Right of Center (Part II)
In my post yesterday, I defended my claim that the country leans right by addressing the criticism that "liberal" is a stigmatized term that prevents ostensibly liberal people from identifying with it. This post will address the criticism that regardless of how people identify themselves, they in fact have liberal views and policy preferences.
As I noted, Paul Waldman of Media Matters and other liberals have cited polls showing that self-identified moderates prefer greater spending in a number of policy areas, such as Social Security, education, and even aid to the poor. Waldman concedes that moderates are "moderate"—midway between liberals and conservatives—on some issues, but asserts that "it is exceedingly hard to find an issue where moderates and conservatives stand on one side and liberals stand on the other."
Well, it's not that hard. Using the same survey as Waldman, the 2004 NES, I found that self-identified moderates are closer to conservatives than to liberals on border security, anti-immigrant sentiment, whether one's own taxes are too high, whether jobs should be prioritized over the environment, sympathy to claims of gender or race discrimination, prioritization of the war on terror over other issues, whether Bush's war on terror policies in particular have been effective (as of 2004, remember), preference for military force over diplomacy, whether Iraq has made the US less secure (as of 2004), the importance of traditional gender roles and traditional family values, child-rearing attitudes, abortion, gay rights, religiosity, and patriotism.
Note here that while I disagree with Waldman's interpretation of the evidence, I respect that he is marshalling evidence. That distinction still seems lost on some of the commenters here. My criticism of Waldman is that he has interpreted the evidence incompletely and incorrectly. But he didn't just assert his opinion.
Self-identified ideology does in fact map onto voter preferences—just not on the issues that we see liberalism triumphant on. How can I validly assert that? You guessed it—I have evidence. As I described in this post from The Democratic Strategist, we can think of four broad issue areas in public policy—national security/foreign policy, economic/social policy, fiscal policy, and values issues. While I don't have time to get into the details of my analysis here—I provided them in a second TDS post—I attempted to label people as liberal or conservative on a number of policy and attitudinal questions in these issue areas and then used the responses to construct overall indicators of liberalism/conservatism for the four issue areas. Essentially, questions that were strongly predictive of the 2004 presidential vote were given a stronger weight than questions that only weakly predicted the presidential vote.
Do read the TDS posts first, but I want to emphasize that these analyses are a work in progress, and my results have changed since I wrote the original posts (and, frankly, in a way that weakens my case). The latest results are as follows:
- 54% are liberal on economic & social policy
- 54% are conservative on foreign policy & national security
- 62% are conservative on values issues
I am revising my estimates for fiscal policy in light of evidence I have uncovered indicating how "soft" preferences for spending increases really are. To wit, the share of the population supporting spending increases when no tradeoffs are posed shrinks dramatically when respondents must consider tradeoffs. In the 2004 NES, 74 percent of adults favored increasing federal spending on public schools. Ideally, one would ask whether they would still favor this expansion given the alternative of cutting taxes or reducing the deficit.
We do not have that question, but we do have a series of questions that serve to rank order preferences between tax cuts, deficit reduction, and "domestic spending". If we include as supporters of expanded education spending only those people for whom domestic spending increases are at least as favorable as either tax cuts or deficit reduction, then the share of supporters drops from 74 percent to 53 percent. If we include as supporters only those people for whom domestic spending increases are clearly preferred to either tax cuts or deficit reduction, then the share of supporters drops to 33 percent. Finally, if we include as supporters only those people for whom domestic spending increases are clearly preferred to both tax cuts and deficit reduction, then the share drops to 21 percent of adults.
Why are these figures important? Because they demonstrate that the support found in surveys for expansion of education, health care, and other spending is remarkably soft. That means that ambitious progressive proposals, such as universal health care reform, are easily defeated. If "liberalism" means that people are open to domestic policies that carry hefty price tags, then the electorate is decidedly moderate in this area (as in foreign policy and national security and in economic and social policy, see the TDS posts). And they are decidedly conservative in terms of values issues.
