Liberalism Makes Modest Gains 1984-2006

by: Daniel De Groot

Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:00


A good amount of attention has been paid to the ever larger party affiliation gap that Democrats are enjoying this year.  Unfortunately there is not nearly so much attention paid to the underlying ideological alignment of voters (not much polling on it either).  It is these beliefs that largely impact how elected officials behave with respect to policy, and particularly so for the Democratic party which still has a substantial conservative wing unlike the decimated ranks of the extinct or endangered liberal Republicans.

One thing I want to see the left doing more effectively is laying the blame for the disasterous policies of the Bush Administration and Republican congresses on the ideology that crafted them, namely conservativism.  John McCain is still demonizing "failed" liberal ideas from the 70s and trying to raise the spectre of a second term for Jimmy Carter (a really weak and self-dating attack).  Yet Democrats do not routinely link the failures of Iraq, Katrina and the Economy on the ideology that dreams up all these great ideas like invading unrelated countries after being attacked or handing a large state's energy system over to a bunch of unaccountable sociopaths happy to screw up the grid so prices will increase.  

Despite the relative lack of effort in this area outside of blogs, I'm happy to report that some people are figuring it out, and the lead conservativism has on liberalism is the smallest is has been in decades (I went back as far as 1984):

Source is the General Social Survey.

Now that's the gap, whither conservativism and liberalism in the populace?  Some more charts and observations below.

Daniel De Groot :: Liberalism Makes Modest Gains 1984-2006



2004 is quite the blip.  Looking at that I have to figure Kerry did surprisingly well considering the prevailing ideological winds.  Gore and Dukakis had far more favourable conditions.  Seeing that Gore did actually win, I think this also explains why Bush ran so hard to the center in 2000 and so hard right in 2004.  

It's also interesting and amusing how conservativism declines as Republican presidencies wear on (look at the end of the Reagan Presidency), but liberalism actually increased toward the end of Clinton's presidency.  Even though it would be inaccurate to call Bill Clinton a liberal, it wouldn't be wrong to suspect the population that were happy with the results of his presidency thought of him that way, and would be more favourable toward liberalism because of it.  

I'm speculating here because I can't find any data on people's attitudes to/beliefs about liberalism/conservativism.  Many polls will ask respondents if they are lib/con/moderate but not why, and only the GSS breaks it down to a 7 point scale to get some indicator of how liberal/conservative a person believes themselves to be.

Anyway, I'm eagerly awaiting the 2008 GSS data.  I could use some more recent polling that asks respondents about their ideology, but I want to compare apples here.  The GSS question asks:


67a. We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. I'm going to show you a seven-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal - point 1 - to extremely conservative - point 7. Where would you place yourself on this scale?

Which is significant, because though I don't break down the 7 categories in these charts, 12% of the 2006 "liberals" self-rated "slightly liberal."  I think what happens on surveys that only ask between liberal, moderate and conservative that these people all say "moderate" rather than admit they are just like those people who hate America, the dreaded liberals with whom they agree slightly on a few things.

This is an important question because it cuts to, how accurate are these self-identifications?  I don't think it's elitist to say that a good chunk of the population is not well versed in ideological theory to understand that they might be actually more liberal than they thought.  Paul Rosenberg has demonstrated this in his posts on GSS data) showing majorities of self-identified conservatives supporting increased social spending in all sorts of areas.  

Conservatives have been the only ones on the ideological playing field for a long time.  Is it so improbable that a great many people have come to believe "liberal" is a bad thing while holding quite liberal views?  

Finally, this data is yet more proof why Obama does not need to run away from the left or fear being labelled a "liberal" (though liberals may rightly fear him be labelled as one of us) - people don't really mind it that much.  In the long run fixing the negative perceptions of liberalism will really defang the right.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Liberalism Makes Modest Gains 1984-2006 | 9 comments
Very interesting (4.00 / 1)
Really great work.

What is the MOE in these surveys?  If you use a standard MOE of 3%, you could actually fit a line and argue that there has been no real change at all.  

I wonder what the exit polls show?

Sample sizes are large (0.00 / 0)
For 2006, this data is based on 4600 interviews.  So I think it is lower than 3% but I'm not enough of a statistician to do the calculations myself easily.
[ Parent ]
"Liberal" is a bad label compared to "Progressive." (0.00 / 0)
Just my opinion, mind you.

Anyway, I think we should append "Radical" to "Conservative" every chance we get.

polling does confirm your statement (0.00 / 0)
About "progressive" and "liberal" but I have to ask:  Do you suppose that is because conservatives have been attacking liberalism for decades?  If we all switch to progressive, they'll ruin that term too, unless it is defended strongly.

The problem is that we have been fighting (or often, not fighting) a defensive war with no offence.

Me, I prefer liberal but I would adopt progressive if it was part of a concerted strategy.

[ Parent ]
Offense and Defense (0.00 / 0)
For the most part, Democrats have neither been playing defense or offense when it comes to these terms - Republicans revel in the label conservative, while Democrats have largely avoided attacking the conservative brand or touting their liberalism - the Dukakis-Kerry-(sometimes) Obama approach is to be portrayed non-ideological and competent.  One reason why people who hold liberal/progressive views often don't identify as such is because the political establishment - Republicans, Democrats and the MSM - all treat those labels as negative and "conservative" as positive. The Republican effort to demonize the word liberal would have been far less effective without the help of those in the Democratic Party who have enabled them. That's part of how the New Democrats/DLC wing of the party maintains control - efforts to nominate candidates, or take policy positions, that fall outside the beltway consensus are beat back by the fear that the party will be tagged as too liberal.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Conservative <-> Liberal (0.00 / 0)
When asked (Zogby polls e.g.), I always say I'm moderate, because I think my ideals should be considered middle-of-the-road. How does we know more scientifically where one fits in the spectrum from liberal to conservative? To know that, don't we have to quantify absolute conservatism and absolute liberalism? Then we could measure ourselves and figure out if we're closer to one end of the spectrum than the other.

Voters have no idea whether they're conservative or liberal. I'd guess there are a lot of folks, like me, who for some purposes would be classified as very liberal, who don't think of themselves as liberals. I'd guess there are a lot of racists, e.g., who think they're ideals are mainstream or moderate.

There's got to be a better system than conservative-liberal.

I didn't graph moderates (0.00 / 0)
But the GSS data includes it.  Since they ask on a scale of 1-7, then 4 is exactly in the middle.  Would you say "4" or perhaps "3" which corresponds to "slightly liberal"?

I prefer this method of asking because the word "moderate" has undue positive connotations.  Who wouldn't want to be considered "moderate"?  It's a virtue.  But a poor description of someone who is exactly between liberal and conservative positions.  "Mixed" might be less loaded.


[ Parent ]
conservative, liberal, moderate, progressive, radical, democracy, etc. (0.00 / 0)
these are really just brands, right?  and the way we position ourselves relative to other people and what we see as "the center" or "the left" or "the right".  for example, take a look at this article by Jim Naureckas of FAIR from 1992 that tries to dissect some of this stuff in the context of the Democratic Presidential platform:

Coverage of the 1992 Democratic National Convention often drew sharp contrasts with earlier Democratic conventions--particularly 1984 and 1988. A look back at the coverage of those conventions, however, shows that they were covered in almost exactly the same terms.

Like 1992, both '84 and '88 were treated as landmarks, a new start for a party whose old ways had led to defeat. The New York Times (7/22/84) reported it was "with justification" that Mondale aides called the '84 convention "the most successful since 1964." According to a Chicago Tribune editorial (7/24/88), "The Democratic Party of 1988 is more unified, more single-minded, more obsessed with winning and less with ideology, more in control of its own destiny than it has been in decades." But within four years, each convention became a symbol of what had to be changed about the Democratic Party to give it "winnability."

I was a kid then, but I know that even in my lifetime, the idea of "liberal" that was embodied by Mario Cuomo is lightyears away from the "progressivism" of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards- whether that's good or bad for winning elections and for the people affected by government is a separate question, but it should present a note of caution for analyses like this.  the more important question to me are the ideas that lie underneath them and have presumably changed pretty dramatically over the period covered.  after all, the whole point is that ideas like cutting off benefits for poor women went from "conservative" to "moderate" to even "liberal."-- and party affiliations are used as cover for this.

Do they predict or follow elections? (0.00 / 0)
Some people are actually ideological and identlfy one way or the other, but for others I think it is much more tenuous.  I think it is kind of self-reinforcing.  When a Republican seems to be winning, and especially if he paints his Dem opponent as a wimp, people like conservatism and think they are conservatives.  That's 2004, also 1992-1995 (Gingrich & Congress).  But the reality of GOP governance is so appalling that it turns people away again.  That's 2005-2008.

But what is liberal and what is conservative, really?  Conserving Social Security is lkiberal but dismantling it for an untested and likely fiscally irresponsible shell game is conservative?  Prudent foreign policy is liberal and reckless adventuristic millitarism and imperialism is conservative?  No wonder people are muddled.  Better to stick to the issues themselves.

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

Liberalism Makes Modest Gains 1984-2006 | 9 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