The Deep--And Hidden--Divide In American Politics

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 18:30


Obama's sudden lurch to the right is all in accord with one of Versailles' most treasured, and most bogus narratives, the claim that America is a "center-right" country, and thus that it's both natural and necessary for any Democrat to attack the party's base and trample the things it believes in.  After all, they're just a bunch of DFHs, whose views are hated and despised by real Americans (who read David Brooks religiously to know what they should think).

I'll have more to say about the center-right premise in another diary, but here I want to dramatically illustrate quite the opposite conclusion--that it's not the DFHs who are out of touch with the American people.  It's the movement conservatives who are so far out there that even the vast majority of day-to-day conservatives are opposed to their fundamental agenda.

I will do this by looking at just two areas--albeit fairly crucial ones: social spending and abortion, using data from the General Social Survey (GSS), the gold standard of public opinion polling.  (The GSS is cited by social scientists more often than any other data source except the US Census.)   In both cases, it turns out, conservative doctrine has little mass support.

Abortion

First, we take a look at a combined measure of support for abortion in three cases where a pregnant woman is under duress--in the case of rape, potential birth defect(s) or threat to her health.  The hardline conservative position is that abortion is murder, period, and therefore cannot be allowed for any reason.  This is, however, a clear minority position:

Well, 7.5%. That sure makes Mr. 23% seem like a popular guy, now doesn't it?

But we're just getting started!

Social Spending--Round 1

Next, we look at another combined measure, which measures support for social spending on aix national priorities:

A. Improving and protecting the environment.
B. Improving and protecting the nation's health
C. Solving the problems of the big cities
D. Improving the nation's education system
E. Improving the conditions of Blacks
F. Welfare

Again, the movement conservative position is clear: none of this is any of the government's business.  Just to be merciful, I'm going to start off with a measure that lumps things together into big chunks.  That way, conservatives can claim anyone who wants to cut more than they want to hold steady or increase spending--a much bigger group of people than those who want to cut everything.  But even being exceedingly generous, the number of conservative believers is a tiny minority--again, even less than the 23% Bush dead-enders:

Well, it's easy to tell what's next....

Paul Rosenberg :: The Deep--And Hidden--Divide In American Politics
Abortion and Social Spending--Round 1

We combine the two small minorities, and voila!  Instantly microscopic minorities:

Seriously, that tiny, tiny minority--1.3%, the intersection of "no case" for abortions and "too much" on spending--is still way too big.  Cause remember how I was being generous.  Well, as Alice Cooper would say, "No more Mr. Nice Guy"....

Social Spending--Round 2

So what happens when we don't lump support for social spending into such big chunks?  What happens is this:

Wow!  We thought that 1.3% was small!  But that 0.6% is less than half of 1.3%!

And now when we combine that data with our abortion data....

Abortion and Social Spending--Round 2

We finally arrive at the truly minuscule size of the docrinaire right:

As you can see, that 0.1%--the intersection of "no case" on abortions and "too much on all" was itself almost half due to rounding error.  That's why we have the bottom line, which replicates the last line before the totals with an extra decimal point, so we can see just how small those figures are. 0.06% is six people out of 10,000.

That's a good estimate for the size of support for the dominant rightwing ideology that all of us are supposed to cower before, know that we are worthless scum who have no right to even say, "Boo!"

Except, of course, probably most of those only want to cut some of the spending.  Maybe one person in 10,000 wants to do away with the spending altogether, and allow no abortions in these cases.  So we're still cutting them, probably, 500% slack.

Still, it should be obvious from this where the great divide in American politics lies.  It is not between red-blooded Americans and DFHs.  It's between red-blooded Americans and James Dobson.  Him and his 6 people out of 10,000.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Deep--And Hidden--Divide In American Politics | 26 comments
The real hidden divide (4.00 / 2)
Seems to be between those who have an understanding of  how politics and government work (or don't) and what needs to be done to translate broad policy choices into policies and programs, and those who don't.  A great many people can answer these questions, but they don't really understand issues in the same way wonks do, and don't really understand that government is making choices every day that impact their lives and make these broad policies a reality, or, more often, not.  

It isn't a matter of marketing, but rather of overcoming apathy, unfamiliarity with the system and a general feeling of powerlessness to mobilize support for issues and candidates.  It is treating people like citizens rather than consumers, and partners in government.  Obviously there are those with a stake in maintaining this situation, but our civic culture is in really bad shape, and I think there is a growinhg consensus that things are so far off-track that engagement is worth it.  The legions getting into politics in support of Obama and various other candidates is very healthy, and I hope they will stay involved and keep the pressure on.  

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

The reason politicians treat people like "consumers" instead of like citizens and partners (4.00 / 1)
in government as you so eloquently put it, is because of political consultants, or even consutants from those from 'public relations' companies( are you reading this Mark Penn? Probably not, dumb question)which turn politicians into "Brands" and sell them to us the, the consumer,ah, excuse me  - voter.

They've been doing this for how long?

Too long.

I wish that politicians would realize that a true leader doesn't run to the middle to where he/she thinks the "middle is"... a true leader gets the people to turn their attention to where the leader wants the people to focus and gets the people to move to that position.

Call me a snob, but if it's the activists who are informed and engaged and who participate in the early primary season( normally)who usually determine who the nominee is, it has been disheartening for too long to see Democratic candidates seemingly "dumb down" after the Primary season has concluded to appeal to the emphemeral  "middle" which  has only elected a Democrat 3 times in how many elections?

I hate that strategy on so many levels.

[ Parent ]
I think they treat people like consumers because people (0.00 / 0)
want to be treated like consumers. I beleive there was some major political science theories written on the subject, but can't remember exactly where I saw it. The point is that Americans have always acted this way about politics to some degree-- people who voted for FDR didn't necessarily, for example, fully understand the processes of government.
[ Parent ]
I see/saw glimmers of "hope" that people were sick of spin which in this environment, (0.00 / 0)
political, means they didn't want to be treated as a consumer; I'm afraid that this run to middle has disillusioned many and how that disillusionment manifests itself - will they stop engaging? stop demanding an end to 'spin'? And if they do stop it merely remains the status quo which gets us nowhere
[ Parent ]
I don't think they are disillusioned (0.00 / 0)
I think they will convince themselves that he didn't make any changes at all or they will simply do whatever is emotionally necessary to vote the way they want to vote. I think Americans prefer to look at politics like they look at Oprah- something to be consumed. They don't really care who Obama is or isn't so much as if they are entertained. But as I said often here - I am cynical and skeptical so what do I know.
[ Parent ]
Paul Cannot Be Correct In This Analysis (4.00 / 2)
because it conflicts with the Chris Matthews creed: all politics is a horse race and it is always nose to nose.  Any thing contrary is ipso facto wrong.
you're right, of course, but... (0.00 / 0)
the traditional media IS center-right. I believe Obama's actions in the past 10 days are for one reason only: to blunt the effect that McCain and the RNC's attacks will have not on us but on traditional media, who, by proclivity and by desire to see a real horserace, will buy into and amplify them almost without question.

That said, I don't know if he will shift gears again after being elected and truly fight for progressive change. But I do believe I'll be content with at least 60% of "Obama change."

I Wish I Could Believe This (0.00 / 0)
But there are just too, too many options he's ignored. If he wanted to, he could be totally putting McCain away right now--and choosing Edwards as his VP now is just one of them.

"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
[ Parent ]
DFH? (0.00 / 0)
What is a DFH? Thx.  
DFH = (4.00 / 1)
Dirty Fucking Hippie.
[ Parent ]
It goes back to the period from 1965-1972 (4.00 / 4)
When the (we) unruly students at UC Berkeley engaged in peaceful protests that Ronald Reagan characterized as a riot and used to get elected Governor, then came the Haight-Ashbury and turn on, tune in, drop out, then anti-war protests got more violent, then the awful 1968 Dem Convention, then reforms that got us George McGovern. Eight years of Reagan as Gov of Calif and eight years of Nixon, then Reagan as President.  The Democratic Party brand got tarnished, Dems became cowards, and it is all the fault of the DFH's, who must never be allowed to have any power or be in front of cameras.  That's the short history of the last 40 years.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
DHF (0.00 / 0)
It only applies to "old guys"!
[ Parent ]
Obama isn't moving to the center (0.00 / 0)
http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...