And here's where I'll wrap up. I have actually taken some time to look into what self-identified ideology actually means, using regression analysis, and the bottom line is that it mostly tracks values (and secondarily perceptions of character). The two strongest predictors of whether one called oneself a liberal or conservative in 2004 were one's ideology on values issues and whether one was authoritarian or not (based on child-rearing attitudes). Coming in ahead of ideological disposition on economic and social policy, foreign policy and national security, and fiscal policy were perceptions of character—whether one thought Kerry was a strong leader and whether one thought Bush cared about people like "you".
Tomorrow I plan to leave political strategy behind and return to the role of evidence in defining and solving problems.
Scott:
Good morning from the left-coast ... the shipping center to the nation. Someone's got to keep the nation's retail economy flowing.
I was wondering if you had gotten back over to your initial posting and read my lastest comments there?
Have fun in here today. I'm tied up watching the paint dry in our bathroom remodel.
~OGD~
May 31, 2007 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because they demonstrate that the support found in surveys for expansion of education, health care, and other spending is remarkably soft. That means that ambitious progressive proposals, such as universal health care reform, are easily defeated.
Why not simply look at polls that ask people directly questions about health care? On almost every one of these poll results, it seems pretty clear the majority of Americans support some form of universal health care, and support raising taxes to pay for it:
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
May 31, 2007 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scott,
You have data, not facts. This is why your whole approach doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Worse, you have outdated data. You're refighting the 2004 election.
Real facts, such as our inability to clean up our mess in Iraq have changed people's attitudes about what kind of foreign policy we should have and Katrina changed people's minds about what our Homeland Security strategies should be.
If the 2004 election had happened even six months later, Kerry probably would have won just because that was the turning point for the public's feelings about Iraq. Now, 3 years later, the public is more against the war and more against uS military interventions abroad than ever before.
A lot's changed in 3 years.
But you haven't dealt with any of it. Worse, you're misuing the word "Fact" in an attempt to stear the party towards perception of character issues? You're saying that liberals shouldn't pursue big policies because support for them is easily eroded?
The GOP really doesn't kill support for universal health care based on cost. They just try to scare people into believing that the government won't let them pick their own doctors.
I'll let Scott speak for himself here (from his first TDS link): "attracting swing voters means emphasizing values and national security. These issues are crucial to improving performance among inconsistent identifiers and liberal-identifying conservatives. Values issues also appear key to keeping and improving performance among conservative-identifying liberals."
Well, as I said, all of your national security data are outdated. So we'll have to start over and deal with the facts on the ground, as it were.
And what you call "values" issues don't get to the heart of what values mean. Looking at the data in your second post I see that people are mostly pro-choice provided they don't pay for it with their tax dollars and that other than that, they don't much like homosexuals or feminists, they're split on gun control and they like the death penalty.
I don't know how the heck you think you have a picture of people's "values" when you used a series of questions that leave out the real meat of most vakues debates which center on the right to live however you want and the right to privacy. But, there you have it -- a recipe for candidates who do nothing in the cause of human freedom and dignity but will instead pander to the worst elements of "moderate" belief. Brilliant.
You know Scott, it is a fact that a lot of people believe stupid things. Sometimes those big social programs for which support can be easily eroded are the best way to shake lazy thinkers loose from their dogmas.
You should seriously stop strutting around like you have all the facts. You have data of questionable utility and relevance.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 31, 2007 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
That distinction still seems lost on some of the commenters here.
Issues, like a "preference of military over diplomacy," are choices that are influenced by propaganda (Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media).
i..e You assume that opinion polls measure true opinion versus shaped opinion.
If people support military action-- as a core value, why don't they support the Iraq War? Why is "support for the troops" a big worry?
To boldly go...
May 31, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Double Bingo, in fact.
May 31, 2007 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Self-identified ideology does in fact map onto voter preferences
and, when 60% of the people in the US don't vote, what does that say?
To boldly go...
May 31, 2007 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
in the battle between the left and the right, scott should study why social security didn't die-- a lot of conservatives called up their representatives and raised hell and said: "don't mess with our retirement!"
i.e. everyone sees "contractual obligations" as "contractual obligations."
everone thinks that "if there's money for war, there's money for peace!"
To boldly go...
May 31, 2007 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
Maybe the problem with the liberal agenda of economic and social issues is the very fact that they're a single, take-it-or-leave-it package. What if someone were to package a left-wing economic agenda with a conservative social agenda? This seems to be what most Americans want. Why aren't they getting it?
.
Second point: In "What's the Matter With Kansas," Thomas Frank notes that conservatives are often betrayed when they vote Republican. They want a right-wing social agenda and instead get right-wing economics. But isn't this also true of Democrats? Vote for Bill Clinton and universal health care, get NAFTA and welfare reform.
.
Wouldn't this account for some of the disgust with liberals? No matter whom Americans vote for, we get a bond-market-oriented economic policy that precludes development of a substantial social safety net. The only difference is whether our leaders relish (Republicans) or "regret" (Democrats) the outcome.
May 31, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What if someone were to package a left-wing economic agenda with a conservative social agenda? This seems to be what most Americans want. Why aren't they getting it?
What is a "conservative social agenda"?
Anti-abortion? Anti-social security? Anti-gay?
Most people don't hold those anti- positions.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
May 31, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great question, MCS.
In his TDS papers, Scott argues that new voters largely break the same way as current voters. He uses that to argue for courting swing voters rather than counting on voters to appear out of nowhere to support lefty causes.
In a sense, I agree with him because hope is not a strategy and we certainly can't count on support from people who don't participate.
In another sense, I disagree with him that those voters would break the same way as everyone else. They're waiting to be inspired and safe policy tactics designed to appeal to some muddled middle are not going to get those voters off of the sidelines. The same holds true for the right, by the way. How many voters feel like they don't need to participate because it's all going to come out as a wash? I'd bet a lot of them do. They want to see something bold, they need to be inspired. Either we do it or they will.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 31, 2007 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, the synthesis just doesn't work out.
I think corvid makes a great point, though, that partisans on either side basically get what they didn't want.
I feel like we Americans were basically educated to believe that compromise between extremes always leads to the best solution. It doesn't. If one idea is good and one is bad, the middleground is, at best half-bad.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 31, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you made a very important observation yesterday. Your concern occured to me in a slightly different way. As I began to read the material linked by Mr. Winship I was reminded that the Ptolemaic (ortho-centric) system works quite well for local and ordinary daily usages. It took the optimism of Renaissance humanism and the insightful analysis of N. Copernicus to find a simpler and more accurate helio-centric model which was later verified by the true empiricist Galileo. I thought of this for two reasons. One is that in retrospect the Ptolemaic system looks like a Rube Goldberg invention but before Copernicus it was the pinnacle of human thought on the subject. It actually is a marvelous contraption even if wholly in error. In all honesty this is how I read the “research” that supposedly underlies Mr. Winship’s theses. It strikes me as a kind of Scolastic (in the Midieval sense) exercise in theology.
The second reason it occurred to me is that in my opinion the failure of Mr. Winships’ analysis originates in the misunderstanding of “empiricism” in both the broad and the narrow sense. I am not certain what “looking through the telescope” means in this context but I just intuitively feel that there is a lot of unwillingness to do so. The risk to some kind of orthodoxy seems to circumscribe the direction of the investigation. We’ll see.
May 31, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Because they demonstrate that the support found in surveys for expansion of education, health care, and other spending is remarkably soft.
Maybe, but you will find the same softness in support for many apparently popular conservative positions if you start offering alternatives or defining them more precisely. For example, polls on value issues, notably abortion, are notoriously all over the map depending on how you word them.
Re: What if someone were to package a left-wing economic agenda with a conservative social agenda?
Um, what do you mean by "conservative social agenda?" If all you mean is lots of warm, fuzzy rhetoric about Mom, Baseball and Apple Pie, you may be right. If you start campaigning for a ban on all abortions, a return of sodomy laws, and prayer and creationism in the public schools I think that's a recipe for defeat. Insofar as a conservative social agenda is a leave-us-alone agenda, it flies; but if it crosses the line into rightwing religious activism it's fairly toxic (see also: Terri Schiavo).
