>
> > Look at the data, shows that people think that those unable to support
> > themselves ought to be helped, etc.
>
>Support for a set of unexplicated policies with vague ends does not tell us
>anything meaninful about policy leanings.
>
OK, there's no hope, people hate all that is good. Man is evil. We would be
good, would itw ere so, but the circumstances just aren't so (Peachum's song
in tyhe 3Penny). Sure people are not presented with policies taht express
their progressive inclinations. Who presents themwith such policies?
Remember the Chicago maxim I quoted to Nathan: votes count, but organization
decides. Go read Gramsci, he will teach you more on this than all the
surveys.
> > If you puta racial tinge in the
> > qiestons, it tilts the other way.
>
>No, the fact that respondents project a racial tinge onto questions about
>AFDC etc. is what tilts the results in the opposite direction.
That is in fact demonstrably wrong. You can tweak the resulyts by how you frame the question. Keep race out, whitew orkers give liberal answers. Put it in . . .
>
> > They have strong labor movements in Europe, cosnsequently the rich have
>less
> > gold.
>
>I'd also mention the role of electoral differences and the greater
>prominence of romantically individualistic norms in America. But then, I'd
>probably be wrong to do so.
>
I don't know what the first means--parlaimentary vs the American system? The fact taht they have ideological aprties in Europe but not here?-- but I think you are not wrong about the second. However I think individualism is a dependent variable.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com