tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post3766209096140794776..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Does the Academy discriminate against conservatives?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61585680991687120282013-09-18T07:52:35.331-04:002013-09-18T07:52:35.331-04:00"Liberals don't want a diversity of persp..."Liberals don't want a diversity of perspectives. They just want VISUAL diversity....The truth is that PSYCHOLOGY is an all-out liberal love fest and this is very problematic for a field that purports to give us unbiased information about humanity."<br /><br />For starters, Massimo suspects the imbalance in academia is due to certain factors. His main point is that the fact that academia is comprised of mainly liberals doesn't necessarily mean something underhanded is going on. Also, your complaint about stereotyping should be self directed, being that several sentences later you say, "Liberals don't want a diversity of perspectives. They just want VISUAL diversity". <br /><br />"The truth is that PSYCHOLOGY is an all-out liberal love fest and this is very problematic for a field that purports to give us unbiased information about humanity."<br /><br />What is the difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' study of psychology? Your claim is odd and unclear without, at the very least, a distinction.Bill Raybarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04983019883413164948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49121714200071533712012-06-05T15:35:12.951-04:002012-06-05T15:35:12.951-04:00Haidt's point was that conservatives do believ...Haidt's point was that conservatives do believe in gods, and therefore have a different set of moral criteria than progressives.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09625323312551345505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4029632681972263682012-06-05T07:40:05.353-04:002012-06-05T07:40:05.353-04:00Well, since I do not believe in any gods...Well, since I do not believe in any gods...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83822836533643873892012-06-05T02:06:58.824-04:002012-06-05T02:06:58.824-04:00Prof. Pigliucci:
So, you don't think respect ...Prof. Pigliucci:<br /><br />So, you don't think respect for authority is a moral value. How about, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09625323312551345505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28690041117399469352012-02-23T05:24:18.394-05:002012-02-23T05:24:18.394-05:00I thought your point compelling Troy, and sort of ...I thought your point compelling Troy, and sort of responded just above your c.v. entry. No offense, but I wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole- you'd be quite unsettling to the New World Order. Don't get me wrong- I'd love to hire you in the name of diversity- but then we'd be stuck with you, and that just seems so tough on everybody. So we're going to do you a favor and pass on you up front.Scott Wagnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04466053976501617269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87352669763061423632012-02-23T05:12:45.215-05:002012-02-23T05:12:45.215-05:00Thanks for posting, Ian: indeed, the Practical Eth...Thanks for posting, Ian: indeed, the Practical Ethics article was clear, logical, fairly complete- as opposed to Mr. P's, which was decidedly and casually ad hominem, that started off with ridiculing that seemed to stem from attitudes developed during a previous treatment of Haidt-generated ideas. The ridiculing itself seemed the point. Maybe Mr. P should be forgiven for taking a break, for providing entertainment instead of enlightenment that particular day. <br /><br />I thought Haidt's final response quite useful, though quite off-topic of the original, because it dealt with the limits of rationality in the context of being maligned by a fan of rationality. Mr. P's cursory response to end the dialogue was unfortunate, because I think his well-considered opinions on the failings and risks of rationality would've been useful.<br /><br />Even the Practical Ethics article missed the broader question implicit in Dr. Haidt's weakly argued conjecture: is there hidden a priori discrimination in academia along liberal/conservative lines? The question is pertinent because we are seeing evidence apart from Haidt's moral work that liberal/conservative differences are merely parenthetically political, that they are more fundamental, as seen in robust personality correlates using a variety of personality models, as well as twin studies that point to a large genetic component to political difference, and a host of random-seeming behavioral contrasts.<br /> <br />There have been comments here and there on this blog that liberal/conservative is a U.S. phenomenon, but that is almost certainly incorrect, as there is great meta-analysis work showing very similar polarization, across a center, in many cultures of the western world (I know of no research about the East). The book The Big Sort is a very interesting demographic and sociological meditation on this point. In my own case, I think it highly likely that I have discriminated against conservatives when hiring through personality/behavioral-based bias that highlighted them to me as not optimal. That is just speculation, but it dovetails with other evidence of fundamental difference, as well as the evidence of my staff's political proportions. <br /><br />Academic discrimination may be a natural fallout of this broad delineater. The value of such research may go back to Mr. P's absent final comments: the right has a great sensitivity to what they see as blatant employment of Descarte's Error by those on the left to prove their points. I haven't seen academic evidence, but I've gathered a lot of apocrypha and personal observation of inflexible, bias-driven rationality by the left, and am personally convinced of the significance of the problem. I believe the so-called New Athiests especially guilty of it: they often sound no more balanced than Lenin did as he crowed his social solutions in the years before he abruptly stutter-stepped the message circa 1922. Conservatives usually say this distorted rationality is their chief complaint about liberals (I interview them in the context of political communication research). Usually it is expressed simply as "Liberals think they are so smart", but examples make clear their distrust of our version of rationality, which they think makes us blind to our own versions of the biases we see so clearly in them. Academia would provide a great laboratory to look for liberal discrimination because nearly every non-conservative institution is leftward biased among the teacher population, in nearly all fields. <br /><br />Liberal rationality abuses would rather neatly explain part of a problem in which we assume implicitly, glibly to be further evolved than conservatives because of our respect for science. That implicit assumption often pulls me out of conversations nowadays to meta levels. Makes me think of how many mirrors and angled lights I'd have to drag into the bathroom to get even a crummy look at my bald spot. It's ok though, because the wife, she tells me it ain't bad at all.Scott Wagnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04466053976501617269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61327567834947663082011-02-15T15:17:03.249-05:002011-02-15T15:17:03.249-05:00I find it funny that there is no response to my ch...I find it funny that there is no response to my challenge that my C.V. would be discriminated against, so that I would not have even gotten an interview. Funny . . . or telling. One of the two.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72732941920566681332011-02-14T09:04:00.650-05:002011-02-14T09:04:00.650-05:00My response to Prof. Haidt can be found as a major...My response to Prof. Haidt can be found as a major new entry at Rationally Speaking: http://goo.gl/NG6ghAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34477285576122751262011-02-14T07:48:50.944-05:002011-02-14T07:48:50.944-05:00Jonathan Haidt says he googled “liberal social psy...Jonathan Haidt says he googled “liberal social psychologist” and got around 3000 hits, compared to 3 hits for “conservative social psychologist”.<br />So I googled “liberal social psychologist” and got 2,880 results. The only problem is when you go to the next page, you find that there are really only 16 results. Google is funny that way.<br />Bing gave no hits for “conservative social psychologist” and about 5 or so hits for “liberal social psychologist”, not counting redundant hits or pages talking about Jonathan Haidt.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12483245818327188536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89166116433779683602011-02-13T18:01:15.154-05:002011-02-13T18:01:15.154-05:00It's funny and a bit sad to see the blind bigo...It's funny and a bit sad to see the blind bigotry of Pigliucci and several commenters. They imply, without citing any evidence whatsoever, that there are so few conservatives in the academy because conservatives are stupid. Yet, they would never dare to make this same argument about, say, black underrepresentation (even though that would be much easier to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x/abstract" rel="nofollow">argue empirically</a>). This is exactly what Haidt was talking about: in certain fields, some ideas are accepted axiomatically without anyone questioning them, while at the same time some other ideas are thought to be so obviously false that they are not even considered.<br /><br />Moreover, Pigliucci totally misrepresented Haidt's actual argument. See <a href="http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/2011/02/haidt-requests-apology-from-pigliucci/" rel="nofollow">Haidt Requests Apology from Pigliucci</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16513481497262035992011-02-13T16:28:25.847-05:002011-02-13T16:28:25.847-05:00Dear Prof. Pigliucci:
Let me be certain that I ha...Dear Prof. Pigliucci:<br /><br />Let me be certain that I have understood you. You did not watch my talk, even though a link to it was embedded in the Tierney article. Instead, you picked out one piece of my argument (that the near-total absence of conservatives in social psychology is evidence of discrimination) and you made the standard response, the one that most bloggers have made: underrepresentation of any group is not, by itself, evidence of discrimination. That’s a good point; I made it myself quite explicitly in my talk:<br /><br />"Of course there are many reasons why conservatives would be underrepresented in social psychology, and most of them have nothing to do with discrimination or hostile climate. Research on personality consistently shows that liberals are higher on openness to experience. They’re more interested in novel ideas, and in trying to use science to improve society. So of course our field is and always will be mostly liberal. I don’t think we should ever strive for exact proportional representation."<br /><br />In my talk I made it clear that I’m not concerned about simple underrepresentation. I did not even make the moral argument that we need ideological diversity to right an injustice. Rather, I focused on what happens when a scientific community shares sacred values. A tribal moral community arises, one that actively suppresses ideas that are sacrilegious, and that discourages non-believers from entering. I argued that my field has become a tribal moral community, and the absence of conservatives (not just their underrepresentation) has serious consequences for the quality of our science. We rely on our peers to find flaws in our arguments, but when there is essentially nobody out there to challenge liberal assumptions and interpretations of experimental findings, the peer review process breaks down, at least for work that is related to those sacred values. (The great majority of work in social psychology is excellent, and is unaffected by these problems).<br /><br />The fact that you criticized me without making an effort to understand me is not surprising. That is common in the blogosphere (although I rarely see it among philosophers). Rather, what sets you apart from all other bloggers who are members of the academy is what you did next. You accused me of professional misconduct—lying, essentially–and you speculated as to my true motive:<br /><br />"I suspect that Haidt is either an incompetent psychologist (not likely) or is disingenuously saying the sort of things controversial enough to get him in the New York Times (more likely)."<br /><br />As far as I can tell your evidence for these accusations is that my argument was so bad that I couldn’t have believed it myself. Here is how you justified your accusations:<br /><br />[Your blog only accepts comments of up to 4,000 characters. To see the rest of my response, please go to http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/2011/02/haidt-requests-apology-from-pigliucci/ ]Jon Haidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02251797057285084956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30327267188834454542011-02-13T15:35:17.862-05:002011-02-13T15:35:17.862-05:00On a more light-hearted, not-too-rigorous note, co...On a more light-hearted, not-too-rigorous note, <a href="http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-best-questions-for-first-dates/" rel="nofollow">conservatives prefer their people simple</a>.Sean (quantheory)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00094694851707164734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57905674619517522352011-02-13T02:09:32.377-05:002011-02-13T02:09:32.377-05:00I am sure that you have never asked anyone about t...I am sure that you have never asked anyone about their politics in a hiring interview, etc. But let me ask you if you could tell what my politics might be from my publications:<br /><br />Essay – “The Spontaneous Orders of the Arts”– Studies in Emergent Order, Vol. 3 (2010): 195-211 <br /><br />Essay – “From the Sensory Order to the Moral Order: Bridging Hayek to Hayek (Part I)” – NOMOI, Vol. 1 (2010): 3-5<br /><br />Book Review – Roger Scruton “Beauty” – Philosophical Practice, Vol. 4.3 <br /><br />Book Review – Craig Dove “Nietzsche’s Ethical Theory: Mind, Self and Responsibility”– Philosophical Practice, Vol. 4.1 <br /><br />Book Review – Lou Marinoff “The Middle Way” – Philosophical Practice, Vol. 3.2 <br /><br />Article – “Interdisciplinarity versus Multidisciplinarity” – Time’s News: <br /><br />Essay Reprint – "Literature as a Game: Game-Play in Reading, Creating, and Understanding Literature” – Esophy <br /><br />Essay – "Literature as a Game: Game-Play in Reading, Creating, and Understanding Literature” – Consciousness, Literature and the Arts, Volume 7 Number 2, August 2006 <br /><br />Book Review – Madison Jones' “Nashville 1864: The Dying of the Light” – Bibliophilos<br /><br />Or my conference presentations:<br /><br />Short Story – "For the Love of Orchids" – USM Cross-disciplinary Seminar, Spring 1999<br /><br />Essay – "Hubris: The Virtuous Vice" – International Society for the Study of Time Conference, August 2007 <br /><br />Essay – "Spontaneous Order and Emergent Phenomena: An Interdisciplinary Approach" – Fund for Spontaneous Orders Conference, “Orders and Borders,” Nov. 2008 <br /><br />Colloquium – Liberty Fund, “F. A. Hayek,” June 7-12, 2009<br /><br />Essay – “The Spontaneous Orders of the Arts” Fund for Spontaneous Orders Conference, “Organization and Emergence: Tensions and Symbiosis,” Dec. 3-6, 2009<br /><br />I also list popular publications on my C.V. that would make it even clearer what my politial orientation is. <br /><br />With pubilcations that include articles on F.A. Hayek, what are the odds that I'm going to get an interview at all from a humanities department? You don't have to wait for me to get there to discriminate against me.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73609009740707277672011-02-13T00:34:45.858-05:002011-02-13T00:34:45.858-05:00A good article from Practical Ethics on this very ...<a href="http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/02/affirmative-action-in-social-psychology/#more-1083" rel="nofollow">A good article from Practical Ethics on this very topic.</a>ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50571360125706745362011-02-12T14:13:13.685-05:002011-02-12T14:13:13.685-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44369351244712777112011-02-12T12:26:13.455-05:002011-02-12T12:26:13.455-05:00James --