May 31, 2007 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually more like a bouncy somewhat too eager puppy, cute full of potential but a bit annoying. ;-)
May 31, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
RogerGathman
There are many, many things wrong with Scott's post - they all probably stem from the arrogant attitude of "I struck a nerve", or the petulant and rather funny comment on Waldman: "My criticism of Waldman is that he has interpreted the evidence incompletely and incorrectly. But he didn't just assert his opinion." Which translated means, I expressed a different opinion than Waldman, and now I am going to pretend my opinion is scientific by using polling of opinions rather than voting patterns or other behavioral patterns to show that my favorite things - privatizing Social Security responsibly! getting rid of those middle class entitlements! being strong strong strong on Defense aren't just conservative opinions, but are liberal opinions that have passed through the fire of hard data and experience.
In actuality, the shift of opinion one way or another is related critically to what programs are enacted. The conservatism, here, works against the so called 'reforms' of government programs - in actuality, opinion of a Government program, especially one that deals with social welfare, is critically impacted by whether it is in the proposal stage or whether it already exists. This is true, whether the program is actually even good or not. Bush's pill bill was not popularly supported before it was enacted, and there were numerous stories about how unpopular it was when it first came on line, but now it has been assimilated and disappeared as an issue in itself - the issue is, how to modify it. Opinion polls have to be relevant to policy that is and has been actually enacted, rather than building cloud on cloud and pretending you have tapped into the mass belief set. That, of course, is just crap. However, the mindset that has prevented Dems from doing anything over the past six years to prevent the most radical conservative executive in one hundred years from running over them roughshod is truly on display here. The aura of science which is as rigid and meaningless as numerology, the contempt for those "who don't have the data", the disguising of conservative views in the cloak of "pragmatic progressive policy" - it is all there. No doubt, based on Scott's 2004 surveys, the Dems would be making a grave era in September to make an issue of the funding of the war - it is secretly supported by the vast majority! The low poll numbers for Bush are a delusion - break them down and truly, the nation is opposed to him because he isn't conservative enough!
There is a Greek myth about a man named Ixion. He fell in love with Hera, the wife of Zeus, the head god. Zeus created a cloud with Hera's shape, and Ixion made love to it - and for this sacrilege, he was condemned to be tied, eternally, to a burning wheel in Hades, going round and round, getting nowhere. The progressive-as-pragmatist, with the charts and resolute blindness towards real behaviors, is much like Ixion, going round and round, having made love to a figment. Alas, the Democratic party is condemned to go around on the same wheel unless they wake up.
May 31, 2007 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scott says that he's into fact-based politics. That's what Third Way claims too. Well, I was reading around a little on the Third Way site and in a short essay called "The Middle Class Connection," Kim makes the following claim and I leave it to all of you to judge whether or not it is "fact-based:"
"Women work because they want to not because they have to."
Seriously. She actually typed that. With a straight face.
http://dispatch.third-way.com/articles/2006/10/27/the-middle-class-connection
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 31, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I read of this series, the more I long for the second coming of Mort Sahl. His left wing - center - right wing parodies were hilarious, because accurate, and he nailed the difference between liberals and conservatives with this one:
"Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen."
May 31, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, first of all, let me just say that I am disappointed (not surprised) but disappointed that this 'discussion' appears to be a one way street. You provide your definition of 'emperical data' leave for a day, ignore the comments entirely, then post your follow-ups without addressing any opposition to your 'emperical data.'
But, let me follow-up to your post of today anyway...
Let's take a look at the following statement:
"Why are these figures important? Because they demonstrate that the support found in surveys for expansion of education, health care, and other spending is remarkably soft. That means that ambitious progressive proposals, such as universal health care reform, are easily defeated."
First of all, your argument uses 2004 data and now your referencing something that happened in 1993, 14 years ago, to prove it?
