On the Bourdieusian field note, one might note that ‘political economy’ itself is an intermediation between fields that has been done for centuries. And in Mudge’s book, the cultural explanations (point 4) are much smaller than the focus on political economy. To test the refraction theory, one would have to measure both the top-down and the bottom-up effects. One can see arguments for both. But for all of the “let there be light” approach of reflection and refraction, the refraction approach does seem to be much more reasonable and balanced than the reflection (or interest conveyor belt) theory and the articulation (or top down imposition of policy by party leader) theory. The three-part complex goals view of parties (win, represent, and truth telling) is useful in recognizing that parties are often hard to figure out, especially if one assumes that they only have one goal (a point made by Richard Walton and Robert McKersie about labor unions in A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations (1965, ILR Press)). All in all, refraction theory is the most comprehensive and potentially accurate approach to political parties that I have seen.