Kakšnih 20 let nazaj, ko je še vodil oddajo Videošpon, je Jonas Žnidaršič podal zanimivo izjavo, zakaj ne mara alternativcev, ki se mi je globoko vtisnila v spomin. Rekel je, ker to pomeni ‘grde punce in tipe brez denarja‘. To je bila precej smela, in hm, politično zelo nekorektna trditev. No, če alternativa v naših krajih pomeni levičarske poglede na svet, pa morda Jonas ni povsem udaril mimo. V politični ekonomiji je kar nekaj študij, ki razkrivajo politične preference posameznikov na podlagi njihovega materialnega statusa. V še sveži študiji “Does money make people right-wing and inegalitarian” sta Powdthavee & Oswald (2014) pokazala, da ima denar pomembno vlogo pri določanju političnih pogledov na svet. Tisti, ki imajo denar, bodo bolj verjetno imeli bolj desničarske poglede, tisti z manj denarja pa levičarske.
Razultati so seveda dokaj logični, če imaš denar ali premoženje, se boš zavzemal za čim manjše davke na dohodke in premoženje in za čim manjšo redistribucijo tvojih dohodkov drugim. Če pa nimaš, pa boš jasno želel bolj participirati na dohodkih drugih.
Powdthavee in Oswald pravita takole:
Why are you right-wing, left-wing, or in the middle? You probably believe that you made a genuine, calm, and ethical choice. But what were the deep causal forces upon those political preferences?
The scientific roots of people’s political views are poorly understood. One possibility (View 1) is that individuals’ attitudes to politics and redistribution are motivated by deeply moral views. Another possibility (View 2) – and this is perhaps some economists’ presumption — is that voting choices are made out of self-interest and then come to be embroidered in the mind with a form of moral rhetoric. Testing between these two alternative theories is important intellectually. It is also inherently difficult. That is because so many of our attitudes as humans could stem from early in life and are close to being, in the eyes of the researcher, a ‘person fixed-effect’.
In most data sets, rich people typically lean right. The fact that high income and right-wing views are positively correlated in a cross-section has been repeatedly documented in quantitative social science…
…
Our new study, Powdthavee and Oswald (2014), tries to get to the bottom of the issue. By looking at lottery winners through time, it provides longitudinal evidence consistent with the second, and some might argue more jaundiced, view, namely the View 2 of human beings. We exploit a panel data set in which people’s political attitudes are recorded annually. Our work builds upon an interesting cross-sectional examination by Doherty et al. (2007), which we learned about late in our own research.
In our data set, many hundreds of individuals serendipitously receive significant lottery windfalls. We find that the larger is their lottery win, the greater is that person’s subsequent tendency, after controlling for other influences, to switch their political views from left to right. We also provide evidence that lottery winners are more sympathetic to the belief that ordinary people ‘already get a fair share of society’s wealth’.
No, pri nas so politične preference lahko tudi čisto pomešane, saj pripadniki kapitalske elite, ki so to postali na podlagi njihovega statusa v času socializma, še vedno podpirajo in volijo leve stranke, čeprav so te manj prijazne do njihovih dohodkov in premoženja. Če seveda zanemarimo prijaznost glede pridobivanja poslov v tem državnem kombinatu.
DAMIJAN blog 
Če bi bila politična desnica resnično odvisna od ljudi z boljšim materialnim statusom, potem ne bi nikoli zmagala, na nobenih volitvah, nikjer. Takih glasov je premalo. V resnici je odvisna od norega kulturnega boja, levica pa tudi.
Ko vidiš, da je najbolj revna ameriška zvezna država Mississippi ultra-desničarska trdnjava, potem take raziskave nimajo nobenega smisla.
Revni ameriški jug je hrbtenica Republikanske stranke, bolje stoječi (ne nujno ravno “bogati”) zahodnjaki in severnjaki pa Demokratske stranke. Ekonomski pogled je prekratek za razumevanje takih dejanj, deloma že drži, a premalo. Z ekonomskega vidika so volivci desnice večinoma popolnoma nori, razen tistih, ki so finančno bolje stoječi, a teh je zelo malo. Nori pa niso le onkraj velike luže, ampak še marsikje drugje.
Ljudje se pri političnih preferencah vedemo kot v religiji, izjemno rigidno. Politično opcijo, ki nas je že neštetokrat izdala bomo kljub temu dolgo podpirali. Seveda je še najbolj racionalna izbira, izbira manjšega ekonomsko-socialnega zla, to pa bo vselej odvisno od relativnega položaja posameznika. S tega vidika so za moje pojme revni ameriški črnci, ki volijo levico petkrat bolj racionalni od premožnih liberalnih belcev, da ostalih belih “južnjakov” sploh ne omenjam.
Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je
Tragi-komično je, da je nek Paul Krugman, ta prislovično urbani, snobovski, elitistični liberalec, ena najboljših ekonomsko-družbenih rešitev za revne in pogostokrat tudi brezzobe konservativce. A to dvoje povezati v realen politični proces je težje od jedrske fizike. Iz tega potem pride zelo malo “nevarnih”, progresivnih rešitev. Ameriški korporativno-medijski kompleks zna ljudi tako dobro medsebojno ločevati, da so Severni Korejci še kakih 200 let v zaostanku.
Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je
Tole mi je bilo enkrat všeč na temo levo-desno, pa sem si skrinšotal…če se še kdo prepozna, da ne bo brezveze čekiral TRR in Gurs-ov izpisek…minus monarhija ofkors 🙂 :
“Some readers, particularly those used to the left-right split in most democratic legislatures, are bamboozled by The Economist’s political stance. We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing?”
Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je
Dule,
Ja, lani sem pisal o tem stališču Economista, da ni ne levo ne desno, ampak progresiven:
Some readers, particularly those used to the left-right split in most democratic legislatures, are bamboozled by The Economist’s political stance. We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing?
Neither, is the answer. The Economist was founded in 1843 by James Wilson, a British businessman who objected to heavy import duties on foreign corn. Mr Wilson and his friends in the Anti-Corn Law League were classical liberals in the tradition of Adam Smith and, later, the likes of John Stuart Mill and William Ewart Gladstone. This intellectual ancestry has guided the newspaper’s instincts ever since: it opposes all undue curtailment of an individual’s economic or personal freedom. But like its founders, it is not dogmatic. Where there is a liberal case for government to do something, The Economist will air it. Early in its life, its writers were keen supporters of the income tax, for example. Since then it has backed causes like universal health care and gun control. But its starting point is that government should only remove power and wealth from individuals when it has an excellent reason to do so.
…
When The Economist opines on new ideas and policies, it does so on the basis of their merits, not of who supports or opposes them. Last October, for example, it outlined a programme of reforms to combat inequality. Some, like attacking monopolies and targeting public spending on the poor and the young, had a leftish hue. Others, like raising retirement ages and introducing more choice in education, were more rightish. The result, “True Progressivism“, was a blend of the two: neither right nor left, but all the better for it, and coming instead from what we like to call the radical centre.
Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je
Ta levo-desna delitev je včasih res smešna. CNN naprimer velja za bolj “liberalen” medij, Fox News pa za desnega, konservativnega. To je rahlo komično.
Za moje pojme so edini pravi levi mediji tisti, ki se ne financirajo niti iz oglaševalskega denarja, niti iz vladnega denarja, ampak iz prispevkov svojih gledalcev. V ZDA so to na primer Democracy Now, ali pa The Real News, zanimiv je tudi Project Censored.
Za vsak medij se je treba vprašati vsaj dve stvari: od kje dobiva denar in kakšno občinstvo ima. The Economist je vsekakor visoko kvaliteten korporativen medij, saj ima “elitno” občinstvo. Podobna medija sta Wall Street Journal in Financial TImes. Plastično povedano: za človeka, ki ima 10 milijonov evrov, gejevske poroke morda niso najbolj pomembna stvar v tem vesolju, zakaj bi jim torej nasprotoval, obenem pa mora tak človek zelo dobro vedeti kaj se dogaja okrog njega saj ga bodo nespametne odločitve tudi zelo veliko stale.
Vsega tega nekemu religiozno usmerjenemu in morda tudi revnemu človeku menda “ni treba” vedeti. Zato gleda desne korporativne medije, katerih občinstvo je srednje in nižje izobražen sloj. Iz tega potem potegne “informirano” odločitev, da bo volil versko usmerjenega Republikanca, ki mu bo vzel prehranske bone od katerih je življenjsko odvisen. Katastrofa.
Mediji so hibridi, Težko je najti “čisto” lev ali desen medij, ker so občinstva velika in raznolika. Celo Fox News ima bolj zmerno konservativne komentatorje zato, da si lahko rahlo poveča občinstvo..Mislim, da bi bila boljša delitev kot na leve in desne medije, delitev na bolj doktrinarne medije, ki podcenjujejo svoje občinstvo in mu določene stvari prikrivajo in na tiste, ki tega ne delajo.
Všeč mi jeVšeč mi je