Let's discuss something that's actually more relevant to this discussion -- namely votes where people decide if they are willing to pay more taxes to support education, public safety, and healthcare. (All of which need at least a majority and some of which require a super majority)
Where do we find this information? Well, for the state of California, it's right here:
http://www.californiacityfinance.com/
Scroll down to the section entitled
"Local Tax Votes"
Here you will discover that in 2006, 83% of communities with School Bond Measures on the ballot passed them with over 55% of the vote.
General Tax and Majority Vote Measures passed at a rate of 69% and 51% of 2/3rds requirement measures passed.
Well, this is 'California'
Cities/Counties that passed measures in 2006"
City of San Bernardino -- Passed a 1/4 cent General Purpose Sales Tax Measure
Fresno and Orange County both passed measures requiring 66.667% to extend 1/2 cent sales taxes for Road Improvements
Tulare County adopted a new tax for roads...
None of these cited examples are exactly 'bastions of liberalism' and showcase that people put their money where their mouth is if their is an expressed need.
Local vs National? Of course, people are more likely to pony up for their own schools, but we are talking about a direct correlation --
Yes or No on Paying More Taxes for Schools
Yes or No on Paying More Taxes for City Government
Yes or No on Paying More Taxes for better roads
To me, the key fallacy to your argument is the last line, "That means that ambitious progressive proposals, such as universal health care reform, are easily defeated."
Of course they are, when you fight against them!
Here is what those of us on the left get from our own party:
"I am for this complex healthcare proposal, that will cover a few more people and not hurt the insurance industry, because it's what can be supported and sustained in this legislative process. The liberals are hippy dippy for even proposing or suggesting universal healthcare (let me spend time attacking the liberals for their universal healthcare plan)
So, the 'Universal Healthcare Plan now has Democratic moderates attacking it on TV (SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK MORE MODERATE)
Therefore, the person who 'inspires' and says something like the following:
"America is the best country in the world (rah rah) and it's time its healthcare reflected that. The richest, best country in the world should not have 40 million people without healthcare, and 17,000 people a year dying for this lack. It's time for us to take the lead and come up with a plan that's better than the French.
Surely we're smart enough and strong enough to beat the French! (woo hoo, attack the French)
The first step is to get rid of the middle men, who extort our families and cherry pick the healthiest amongst us, (those health insurance folks you guys like to protect, NOT very popular with anyone)
and have one, Single Payer Health Insurance System in this country that's the exact same plan Senators and Members of Congress have. (Hey, this plan works, exhibit one, Senator Johnson!)
Now, this Democratic LEADER, is forced to send his people onto the talk shows to debate YOU, the moderate who, in not believing that people will support such a plan, actively works against it, even if you profess to disagree with your own argument on the cocktail circuit.
Yep, I guess you're right, the progressive idea does end up losing in this situation.
Why? Well, if you've ever heard of a self-fulling prophesy this might be it.
Best,
Dems
May 31, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more troubling thing here. Third Way was a proponent of the Iraq war, though they don't go out of their way to apologize for it these days.
Scott claims that contemporary data show: "54% are conservative on foreign policy & national security."
For Scott to actually believe that, he has to believe that the American people are basically stupid and that even after 4 years of the Iraq debacle that they basically support the same kinds of policies that Third Way did before we knew how bad Iraq was going to be.
He's basically arguing that after dropping a hammer on their own toes, more than half the country would like to try it again.
So, Scott -- what should we do? Cater to the whims of Americans who are, if you're data is correct, stupid? Or save them from themselves?
And, why has Third Way run away from its initial support of the Iraq war rather than apologize for it?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 31, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure why traditionalists have so many good things to say about apple pie. In the Garden of Eden, weren't apples an abusable substance?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 31, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This entire post misses the entire boat on why a majority of the country leans right.
It has nothing to do with "conservatives" experiencing an identity mix-up in which they are actually "liberal."
Most people want to help the poor. Most people want to provide our children with the best education possible. Most people want to fight crime.
That hardly means that everyone is a liberal, even if they themselves don't acknowledge it.
The reason why the country, as a whole, leans right revolves around a handful of notable issues.
1)Most people hold their religion in high regard and appreciate the fact that the GOP panders to this sentiment whereas moderate Democrats avoid most Religious talk and leftist Democrats go as far as to openly stigmatize it.
