Search results

Argues for the conceptual plausibility of false consciousness, parting with radical leftists in refusing to invoke false consciousness whenever contradictions between reality & prediction need to be explained (away). Rather, standard economics is employed to specify conditions under which false consciousness will probably or probably not appear. Strikingly, economics demonstrates that false consciousness is unlikely to plague the individuals whom the radical Left has frequently deemed affected by it. Indeed, academics themselves in their function as social critics are especially prone to false consciousness; thus their social criticism & policy recommendations ought to be regarded with a grain of salt. 1 Figure, 44 References. K. Coddon

AbstractMany scholars argue that retrospective voting is a powerful information shortcut that offsets widespread voter ignorance. Even deeply ignorant voters, it is claimed, can effectively punish incumbents for bad performance and reward them if things go well. But if voters' understanding of which officials are responsible for which outcomes is systematically biased, retrospective voting becomes an independent source of political failure rather than a cure for it. We design and administer a new survey of the general public and political experts to test for such biases. Our analysis reveals frequent, large, robust biases in voter attributions of responsibility for a variety of political actors and outcomes with a tendency for the public to overestimate influence, although important examples of underestimation also exist.