.
Even if we assume that the disparities Morin and Iyengar find actually do mean what they think they do, there is an enormous systemic bias in their study, which they acknowledge, seemingly without grasping its significance, in their full write-up:
Just trying to keep you honest, ST.
Um, I don’t need anyone to ‘keep me honest, tom’ – worry about yourself, and the way you continually misread things before you start worrying about my supposed issues with honesty.
Taranto did not “debunk” anything. He merely gave his opinion. Debunking something means disproving it, which Taranto did not do. Go back and re-read it.
So….. I guess you’re still not skeptical of this study.
BTW Debunking means: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug. The word disprove is nowhere in the definition. However these definitions of ‘debunk’ do seem to apply here.
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of
debunking:
n : the exposure of falseness or pretensions
Tom doesn’t see the equivalence of “expose the falsness of” and “disprove” despite the fact he can quote a dictionary. You can lead a liberal to knowledge, but you can’t make him understand apparently. Although, like leading a horse to water, if you can get him to float on his back you’ve got something.
“So….. I guess you’re still not skeptical of this study.”
Finally. You got one right.
“BTW Debunking means: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug. The word disprove is nowhere in the definition. However these definitions of ‘debunk’ do seem to apply here.
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of
debunking:
n : the exposure of falseness or pretensions ”
Um, I know what debunking is and I’m glad to see you actually clicked on the link I provided to see what it meant.
Don’t insult my intelligence by trying to claim you weren’t saying that Taranto disproved this piece.
I’m losing my patience: you’ve so far been dishonest -while questioning my honesty, taken things I’ve said out of context (deliberately?) to prove some kind of ‘point’, and have tried to pass off this phony ‘but that’s not what I meant by debunking’ bit.
You must think because I’m blonde AND conservative that I’m doubly stupid, so much so that I’m supposed to just accept what you say without question. If that’s the case, you are sadly mistaken. I’ve been around the block with liberals who challenge me in a way I like to be challenged: and that is, using honest arguments in an attempt to debunk (meaning: prove false) something I’ve said. If you want to challenge me using honest arguments that don’t twist my words and insult my intelligence, please do so. Because one more post like the one I’m answering, and you’ll have one less blog you can comment on.