Posted on 01/30/2006 3:58:43 PM PST by stm
On the Monday "Science" page of the Washington Post, reporter Shankar Vedantam offers the liberal Post readership some comforting news: studies show conservative voters are motivated by racism. That's not in the first paragraph. It sneaks in about halfway through the article, and explains the headline "Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases."
[T]hat study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.
"What automatic biases reveal is that while we have the feeling we are living up to our values, that feeling may not be right," said University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, who helped conduct the race analysis. "We are not aware of everything that causes our behavior, even things in our own lives."
The Post can claim, hey, we at least let a spokesman for the RNC, Brian Jones, point out the scientists are Democrats.
He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.
"There are a lot of factors that go into political affiliation, and snap determinations may be interesting for an academic study, but the real-world application seems somewhat murky," Jones said.
But they end by quoting an apparently nonpartisan expert, Jon Krosnick of Stanford, who concludes that many studies prove the conservatives-are-racist thesis:
"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."
Vedantam also publicized the same scientists -- and the same RNC spokesman -- in a Washington Post Magazine cover story a year ago. He did an online chat on that here.
A perfect example of how "scientists" can design their research to get the kind of conclusion they were hoping to get.
Interesting, in that it's predominantly the Democrats who use hatred and prejudice to motivate their base.
That's what I hate about these type articles. The liberal "researchers" and the liberal writers who cover them define racism as any failure to accept the Democrat Plantation platform as holy write, then "discover" that conservatives are "racist".
It's like those surveys that purport to tell what big cities are the best for kids to live in, but the criteria read like a Marxist shopping list. The survey results should be titled "10 Best Cities to Raise Socialist Kids". I was forced to "choose" CNN because I was in an airport recently and they determined the best states for health care. The criteria? Which states spent the most, had the most liberty stealing laws (helmets, primary seat belt laws, low speed limits), and various other Marxist claptrap. I think they had one actual good item on the list like tort reform within the state or something like that, but it was still predictive, instead of measuring results. I mean, if you want to measure the quality of health care, why not look at percentages of patients who survive? Why not interview patients about the quality? I'll tell you why, because if they did that they might learn something they didn't want to know.
That's liberalism in a nutshell, rename your values and beliefs as reality and proceed to judge others by it. Because if they had to use REAL reality, it wouldn't mesh with their skewed value system.
Actually the "science" part is objective. It's the interpretation of the results that can become politicized and agenda driven. Now if a project is undertaken with an agenda beforehand, as many are, the process can be manipulated in such a was as to profce data that supports the agenda or politics. This is what often happens.
More propoganda to keep the blacks on the Democratic train. Without them, the part is without money and hopelessly in the minority.
I find some black women--I mean BLACK black women--beautiful, but white women, as a rule, more so. Does that make me a bigot?
Well, DUH! You're only not a bigot if you prefer black women to white women.
Yep...it's probably considered a hate crime to boot
Yep...it's probably considered a hate crime to boot
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.