The myth of a conservative public
Timothy Egan has emerged as yet another pundit who thinks Obama is to the left of America simply because relatively few people describe themselves as "liberal" in polls and are more likely to say "moderate" or "conservative." Egan's column is ostensibly praising Americans for supporting Obama despite their ideological predispositions -- and praising Obama for being the liberal that he advertised himself to be in his campaign. But the assumptions underlying the piece nevertheless advance the silly meme that liberals are outside the ideological mainstream.
Behold the logical fallacies at work.
First, Egan simply assumes that Obama is liberal even though the president doesn't describe himself that way. Yet voters who share Obama's political philosophy may or may not choose "liberal" when asked to self-identify in a poll. The liberal-moderate-conservative breakdown therefore says nothing about the public's ideology relative to Obama's.
To be fair, Egan mentions a survey that says 60% of the public sees Obama as "very" or "somewhat" liberal. So if you apply a little (but not much) deductive reasoning, you might infer that people see Obama as being to their left. But in a society where "liberal" is used as an epithet, people are much less likely to apply the label to themselves than to someone else. Moreover, the press has relentlessly described Obama as liberal or even socialist -- thereby making it understandable that people would ascribe that label to him. But on actual issues, there's very little to suggest that Obama is to the left of the country.
And that brings us to point number two: Egan wrongly assumes that the labels that people use for themselves match up perfectly with establishment views of what those labels mean. Sure, only one in five voters calls himself a liberal. And yet decisive majorities say the federal government should have a more diplomatic and cooperative foreign policy than it had in the Bush years, raise taxes on rich people and corporations, impose more environmental regulations, and ensure everyone has quality health insurance even if means higher taxes. Indeed, just over half of the public favors full investigations into the torture crimes that were committed under Bush -- even though barely anyone in the Washington establishment agrees. So just because people tell a pollster that they're moderate doesn't mean they're to Obama's right. They may well be to the president's left.
In a classic case of trying to prove a point by narrowing the range of debate, Egan says this: "We are said to be a center-right country. In truth, we lean to common sense." Or maybe there's another option: that we are a reasonably progressive country that has been turned off to the term "liberal." But that option isn't on the table. It does, however, seem to reflect reality.
Behold the logical fallacies at work.
First, Egan simply assumes that Obama is liberal even though the president doesn't describe himself that way. Yet voters who share Obama's political philosophy may or may not choose "liberal" when asked to self-identify in a poll. The liberal-moderate-conservative breakdown therefore says nothing about the public's ideology relative to Obama's.
To be fair, Egan mentions a survey that says 60% of the public sees Obama as "very" or "somewhat" liberal. So if you apply a little (but not much) deductive reasoning, you might infer that people see Obama as being to their left. But in a society where "liberal" is used as an epithet, people are much less likely to apply the label to themselves than to someone else. Moreover, the press has relentlessly described Obama as liberal or even socialist -- thereby making it understandable that people would ascribe that label to him. But on actual issues, there's very little to suggest that Obama is to the left of the country.
And that brings us to point number two: Egan wrongly assumes that the labels that people use for themselves match up perfectly with establishment views of what those labels mean. Sure, only one in five voters calls himself a liberal. And yet decisive majorities say the federal government should have a more diplomatic and cooperative foreign policy than it had in the Bush years, raise taxes on rich people and corporations, impose more environmental regulations, and ensure everyone has quality health insurance even if means higher taxes. Indeed, just over half of the public favors full investigations into the torture crimes that were committed under Bush -- even though barely anyone in the Washington establishment agrees. So just because people tell a pollster that they're moderate doesn't mean they're to Obama's right. They may well be to the president's left.
In a classic case of trying to prove a point by narrowing the range of debate, Egan says this: "We are said to be a center-right country. In truth, we lean to common sense." Or maybe there's another option: that we are a reasonably progressive country that has been turned off to the term "liberal." But that option isn't on the table. It does, however, seem to reflect reality.
Advertisement













Jughead on Mornin' Joke says this every gd day. We are, after all, a center right country.
BULLSHIT. Excuse my French. ha
This is just propaganda. If millions of kids are thought to have hoola hoops or shamwows, then I gotta have one too. ha
Good post.
April 30, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I'd kept a count of all the times I was told after the 2004 election that no Democrat could ever under any circumstance be elected President unless he was a conservative, white, Southern Baptist, from Dixie. Only, Dixie, no Democrate could EVER win again if he, and it must be a he, was not from Dixie. Bill Clinton proved it so shut up!
April 30, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bluebell, I still shed a tear sometimes when I see this great man step up to the podium as President of the United States of America. WOW.
There are compromises to come in the next 4 (hopefully 8) years. But this was no compromise candidate in my mind. ha
No South. No pretend conservative. I see little in terms of meelee mouth in this fine gentleman.
And I like him so much better than Clinton.
May 1, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Gregory was at it again this morning on Monring Joe when (I thought he was going to start cying) said that Pres. Bush unfortunately did not have the political power to get his choices to the Supreme Court confirmed.
WTF?
Now, I remember when the Beltway went ballistic when W announced Harriet Myers as his choice. But that was because W's massive overreach for personal and partisan political gain by nominating his personal lawyer/crony/BFF was so damn obvious, and her incompetence apparently disgusted even the the top Repubs.
But Roberts and Alito as W's chopped liver???
What the hell is Gregory talking about??
May 1, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh PS
I forgot. Meet the Press will being doing more on the Republican Party autopsy this Sunday. I guess since we are such a right center country.
Anybody have a clue as to when MTP's advertisers are going to notice a ratings drops from all the continued constant pandering to the right??
I haven't watched MTP for weeks. I pretty much watched it for the last 25 years.
May 1, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel as though Americans, owning to the personal charisma of Reagan, agreed to let Republicans run a conservative governing experiment. Now, nearly thirty years later, the verdict has come in on core Reagan principles. Those core principles were, trickle-down economics and the notion that government is ALWAYS more problem than not. Americans are now agreeing to give Democrats the opportunity to show that a liberal (no, I don't want to debate how much it's liberal here) governing approach will deliver better results. It's interesting that such an opportunity has, again, coincided with the election of a charismatic president.
The country may actually have reasonably appeared center-right ever since Reagan, but I'm suggesting that this was only because Republicans were being given time to run their conservative governing experiment. The mistake for Republicans (and, potentially for Democrats) was to assume this had signaled a wholesale shift in the personal values held by the electorate.
May 1, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I much prefer the term "liberal" to "progressive". I hate phony rebranding efforts.
May 1, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that liberals WANT to be rebrand as it is that the Right has so thoroughly branded the Left that the mere mention of the word liberal has a subconscious reaction with Fox viewers as to prevent further discussion. Hopefully, after the magic wears off we can get back to being able to say liberal. No one here has anything against it, but we have to admit there are those that do. Not because they have opposition to liberals, but they have a prejudice as to what liberal means. It's already been defined for them in exquisite, disinformative ways.
May 1, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The label is less important than the policy. If people don't like the label "liberal," then why should we use it? The point is to convey what we're about and how our policies will help human beings, not to stand up for a word.
May 1, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is to convey what we're about and how our policies will help human beings, not to stand up for a word.
Exactly. And speaking of point number two, Fred Barnes of the Weakly Standard :-) once described G.W. Bush as center-right. Of course, Fred seldom inhabits the same planet as the rest of us.
May 1, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink