Sunday, October 3, 2010

Weekend Rerun: Is this a Center-Right Country?

Steve Bennen wants to hear answers to the following questions: “is this a 'center-right' nation? What's the appropriate metric to even consider such a question?” I had something to say on this topic on July 28:

Conservatives never tire of saying that this is a center-right country with which Obama and the Democratic Party are increasingly out-of-step. Liberals like to point to the last two national elections as proof that, when conservatives say such things, they’re letting wishful thinking get the better of them. But liberals are too demoralized today, and have lost too many elections they think they should have won over the last forty years, to resist the dispiriting suspicion that conservatives may be right.

A recent Pew study about how registered Republicans, Independents and Democrats situate themselves and the political parties on the ideological spectrum won’t quiet that suspicion. Here’s how Pew summarizes its findings:
“[M]ore voters view the Democratic Party as very liberal than see the Republican Party as very conservative (26% vs. 18%). As a result, the average rating for the Democratic Party's ideology among all voters is somewhat farther to the left than the Republican Party's is to the right. The Republican Party's rating also is closer to voters' average ratings of their own ideology, which is slightly to the right of center.


"These average ratings reflect sharp differences between how Republican voters view the Democratic Party and how Democrats view the GOP. More than eight-in-ten Republican voters (83%) say the Democratic Party is liberal (34%) or very liberal (49%). By contrast, a smaller majority (61%) of Democratic voters view the GOP as conservative (33%) or very conservative (29%).”

Smart center-left bloggers have done their best to explain Pew’s results in a way that doesn’t oblige liberals to concede that they’re surrendering contested ideological ground. Matthew Yglesias, for example, speculates about a “psychological anchor phenomenon” generated by the way the mainstream media have decided to describe the Tea Party movement. And Paul Waldman and Jonathan Chait think it’s a matter of Republicans and conservatives getting their news from propagandistic outlets like Fox while liberals and moderates still get most of theirs from outlets that at least pretend to political objectivity. All these explanations leave open the possibility that Democrats are just the victims of ephemeral economic distress and their own inept messaging.

I don’t doubt that there’s something to each of these explanations. But I want to take a couple of steps back to contemplate the conceptual grid of the Pew study. It works by asking a sample of registered voters to identify themselves as Democrats/Republicans/independents, and then to describe themselves and the parties as either liberal/conservative/moderate or very liberal/conservative. A numerical value is assigned to each answer so that an average ideological score can be computed for each group of respondents. The ideological spectrum this generates is an artifact of that mathematical operation. That makes the Pew study turn on at least two widely employed oversimplifications.

The first is the assumption that all political commitments can be plotted somewhere along a single ideological spectrum without serious distortion. It doesn’t take much self-examination, however, to discover that our political commitments are multi-dimensional. Most of us, for example, have somewhat considered views not only about what our government should decide to do, but about how it should decide what to do.

These are logically independent commitments in that one’s view of the first issue doesn’t commit one to any particular view of the second. When a democratic political system is functioning properly, the what decision and the how decision are also psychologically independent in the minds of people across the political spectrum, in that most people are visibly prepared to constrain their partisanship in deference to the shared civic norms. When partisans disregard or tailor their interpretation of those norms to their partisan agenda, however, they're drawing down on the reservoir of public trust that enables a democracy to reach legitimate public decisions.

That means that the Pew results conflate the respondents’ attitudes about substantive ideology and their attitudes about what counts as good democratic citizenship. Judging from the results of the 1998 mid-term election, a lot of people disapproved of the way the Gingrich-conservatives misused the impeachment process for the purely partisan end of bringing Bill Clinton down. The only way that disapproval could have been registered in the Pew study was by liberals and moderate voters disparaging the Gingrichites by calling them “very conservative” and somewhat conservative voters trying to put some space between themselves and the Gingrichites by identifying themselves as “moderates.”

