Abstract
The model is proposing to broadly manifest ideologically consistent thinking which currently seems missing in a large segment of the public on the surface "crystallized" ideology in the entire population may seem dangerously divisive and potentially explosive; but when ideological inclination (i.e. the balance of freedom and equality) is applied to concrete political situations in the making of actual decisions, the balance can be each time re-assessed, or for that matter, each time re-estate, given the leadership and circumstances of the given situation. The point here is that because of this re-casting of the ideological balance, with each judgment, any criticism of the model that would presume polarization falls into an "ecological fallacy". This fallacy suggests that there is great evidence that the vote from an aggregate perspective is remarkably stable; but the evidence is that approximately one in four change their vote. The perceived evidence for vote stability is only "circumstantial" (Brown, in conversation) because the individual volatility mostly cancels itself out giving the impression of stability. Any attempts at drawing conclusions about polarization then, too, misrepresents the complex nature of circumstance and the delicate nature of the personal balance between the two values of freedom and equality.
References
[1] 100 See Kinder (1983), p. 397; Feldman (1988) p. 416. 118 See Kinder (1983).
[2] P. 399. 119 ibid., p.400. 120 David Scars, Richard Lau, Torn Tyler and Harris Allen Jr., "Self Interest Versus Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting," American Political Science Review,
[3] 74 11914 121. ill Kinder (1983), p. 416. 112 See Donald Granberg, "An Anomaly t Political Perception", Public Opinion Quarterly, 49 (1985), pp 504-516.