2)A majority of the country is pro-life. The GOP takes a strong pro-life stance whereas the Democrats are predominantly pro-choice.
3)People want to be taxed as little as possible. The GOP loves tax cuts whereas the Democrats love spending. (Yes, I'm aware that Bush has spent recklessly, but the lack of interest about it nationally proves even further that Republicans are still considered fiscal conservatives).
4)When you get away from either coast, a majority of the population lives in rural surroundings where traditional family values rule. The GOP's social conservatism appeals to this crowd whereas the Democrats are seen as sinners with no values.
The funny part is that most of these areas are merely perceptions that aren't necessarily accurate. But perceptions are huge in politics.
After all, Karl Rove was able to convince the American people twice that Bush was a smart, able man to lead people.
May 31, 2007 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a single person in all the land, perhaps all the world, is pro-life.
If one was, they would demand every mother having an abortion be treated as a murderer.
The most rabid pro-lifers are generally rabid for thee but not for me and mine.
On immigration and abortion, the hypocrisy smells to the heavens. Anybody at all up there? Maybe we know now where the global warming is coming from.
Best, Terry
May 31, 2007 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: A majority of the country is pro-life.
But recognizes at least three justifications for abortion, when it should be legal: medical necessity, rape and their own family's situation whatever it may be.
Re: When you get away from either coast, a majority of the population lives in rural surroundings where traditional family values rule.
Take a drive across the country. Most people live in suburbs or cities. Rural areas are losing population. Parts of the Great Plains are emptying out entirely.
June 1, 2007 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The funny part is that most of these areas are merely perceptions that aren't necessarily accurate.
Not even "necessarily" accurate. Simply *not* accurate anymore.
When religious conservatives are saying focusing on abortion was a mistake, you know that something has shifted. When polls show people want universal or government-run heathcare, and are willing to pay higher taxes to get it, you know something has shifted.
What most of us here have been arguing, in one way or another, is the Third Way's method of examining polls from years ago and trying to use that to extrapolate out to today and, more critically, the next election, is the wrong way to approach politics.
Not only does it leave you stuck in the past, it makes you woefully unable to provide any sense of leadership on the issues.
When your argument starts with, "So, American is a Conservative nation," you just know it's headed the wrong way.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
June 1, 2007 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I do think that US domestic policy tends to be a bit too coastal-specific (particularly DC region coastal), the percentage of urban dwellers exceeded rural in the 1920 census. And I am not sure that the Census Bureau's urban/rural definitions have correctly captured the suburban and exurban arrangements that the vast majority of Americans live in today. Heck, even most of my farming relatives live "in town", which is usually a bedroom community of some distant city.
sPh
June 1, 2007 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Tomorrow I plan to leave political strategy behind and return to the role of evidence in defining and solving problems."
Is there a post that I'm missing?
Dems
June 1, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've also been waiting for Scott's final post, the one that should address the many objections we've raised to his methods and that should suggest a way forward.
I tend to think he just got too busy and is now thinking and composing and will turn out something either tonight or over the weekend or on Monday.
But I also somewhat suspect, due to his inability to answer the reasonable critiques aimed his way thus far, that he has given up this fight.
I hope he hasn't. Hard questions have been asked and they should be answered.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 1, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
June 1, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this:
. . . necessarily means what you think it does. Or maybe what you want it to mean.
Basically, what you are telling us is that more than two out of every three people who support higher education spending have also expressed a preference for either (or both) tax cuts and deficit reduction.
And you think this means that support for increased education spending is soft? Perhaps, if people's support for tax cuts or deficit reduction always trumps their support for any kind of increased domestic spending, which is your unstated assumption here.
Got any evidence for that?
If, however, people's support for increases in certain types of domestic spending (like on education) trumps their support for deficit reduction (it seems to me, for example, that recent US political history suggests that people's support for deficit reduction may be pretty soft) or tax cuts, then your data actually suggests that support for increased education spending is extraordinarily broad based, even extending to people who would otherwise prefer tax cuts or deficit reduction.
