I'm a bit lazy (0.00 / 0)

So I don't want to duplicate the work if you or Free/Cantril already did it, but did you run yourself or come across the numbers by ideology for the individual domestic spending items?

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 15:51:56 PM UTC

Individual Spending Items Are A Piece Of Cake (0.00 / 0)

I had to construct the variable to aggregate them.  All you have to do for the individual items is click your mouse.

In my diary last weekend, "The Myth Of A Polarized Public", I gave the following figures, just for the most extreme conservatives:

GSS National Spending Preferences > 50% Support For More
	Too little	About right	Too Much	Liberalism Index *	Not Too Much
Improving nations education system	55.5	22	22.5	71.2	77.5
Dealing with drug addiction	52.6	29.8	17.7	74.8	82.4
Social Security	51	37.6	11.4	81.7	88.6
Improving & protecting nations health	50.5	28	21.6	70	78.5
* Liberalism index = "too little" [liberal position] / ("too little" + "too much") [liberal position + conservative position].

And:

GSS National Spending Preferences < 50% Support For More But >70% Support For More Or Stable
	Too little	About right	Too Much	Liberalism Index *	Not Too Much
Solving problems of big cities	49.8	26.1	24.1	67.4	75.9
Assistance to the poor	45.6	27.6	26.7	63.1	73.2
Improving & protecting environment	44.2	30.7	25.1	63.8	74.9
Highways and bridges	41.4	46.1	12.5	76.8	87.5
Mass transportation	34.5	47.2	18.2	65.5	81.7
Parks and recreation	29.5	55.3	15.1	66.1	84.8

Conservatives as a whole are more liberal than this, of course.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 16:48:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is all true, but... (0.00 / 0)

  ...for this coalition to come apart, several things still have to happen:

  1. The Huckabee crowd has to have an epiphany, and finally realize how they've been USED by the economic royalists all these years. And they have to get angry enough to ACTUALLY start withholding their votes from Republicans -- something that hasn't happened yet.

  2. Evangelical leaders who AREN'T right-wing shills have to speak up and LEAD. As long as James Dobson and Tony Perkins are the putative spokesmen for the evangelicals, the chances of that epiphany happening remain low.

  3. The Democrats have to nominate a candidate who can actually benefit from the Republican civil war -- and some are far better equipped for that role than others.

  4. The Democrats need to stop running away from populism, and present an image of the party that provides social-justice evangelicals with a real alternative to wingnuttery. (I grew up a Jesuit Catholic and that's how *I* became a Democrat.)

  Until those things happen, I don't see the dynamic changing much...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 15:59:11 PM UTC

Running Away from Populism (0.00 / 0)

I've been contemplating the notion of "full spectrum" populism and what sort of views that would engender.  Democrats tend to like economic populism, but I wonder if some elements of the Democratic coalition just shudder at the notion of what they think populists want on non-economic issues and possibly having to compromise or tolerate other views on those issues. 

Unfortunately, I can't figure out just how to go about defining what that sort of populist might believe.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 16:18:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Social Conservatism == Social Populism (0.00 / 0)

I've always considered social conservatism to be social populism.  Based purely on rhetoric, Huckabee is probably more of a populist than Edwards, if you include the full spectrum.

To me the old southern Democrat was pure populist and the old northern Republican was libertarian, or what used to be called liberal (and still is in Europe).

Usually, populism requires there be a bad guy.  Find a bad guy where the majority of voters are the good guys, and you have yourself a populist position.  Republicans figured this out years ago and have been using it to win elections for quite a while.

[The rest of my response seems to have rambled on...  I'll go against my better judgement and leave it in.  Feel free to ignore the rest.]

