- 10 Mar 2023 19:39
#15267651
The paper doesn't control by the subject's sex in the experiment, so it's possible - indeed, likely - women support policies benefiting women while men are against. By not adding a sex dummy, the result is quite evidently overestimating the effect of the beneficiary being a woman (even more so since 69% of participants are women - why would you be surprised to find women support policies meant to benefit women?). A similar thing could happen with race, as in people will oppose policies designed to exclude them for characteristics perceived to be immutable like race and sex.
A similar experiment done among BIPOC would also show they reject policies designed to leave them out (and to avoid comparing to whites, where the result could be confounded by the belief they are privileged, the race manipulation could just mention another nonwhite group). Too bad the study did not do any of that, for some reason, and is suffering from an omitted variable bias.
Progressives are among the first ones to criticize policies they regard as being designed to benefit whites due to their race, even if they fall into the "welfare" label. It should not be surprising, then, to find conservatives showing a similar pattern but for some reason there is no buzzword for the former.
Note this is not like income, where a social safety net to address poverty can be regarded as a form of insurance for those who are not poor: If I lost my source of income, I'd know I will be helped and therefore I may accept being taxed to fund that type of thing regardless, just in case I end up in the dole at some point. And the available evidence does suggest voters will support policies meant to address low income, even if they know people from a different race are more likely benefit.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we see that Republicans can and do deliberately manufacture and manipulate white resentment in order to oppose certain legislation.
No one seems to disagree.
Also:
If the argument is that white conservatives oppose these programs because of other issues and not race, then please note that studies disprove this idea:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805001/Abstract
Measures of symbolic racism (SR) have often been used to tap racial prejudice toward Blacks. However, given the wording of questions used for this purpose, some of the apparent effects on attitudes toward policies to help Blacks may instead be due to political conservatism, attitudes toward government, and/or attitudes toward redistributive government policies in general. Using data from national probability sample surveys and an experiment, we explored whether SR has effects even when controlling for these potential confounds and whether its effects are specific to policies involving Blacks. Holding constant conservatism and attitudes toward limited government, SR predicted Whites' opposition to policies designed to help Blacks and more weakly predicted attitudes toward social programs whose beneficiaries were racially ambiguous. An experimental manipulation of policy beneficiaries revealed that SR predicted policy attitudes when Blacks were the beneficiary but not when women were. These findings are consistent with the claim that SR's association with racial policy preferences is not due to these confounds.
The paper doesn't control by the subject's sex in the experiment, so it's possible - indeed, likely - women support policies benefiting women while men are against. By not adding a sex dummy, the result is quite evidently overestimating the effect of the beneficiary being a woman (even more so since 69% of participants are women - why would you be surprised to find women support policies meant to benefit women?). A similar thing could happen with race, as in people will oppose policies designed to exclude them for characteristics perceived to be immutable like race and sex.
A similar experiment done among BIPOC would also show they reject policies designed to leave them out (and to avoid comparing to whites, where the result could be confounded by the belief they are privileged, the race manipulation could just mention another nonwhite group). Too bad the study did not do any of that, for some reason, and is suffering from an omitted variable bias.
Progressives are among the first ones to criticize policies they regard as being designed to benefit whites due to their race, even if they fall into the "welfare" label. It should not be surprising, then, to find conservatives showing a similar pattern but for some reason there is no buzzword for the former.
Note this is not like income, where a social safety net to address poverty can be regarded as a form of insurance for those who are not poor: If I lost my source of income, I'd know I will be helped and therefore I may accept being taxed to fund that type of thing regardless, just in case I end up in the dole at some point. And the available evidence does suggest voters will support policies meant to address low income, even if they know people from a different race are more likely benefit.