So what model of voter behavior we have in our heads will influence our interpretation of the data. Which is one problem with your whole argument here.
June 1, 2007 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Third Way is into twisting facts to support their "centrist" (i.e. anti-liberal, anti-populist) ideological predilections.
June 1, 2007 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really do hope that I'm wrong and that he'll come back with a real volley. He does have a day job, after all, and this debate is incomplete and, while I disagree with Scott, it's a debate we need to have.
So... c'mon Bueller! Just kidding.
At the moment, Scott has expressed his opinion and he's been challenged. Not only should he address those challenges, he should finish his point and we should really, really have it out over this.
The whole "facts" thing might seen innocent enough but this debate is really about which facts are important and about how we interpret them and, mostly importantly, about how we move forward. The whole debate might seem arcane to some, but it's actually the most important we've had here, at least in my opinion.
Finish the job, Scott. And make sure you address our arguments in the process and don't dismiss us as not understanding what "evidence" means, as you have once already.
Truth is, we do all agree that dealing with reality is important. Nobody's challenged you on that. The question we've raised is: "Do we hold polling responses prime or is there other evidence out there that is more important?"
Thus far, Scott has used polls as the standard of evidence. We have argued otherwise.
Which is it? And will Scott contine the debate by engaging us, will he just let it lie, or will he insist on his own point of view?
I hereby swat the ball into soon-to-be-professor Winship's court.
Okay, that last line might seem petty, but I wish him all the best and look forward to calling him either professor or doctor Winship.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 1, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suburbs are decidedly conservative in most cases because they consist of mid-size homes, 2.5 children, a yard with a white fence, and a dog. Not to mention the 32 year old parents who have undergone a startling shift to the right during the past ten years.
Let's face it, people move to the right as they get older. As income and careers begin to bloom at around age 30, people tend to lose their youthful sense of disenfranchisement. It's easy to see why 20 somethings lean so far left. It's because kids in their twenties have no money, bad jobs, and hold no sway in positions of power. Consequently, rebelling against "the establishment" is fashionable and even sensible.
Right now in the U.S. a majority of the population is age 30 or older. That helps to explain why a majority of the population leans right.
In the next 20 years there will likely be a shift to the left as Generations X and Y begin to assume positions of power within the nation.
June 2, 2007 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
My earliest political self-identification was libertarian of an Objectivist flavor. Libertarians don't fit neatly into a simple left-right dimension.
As I aged a bit, realized I'd never get a date with Dominque or Dagny, and met some of the nuttier Randites, I moved to identify with the Fusionist (i.e., Frank Meyer) wing of the New Right in the GOP. This still could be considered moderate Republican.
Eventually, claiming one was a moderate Republican was as meaningful as saying you were slightly pregnant. My conscience would not let me stay in the increasingly authoritarian GOP.
So, I've moved left over time. I have difficulty in reconciling two of your statements:
with
These two statements seem to contradict. If I follow your first observations, the Gen X and Y people would move right with age.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
June 2, 2007 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole "facts" thing might seen innocent enough...
Hardly innocent in fact, though. It's this strange ideology of centrism, where the conversation starts at a position of compromise.
I just don't get it...starting off with a weak hand is no way to win. Dangerous, I say. Hardly innocent...
Anyway, good work keeping this all going. The balls been swatted, as you say.
We'll see...
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
June 2, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard
I should have clarified why I think Generations X and Y will be more to the left than their parents.
Gens. X and Y, as a whole, are significantly more socially liberal than the Baby Boom generation was at a similar age. Everything from race relations to abortion to voting trends lean away from the GOP with the younger crop.
In Minnesota several years back, it was the 18-30 demographic that got Jesse Ventura elected governor.
I cannot speculate as to whether or not the younger set will drift right in terms of fiscal conservatism as they age, but socially speaking, there is no question they will remain left of center. Religion and other institutions preaching "traditional" values are being spurned to the point where the American Catholic Church is taking seriously the possibility that it may have to allow married men to be priests in the near future for lack of celibate ones.
To that I say "amen."