Obama never promised to filibuster any bill with immunity.


The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

By the way (0.00 / 0)
That took almost no research to find out.  Please do at least a little research before you propagate lies about Obama.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
[ Parent ]
Maybe you shouldn't insult people's intelligence (4.00 / 3)
You aren't on CNN and no one here is stupid. What a politician directly says isn't always as important as what he was tryin g to imply. 30 percent of the population still to this day believes that George Bush said that Saddam Hussien was behind 9/11. Now, those people , one could argue, as you are doing, are wrong because Bush actually never did say that. But, in actuality, as to what was intended by what Bush did say- said it all. Unless Obama is immune from being a politician and using language in such a fashion, what your link says doesn't matter at all. It's just stuff people are saying now to try to spin what he's said and done int eh last few weeks. Again, no one here is stupid.  
[ Parent ]
I'm Glad bruhrabbit: Answered You (4.00 / 1)
Because he was much nicer than I would have been.

"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
[ Parent ]
The cops have a saying (4.00 / 1)
"watch their hands, not their eyes."

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Not sure I believe this analysis (4.00 / 1)
Not to take away from the overall premise, I believe that the country is more liberal overall than generally expressed; however, I think that the analysis above is rather misleading. The problem that I have is that the pairwise percentages are presented as if there is no corelation between the two sets of statistics.  For example, as presented above, it is expected that the poeple who support abortion in under duress and those that support abortion in no cases whatsoever will break in exactly the same percentages on social spending.  I think that the assumption that the two views are independent is wrong.  It is much more likely that the two views are  highly corelated, i.e. those people that believe that there should no abortions whatsoever are generally against social spending.  As a consequence of ignoring the corelation, the overall precentages given above, I believe, much lower than the expected true pairwise percentages.  However, I think that the two single results demonstrate that conservative views are a minority, just not a miniscule minority.
I'[m Afraid You Misunderstand (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't doing calculations here.  There were no assumptions.  These are cross-tabs from 30+ years of data.

For example, as presented above, it is expected that the poeple who support abortion in under duress and those that support abortion in no cases whatsoever will break in exactly the same percentages on social spending.

This is not the case.  The r values are surprisingly small (.03) but non-zero.  Thus, the "no case" cross-tab on "Too Little on 4-6, Net" is 5.42% of the row total, while the "no case" cross-tab on "Too Much" is 7.84%.  That's not as large a difference as I would have expected beforehand, but it's a difference, and it's in the expected direction.
 

"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

[ Parent ]
i have to disagree (0.00 / 0)
I do agree with the basic premise and think it's more important in some ways than what I say below - that the way that the political system is working right now is NOT democratic.  

That said, the ideological spectrum in the United States, as compared to most of the wealthy countries in Europe, seems both less diverse and shifted to the right.  This means almost everyone in the U.S. seems to be willing to go along with whatever the "economy" (i.e. capitalism) needs--including domestic political stability--and there are less people on the right AND the left willing to take a different position.  The people who do, whether they're neocons or communists or christian fundamentalists or even just run-of-the-mill socialists generally get labeled "insane" or "crazy" or something along those lines, even if they're not.  In other words, people who like Jon Stewart and people who like David Brooks would probably have a better dinner conversation with each other than people who like Hugo Chavez.  I know too much about postcolonial theory to believe this is something "innate" to Americans but I do believe that as long as the media is consolidated and corporate, as long as the educational system is in shambles and a state subject, as long as politically incendiary immigarnts can be deported, as long as the economy is relatively stable and dominant in the world, this kind of homogeneity will probably persist.

Ideologically, I think it's also shifted towards individualism rather than statism as compared wih wealthy countries in Europe again (hence more civil liberties emphasis and guns, less universal health care and socialist rhetoric).  It's also probably more parochially imperialist (i.e. the go-it-alone approach rather than the european let's-dominate-everyone-together approach) and therefore more tolerant of massive military spending despite the aversion to government spending.

I don't know enough to make a broad comparison with East Asian capitalist countries like Japan or South Korea, and I won't compare it to most "developing" states at different income levels and with different colonizers and on different continents, because the set-ups are different and to some extent probably varies with country.

