Saturday, October 09, 2004
Political Differences
¶ 7:58 AM 
I'm intrigued by the differences between schools of thought, and have been trying to objectively determine what elements are in play that attract people to either side. I mentioned at one point that it has little to do with intelligence, though I have heard the left use that criticism of their opposition more often than the right. But there are facts and there are assumptions that, both combined, produce a variety of conclusions.
As an aside, I would ask, "what are the facts?" I looked to factcheck.org after seeing it mentioned in a few places as some factual authority, and discovered their sources are more frequently the Washington Post and the NY Times than the bureau of labor statistics or the US census reports. That was distressing. As Mark Twain said (or popularized; Disraeli said it first), there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.
But people gravitate to certain schools of thought for a reason. For an accurate history, does one seek Paul Johnson, or Arthur Schlesinger? On economics is it Paul Krugman or Greg Mankiw, Paul Samuelson or Milton Friedman, Keynes or Hayak? For legal issues, how about William Brennan or Antonin Scalia, Lawrence Tribe or Robert Bork? For political commentary, is it the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, The Nation or The American Spectator, Bill Moyers or John Stossel, Lou Dobbs or George Gilder, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or George Soros? Presidents Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan? Radio commentators Michael Medved or Al Franken? Moviemakers Steven Spielberg or Mel Gibson? The list is endless. None of these people are/were stupid.
I would guess there are books out there that try to formulate the causes of people's attraction to either side (and then, adding to the left/right paradigm, we should probably integrate the libertarian/totalitarian perspectives: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html).
I will look around.
