Real Differences Erode, Abstract Conceptualization of Differences Increase

by: Chris Bowers

Thu May 21, 2009 at 13:30



Despite the current façade of a grand ideological argument over the future of capitalism in America, the truth is that the right-wing of the Republican Party and the left-wing of the Democratic Party are only differ from each other on how to manage 3% of the national economy. Both sides agree that about 22% of the national economy should be devoted to public sector social investment spending (schools, roads, health care, pensions, etc), while about 75% of the national economy should be left to private enterprise / spending and other government functions (military, police, interest on the debt, etc). The disagreement is whether the remaining 3% should be devoted to public sector social spending, or toward private enterprise / spending and other government functions. Toss-in the degree of government regulation, and whether or not there should be private Social Security savings accounts, and you have the entire policy difference over the economy in mainstream American political discourse.

And yet, despite this remarkable similarity, differences between self-identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans have never been higher when it comes to answering abstract ideological questions in polls. The Pew Center for People and the Press documents this increasing division over abstract ideological questions in a major survey released today (more in the extended entry):

Chris Bowers :: Real Differences Erode, Abstract Conceptualization of Differences Increase
The overall gap between the two parties in opinions about political values - which increased in 2003 - has hit another new high, with widening differences emerging over the government's overall performance and its responsibilities to the poor. In the wake of the election, Republicans have swung to a much more critical view of government while more Democrats take a positive view than at any previous point in the 22-year history of this study.

Fully 75% of Republicans today say that government regulation of business does more harm than good, up from 57% two years ago. About the same number (74%) say when something is run by the government it is usually inefficient and wasteful, up from 61% in 2007. In both cases, Republican skepticism of government is now as great or greater than in 1994, prior to the GOP takeover of Congress. By contrast, the proportions of Democrats who are critical of government regulation of business and see the government as usually inefficient and wasteful have fallen sharply since 2007.

My hypothesis is that a cause and effect taking place here. The shrinking policy differences are actually one of the causes for the widening differences over abstract ideological positioning. As the substance of our political disagreements declines, the political debate in this country is partially kept alive by increasing the shrillness of the name-calling. Really, the name-calling is increasingly the entire argument. After all, conflict and division sells pretty well for both news media outlets and political parties, so neither will benefit from pointing out the broad similarities.

(There are other factors too, such as the widening ethno-religious gap in America, and the trend of many moderate Republicans starting to self-identify as moderate Independents.)

The abstract questions Pew poses to voters are interesting, but I wish they would be more closely tied to actual policies. In addition to asking vague questions about the role of government, how about asking people if they want to change spending on Social Security, health care, or national defense? Those programs make up nearly 80% of federal spending, but most people will tell you that they don't want significant changes to the amount spent on any of them (except maybe health care). The widest gap of all is probably what most Americans say they believe about the role of government in the abstract, versus the actual changes they would propose to government spending.


Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
We need to start engaging in an education campaign about the federal budget (4.00 / 3)
People think that things like the AFDC successor, the NEA and foriegn aid make up a significant amount of the federal budget, and that the spending debate is about this.  

If the actual pie chart explaining the federal budget were made public knowledge, there would be almost no budget debate.  We're not going to gain ground on tax/spending policy until we make it clear what government is actually spending money on versus what conservatives complain about.


absolutely (4.00 / 1)
i'd love to see a non-partisan effort to make the actual details of the budget better known. it wouldn't stop the name calling, but it might make it all look more absurd to more people.

naturally, i also think that such a campaign would benefit progressives and progressivism. after all, reality usually does benefit us.


[ Parent ]
Haha (0.00 / 0)
Your last phrase so true. .  . .

[ Parent ]
ought to suggest this to Pew (0.00 / 0)
either read a list of programs and ask people to rank them or make guesses at percentages, or let people name the top five ways the government spends money, or some such. a program list might be a problem because people don't recognize the program names.

i also wonder if people are thinking of ALL government spending when someone asks them about the Federal government. taxes are taxes and guvmint is guvmint after all. if this is not something i spend a lot of time thinking about in my life, i don't know as i would care about making distinctions.

(more open-ended, "when you say X what do you think X means?" questions would be good in general. i know they're hard to summarize but they can serve as a quality check if nothing else. if people's understanding of a question is askew from its original intent, you'd find out fairly quickly.)

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


[ Parent ]
Don't agree with your grand arguement (0.00 / 0)
If two cars traveling the same path take different turns in the road, at first they will only be separated by only a few feet.  You could make the arguement that they two differed by only a couple feet, but this would be inaccurate.  The point is they are now traveling in different directions.