Not exactly sure what point you are mak...James -- <br /><br />Not exactly sure what point you are making, but yes, certainly, the "pipeline" from entering undergraduate student to faculty is long and complex. <br /><br />It is possible that phenomena of the sort that lalawawa notes discourage some conservative students from continuing their careers, or disadvantage them in subtle ways. Of course, even if it is true that university faculty tend, on average, to be significantly more liberal than the population as a whole *and* that they "display" some of their political views in their choice of cartoons and political speech, etc., there have been, in every academic department I've been a part of, more conservative faculty members, too. And at every university I've been at -- not every department, mind you, but at every school -- there are conservative faculty members who make it a point to put conservative cartoons on their doors, too. <br /><br />But even if university campuses were, in general, not friendly to conservative viewpoints and hence uncomfortable for conservative students, that still wouldn't be a similar experience to a campus being uncomfortable for e.g. homosexual students or black students. The reason is simple -- conservatives are, broadly speaking, not discriminated against nor disadvantaged in other areas of their lives. So frankly, they don't really "need" an especially "safe" place in which they are protected from being made a bit uncomfortable. <br /><br />The argument that conservatives are under-represented on college campuses and hence some kind of remediation is necessary presumes that conservatives in the U.S. -- who are, for the most part, used to being in the most privileged and advantaged groups -- should be able to maintain their status at the top, immune from being made uncomfortable or having to confront views different from their own.<br /><br />Protected groups are generally protected *because* they are generally *disadvantaged* -- trying to make workplaces, university campuses, etc., more welcoming is important *because* society in general usually isn't, and past real harms demand enforced responses. That doesn't apply to conservatives (or, for that matter, to liberals).Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11364316598293820961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86267532790289746382011-02-12T10:10:59.234-05:002011-02-12T10:10:59.234-05:00This is fun fenomenon. Conservatives are fond on n...This is fun fenomenon. Conservatives are fond on nostalgic superiority. They count religious geniusses in past times. And this proves to them that christianity is scientific worldwiev and christian history is a reason why we have fine scientific and technological society.<br /><br />There is no even a word about discrimination...Tuomo "Squirrel" Hämäläinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11543274707131718316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77280588504179792652011-02-12T01:37:39.888-05:002011-02-12T01:37:39.888-05:00I have never seen any "political test" i...I have never seen any "political test" in hiring or promotion at my university, just as Massimo says has been his experience. True, we have always rejected those dumber than a sack of hammers. If that happens to correlate with political views, and selects against the right-wing, who is surprised? We don't hire ham-fisted pianists either, despite their claims that we are discriminating against their two-tone (low-high) music because we discriminate against ham-fistedness. No: we just think they should actually learn to play the piano. Ditto for the right-wing: you are not discriminated against in academia because you are right-wing, but because what you write, say, and believe is just demonstrably stupid.John R. Vokeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03822243132435056442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35314407745071200092011-02-11T20:17:56.810-05:002011-02-11T20:17:56.810-05:00Timothy Mills,
O.k., acting as devil's advoca...Timothy Mills,<br /><br />O.k., acting as devil's advocate here - I'm very left wing compared to most on this blog, but only slightly. A study into the effect of political influence on hiring practices is complicated by the fact that it is a system of steps...<br /><br />1) do well as an undergraduate<br />2) do well as a masters student<br />3) do well as a phd student<br />4) get hired at a university, and do well<br />5) get tenure<br /><br />...and this is an oversimplification!<br /><br />At every step of the way, participants are encouraged or discouraged by a strange minutia of factors that can sometimes seem perverse.<br /><br />If you want to make an argument against discrimination, you have to overcome, at every stage, an atmosphere of discouragement.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40513940122178320832011-02-11T19:33:06.352-05:002011-02-11T19:33:06.352-05:00Corey --
Good points and well put.