June 2, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. A good explanation, and also not trying to force into left vs. right but considering the minimal additional dimensions of social and economic choices.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
June 2, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make an interesting point about where the conversation starts, cscs. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if the conversation should really start in the economic sphere, rather than the political.
From some of the Hip Heterodoxy readings, I ran across a comparison of the US model, which emphasizes lower unemployment and less social protections, and the UK model with higher unemployment but more social institutions. The economics of happiness research shows neither population is happy, but the UK is under pressure to conform to the US model.
So people are concerned with fairness, but unemployment carries a "higher unhappiness cost," suggesting that
Scott's assertion that support for spending in education and health care is soft and therefore DOA may be correct, but the conclusion that this non-support is because the country leans towards the conservative side may be missing the entire economic boat.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken
June 2, 2007 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Are these assertions merely based on opinion? Or are they facts that are based on some form of hard evidence to support these statements?Please note, Scott is working toward getting hard evidence to establish facts. Not willy-nilly opinions or assumptions.
~OGD~
June 2, 2007 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
It's less a matter of polling numbers than a matter of what we're passionate about. People like to vote their hopes and enthusiams, not the things they're sorta, kinda OK with.
.
For instance, I think if there were a political movement that, over a period of maybe a few years, promoted a "culture of life" or a "culture of whole life" (from conception to natural death as Brownback mentioned in the GOP debate last night) AND backed that up with a true, committed, aggressive, well-funded approach to quickly bring about universal, single-payer health care, a lot of Americans would sign on.
.
The key would be attuning our collective political ear to hearing such a pitch. No one would believe a pol who campaigned on such a program now. It'd be like seeing a unicorn; you'd think you were hallucinating.
.
But even David Brooks (whom I usually find infuriating) has touched on the idea of conservatives packaging a true social safety net with promoting and expanding personal freedom. I think, in this case, he might be on to something--but only notionally, of course, as any practical move in this direction in the GOP would be like combining matter with anti-matter.
June 6, 2007 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
Again, I don't know and can't predict, but I suspect that the focus on where people stand on issues isn't as revealing as we think. Let's run down the list you mention:
.
1) prayer and creationism in public schools: The people who are for it are passionate about it; the people opposed maybe not so much. Keep in mind that something like 85 percent of Americans believe in some kind of god. Therefore, in the BROADEST sense--as eloquently expressed by Gov. Huckabee in Tuesday night's GOP debate--they are creationists. And while it's true that they don't want this taught in public schools, it's probably also true that they're not profoundly uncomfortable with the idea.
.
2) sodomy laws: Come on. How many people are wildly enthusiastic about sodomy, or would say so in public?
.
3) abortion: This is a closer call. There's great commitment on both sides, though I suspect more passion on the side of those who oppose it. But most of the pro-choice people I know are still creeped out by the subject. It's just not something they want to dwell on or advocate for.
.
Here's what I'm driving at. I watched both the presidential debates on CNN. On the basis of that alone, all the Dems struck me basically as people I wouldn't necessarily trust, even though I agree with a lot of them politically. Ditto on the trust issue for the GOPs--except for Mike Huckabee. I was surprised by how geniune and appealing he seemed.
.
Now imagine Huckabee--or a similarly genuine and appealing candidate--with that type of conservative social agenda (which brings with it smallish numbers of voters but a good deal of commitment and passion) wedded with a TRULY committed left-wing economic agenda (anti-free trade, pro-health care, pro-climate) and I think you have a winner.
.
On the left we tend to think of conservative social values as narrow-minded, retrogressive and downright mean. On the right, they see virtue, optimism and faith in the notion that people can take responsibility for their own lives. In the middle, it's possible to lean either way, depending on how these values are presented. If you have a good salesman, like Huckabee, who truly believes in the product, it's not a difficult sale to make.
.
It becomes even more compelling if you can combine that conservative social optimism with it's natural complement--left-wing economics. The GOP, as currently constituted, can't credibly do this. And maybe no one ever could, given the money dynamics of American politics. Then again, maybe not.
June 7, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink