The Washington Post published an article Monday that is, to put it plainly, a steaming pile of garbage.
The author, Ohio State University professor Thomas Wood, explored three possible motivators for Donald Trump supporters: Being low-income, desiring authoritarianism, and racism.
Putting aside the fact it’s bogus these are the only options offered Trump voters, the author manages to make things worse by using a ludicrous and overly broad definition of racism.
“During the campaign, Trump made overt racial comments, with seemingly little electoral penalty. Could the unusual 2016 race have further affected Americans’ racial attitudes? To test this, I use what is called the ‘symbolic racism scale’ to compare whites who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate with those who voted for the Republican,” he wrote, citing the 2016 American National Election Study.
Wood added, “This scale measures racial attitudes among respondents who know that it’s socially unacceptable to say things perceived as racially prejudiced. Rather than asking overtly prejudiced questions — ‘do you believe blacks are lazy’ — we ask whether racial inequalities today are a result of social bias or personal lack of effort and irresponsibility.”
Using this extraordinarily broad definition of racism, Wood “showed” that racial biases motivated Trump supporters the most.
“Racial attitudes made a bigger difference in electing Trump than authoritarianism,” Wood wrote.
In case you were wondering how he defined authoritarianism:
Authoritarianism, as used by political scientists, isn’t the same as fascism; it’s a psychological disposition in which voters have an aversion to social change and threats to social order. Since respondents might not want to say they fear chaos or are drawn to strong leadership, this disposition is measured by asking voters about the right way to rear children….
The idea is that voters anxious about change and disorder will say it’s best to encourage children to follow rules. For instance, respondents are asked whether it’s better when children are considerate (likely more liberal) or well-behaved (likely more authoritarian), or whether they should be self-reliant (likely more liberal) or obedient (likely more authoritarian).
Can we talk for a minute about the fact Wood offered only these three options for exploring what motivated Trump supporters? Can we also discuss the fact he didn’t come right out and offer these options himself and chose instead to hide behind nameless “observers” and commentators.”
The media ecosystem already has a problem with garbage collection. Please don’t add to the pile.
(h/t Alex Griswold)