But for the...Corey --<br /><br />Good points and well put. <br /><br />But for the most part, the language of disparate impact versus intent applies to federal case law and to a lesser extent state law rather than local statutes. <br /><br />And of course, strict scrutiny just demands that there be a compelling state interest in the policy. Beating disparate impact likewise just demands a compelling business interest not addressable by other policies having a lesser impact.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11364316598293820961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33774195701614763012011-02-11T14:53:15.860-05:002011-02-11T14:53:15.860-05:00@Jonathan - "No, under current law, a *protec...@Jonathan - "No, under current law, a *protected class* of people, one to which "strict scrutiny" applies, need not show intent to discriminate but rather merely the disparate impact of policies in order to sue. "Conservatives" are not a "protected class" in this sense (neither are "liberals")."<br /><br />There are plenty of local laws that cover political affliction and speech under discrimination. And of course religion is covered under the EEOC - not that it would apply to a bio teacher attempting to teach ID - it doesn't and should NOT. I am not saying this represents discrimination. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of bias and disparate impact out of hand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65760956183658149012011-02-11T13:11:05.982-05:002011-02-11T13:11:05.982-05:00Has anyone tried to get the far more relevant data...Has anyone tried to get the far more relevant data: how does the proportion of conservatives among applicants for academic positions compare to the proportion of conservatives among <i>successful</i> applicants for academic positions?<br /><br />Surely this information would settle a lot of the back-and-forth above.<br /><br />Of course, it may not be easy to get an unbiased sample of applicants. Conservatives who feel discriminated against may not want to reveal their conservatism in a survey while applying for academic jobs. This would make the proportion of conservative applicants seem lower, which would tend to underestimate any actual hiring bias that may be present.<br /><br />Another bit of information that may be informative would be longitudinal data. Do conservatives tend to become more liberal after time in academia? If so, that might account for some of the apparent disparity. It would, of course, also spawn a whole new set of controversial theories:<br /><br />- social pressures cause people to shift their political allegiance<br />- critical thinking (of the sort presumably encouraged in academia) leads people to more liberal positions (ie, liberals are more correct than conservatives)<br />- scientists are secretly conducting widespread conservatectomies on members of the academic population<br /><br />Anyone fancy taking on this research project?Timothy Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373801153623991221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14655659641125322992011-02-11T00:13:55.976-05:002011-02-11T00:13:55.976-05:00“If a group circles around sacred values, they wil...“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community.” It must be bad if a psychologist has to resort to anthrobabble instead of psychobabble. "Tribal moral community"? Give me a break. Ditto for the self-pitying comparison to racism and sexism. <br /><br />Otherwise the problem that immediately leaps out at me are the assumptions that US citizens are (a) a homogeneous group with political opinions distributed evenly through that group and (b) psychologists are drawn randomly from that group. Psychologists may be drawn from a class that tends to be more liberal (urban middle class, something like that) .<br /><br />There is also the problem that certain disciplines will tend attract people with certain beliefs. For example, if you sincerely believe in "America, f*ck yeah!" you are probably not going to go into anthropology. It's self-selection not "discrimination." Economics departments and Business programs will probably also skew politically (and not necessarily to the Left).Apxeohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15878801676567348977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61027030215137278652011-02-10T23:32:17.168-05:002011-02-10T23:32:17.168-05:00Massimo, I want to take issue with your assertion ...Massimo, I want to take issue with your assertion that the academy is extremely apolitical.<br /><br />I remember a math professor I had had leftist poltical cartoons all over the door to his office. One of them was claiming that the reason solar energy was not deemed economically feasible in 1979 was because of a conspiracy of the big oil companies.<br /><br />An experimental psych class I took in 1981 was taught by prof Elliot Aronson, and he wrote the textbook for the course, "The Social Animal". In this book, he psychoanalyzed every opinion that was deemed conservative at the time and concluded that each and every one of them was psychologically dysfunctional. Fortunately, most of the class was taught by a grad student so I did learn a lot of fascianating things about experimental psych. In the one lecture taught by Aronson, he spent the whole time railing against the evils of capitalism. I thought the guy was a disgrace. I can't see how a conservative grad student could possibly have survived under him.<br /><br />At Caltech, I remeber the president of the school and some of the other faculty being very vocal about their opposition to the Reagan arms buildup.<br /><br />That said, I do think most of the difference between the political views of the academy and those of the population as a whole are mostly the result of selection bias. People who believe that the free market is a just and efficient system will leave school once they have marketable skills and enter the private sector as soon as they can. Also, I think that economics and business professors are probably more conservative and in their economic, though not their social, politics than professors in other disciplines, and this is due not to selection bias or discriminaion but rather to a more accurate understanding of the relevant issues.lalawawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01219154713603989499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81762590268110741702011-02-10T23:11:49.973-05:002011-02-10T23:11:49.973-05:00Michael Labeit,
Sure, but everyone transits every...Michael Labeit,<br /><br />Sure, but everyone transits everywhere, and American political theory is very influential. American pragmatism, for example, may actually be more popular in Europe than it is in America. Rawls' influence continues to rival Habermas'. While the American conservative movement doesn't really have ideas. It's more about nationalism, religion, and realpolitik. It's really a domestic movement.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.com