POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES IN CENTRAL OKLAHOMA; TESTING SOWELL AND LAKOFF

This paper examines two models of political ideology and assesses their ability to predict the self-described ideological perspectives of central Oklahoma community leaders. The purpose is to quantifiably affirm or deny the usefulness of the models as tools for understanding how and why individuals support or oppose various public policies. There is an abundance of literature on the various types of ideologies and the underlying philosophies that produce them, but few attempts to measure the compatibility of these philosophies with what might be called a "commonplace" understanding of ideological labels. Whether one is reading Baradat's Political Ideologies, Hoover's Ideology and Political Life, or Susser's Political Ideology in the Modem World, what is found is a predetermined categorization of ideologies and public policy questions, with an analysis of the philosophies which are believed to influence how individuals and societies come to adopt or reject certain ideologies and their subsequent policies. What is not found in any of these analyses, however, is a quantifiable measurement that verifies the congruence of those philosophies with how individuals view ideological terms such as "liberal," "conservative," "moderate." In other words, there is no attempt to answer the question, does one's agreement with a 2 philosophical position necessarily translate into a traditional understanding of ideological labels, and result in support for a compatible public policy? It is the argument of this paper that on the whole, individuals do adhere to a consistent set of principles from which they make decisions regarding public policies. Whether one wishes to call such sets of principles "visions" as does Thomas Sowell, or worldviews, or any other term, they provide a framework of logic that allows individuals to makes sense out of their surroundings. This will attempt to test two philosophical models. One model is based upon the book A Conflict of Visions, by Thomas Sowell. According to Sowell, people generally fall into one of two categories depending on how they understand human nature. These two categories, the "constrained vision" and the "unconstrained vision," have their own set of consistent and logical policy consequences. The second model is based upon George Lakoff's book, Moral Politics. According to Lakoff, the policy preferences of individuals can be traced to their understanding of family life. Specifically, Lakoff argues that how one views parenting will, in large measure, determine how they decide to support or oppose various public policy proposals. Lakoff's two basic family models are the "strict father" and the "nurturant parent." Like Sowell's contrasting visions, each of Lakoff's models possesses its own internal logic and consistent policy preferences. A survey was given to a group of business and community leaders and elected officials within the Oklahoma City Metro Area. It contained thirty-one questions, which were divided between identifier questions (5), model questions (18), and policy questions (8). The survey was designed to determine if respondents' policy answers were consistent with their positions within the two models and their self-described political ideology. If valid, the models should be able to reasonably coincide with the ideological labels the respondents gave themselves. This information will be useful not only to political scientists and philosophers, as they constantly search for explanations as to how individuals perceive and interpret political solutions, but also, for the practitioners of politics, who must constantly communicate to voters in the most effective manner possible.