Strictly speaking, however, disapproval of the Clinton impeachment had almost nothing to do with substantive ideology and almost everything to do with public perceptions that Gingrichites weren’t being very good citizens. Substantially the same dynamic seems to be animating the Tea Party movement. Its members like to call themselves “constitutional conservatives” because they’re as troubled by the democratic legitimacy of measures like ObamaCare than by their public policy content. None of that registers independently in the Pew results.

The second noteworthy feature of the Pew study is that it’s a snapshot taken at a particular point of time. But voters, especially ideologically minded voters, have memories that they bring to bear on their understanding of their own and other people’s ideologies. They remember enough about what Democrats and Republicans used to believe to be able to place them on the same ideological spectrum on which they situate today’s political players and themselves. When they do, you’d expect them to recall the innumerable respects in which Obama’s governing agenda puts him to the right not only of LBJ and Carter, but of Republican presidents like Nixon and Ford. You’d expect at least some voters to remember, moreover, that today’s mainstream Republicans embrace policies, like the repeal of the estate tax, that are too right-wing ever to have occurred to Ronald Reagan.

Political memory goes some of the way toward explaining why, on average, Democrats think that the Democratic Party is ideologically moderate. It sure looks that way when you compare it to the party of LBJ. But if we assume that Independents and Republicans have comparable memories, the Pew results are all-the-more startling. Despite the Democratic Party’s spectacular move to the right on domestic policy over the last forty years, Independents and Republicans still think on average that it's “liberal” and “very liberal” respectively. That goes to show how far the entire ideological spectrum has moved to the right since LBJ was building the Great Society.

That’s what should be keeping liberals up at night.

2 comments:

Osama Von McIntyre said...

Are we a center-right country?

Short answer: yes, lately. Longer answer: sometimes.

For the last 30 years, "liberal" has been a word most typically accompanied by a grimace. Conservatives have done a pretty good job of making the name a shameful thing: enough so, that many liberals have abandoned the word for "progressive" (for which the same strategic demonization is now taking place).

The liberal projects of the last 40 years have primarily been the giant undertaking of "fixing" the culture, in a way that is absolutely guaranteed to polarize: think of the crusades on behalf of civil rights, feminism, gay rights, multiculturalism; combined with some nanny-state programs designed to same people from themselves: seatbelt and helmet laws, along with proposals to regulate diet, etc.

It's almost as though the liberals have sought to alienate themselves from mainstream American culture. What has actually happened is that the parties have positioned themselves as cosmopolitan versus parochial, or--more properly--city versus suburban and rural.

The most harmful byproduct of this is that modern American liberals reject the entire concept of us-versus-them tribalism, which is intrinsic to the modern conservative "critique" of them. In the conservative mind, liberals, and liberal ideas, are "anti-American," and seem abstract, detached, and foreign to issues they see in their everyday lives.

However, if you poll issue-by-issue, you'll find that America is not particularly conservative at all. There are just some very important strains of the consensus American ideology that liberals completely ignore.

I'll jump out on a limb, here, and propose that the following qualities are a pretty important part of the American psyche:

Independence Americans, in general, want to be left alone, except where there is a compelling universal interest that would justify otherwise.

Work ethic We believe that success comes largely due to hard work, and that money transfers to the "undeserving" are economically and culturally harmful.

Consensus culture America is an "ideal" as well as a place to live: and opportunity is available to anyone who is willing to come here on our terms.

Pleasure must be earned Pleasure without obligation is an affront, consumption without production is immoral.

Self-determination People are generally in control of the outcomes in their life. Opportunity should always be available, but people should have to live with consequences of their own decisions.

For each of the above, there are both liberal and conservative "takes" on the underlying principle. The pre-civil rights liberals had deep and resonant responses to these characterological American traits: the modern liberals argue or ignore the basic premises.

Anonymous said...

I've often heard it said that, on average, people's political views shift slightly rightward as people age. If true, this may result in yet another "psychological anchoring point" which could cause an individual to view the left as being farther away from their current views than the right is.