Even if we only have a 1% difference, if we get a new 1% difference each and every year the accumulated effect is quite large.  (Compound interest works!)  And as you know, once social spending is allocated, it is very hard to take away.

You may find the social spending ratchet too slow, but don't confuse that impatiences with lack of real differences over the long term.


No one is proposing a 1% increse every year (0.00 / 0)
No one in Congress is proposing increasing spending by 1% of the economy a year indefintely. Further, there has been extremely little change over the last 35 years, even when trifectas take over.

Further, this has been a pattern in most wealthy democracies for the past 30 years: little to no change in public sector social spending as a % of GDP.

We have reached a stagnating plateau, both in terms of instituing change, and in terms of proposing signficant change. And this is a pattern seen across almost all wealthy democracies.


[ Parent ]
Thoughts (0.00 / 0)
No one in Congress is proposing increasing spending by 1% of the economy a year indefintely.

Nor would I expect them to.  My expectation is new items will come on doc as we resolve what's up right now.

Further, there has been extremely little change over the last 35 years, even when trifectas take over.

The gets back to the point of realignment.  Are you describing the de-aligned period of the past 35 years or the new realigned period we are entering?  Or has then been a realignment at all.

I'm assuming there was a true realignment.  My point, now that I think of it, is your statistics don't really counter that arguement.

Further, this has been a pattern in most wealthy democracies for the past 30 years: little to no change in public sector social spending as a % of GDP.

We have reached a stagnating plateau...

My thought is we are reaching towards a different plateau, one closer to the European model.  

My "compound interest" comment was a bit overblown, as we certainly can't keep shifting a percentage over every year.  Eventually we'd hit 100% even in theory; in reality very few people would actually want 100%.  There is a proper ratio there somewhere, we just haven't reached it yet.

My hope and expectation is 30 from now we'll be about where Europe is today, realigning from one plateau to another.


[ Parent ]
thats not how read the article (0.00 / 0)
my view of the argument in the article is that the republicans and democratic parties get on their soap boxes promise such different views and chris showed me that when all is said and done all the fighting is over very little, and that these two parties are really much more similiar than they would ever admit,  

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people

[ Parent ]
it could be that there are no more republican moderates (4.00 / 1)
And so the shift in Republican attitudes is really just a loss of moderating voices.

agreed (4.00 / 1)
The shift from 57% to 75% on "government is bad" is almost certainly because the GOP has shrunk down and lost the people that made up the 18% difference.

All partisan polls these days have the same flaw. It is irritating that often poll results are framed as if there is still parity between the parties, when there are more than half again as many democrats now.


[ Parent ]
i love this (0.00 / 0)
train of thought you are traveling on, very informative,

-when people mention social security as part of government spending i am always confused because social security is paid into by taxes specifically for social security so why should it count as govt spending, it cant be spent any other way, (in theory), and if you say hey lets cut spending on social security, than wouldnt the social security tax go down and nothing would change?

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people


It's funny (4.00 / 1)
86% say the government needs to do more to make health care affordable and accessible, but 46% say that they are concerned that the government is becoming too involved in health care.  41% agree with both statements.

How should those people be communicated with?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


but if 3% of the economy is minor (4.00 / 2)
why should I think an increase of 6% in an opinion poll is significant?


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Elections (4.00 / 1)
I keep saying we have 1.5 political parties in the US. We have the Republicans and the Republican Lites.

The reason for this has to do with the funding of electoral campaigns. Both parties get the bulk of their money from big business interests. There was much made of the huge popular support given to Obama by small donors, but when all was said and done he still got the majority of his funding from the usual sources.

With legislators of both parties in the thrall of big business one can't expect to see much difference in their policies. Just look at the way EFCA is being treated by so-called Democrats. When the chips are really down they side with business.

If you want to see the will of the people reflected in the legislator you have to get the money out of campaigns. Normal people can't afford to run for office and their viewpoints never get represented as a consequence.

Policies not Politics


This essay assumes that (0.00 / 0)
"real differences" consist entirely in "how to manage...the national economy."  I can't accept that premise.  Even if I did, the large-bore numbers can hardly hope to capture the significant differences.  I'm sure Bowers didn't mean to give the impression that there are no important political differences over the apportionment of our massive spending on "military and other government functions."

But again, I don't accept the premise.  My right to free speech doesn't figure into this calculation.  The rules constraining the operation of our republican government don't fit into this calculation.  Yes, in important ways living by our progressive values can be measured in dollars and cents, but I find the hyperbole a distraction, and it does perpetuate the most evil principle in our government: we can only justify decisions on matters as important as health care through a description of them as public spending and public saving.


P.S. Put differently, is the purpose to mock many Americans' more liberal attitudes as impotent and insincere? nt (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search