Comments on: If You’re Not Outraged, You’ve Internalized a System-Justifying Ideology

By: Dain

Dain — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:56:14 +0000

I didn't find “rationalizing away inequality” to be particularly disturbing. I could designate someone as “rationalizing away libertarianism” if they fail to be moved by my arguments, and I don't think it necessarily suggests that they secretly harbor an animus toward classical liberalism. People “rationalize away” many things when they form opinions.

By: odograph

odograph — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:50:21 +0000

You're right John, I did leave out (forget) the charitable giving angle. It's weirder than that though, because in my experience liberals discourage contributions to many of their causes, they are more interested in getting you out to take part.

By: Glen

Glen — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:58:18 +0000

Why do you assume that “success” is a reference to (relative) status? I agree that's one possible interpretation — which could be a problem for interpreting the survey. But is it the most natural interpretation? When I read the question, I took “success” and “better life” to mean approximately the same thing, and so the spectrum made perfect sense to me (I would have answered with a 7).

By: Mari Dupont

Mari Dupont — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:49:27 +0000

I wish the survey had defined “hard work” and “success”. Then it would be easier for conservatives to make their case. I personally believe that anyone in the U.S. with a high school education and normal intelligence who aspires to be middle class can do it, but I suspect the Jost/Napier people wouldn't define success that way (success = a million dollar net worth). And what's “hard work” ? Being really good at your paying job? Yes, that's hard, but I see a lot of people stuck at a certain level because they don't “work hard” at saving money, or “work hard” at schmoozing influential people or “work hard” at recognizing opportunities. Out here in Los Angeles, I DO see a lot of women “work hard” at looking really hot, which seems to be the quickest way out of poverty and into the upper middle class. But I'm not sure if Messieurs Jost and Napier would define it that way…

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:33:47 +0000

The problem, odograph, with your generalization is that self-described conservatives give significantly more to charity (in the statistical sense) than self-described liberals, both with and without adjusting for income. Arthur Brooks's book on this is recently famous, but this is a well-known result.

OTOH, libertarians gives less to charity, and the difference between conservatives and liberals almost entirely (or does entirely) vanish if you control for religious belief. Religious liberals give as much to charity as religious conservatives, but a greater fraction of liberals are atheists or agnostics. (Religious conservative giving is not all church donations, either; religious conservatives donate more to secular causes than atheist conservatives as well, and of course some portion of religious donations are aid to the poor as well.)

By: digamma

digamma — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:33:14 +0000

A right-wing hack could make an argument that mirrors this one exactly: liberals would be much less happier if they weren't rationalizing away the horror of homosexuality, abortion, , Monica Lewinsky, Barbara Streisand, etc.

By: dieter

dieter — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:30:44 +0000

Um, no. I know about the limitations of this simplistic model. But rents, ability, luck and connections account only for local income distribution within a line of business (plumbing in this case). It doesn't account for the big picture.
With regard to Joe the Plumber, I am merely saying that enough people could do, what he could do.

The german supermarket discount chain Aldi pays the most for their employees. But working there is tough and the speed of employees at the cash register is precisely measured. Those who don't meet the requirements are fired. So, yes, hard working employees can improve their lot buy working for Aldi, rather than some other company.

But I don't believe that this is what people consider to be "success". Success is about going from rags to riches.

I am not trying to argue about formalized economics. I am trying to address the intuitive economic model that most people seem to have in their mind and that even those who understand economics frequently fall back to.

By: Cdn Expat

Cdn Expat — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:41:25 +0000

Your hypothesis seems to me to depend on the assumption of homogenous labor. Only in that case are all rents dissipated through market entry. But that assumes away the whole idea of agency in the first place: there are well-run plumbing businesses that employ talented plumbers who make very good money regardless of the competition. It isn't luck that makes such businesses inframarginal; it's hard work and adaptation to the market.

By: dieter

dieter — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:09:41 +0000

My guess is that Napier and Jost are not very interested in psychology and so have simply assumed that a preference for explaining lives in terms of agency rather than fortune is pretty much the same thing as thinking people deserve whatever they get.

Most participants in these studies are not very interested in psychology, economics or moral philosophy either. So it is not an unreasonable assumption after all, whether Napier and Jost are aware of it, or not. Further studies could tease out the difference.

I believe you are creating a false dichotomy between "agency" and "fortune" as well. It seems like you are assuming an underlying meritocracy, which is disturbed by a randomness factor called "fortune". Liberals assume this factor to be high. Conservatives would give low estimates.

I reject both views. If someone like Joe the Plumber could net 250.000$ through hard work, everybody and his brother would go into the plumbing business and soon enough, Joe would be back at earning a median income. This is basic supply and demand and it is a sign that markets work. If markets would work perfectly, we would have almost perfect income equality. (High incomes for some professions are a result of regulation or the principal agent problem.)

Economic success depends on how many are doing the same thing as you do and how many actually care about your work. This factor trumps both, hard work and fortune, in terms of magnitude.

This applies btw. to other status dimensions as well, such as blogging or music, e.g.

Supply and demand isn't news to anyone on this blog. It just seems to me that even those who know about this, quickly switch back to some intuitive merit + fortune model when it comes to real world issues involving labor or services. Paying someone for having made a chair is seen as different from paying someone for a chair that he has made.

By: odograph

odograph — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:51:25 +0000

I am a measured centrist (polticalcompass), who has engaged conservatives on a variety of issues (probably because as an ex-conservative, or someone who for a long time maintained a conservative self-identity, I'm more sensitive to that wing of thought).

On things like privatizing social security, or the environment, conservatives have given me a "beyond my door, not my problem" answer many times. Sure I say, you and I might be ok managing our own retirement, but do you really want to step over the homeless on the way to the market? "They should take care of themselves."

Why shouldn't a lack of compassion, and a belief in uncomplicated absolutes contribute to their personal happiness? (So much is literally not their problem.)

By: kevin

kevin — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:58:28 +0000

In my clinical psych classes, we always learned that “external locus of control” is strongly (positively) correlated with depression. In other words, people who believe they are not in control of their own lives are much more likely to suffer depression. Of course, the left-wing generally sees things in terms of the broader community/society instead of as a result of individual actions. I read on Rasmussen Reports that one of the biggest predictors of political affiliation is whether you generally see America as generally fair and decent. People who think America is fair and decent are much more likely to vote Republican.

Interestingly, the same psych text that talks about internal locus of control as being a good thing notes a relationship between “attributional style” (whether one interprets events as being caused by the extenuating circumstances or the person in question) and conservative/right-wing ideas. The text (and my left-wing teacher) were very critical of conservatives for blaming the individuals instead of the circumstances.