And just to invoke Godwin's Law, I think it is fair to call Hitler a social populist.  (God, now everyone's going to think I agree with that idiot from The Corner.  Should I delete that sentence.... nah, I'll leave it in... )

This is why I don't like the populist rhetoric from Edwards nearly as much as most bloggers, even though I agree with the facts he presents.  That language just doesn't appeal to me in large doses.  But it is absolutely necessary as a practical matter to point out the actual problems.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 20:47:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Can't Be A Libertarian And Give The Railroads So Much Money (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans were state capitalists, not libertarians.  They built national infrastructure for a new industrial era, and worked beyond anyone's wildest imaginings.  But it was also riddled to the core with corruption.

The did have something of a libertarian rap early on, coming out of the Free Soil Party, but it was largely shaped in response to the Southern Slaveocracy.  As the slaveocracy faded, the libertarian veneer chipped away PDQ.

I hope to post something soon about populism, getting back to a too-long-deffered train of thought.  But I take Jack Balkin's lead in arguing that populism and progressivism both have rightwing and leftwing manifestations.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 21:38:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, It's Changing Right Before Our Eyes (0.00 / 0)

What you've done is articulate the ideal forms of action we'd like to see on multiple fronts.  And don't get me wrong, I'm with you on all of them.  But for me, the amazing thing is that we have so much discontent, and so much sign of movement away from the GOP without all those ideal factors.

The difference in turnout at the Iowa caucuses is a sterling example, IMHO.  So, while I will join you wholeheartedly in calling for all of the above, I do not think they are necessary to get things moving.  Things are already moving, and the factors that are missing now are likely to appear as effects, before they kick in as contributory causes in their own rights down the road.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:31:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too Little vs Much Too Little (0.00 / 0)

Oh, yeah, it strike me that some voters may have more tolerance for underspending than for overspending, especially if they think the overspending is massive and wasteful.  Republicans have been very good at pushing that image and Democrats have been very bad at fighting against it.  There is a legitimate danger of overreach on domestic spending, which could lead Democrats to give back a decent chunk of the ground gained in a potential landslide victory. 

I've always been a fan of Howard Dean's style of centrism and fiscal responsibility that I saw exhibited in things like his national health care plan.  Does it sound weird if I ask for "progressivism on a budget"?

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 16:10:14 PM UTC

Yes, It Does Sound Wierd (0.00 / 0)

to ask for "progressivism on a budget" and mention Dean's health care plan in the same breath, since single-payer is significantly cheaper and more efficient.

The lesson of these questions and the answers conservatives give to them is that Democrats can win by getting very specific.  Conservative ideology triumphs by keeping things vague and abstract.

The image, of course, is that liberals are all fuzzy-headed, and don't know how to manage money, etc.  (The fact that anyone can believe that after Reagan, Bush I and Bush II just goes to show that kool-aid never goes out of style.)  But the reality is that liberals have a much> better record of realism both in their policymaking and in their budgetting.

When you have liberal programs like Head Start, or strict environmental laws that prevent significant amounts of harm to public health, the cost/benefit ratios are so favorable that the more money you pour into such corrective efforts, the more money society as a whole has as a result.  This is the sort of systemic benefit from government that conservatives do everything possible to hide from people.  But just think how much it would cost for you to travel every day, if every single road you rode on was private.  Think if there were no police, and no firefighters.  The fact that we make such services universal, serving all the public, produces enormous synergies, tremendous benefits above and beyond what any private system could produce.

The bottom line is that socializing certain services makes the entire system vastly more efficient, and this creates a much stronger platform for the next waves of private development.  Our current abysmal state of broadband development is but one more example of how failure to institute either a direct government-owned system, or some other form of government action has costs us enormously compared to other countries.  There are millions and millions of people whose potential is being held back by our vastly sub-par broadband development, just as there were millions being held back by the lack of rural electrification in the 1930s.

So, if you want to continuing holding us back, then, sure, by all means, call for "progressivism on a budget."  If you're really lucky, the results produced will be so meager, the Republicans will be back in office faster than you can say "Rumplestiltskin."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:05:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I liked about Dean (0.00 / 0)

Was that he pointed out the size of the Bush tax cuts and noted that the amount of money he was willing to spend on health care was less than half of that.  When I say that I want progressivism on a budget, I want someone to that we should increase domestic spending, but to cap that increase (or at least pretend to cap it) based on the money freed up by items like repealing tax cuts for the rich and not sinking dollars into the money pit of a stupid war.  I keep coming back to the notion that I would like to see some sense of prioritization of the progressive agenda and working within a budget feels like one way of enforcing that notion.

Since you mentioned roads, I did want to bring up that we sometimes fail to see the potential downsides of things we like.  Government spending on roads and highways has enabled the building of shopping megamalls attracting materialistic shoppers from miles around, white flight away from the inner cities, and long commutes from the suburbs/exurbs that burn gas and ultimately decrease the time that families spend together while making mass transit that much harder to implement.  Of course, government should have a concern for transportation infrastructure and roads should be built.  At the same time, a case can be made that government has built too many roads.  That may not be related, but it's a mini-rant that I've had inside of me for a while.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:03:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Have A Point About Roads (4.00 / 1)

Though it's hardly a populist one.

It takes really visionary leadership to create the pre-conditions where the populist consensus forms around managing growth.  They've managed to do this in Portland, Oregon, for example, but not many other places that I know of.

This is, however, an endemic problem--that private interests capture disproportionate benefits and concomitent control over public investment and its spill-over effects.  A more aggressive policy of recapturing public benefits would be an excellent focus for policymaking in general.  For example, instead of a tax-abatement zone, what about the oppostie?  What if the entire interstate system had been developed with a set of policies that captured a portion of windfall profits from land speculation, and the preferential value of citing gas and other services immediately adjacent to off-ramps?  These were not places that needed additional incentives.  The who fricken interstate system was already one giant incentive.

We ought to think of other examples as well, since it's a pervasive fact of government action that it creates spill-over effects that can be disproportionately exploited by agile actors who are not the intended beneficiaries.

As for your initial point, I'd just like to point out that the Democrats did have this approach institutionalized, it was called "paygo," and the GOP dismantled it.  To reinstate it now, and essentially freeze into place the severely distorted balance that the GOP has institutionalized, does not strike me as sensible, much less wise, although I think it might make sense as a long-term goal, saying that once we reach such-and-such a benchmark, we will adopt these rules.

However, there is also a problem with the way you have formulated it, and that is that there are significant costs and benefits that don't get properly accounted for under existing practices, and we need to get substantially better are capturing those.  The lifetime costs of the Iraq War are an example of something the Bush Administration has been dodging since well before day one, for example.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:49:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Take a broader canvas here (0.00 / 0)

If people want more spending on domestic problems, they have to want either more taxes (at least for someone else) or less psending on something else, or both. 

Ron Paul articulated the second point when he talked about the waste of billionbs or trillions on the Iraq War and Empire.  I keep maintaining that the default position of a great many GOP folks is isolationism, although they can certainly be persuaded to kick someone's butt if we are attacked.  The neocons have at least as much to fear from Huckabee as the economic cons, in terms of loss of influence, as that is the big source of money (besides borrowing, which Huck seems to think is unChristian, in another H/T to the Middle Ages).

So then the issue is taxes, and there are simply more votes under $250,000 income than above, a whole lot more, in fact.  Even for the GOP.  Huck is the only one who understands that.  If the GOP loses the middle class and below in the South, they are toast.  In the North many more rich people vote Dem, but in the South they almost all vote GOP.

And if the prevailing view is for less rage (not less contrast, but less rage) then hating on gays and immigrants and Muslims and uppity women isn't going to get them the votes that they need.

IMHO the Dems lost when people viewed social spending as too much for Black people.  Well, Clinton took care of THAT issue, didn't he!  Now that the battle lines are Social Security, assistance of some kind with health care, and education, it is much more seen as for everyone, and thus not only less objectionable but clearly desirable.  And trying to tie Obama to Jesse Jackson isn't going to change that. 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 19:07:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A reservation (0.00 / 0)

I don't doubt that the general thrust of your analysis is onto something, but you are probably drawing poor inferences when you claim, based on these aggregates of opinions, that so many conservatives favor spending more on domestic programs.  If I understand the meaning of the numbers in the cells above, a respondent ends up a "net" supporter of increased spending on domestic programs if there are, say, 5 kinds of programs she would want to spend more on, but only 3 she would like to spend less on (net: +2).  A person who falls into this category may not, however, favor spending more on domestic programs overall.  She may want to spend a bit more in 5 areas (say, transportation, business promotion, etc.), but eliminate social security, medicare and welfare.  Hence it is too quick to say that such a large portion of self-described conservatives really would like to see greater government spending on domestic programs, at least based on the evidence presented here.

Ump.

---

by: Umpteenth @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 16:26:24 PM UTC

There's Tremendous Debate On This (0.00 / 0)

Although, to be quite frank, those wanting to cut specific programs are almost always a significant minority.

The bottom line is that people don't want to spend money.

But they don't want to leave problems unsolved even more.

So, if you ask them vaguely, "should we spend more money, or give the money back to the people," you will generally get a lot of people saying, "give it back."  But if you ask, "Should we spend more money improving the nation's health?"  Or "Should we spend more money solving the problems of big cities?" then the numbers shift heavily in the other direction.

And, when you think about it, this is perfectly reasonable.  This is how most everyone acts in everyday life.  The vast majority of money is dedicated to a specific purpose.  "Mad money" is a very small fraction of most people's budgets.  But when there's a very specific need--a roof that needs fixing, a car that needs an oil change, whatever--then our attiude shifts accordingly.  It's reality-based, it's rational, and it's why there is only a modest ideological effect--because it's primarily a matter of simple pragmatism.

BTW, the text for these questions specifically reminds people of that there are costs and trade-offs involved:

68. We are faced with many problems in this country, none of which can be solved easily or inexpensively. I'm going to name some of these problems, and for each one I'd like you to tell me whether you think we're spending too much money on it, too little money, or about the right amount. d. Solving the problems of the big cities.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:18:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is not a big issue, but... (0.00 / 0)

My point is simple, and your reply here is not quite on point.  If someone is in favor of spending more in some areas and less in others, then she is "net" in favor of more spending as defined by these tables, but not necessarily in favor of "net" increased spending in terms of total dollars expended.  For example, the fact that she favors spending more in, say, 5 areas and less in 3 does not mean that she favors increased spending when the dollar figures are added up.  It depends on how much more or less she would prefer to spend in each area.  And since she prefers to spend less in some, the question is "how much less?".

In short, all I'm saying is that the big conclusion based on the data above may be correct, but the specific inference that so many conservatives actually want to spend more is not necessarily supported by the actual data given.  It may be a good bet, but can't be securely defended based on these kinds of questions/results.  So you may want to be (more) careful in how you phrase the conclusions here, lest you appear to be unclear on the meanings of the data.

---

by: Umpteenth @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:38:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let Me Be Clear (0.00 / 0)

I understand your point, but it can't readily be separated from the larger picture.

Indeed, there's no reason whatsoever to think that your point is really the most significant one, since it cuts both ways.  Why should we assume that such imbalances in preference strengths all point in the same direction?  The much more sensible approach is to assume that where they do exist, they cancel one another out, leaving no net effect.

This is a perfectly reasonable null hypothesis, and it does not really constitute a failure in my reasoning to make this assumption.

That is why I jumped to the larger issue--not to avoid answering you, but to acknowledge the larger matrix of considerations of which it is a part.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 19:22:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re cost tradeoffs (0.00 / 0)

In addition to racism, the other trump card the conservatives have played repeatedly is the need to devote huge gobs of our resources to defense against the boogeyman du jour, whether it be commies or Islamofascists. This also works to peel away support for domestic spending, even if people in the abstract are in favor of it. If you ask them if they'd rather pay for early childhood education or measures to prevent the Boogeyman from killing our children in their beds, those who are convinced the threat is real will reluctantly choose the latter.

No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded. -Margaret Mead

---

by: smith @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:44:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Agree With Your Basic Thrust, But... (0.00 / 0)

I think the mechanism is slightly different.  I think it has much more to do with changing the subject, rather than changing the priorities.

Let me explain:  If there's virtually no talk about early childhood education, and less than 1% of voters rank it as the most important issue, then the Boogeyman killing our children in their beds wins the day, even if there's more support for spending money on early childhood education.  That support simply doesn't enter into the decision-making process.

Does this make sense?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 19:28:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it does, (0.00 / 0)

and I think you are getting to the root of the difficulty now.  When I looked at your statistical charts, I experienced a distinct sensation of cognitive dissonance.  The conservatives I am surrounded by are constantly stating that they are opposed to government spending (they seem to be most opposed to benefits for other people's children), yet your statistics show that if they state their preferences on particular programs, they are in favor of MORE spending.

But I think the real cognitive disconnect is taking place inside their minds.  Less spending is a principle they have decided to support, and the fact that they are being inconsistent bothers them not at all, because they are not determining their broad overall principles rationally. Instead, they are basing their adherence to those principles on non-rational criteria, which don't require that they be consistent with their positions on individual issues.

Which I suppose is why I can never convince them of anything.

---

by: Querent @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 22:15:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You've Sussed Them Out Pretty Good, IMHO! (0.00 / 0)

BTW, have you read Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians?  We all tend to have holes in our reasoning, but the right has a distinct advantage in hole-count over the rest of us.

Another form the disconnect takes is that they're more likely to say that whatever you bring up to discuss is "our most important problem".

Which explains part of the built-in advantage that rightwing scaremongers like Limbaugh and O'Reilly have over their less deranged competition.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 22:26:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I haven't, but thanks for the recomendation. (0.00 / 0)

"the right has a distinct advantage in hole-count over the rest of us." Well, that's putting it mildly, isn't it. Reminds me of bovine spongiform encephaopathy.

---

by: Querent @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 22:55:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, You DEFINITELY Sussed That Sly Reference Out! (0.00 / 0)

It's not for nothing I sometimes refer to them as the BSE brigade!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 22:59:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is still by way of a reply to your last post, Paul, (0.00 / 0)

but if I keep using the reply button, we'll be reading a column of single words, in a minute.

I've been trying to reconcile Bush's imbecilic policies with the ongoing protests of people who meet with him that he is not an imbecile, for a long time now.  There is the added evidence that many of the political tactics he uses are actually quite astute.  One of the favorite hypotheses to explain it used to be that all the astute political stuff was Rove's, and all of the imbecilic policy was Bush's. I don't think that flies, anymore. I believe that Rove left the administration before Bush masterfully orchestrated his last series of concessions from the Congress, so some of the astuteness has to reside somewhere other than with Rove.

Maybe the non-rational decision process hypothesis explains the apparent contradiction of Bush's insane ideology and his continuing political triumph.  If it's only his ideology he's non-rational about, that leaves him capable of using whatever political incisiveness he possesses with respect to everything else.  Or is it that politics as such is more visceral than rational, and that's why he keeps winning? Maybe he's just one of those Jungian non-rational personality types, or a personality in a phase where one of the non-rational functions is dominant for seven years.  What do you think?

---

by: Querent @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 23:24:38 PM UTC

I Could Write A Book About What I Think (0.00 / 0)

Or, I could simply say that I think our political system is so deeply degenerate that it supports and rewards psycopathy, the entire institutionalized structure of rewards and punishments has been reshaped to make it conducive to the success of moral imbeciles.

See the classic work on psycopathy, The Mask of Sanity [PDF]

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 00:55:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]