Actually, I don't know enough even to make the gross generalizations I made above, but it's just speculation based on personal observation as a "red-blooded American" (is there another kind? :).  But my own ignorance aside, I don't think polls like this are all that useful in understanding the mentalities of people as much as a million ethnographies that would get a deeper sense of who people are and what they're about would be.  Not sure what a good heuristic would be.

So, Until Next Tuesday, Then... (4.00 / 2)
as long as the economy is relatively stable and dominant in the world, this kind of homogeneity will probably persist.

But aside from that, I think we're talking about two different things.  The American people are incredibly consumerist, and will put up with a great deal, so long as they get their MTV, monster truck rally, or whatever.  The political apathy factor is very high, and to a certain extent it's perfectly rational, since the political system is so unresponsive.

But that doesn't mean that people actively like what's being done in their names.  The "wrong track" numbers alone say that that's definitely not the case.

What we have, quite simply, is a deeply dysfunctional political system.  And Obama merely wants to shift it into a slightly different dysfunctional mode.  That's his "transformation" in a nutshell.

"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

[ Parent ]
not sure (0.00 / 0)
What we have, quite simply, is a deeply dysfunctional political system.  And Obama merely wants to shift it into a slightly different dysfunctional mode.  That's his "transformation" in a nutshell.

I think he wants to shift it into a functional hegemony, the way that Democrats and Republicans have probably since industrialization.  To really oversimplify what I think happens - the Democrats do it by making sure that economic redistribution and social cohesion (through things like Social Security and the always-promised health care) happen; the Republicans do it by making sure that the interests of capital are argued for.  Both make sure that the U.S. is dominating globally.

I don't know if Obama will succeed at whatever his agenda is, but I think the extent of his "change" in practice would be to bring that hegemony back which is periodically endangered (like in the late 60s or today or during the Depression).   This isn't to denigrate that what he could set in motion some things that will have real effects on people's lives- if you have to live in this kind of system, it's better to have health care than violent warfare in countries most Americans can't find on a map.  

I would like to see things change, drastically, even if slowly and peacefully, and I think that Americans, like all people, have the potential for thinking of dramatic change (see: Thomas Jefferson, trees, freedom, etc.), but I think Americans today perhaps less so for a variety of reasons.  Among them the unresponsiveness of the  political system that you pointed to, the systematic exclusion of alternative viewpoints, the stability and conservatism of the political system, the lack of community, the thirty years of having pro-rich ideology drilled into their heads...and I'm sure a lot of other things.  but I think if you agree with all this, you would be hard-pressed to argue that it wouldn't have a cultural component to it too, which is what makes Americans more conservative than other rich parts of the world that aren't spending such a huge portion of their money on the military and as a result are simply better at running a hegemonic system (like Britain).

But - with all that said - this kind of macro analysis that i'm giving, EVEN if it's accurate doesn't condemn us to inaction - it's just a call to look at a deeper analysis than Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives, etc. and decide what you prefer.  As you said, there's a deeply dysfunctional political system in the U.S. today. and it needs to be addressed in one way or another.

[ Parent ]
Because Americans are deeply apathetic and he does things (0.00 / 0)
that we will leave them as MTV consumers - how will any of that change? I don't see it. For it to get through the fog of indifference you have to be big. Sure during a primary you can run on self help book quotes, but as you are seeing during the GE and even more so during a Presidency you can't lead that way.
[ Parent ]
...in 2008 (0.00 / 0)
i have to take a long view while being critical, or else I'll go nuts :)
[ Parent ]
Right about individualism (0.00 / 0)
Very good point.  You are absolutely right about this.  Individualism is far, far more important and basic a value in this country than elsewhere.  Certainly much more thna Europe and hugely more than in Asia.  We often forget that, but it colors how we are forced to talk about policy choices here to get heard at all, especially because of how it was contrasted to evil Communism.  It is one of the prime factors that forces the center towards the right, and gives the right the vocabulary to discount progressive iodeas,  For decades anything that smacked of "collectivism" was denigrated, to the point whre the idea of the "common good" practically disappeared.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Fantastic post Paul! (0.00 / 0)


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
The Deep--And Hidden--Divide In American Politics | 26 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox