Er amerikanske højreorienterede kyniske og nærige med offentlige midler?  Det ville nogle måske tro.  Men er ditto venstreorienterede nok mere “ekspansive” men samtidigt i virkeligheden mere racistiske?  Hmmm.  Noget kunne tyde på det.

Indenfor de senere år er “laboratorie-eksperimenter” vundet meget frem indenfor samfundsvidenskaberne–især økonomi og politologi mens metoden naturligvis har lange rødder indenfor f.eks. sociologi og psykologi.   Dette blev mest synligt markeret i 2002 med Nobelprisen i økonomi til den gode (noget-mindre-end-minimalstats-)liberalist Vernon Smith, men en anden som ofte laver sjove, eller ihvertfald tankevækkende, eksperimenter er kommunikationsforskeren Shanto Iyengar fra Political Communication Lab på Stanford University.

Iyengar lavede sidste år i samarbejde med The Washington Post/washingtonpost.com et eksperiment i kølvandet på “Hurricane Katrina”, hvor han bad 2.300 deltagende “forsøgskaniner” læse en nyhedsartikel om et menneske, der var blevet ramt af orkanen.  Nogle fik en avishistorie om en “hvid” amerikaner, mens andre fik identiske versioner af historien men hvor personens oprindelse var latin-amerikansk, asiatisk eller afrikansk.  Forsøgspersonerne blev herefter spurgt om, hvor megen hjælp de syntes den nødlidende person skulle have fra det offentlige.  Totalt set ville deltagerne give mindre til “sorte” end til “hvide”:

“[The] study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.

As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered — and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) “Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. “However, their position is ‘principled’ in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues.”

Se, det var jo interessant, al den stund at det går ganske meget kontra den almindelige visdom.

Vi kender ikke Iyengars egen politiske observans, men han kommer fra et af de mest “højreorienterede” universiteter i USA–hvor forskerne indenfor samfundsvidenskab er ca. tre Demokrater/grønne/etc. for hver Republikaner/libertarianer.  Han vil ifølge Washington Post ikke gå så langt som at kalde de venstreorienterede forsøgspersoner for racister:

“I wouldn’t put it quite so starkly,” said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats “less principled” rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected …

Iyengar said he’s not surprised by the latest findings: “This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime” with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. “Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white.”