Dems Facing Disaster in 2010 Elections?

Is Bill Maher right that Americans are stupid or is the power elite just extremely effective at propaganda?

Either way, Americans are sheeple. I’m not only blaming the GOP and Tea Party. Democrats failed to keep their promises which relates to Chris Hedges’ criticisms of the liberal class. Even so, it makes no sense to vote Republican. If all the outraged people had any brains, they would vote in some third party or independent candidates.

I haven’t lost faith in US politics. I’ve lost faith in the American people.

US: Republic & Democracy

I keep noticing a particular belief among a certain kind of rightwinger. What they say is that the US government isn’t a democracy but a republic. I’ve seen this stated thousands of times in blogs and comments around the web.

I wonder what is the source of this claim. The fact that it keeps being repeated by so many people makes me think it’s a talking point often heard in conservative media. There is one thing that is obvious to me about this phenomenon. These people didn’t learn this idea by looking up the term ‘democracy’ in a dictionary or an encyclopedia or even Wikipedia.

Half of the statement is correct and half of the statement is false. The US government is BOTH a democracy AND a republic. To be more specific, the US government is a representative democracy and a constitutional republic. What these rightwingers fail to understand is that there are multiple definitions of democracy and multiple definitions of republic.

Even going back to Greek society, there was vast difference between Spartan and Athenian democracy. Sparta was a representative democracy with a political system that was divided. Athens was more of a direct democracy where even the lowest citizen could participate. The US is a bit of both these. The US is like Sparta in the following ways: representation instead of direct democracy, divided government, and a professional military. The US is only like Athens in one way: any citizen can participate and potentially become elected into government.

The only place where direct democracy operates in the US very partially is on certain major issues of local governance that are decided by citizen vote. I suppose also that jury by peers could be thought of as a watered down or constrained version of direct democracy. Still, the vast majority of the government is representative and the ‘mob’ of the citizenry has little direct influence.

The rightwingers are arguing that democracy is solely defined as direct democracy or, as some call it, mobocracy. But they are simply wrong. Their ignorance amazes me. Let me demonstrate by considering a random definition from a mainstream dictionary. I did a search and this is the top result (after Wikipedia):

Merriam-Webster, definition 1, part b (emphasis mine)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Here is the confusion. Rightwingers are taking the following part of the definition as if it were the whole definition:

Merriam-Webster, definition 3

capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

Basically, it comes down to a simplistic play on words. These rightwingers are trying to make an argument that the Republican party is the party of real America, the party that represents the emancipation Republicanism of the founding fathers. The problem is that this argument is so simplistic as to be inane. There is absolutely no conflict between a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. US democracy is constrained by being indirect and by having the govt divided. Furthermore, US democracy is constrained by the constitution (and the constitution is responsive to the democratic process, i.e., amendments).

There are a few basic confusions.

The original meaning of ‘republic’ was simply a government that wasn’t a monarchy. The difference between a monarch and a president is that the former represents himself or represents the ruling elite and the latter theoretically represents the whole population and the country as a whole. As far as I know, this doesn’t require a constitution. The term ‘republic’ just basically means that the leader can’t simply act on whim and must be held accountable to the law like everyone else, but these laws aren’t necessarily the same as a constitution. A constitution is similar to laws, but the difference is that a constitution is what all other laws are based upon and that they must remain basically unchanged. Most republics probably tend towards declaring constitutions, but a strong legal system independent of the leader can serve the same purpose as a constitution. A constitution is just a safeguard in case the legal system fails. The constitution, of course, has no power in and of itself. Still, it’s powerful in being a symbolic mission statement of a society.

Let me now share part of the definition of ‘republic’:

Merriam-Webster, definition 1, part b(1)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

That serves as an equally good definition of a representative democracy.

Two things come to my mind: 1) Henry Fairlie’s definition of a Tory; and 2) rightwing rhetoric about ‘mobocracy’ and ‘real Americans’.

So, how did Henry Fairlie define a Tory? The Tories support the British government… which includes the period of monarchy. The Tory has faith in government in general for the reason they mistrust capitalism controlled by the wealthy elite. The government represents the people or at least the country, but capitalists have no inherent loyalty to anything besides profit. I think this represents the basic distinction between conservatives and liberals in the US. Conservatives mistrust government and instead trust capitalism. Liberals have a basic faith in government while being wary of capitalism. This is demonstrated by how Democrats show stronger support for even Republican presidents than Republicans show for Democrat presidents. Liberals trust the government even when they don’t have one of their own in power because they see government as being greater than either party.

This brings me to the second point. Liberals also have more basic faith in the American people and human nature in general. Liberals believe humans are inherently good or at least have the inherent predisposition towards good. Conservatives believe that people need to be told what to do by traditional authorities (i.e., religious leaders) and by those who are seen as having earned authority (i.e., successful/wealthy capitalists). Conservatives talk about ‘real Americans’, but they don’t mean the average American. What they’re talking about is the specific group they belong to: fundamentalist Christians, ‘white culture’, etc. So, their notion of ‘real Americans’ is very narrow. The liberal notion of a real American is more broad and I doubt most liberals would even deny conservatives as being real Americans. Just look at the Democratic voters who evenly divide between identifying as liberals and conservatives (according to the 2005 Pew data: Beyond Red vs Blue).

I’d also point out that it’s because of conservatives mistrust of people and government that they emphasize the constitution so much. That is why they tend to think of the constitution as an unchanging document akin to a religious document such as the Ten Commandments. Conservatives trust principles and beliefs, traditional values and institutions; whatever they perceive as a living and unchanging tradition of their particular in-group. Democracy, even though ancient, isn’t a traditional part of Christianity and so not a traditional part of European culture. Greek ideas which inspired the Enlightenment Age were reintroduced to Europe from the Middle East and so Greek ideas are considered suspicious.

My main point in all this is just that it’s odd to see rightwing constitutionalists denying the very democracy that was created by the founding fathers. There are argument rests on the fact that when some of the founding fathers were using the term ‘democracy’ they were referring to only direct democracy. Apparently, the founding fathers used the term ‘republic’ to mean representative democracy. However, in the modern world, the term ‘democracy’ is used for both direct and representative forms. The rightwingers using narrow definitions from a couple of centuries ago and dismissing modern meaning of words is rather pointless. The meanings of words change. That is just the way the world works.

Like it or not, the US government is a democracy. If rightwingers for some strange reason wanted to get rid of democracy, they’d be forced to get rid of the republic itself which is built on the political process of democracy (voting, representation, etc). I’m assuming rightwingers don’t want to do this. So, why do they continue with the ignorant argument that America isn’t a democracy? Is it intentional ignorance in that there being ideoligically divisive in what they see as a battle that must be one at all costs, the battle of defeating liberals and Democrats? Or is it just passive ignorance of people who never read anything (including dictionaries and encyclopedias) outside of conservative media?

- – -

US: Republic & Democracy (pt 2)

Conservative Mistrust & Ideological Certainty (part 2)

I have some further thoughts about the topic I wrote about in my last post:

Conservative Mistrust & Ideological Certainty (part 1)

I started reading the introduction of Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. I immediately could tell that Hofstadter was a man who truly understood what intellectualism is about, but his book isn’t a paean to the glories of intellectualism. I sense that Hofstadter was trying to be fairminded even to those he is criticizing (a respectable trait that any intellectual should aspire towards). In this book, he is analyzing the specific history of intellectuality within the United States, the intellectuals themselves and those who opposed them. He doesn’t shy away from tough issues such as communism.

He clarifies a number of points. I’ll discuss two of them.

First, there generally isn’t a group of people who are entirely anti-intellectual. Those who use anti-intellectual arguments/rhetoric usually do so in response to some particular situation. The main opposition towards intellectuals is when they act as experts which goes against the populist grain of American culture (populist sentiments being particularly appealing to American conservatives). On the other hand, American intellectuals have at times been in alignment with this populism (e.g., the Progressive Era). Intellectualism isn’t inherently anti-populist and populism isn’t inherently anti-intellectual, but it’s obvious that in the US intellectualism and populism haven’t always gotten along.

Second, he distinguishes intelligence from intellectuality. Intelligence is universally valued, but intellectuality is not. Someone can be one while not being the other. The central distinction is that intelligence has practical ends and so can be known by its results (can be observed or even measured) whereas intellectuality doesn’t seek external justification. Intellectuality has two attributes that balance eachother: piety and playfulness. There is an almost religious sense that the intellectual has towards the moral values underpinning intellectual endeavors: truth and honesty, justice and fairness, etc. The intellectual endeavor is extremely serious and many intellectuals will dedicate their lives to it for very little reward (unlike businessmen or media personalities, few intellectuals become wealthy). Intellectualism is a calling. However, it’s playfulness (creativity, imagination, experimentation, openness, etc) that keeps the intellectual from turning into a zealot or ideologue. Also, I’d say this playfulness relates to the ability at role-playing, the ability to see different perspectives, the ability to empathize and understand.

The second point relates to psychological research which shows a correlation between liberalism and psychological factors such as the MBTI function Intuition, the FFM trait Openness to Experience, and Hartmann’s thin boundary type. I couldn’t help but think of MBTI Intution when reading Hofstadter’s description of intellectuality. Intuition is all about both the ability to think in terms of abstractions and imaginatively conceive of diverse possibilities. Intuitives tend to have a very playful sense of humor. Hofstadter’s seemed to be describing, in particular, the MBTI types INFP and INTP. There is other psychological research that I’m reminded of. There was a study that demonstrated a correlation between (as I recall) imagination, empathy (or emotional intelligence), and paranormal/spiritual experience… which makes sense according to Hartmann’s model of boundary types.

Conservatives like to call liberals bleeding hearts and it’s true that liberals on average have a stronger empathetic response (which would imply a higher emotional intelligence in that people tend to personally care about others to the extent that they understand the felt experience of others… not to imply, though, that conservatives entirely lack this because to entirely lack it would mean you’re a sociopath). What is interesting is that intellectualism is strongly correlated, especially in the US, with liberalism. For example, most scientists self-identify as liberals. So, what is the connection between empathy and intellectualism? This connection would be most clearly represented by the MBTI NF types (INFP, INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ), but even NT types would have an above average ability to understand the perspectives of others even if they didn’t experience this on an emotional level. My guess, however, is that most objectivists and anarcho-capitalists are NT types which would explain why they don’t identify with the average conservative who is probably an ST type.

I’ve noticed that some people speculate Ayn Rand was an INTJ. My dad, who has tested as an ENTJ, is fairly interested in Rand’s worldview. There is nothing comparable to the systematic logic of an INTJ or ENTJ… because these two types have Introverted Intuition which is a type of abstract thinking when taken to the extreme is utterly detached from outward reality and in some cases can lead to an idealization of outward reality. Let me use Rand as an example. Here are some quotes from the Wikipedia article titled “Objectivism (Ayn Rand)”:

Rand’s philosophy begins with three axioms: existence, identity, and consciousness.^[6] Rand defined an axiom as “a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.”^[7] As Leonard Peikoff noted, Rand’s argument “is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable.”^[8]

Like Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand likes axioms. To me, these are just ideas based on arguments. The problem with calling them axioms is that it gives me the sense that there are unstated assumptions underlying the argument for these axioms. These axioms don’t stand alone. For one, the very statement of these axioms is dependent on language (specifically, the English language in this case) and dependent on a philosophical tradition (specifically, the Western tradition in this case). If you put these axioms to a group of philosophy professors, they could debate them endlessly and never come to a conclusion about them. Rand’s perception that she defeats her opponents before even beginning the debate is just pure intellectual hubris. It’s a very simpleminded mentality.

As Rand wrote, “A leaf … cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A.”^[9]

Essentially, this is binary (black/white) thinking. It’s easy to point out any number of examples that contradict this style of either/or philosophizing. Most issues in life consist of multiple categories and blurring between categories. Even something so simple as gender involves complexities such as hermaphrodites.

Objectivism holds that the mind cannot create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.^[14]

This is such an over-simplification that I hardly know what to say about it. Our minds aren’t separate from the reality being perceived. Speaking about whether reality is created or not is pointless speculation, but what we can say is that the mind does create the perception of reality. To anyone who doesn’t understand this, I’d recommend reading the vast literature on the mind-body connection and I’d particularly recommend reading about enactivism.

Objectivist philosophy derives its explanations of action and causation from the axiom of identity, calling causation “the law of identity applied to action.”^[15] According to Rand, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or “identity”) of those entities; if they were different they would act differently.^[16]

This touches upon Rothbard’s own axiom of “Humans act”. This variety of conservative is obsessed with action, with doing and achieving. In Rand’s view, mind and reality are separate to some extent which seems to relate to a more general focus on what separates, what makes “A is A” and what makes “B is B”. It’s why this type is so centrally focused on ownership. You can only own that which is somehow outside of the one who owns. Many of these people even speak of individuality in terms of self-ownership which is a truly bizarre concept. The self, like anything else, is just an object to be owned and to do with as one wishes (manipulated, used, destroyed, sold, etc). The self has no intrinsic value and so it’s only value is what it’s worth on the market.

I’d suggest that this attitude is based in Hartmann’s thick boundary type. Research shows that the person with a thicker boundary has a stronger sense of separation between themselves and others, between themselves and the world, between the present and the past, between fantasy and reality, between body and mind. It’s a fundamentally distinct way of viewing and being in the world. It would seem that Rand had an impressively strong sense of thick boundary.

Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. “Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident.”^[20] Rand considered the validity of the senses to be axiomatic, and claimed that purported arguments to the contrary all commit the fallacy of the “stolen concept”^[21] by presupposing the validity of concepts that, in turn, presuppose the validity of the senses.^[22] She thought that perception, being physiologically determined, is incapable of error. So optical illusions, for example, are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not errors in sight itself.^[23]

Reality is what reality is (A is A). You see what you get. And there is nothing else

According to Rand, attaining knowledge beyond what is given in perception requires both volition (or the exercise of free will) and adherence to a specific method of validation through observation, concept-formation, and the application of inductive and deductive logic. A belief in, say, dragons, however sincere, does not oblige reality to contain any dragons. For anything that cannot be directly observed, a process of “proof” identifying the basis in reality of the claimed item of knowledge is necessary in order to establish its truth.^[25]

Objectivism rejects both faith and “feeling” as sources of knowledge. Rand acknowledged the importance of emotion in human beings, but she maintained that emotions are a consequence of the conscious or subconscious ideas that a person already accepts, not a means of achieving awareness of reality. “Emotions are not tools of cognition.”^[26] Peikoff uses “emotionalism”^[27] as a synonym for irrationality.

Truth is nothing more than the combination of perceived reality (A is A) and pure rationality. This is a very self-contained attitude. Rand or Rothbard is presenting something that they consider to be self-evident for anyone willing to see the obvious (the axiomatic truth) and able to logically deduce the inevitable conclusion (from those axioms).

Integrating with this is Rand’s view that the primary focus of man’s free will is in the choice: to think or not to think. “Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one’s consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make.”^[43] According to Rand, therefore, possessing free will, human beings must choose their values: one does not automatically hold his own life as his ultimate value. Whether in fact a person’s actions promote and fulfill his own life or not is a question of fact, as it is with all other organisms, but whether a person will act in order to promote his well-being is up to him, not hard-wired into his physiology.

This is an extension of something along the lines of the axiom “humans act”. The idealizing of freedom and choosing seems to be a form of heroic existentialism as expressed with Sartre’s radical freedom (it’s because there is no inherent value that we are absolutely free). By acting, we define who we are and we claim self-ownership. The “undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism” is a passive experience that must be acted upon.

Rand summarizes:

If [man] chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. Reality confronts a man with a great many ‘must’s', but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: ‘you must, if -’ and the if stands for man’s choice: ‘if you want to achieve a certain goal’.^[46]

Reality is what reality is, but reality in and of itself is separate from and opposed to rational self-interest. Nature must be tamed by man in order for him to attain his self-imposed goal. Reality is a world of objects and before anything else the object of the self must be taken control of. The method of taking control is rationality and hence actively forcing order upon one’s experience.

What is most important in all of this is that everything from this perspective (whether objectivism or anarcho-capitalism) begins with the claim of self-evident axioms. This must be understood in it’s larger context. The more intelligent defenders of this position don’t claim that everything is limited to this axiomatic approach. Much of the hard sciences necessitate research that can lead to objective conclusions, but the social sciences are dismissed out of some generalized criticism of positivism. What this comes down to is that social scientists can’t come to absolute conclusions and therefore all social science is complete bunk. So, all psychology, all sociology, all anthropology, all Keynesian economics based on data about humans, all of it is meaningless. Humans can objectively study the physical world but humans can’t objectively study humans.

Mises Non-Trivial Insight
By Robert P. Murphy

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the economics of Ludwig von Mises is his insistence on the a priori approach. For Mises, economic “laws” must be logically deduced from antecedent axioms, so that—assuming the initial assumptions are true—the conclusions reached are just as valid as any result in Euclidean geometry.This stands in sharp contrast to the method of the positivists, a camp that includes most of today’s practicing economists. In their opinion, economics can only be “scientific” if it adopts the procedures used by the natural scientists. Roughly, the positivists feel that economists should form hypotheses with testable implications, and then collect data to measure the accuracy of their predictions. Those tendencies that enjoy the most success in this sense are then deemed to be better “laws” than conjectures that do not fit the data so well.

Against the mainstream’s impressive mathematical tools and vast budgets spent on data collection, the Misesians meekly insist that economics must start from the premise that humans act. This action axiom lies at the core of “praxeology,” Mises’ term for the science of human action. The Misesians argue that all of the true economic laws can be derived from this simple axiom (sometimes with additional assumptions about the world, such as the fact that labor is onerous).

I think the motivation in this is the desire to see humans as free agents that can’t be predicted and the fear that anyone who would want to predict humans would also want to control humans. That is the real issue and all of the rationalized argumentation is just window dressing. There is a comforting simplicity in this plea for axiomatic truths and logical conclusions. It’s not unlike the theologians desire to understand the perfection of God through the perfection of rationality bestowed upon man by that very same God. It’s a desire for the world to just make sense. The social scientists gather immense data and portray a complex world. The social scientists are experts who debate issues the common man can’t understand. It’s understandable that anti-intellectualism can be an attractive alternative in response to these experts in control of our fates. When politicians call upon experts, how can we know what they discuss behind closed doors? Why should we trust these experts who live their comfortable lives in their ivory towers?

There really is no way to argue against this mistrust. It’s not unusual for this mistrust to be, especially during social turmoil and economic hard times, to turn into paranoid suspicion. It’s ultimate a sense of fear about what is beyond the individual. We do face many complex issues that have resulted from industrialization and globalization. It’s just a fact that we no longer live in a time when a single person can understand everything and can do everything for himself. It’s tempting to idealize the Jeffersonian libertarianism of a pre-industrial age or to idealize the simple unregulated capitalism when industrialization was barely taking hold. Once upon a time, Americans were innocently naive about environmental destruction, about pollution-related diseases, about the degradation of urbanization. The first century or so of American history seems almost utopian in hindsight. Why couldn’t that have continued? It would be nice to believe that capitalism, if left to its own devices, would’ve brought nothing but good. Why did the government have to ruin everything?

These people may profess rationality, but human motivation ultimately is non-rational. George Lakoff makes a good argument for this in his book Moral Politics. All logic about political views comes down to rationalization. Lakoff argues that we begin with metaphors by which we frame our experiences and try to understand them, but in doing so we filter all of reality through this frame (or, as Robert Anton Wilson say it, through our “reality tunnel”). This framing is prior to our verbalization of it. This is further supported by the psychological research (yes, the social science that is dismissed by Mises and Rothbard). Studies show that humans are born with or else develop early on certain psychological traits, but you don’t have to trust the experts. Go to a hospital nursery or a playground where children are playing and you will observe for yourself the distinctive personalities.

The only reason that the anarcho-capitalists and similar types can dismiss this science is because they’re ignorant of the scientific process. It really can’t be called anything other than anti-intellectualism. I don’t even know what they mean by positivism. They dismiss all social science based on the claim that it is positivist which is odd considering that there are anti-positivist social scientists such as Max Weber. Anyways, I don’t see how the world would be improved if we were able to somehow get rid of all social science and get rid of all the experts. So much of our society is built on social science. There is no aspect of capitalism or politics that isn’t informed by social science. Social science is the basis of all advertising and PR. Social science is used for product design and architecture. Social science is used in military training and military strategy. Social science helps city planners design efficient roadways and helps utility companies determine the patterns of customer behavior.

There is this strange notion that social science is about abstract data disconnected from the practical world. If social science can be used to control people as some fear, that only proves how effective it is in a practical sense. The arguments against social science are distractions from the real moral issues. Those who don’t see themselves as experts fear those who sometimes act as experts. These people want self-control and self-ownership which is how they define freedom, but this ideal of freedom is itself an abstraction. These people can offer no real world examples of a society that operated according to their ideals.

There is a serious disconnection here between American populism and intellectualism, but there is no reason it has to be this way. The average person can only have a negative view of intellectuality if he wasn’t ever taught intellectuality in his own schooling. If every American was taught how to think intellectually and taught to value intellectuality, then intellectualism would become a populist value. Most people have the capacity for intellectual thought. Even if the average person doesn’t desire to dedicate their life to intellectuality, it would still be of value for all citizens to get an intellectual education. The only way to counter fear and suspicion is through knowledge.

Conservative Mistrust & Ideological Certainty (part 1)

I’ve noticed a connection of attitudes in a certain type of person, but I’m not sure what it means. This post is largely speculation. I have a book by Richard Hofstadter on anti-intellectualism in the US and so I’ll write in more detail about this in the future. For now, I just want to point out some thoughts and observations.

Many have noted for the past half century or so that America has a strain of anti-intellectualism that comes to the forefront every so often. I don’t know if this anti-intellectual attitude always correlates with conservatism, but it has in recent history going back to at least the beginnings of movement conservatism. Of course, movement conservatism laid the groundwork for the religious right to gain political power and obviously the religious right has had issues with science ever since science began. It’s true that many popular conservatives were religiously proud/righteous with an element of folksy anti-intellectualism (George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc), but it goes beyond just religion versus science.

This critical attitude towards science, whether motivated by religious belief or not, expresses a basic sense of distrust about experts who claim to know more than the average person (implying they are somehow more worthy). This is the dreaded intellectual elite and scientists are just one variety. Other varieties of intellectual elitists are academics and even politicians. The conservative idealizes the businessman who has knowledge and experience of the real world. The intellectual elite (in academic ivory towers or far away in Washington) are disconnected from the real world and so they aren’t to be trusted. It’s why conservatives claim that government is the problem… not that it ever stops them from trying to elect their own to government or stop them from lobbying politicians.

Beyond this point, it becomes a bit murky. It’s not limited to anti-intellectualism per se. There are even intellectual conservatives that express this attitude of mistrust. For the more intelligent conservative, they’ll express this mistrust epistemologically. They might not entirely dismiss science, but they think scientists overreach. What they do trust is cold hard facts. They even mistrust scientific research. There are various reasons for this which I don’t entirely understand, but one of them is a fear that scientists have agendas (projection?). A person can only mistrust the agendas of scientists if they mistrust the scientific process which is designed to filter out personal agendas (and other subjective biases) over time. This would seem to based on a fear that the entire scientific paradigm is an agenda not to be trusted or to be trusted with great wariness. Maybe science has a role, but it shouldn’t be as primary as we make it. Maybe it’s a belief that scientists should focus on more practical matters like doing research that can lead to technology rather than studying social issues or measuring atmospheric pollution. There might even be a religious element (or a religious holdover for non-religious conservatives) in that scientists are treading on the divine when they investigate beyond mundane subjects.

This mistrust extends also to economics which is something I just realized today. I watched some videos and was involved with some discussions where this mistrust of science was put into the context of politics and economics. The issue with science was connected to economics by way of mathematics. It seems to be a mistrust about how (or if) mathematical models correlate to the sensate world. Even if there is scientific research that corroborates a correlation, doubt remains in terms of causation and explanation. A mathematical model remains an abstract theory and there potentially could be many abstract theories that correlate to the same real world phenomena. This same argument was being used against Keynesian economics because Keynesian theorists like to use mathematical models and to make predictions based on those models.

Even though different reasons are given, I sense that all these varieties of mistrust originate from the same general attitude of mistrust. I’d assume that it relates to the fear traditioal conservatives have about radical change. Psychological research shows that conservatives have a stronger disgust response (for example, toward rotten fruit)… not that many conservatives would trust this particular psychological research. I’ve noted that conservatives tend not to have as much interest in psychology. Also, surveys have shown that most scientists self-identify as liberal. Is there something inherently “liberal” about science? Or is there something about a scientific education that encourages a liberal mindset? Furthermore, why do liberals seem more trusting of the governmnet, science, and of radical change? Does it come down to the simple fact that research has shown liberalism to correlate to the psychological trait “openness to experience”?

Since research shows liberals are more open to experience, then what do conservatives mean by having more trust in the “real world”? It seems that conservatives define reality as being logical in that any fundamental truth should stand on it’s own. Any real truth would be obviously true.

Many who make these arguments are minarchists or anarcho-capitalists, objectivists or libertarians… or something else along these lines (even mainstream Republicans will at times make these arguments). Two of the major influences for many of these people (either directly or indirectly) are Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. A popular website is the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The following is a section from an article on that website which demonstrates the style of argument:

Psychology versus Praxeology
By Robert P. Murphy

Of course, even this experimental confirmation does not prove the universal truth of the bystander effect.  It could be that, despite their best efforts, the psychologists did not really pick a representative sample of test subjects.  Moreover, even if the bystander effect is indeed a fact for the current population of humans, there is nothing to prevent the emergence in one hundred years of a new breed of humans who, whether through culture or genetics, do not obey the bystander effect.  Just like any “law” from the natural sciences, the “laws” of psychology (insofar as they are validated by the experimental method) are only tentative.

In contrast, let us analyze a typical economic law:  If the government runs a deficit, then interest rates will be higher than they otherwise would have been.  Now this law too seems commonsensical (just as the bystander effect), but it is more than that:  Once the economist takes care to precisely specify the definitions of the terms, he or she can actually prove the proposition as an exercise in pure logic.  There is no reason to go out and “test” whether it is true, because this would miss the point.  It would be as nonsensical as “testing” whether the interior angles of a triangle (in Euclidean geometry) add up to 180 degrees.

From this perspective, science can only at best deal with relative truths. Logic, however, deals with absolute truths (i.e., axioms):

Statistics, he pointed out, cannot trump logic.

And:

Contrary to the mainstream positivist position, in which all economic theories must lead to falsifiable predictions that can be tested, Ludwig von Mises believed that valid economic theorems must be deducible from the axiom, “Humans act.”

Mathematical data and the scientific research it’s based upon can only ever at best be of secondary importance. These people demand their worldview be absolutely logically consisten, facts be damned. The problem is that the world is infinitely complex. The human ability to use logic is limited. A theory can be logically consistent and yet still be wrong. Also, this idea of axioms is strange. In what way is “Humans act” an axiom that is beyond questioning. There are tons of assumptions this so-called “axiom” is based upon.

This way of argument reminds me of Christian apologists who sometimes are very intelligent and knowledgeable within their narrow frame of interest. Christian apologists often are great debaters and are capable of twisting around words. Their thinking is usually circular and self-contained… meaning it’s logically self-consistent. However, an apologist isn’t interested in new data. The apologists already knows everything that matters. The apologists “axioms” came from God himself.

The axiom in both cases is seen as being unquestionable, a tenet of faith.

I still feel confused about all of this. I don’t understand what motivates it. It’s an attitude about the world and not a specific worldview. People with the same attitude might entirely disagree about the worldview and yet still use the same style of argument to defend their own worldview. It’s very strange. Personally, I find it frustrating. No matter what data I bring up (about poverty or global warming or whatever) will usually be dismissed out of hand or else turned into a philosophical debate about postmodern epistemology. It’s like these people want to avoid the fundamental issues themselves. They feel safest within their system of thought and do everything to defend their system of thought from all that is external to it.

The worst of these people are intellectually dishonest. They use logic as rhetoric, as apologetics, as sophistry. Some of them are quite clever at this game. However, not all of them seem intellectually dishonest. Some will accept scientific research when it accords with their own worldview. For example, Stefan Molyneux uses the psychological research on trauma and I agree with his understanding of this issue, but he uses it to defend a particular ideology which isn’t based on any real world examples.

This attitude of mistrust towards institutions beyond the individual is coupled with a self-certainty held within the individual or within the group that the individual belongs to.

The liberal attitude is different, but I’m not sure how to pinpoint this difference. Liberals can be extremely questioning of the same things conservatives question. So, why does liberal questioning begin and end in a sense of openness? Most liberal who are scientists or interested in science would openly state that science is imperfect. Still, there is a basic trust in the scientific process like there is a basic trust in the political process. I’ve pointed out in another blog how this plays out on the political level (the beginning of the blog post is posted below):

Liberal Trust vs Conservative Mistrust

The other day, I came across data that showed a difference between Republicans and Democrats (Republicans Support Big Government… just as long as Republicans are in power). Republicans support big government when there is a Republican president, but they fight, fear-monger, criticize and obstruct what they label as big government when a Democrat is president. Democrats, however, show more even support for big government no matter which party is in power. For example, almost the same number of Democrats support Obama as supported Reagan. This explains the point (which I think Cenk Uygur made) that bipartisanship is usually Democrats agreeing with Republicans but rarely the other way around.

There is a fundamental difference in worldview. This probably relates as well to my argument that liberals are less dogmatic in their ideology (Liberal Pragmatism, Conservative Dogmatism). Conservatives seem more likely to see themselves as principled and so more willing to stand by their principles no matter what. It’s not that liberals aren’t principled, but a major liberal value is trying to understand the views of others and working towards a middle ground of agreement or at least acceptance. Liberals aren’t against big business in the same way or to the same degree as conservatives are against big government. Instead, liberals think capitalism and democracy need to work together without either being subsumed to the other.

Obviously, there is a very fundamental difference in the conservative and liberal worldviews. Anarcho-capitalists, objectivists & (righwing) libertarians often criticize Republicans and mainstream conservatives, but nonetheless they are clearly conservatives themselves… even if they don’t like to label themselves as conservatives. Ignoring all the differences of ideology, what specifically makes a conservative a conservative and a liberal a liberal? Is it just a difference of psychological traits?

- – -

Continued in part 2:

Conservative Mistrust & Ideological Certainty (part 2) 

 - – -

Middle Class vs Working Class

I’ve noticed something strange about how politicians and pundits use ‘working class’ and ‘middle class’. I don’t hear the working class referred to much in the media, especially not by conservatives. Being working class has become considered a bad thing. Everyone wants to be middle class.

What bothers me about this is that the middle class is shrinking even as the poor increasingly become the target of those on the right. For instance, the Tea Party protesters are mostly older whites of the upper middle class and above (i.e., not the average American). These old white conservatives grew up during a time when there was much more opportunity of upward mobility. But since the beginning of Reaganomics, the wealth disparity has been increasing and so the numbers of the poor have been increasing.

One recent survey showed that most white Tea Party supporters don’t believe minorities are intelligent, hardworking or trustworthy. This is a new class war. As the middle class shrinks, the upper middle class sides with the rich and sees the poor as the enemy.

I don’t know if this will start to reverse again, but I don’t think these affluent conservatives want it to reverse because it was conservative policies that were a major contributing factor towards this concentration of power and wealth. Of course, they’d love to blame it on the liberals (such as how Hannity tried to interpret the documentary Generation Zero). The problem isn’t the evil government and even the Tea Party supporters don’t actually blame the government. Most of them are on Medicare and of course they support Medicare even though it’s one of the biggest government expenditures. Studies show that conservatives love big government when Republicans are in power. Even Tea Party protesters fondly remember George W. Bush and yet offer little support to Ron Paul who is a real small government fiscal conservative.

What the Tea Party protesters don’t want is a government headed by a Democrat president. The reason they give is ‘socialism’ which is simply a codeword for helping the poor and needy. It’s class war, pure and simple. It was funny when Glenn Beck came to realize the working class was the socialist enemy while listening carefully for the first time Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA”. Interestingly, the only voice the working class has in the mainstream right now is Michael Moore who is a radical leftwing social justice Christian (or ‘commie’ for short).

It’s very odd because the Republican party used to side with the working class (the Reagan campaign even tried to usurp Bruce Springsteen’s message despite Springsteen himself being an ardent liberal). However, now that the working class has become a part of the growing poor, the affluent conservatives are trying to distance themselves from the working class even as they try to portray the Tea Party as working class populism. This means the real working class doesn’t have any direct political voice… which might be why, despite the conservative propaganda, the poorest of the working class tends to vote Democrat. So, the Tea Party is pretending to be working class which it isn’t while simultaneously pretending not to be Republican which it is.

I wish there was a real working class populist movement that would shake up politics. Even real libertarians can’t get a movement started without it being taken over by Republican operatives.

The worst part is that the mainstream media (especially Fox News) creates such a distorted picture of reality that the average person has a hard time telling which way is up. The poorest of the poor who lean towards Democrat are also the demographic that feels the most disenfranchised from the whole process and so rarely votes. For this reason, it’s in the interest of affluent conservatives to keep the poor disenfranchised. I saw a news report recently which was about a corporate memo stating in blatant terms that democracy of civic participation wasn’t beneficial to their profits. When Wall Street gives billions of dollars to all politicians on both sides, how can there be even the slightest hope for a real democracy that represents the average person much less those below the average.

The Tea Party protests the loudest, but it’s not the Tea Party supporters who have been hit the worse by the economic downturn. The hardest hit are the minorities, the poor, and the blue collar workers. Once upon a time, the working class fought hard to have a collective say in our society. It was from the battles with the wealthy elite that workers unions formed, but the conservative movement fought back and destroyed the power unions used to hold. Conservatives have the audacity to blame unions for helping to destroy the economy when it’s blue collar workers who are the ones who have lost their jobs more than anyone. Their jobs got sent overseas. but somehow the poor working class trying to feed their families is seen as the enemy of the affluent rightwingers.

I just don’t get it. The world would be a better place if the upper middle class whites combined their forces with the poor instead of sucking up to the wealthy elite hoping to get some scraps from the table. Since the middle class is shrinking and the economy is so uncertain, wouldn’t it make sense to make nice with the poor. Many poor working class people once thought of themselves as middle class as well, but times have changed. I remember hearing an interview of a woman who recently became unemployed. She said that she always thought the unemployed were just lazy, but she admitted that she had failed to understand how hard it can be when your job is taken away.

It’s a sad state of affairs. The poor are blamed for being poor. The unemployed are blamed for being unemployed. But oddly the conservatives blame all of the problems of Wall Street on the government which means blaming it on Obama and the Democrats. Why is it in the conservative mind everyone is to blame for their own misfortune accept wealthy capitalists? Why does the Tea Party criticize everyone from ‘socialists’ to immigrants and yet they’ve never protested Wall Street? Why?

 - – -

Note (5/27/10) – I just wanted to add one further observation that fits in with the concluding paragraph.

Why does a so-called “Libertarian” such as Rand Paul immediately defend BP even thought the irresponsible actions of BP will destroy many small businesses? I understand that Rand Paul is a rich white doctor and so doesn’t necessarily have much in common with the working class that comprise many family-owned fishing businesses, but I don’t understand why he would jump so quickly to defend BP when the average American has a very negative view of such mega-corporations.

Even though Libertarians like to portray themselves as representing the average American, it is obvious that many (most?) Libertarians and Libertarian think tanks don’t represent the average American. Certainly, Rupert Murdoch who is a self-identified Libertarian doesn’t represent the average American or average anything else for that matter. When push comes to shove, the Libertarians will side with big business… because often they own or work for big business.

Affluent Working Class Votes for Wall Street (in Massachusetts)

In Massachusets, people who voted for Brown were primarily affluent working class (slightly more white than black) who had been hit the economic downturn. The poor, however, were more likely to continue to vote Democrat or else not vote at all. The poor are used to being unemplyed and underemployed. The poor understand that the economic downturn started well before Obama, but it took longer for the economic downturn to have a major impact on the affluent working class.

The results of this are interesting. The affluent working class blamed Obama for the economic downturn that began years before with Bush. They apparently thought Democrat politicians in Washington were to blame. Even more interesting is that they didn’t understand the connection to Wall Street. Brown received massive money from Wall Street in the last weeks of campaigning and this money was used to convince the affluent working class to vote for Brown.

That is democracy for ya!

Response to Rightwing Misinformation

I’m involved in a discussion right now. I noticed the discussion because someone had linked to one of my blog posts here.

http://topix.net/forum/source/kdvr/TA3MUPB6NGSBEJ7QK/p4

One commenter responded to the commenter who linked to me. She was challenging his viewpoint, but all of her claims were either wrong or based on old data.

Becky wrote:
The only sheep here are the ones like you who actually believe the crap the liberal media and your precious president are shoving down your throat. [...] I am curious you really think that dumb people are republicans. Our military is 75% republican so by your reasoning you think that 75% of our military is un-educated and from rural low income families?

Studies show the media isn’t dominated by liberals.

http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/black-and-white-and-read-all-over/

By the way, could you rightwingers please quit repeating your talking points that you learn by watching too much Fox News?
“shove it down our throats” “ram it through”
I think it was Jon Stewart that did a great humorous analysis of that particular talking point, but I found another video of Bill Maher which is hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EadOO7mzkfc

Are Republicans dumb?

To be honest, studies show that conservativess on average have lower IQs than liberals.

http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/33

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

“Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa’s hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as “very liberal” have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as “very conservative” have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.”

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIavgRlX8Tc

http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=Z29RYWpOcWuRpY0czOXM&intelligence-iq-religious-atheist-democrat-republican=

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=368_1187885839

 

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/democrats_may_n.html

“I previously wrote that Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats. It seems that may have been a hasty conclusion based on looking at the entire General Social Survey (GSS) dataset, and ignoring the trend. It seems that the Republicans used to be the more intelligent party, but that may no longer be true.”

According to Pew, liberals are the most well educated.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949

The most well educated demographic are liberals (19% of registered voters, 59% Democratic, 40% Independent, socially liberal). Liberals are the fastest growing demographic, but they already represent the largest sector of the Democratic party and the largest sector of the entire population.

And liberals tend to be attracted to intellectual fields such as science.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549

56% of scientists perceive scientists as liberal.
52% identify as liberal including 14% as very liberal.
55% identify as Democrat, 6% identify as Republican, 32% idenitfy as Independent (w/ 81% of Independent scientists leaning towards Democrat).

“Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).”

“A far smaller share of scientists (40%) than the public (57%) agrees with the statement when something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful.”

“Scientists also are less likely… to say that business strikes a fair balance between profits and the public interest: Just 20% of scientists… compared with 37% of the public. And while 78% of scientists say that the government has a responsibility to care for those unable to care for themselves…”

Just 14% of scientists agree that we have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country. That compares with 41% of the public. Just a third of scientists but a majority of the public (53%) agrees that the best way to ensure peace is through military strength.”

83% of Americans believe in God.
33% of scientists believe in God.
82% of Americans have a religious affiliation.
48% of scientists have a religious affiliation

There is one last point in your comment. You claim the military is 75% Republican. What is your source for that data? Is it new or old data? I came across a report on studies that supposedly debunk this myth.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jul/26/na-studies-debunk-military-myths/news-politics/

“New research on political opinions of U.S. service members suggests the stereotype of the military as uniformly conservative and Republican doesn’t hold true.

“Instead, the research portrays America’s troops as more moderate and less party-oriented than the population as a whole, and they are more likely to avoid the extreme ends of the conservative-to-liberal political spectrum.

“Younger enlisted personnel, the least-studied service members, mostly reflect their civilian peers. But at least one researcher says they also are much more likely to vote.”

[ . . . ]

“The perception of service members as heavily Republican and conservative is long-standing.

“A 1998 survey by political scientist Peter Feaver of Duke University and Richard Kohn of the University of North Carolina that focused only on officers augmented that stereotype, finding that officers called themselves “conservative” versus “liberal” by an 8-to-1 ratio and Republican instead of Democrat by roughly a 6-to-1 ratio. But Feaver said it was wrong to extend his findings to enlisted personnel. “It’s a lot more likely to be more true of a colonel than a private,” he said.

“Feaver said the military is somewhat more conservative and Republican-oriented than the general public, but also tends to shift along with broad trends in society and likely has become somewhat less conservative since he did his research. “There may be a return to the historical position of the military as more politically independent,” he said.”

Becky wrote:
Half of your statistics mean nothing unless you are stating that unmarried people with no belief in anything beyond life are smarter people. If that is your definition of smarter people then hell yeah I’d rather be stupid.[...] I work in a green company in a green industry started by (guess what) republicans not democrats. I run into more Republicans in our industry than democrats. And it is the leaders in this industry (that’s right all republicans) at the capital trying to pass legislation to help our environment and our economy (not using government funds for solar panels on gyms).[...] The highest age group that is democratic falls with 18-29 year olds. SO not a whole lot of life experience there-a lot of them believe anything the media tells them.

Liberals tend to be younger, but that isn’t simply that younger people are Liberal. Other research shows that Millennials are more Liberal than past generations at the same age. Liberals are the largest demographic in the Pew study and they’re the fastest growing which makes sense when you consider Millennials are the largest generation in US history. In general, the US population is becoming more liberal.

http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010…

Also, higher educated people tend to get married later and so there is a higher percentage of unmarried Liberals. On the positive side, Liberals (who tend to be atheists) have the lowest divorce rate and have the highest monogamous rate of any demographic.

I’m not surprised that most people in your industry are Republicans. First, your field is technological and Republicans are attracted to engineering. Second, Pew Enterprisers (equivalent to Neocons) have the highest percentage of business owners (but Liberals have the next highest percentage of business owners).

Yes, Liberals are young and all young people by definition have less life experience. Even so, they’re going to be Liberal as they age and gain experience. Once generations come of age, they don’t tend to change their ideologies for the rest of their lives. According to Strauss and Howe, the next generation will dominate the political landscape with their Liberalism.

Anyways, don’t mistake their youth for ignorance. They’re the more well educated than those older than them. Also, they follow the news closely and they tend to seek out multiple sources.

America: Conservative & Progressive

I’ve noticed two pieces of data. Supposedly most Americans identify as conservative. The problem is that self-identified labels are very vague with many meanings. Demographics show that public opinion has become rather progressive.

Looking at US history, political labels are constantly changing meaning. Conservative at one time meant something along the lines of libertarianism or other similar ideologies. With the Southern Strategy, conservative became identified with “white culture” and the culture wars in general. This transitioned into neocon policies of being tough on crime along with being supportive of big military and big business. Now, conservative is regaining some populist connotations, but in America populism has always been connected with working class liberalism/progressivism/socialism.

To focus just on the younger generation, a clear future can be seen. They’re overall very liberal and progressive, but I think they might identify as more conservative/moderate than Boomers. I’m not sure though.

What I’m thinking is that we’re in the middle of an ideological shift in public opinion. In the last half of the 20th century, the entire political spectrum was shifting to the right. What that created was a rightwing corporatist government. Maybe in the first of the 21st century the entire political spectrum will be shifting back to the left again.

The one thing that seems very clear to me is that the culture wars as we knew them are over. Glenn Beck’s ranting against social justice Christians is proof that Christians themselves are becoming more interested in social justice.

People like Beck and Palin have helped to divide the conservative movement which has forced the extreme rightwingers into their own separate Tea Party. Some in the Tea Party would like to take over the GOP and make it even more rightwing, but I don’t think they’ll be successful. Instead, I think that Republican politicians will realize that they have to cater to a new base which isn’t exclusive to the shrinking demographic of white fundamentalists.

The GOP might become more moderate which means Democrats might become more strong in their opinions. This could explain why a nearly century old fight for universal healthcare has finally led to a bill being passed. Progressivism is returning. This fits the vision the younger generation has of government.

Demographics: Red States & Blue States

Here is a useful analysis of data:

Red States: Beneficiaries of Tax Revenue?
By Peahippo

Of the 31 states that GAIN wealth from the federal government, 25 (81%) voted for Bush. Of the remaining 17 states that LOSE wealth to the federal government, 12 (71%) voted for Kerry.

Of the 31 “gain” states, 25 (a different 81%) are “big gain” states, using the definition of obtaining $1.10 or more back in benefits for each $1.00 paid in taxes. Of those 25, Bush won 21 (84%), and Kerry 4 (16%).

Of the 17 “loss” states, 10 (59%) are “big loss” states, using the definition of obtaining $0.90 or less back in benefits for each $1.00 paid in taxes. Of those 10, Kerry won 9 (90%), and Bush 1 (10%).

One important factor about what these numbers imply is that when a candidate wins the rural vote, he tends to win the less populous states which are still large in area. These states tend to be net importers of government goods and services. One important item in this flow is highway funding. Larger states simply have more area to cross with federally-supported roads. Hence; the rural winner is likely to be backed by “gain” states.

Another important factor is that cities are sources of wealth simply by being hubs of monetary commerce, thus are likely to be the “loss” elements in the entire US government fiscal structure. Hence; the urban winner is likely to be backed by “loss” states.

(This same conclusion is stated in stronger terms at another website: http://fuckthesouth.com/)

Here it is shown more clearly:

Balance of Taxes Paid by States vs. Benefits Received from Federal Gvmt. by “Welfare States” (dollars in millions) for the year 2001 states which voted for Bush Taxes sent to Fed. Govt. Benefits Received Surplus vs. Deficit ( + vs. – ) Alabama 22,437 33,205 + 10,768 Alaska 4,200 6,685 + 2,485 Arizona 30,057 32,392 + 2,335 Arkansas 12,476 17,469 4,993 Colorado 33,898 26,618 - 7,280 Florida 110,294 107,395 - 2,899 Georgia 52,225 50,822 - 1,403 Idaho 6,683 7,977 + 1,294 Indiana 36,733 34,630 - 2,103 Kansas 16,503 17,806 + 1,303 Kentucky 20,509 27,210 + 6,701 Louisiana 21,371 29,249 + 7,878 Mississippi 12,094 21,023 + 8,929 Missouri 33,718 41,452 + 7,734 Montana 4,359 6,910 + 2,551 Nebraska 10,415 11,469 + 1,054 Nevada 15,014 10,631 - 4,383 North Carolina 47,579 47,748 + 169 North Dakota 3,288 6,169 + 2,881 Ohio 69,127 66,341 - 2,786 Oklahoma 16,667 23,790 + 7,123 South Carolina 20,799 26,070 + 5,271 South Dakota 4,293 6,095 + 1,802 Tennessee 33,225 38,986 + 5,761 Texas 134,809 121,571 - 13,238 Utah 11,358 12,139 + 781 Virginia 52,858 74,802 + 21,944 West Virginia 7,793 13,064 + 5,271 Wyoming 3,583 3,824 + 241 Net Welfare RECEIVED : + 71,868 Million $$$ by the red conservative states which voted for Bush states which voted for Gore & Kerry Taxes sent to Fed. Govt. Benefits Received Surplus vs. Deficit ( + vs – ) California 264,344 206,245 - 58,099 Connecticut 36,416 25,351 - 11,065 Delaware 5,750 4,632 - 1,118 Hawaii 6,903 10,185 + 3,282 Illinois 96,686 71,520 - 25,166 Iowa 16,725 18,523 + 1,798 Maine 6,904 8,643 + 1,739 Maryland 41,779 50,966 + 9,187 Massachusetts 59,779 48,188 - 11,591 Michigan 67,886 56,185 - 11,701 Minnesota 36,519 27,384 - 9,135 New Hampshire 10,315 7,006 - 3,309 New Jersey 75,115 51,657 - 23,458 New Mexico 8,487 17,156 + 8,669 NEW YORK 166,554 126,990 - 39,564 Oregon 21,241 19,826 - 1,415 Pennsylvania 83,052 84,880 + 1,828 Rhode Island 6,990 7,458 + 468 Vermont 3,731 3,984 + 253 Washington 49,651 40,233 - 9,418 Wisconsin 34,609 28,966 - 5,643 Net Welfare CONTRIBUTED : -180,149 Million $$$ by the blue Liberal states which voted for Democrat Al Gore in 2000 ( & John Kerry in 2004)

Several things interested me about this data.

The correlation makes a clear point about the political divide.  Why are rich Democrats so willing to give money to poor Republicans even when the latter do nothing but complain about it?  I think poor Republicans should send a thank you note to the rich Democrats.

Along with the correlation shown here, other correlations are equally interesting.  Rich Democratic states have higher education levels, lower economic disparity, lower divorce rates, greater support for civil rights (including gay rights), and on and on.  Our country was primarily founded (i.e., where the Founding Fathers lived and where the first settlements were located) in what are now Democratic states.  The Republican states didn’t even want to be a part of this country and many conservatives are still constantly threatening about secession (as if we would miss their draining away our economic wealth).

Anyways, two other issues seemed to be relevant here.

First, I’ve previously written about the Pew Typology Test and made note about the Disaffected demographic.  Basically, they’re the bigoted and uneducated rural poor, and so I assume they’re most highly concentrated in Republican states (they don’t vote much, but when they do a fairly high percentage of them vote Republican).  I suppose some of them would be attracted to the Tea Party, but they might be too cynical and disenfranchised even to protest.  They’re a very unhappy group that hates or otherwise mistrusts everyone who isn’t like them.

The main thing I wanted to point out is that they’re critical of the government and opposed to any program that helps the poor.  This seems odd since they’re poor with high unemployment rates.  Going by the above data, the Disaffecteds probably rely on government handouts more than most other demographics and the states they live in are entirely dependent on Federal funding.  Maybe they dislike the government for the very reason that they know they’re dependent on the government.  Likewise, maybe they hate liberal elites so much because their very entire lifestyle is dependent on the compassion and generosity of liberal elites.  It’s odd that they often vote Republican if and when they vote.  If Republican policies were actually implemented, the Disaffecteds would end up in even greater poverty.

What is strange is that the Disaffecteds, instead of empathizing, are especially critical of those even more poor than they are.  So, which demographic is even more poor?  According to Pew, it’s the Disadvantaged Democrats which includes high numbers of minorities.  They’re also disenchanted with government, but they believe that the government should help the poor.  It’s strange the different response to government considering that both Disaffecteds and Disadvantaged Democrats rely on government.  The former thinks the government is doing too much and the latter thinks the government isn’t doing enough.  Oddly, the Disaffecteds think that, if you got rid of all immigrants and stopped helping the poor, then all of their problems would be solved.  The Disaffecteds seem to think that the liberal elite are colluding with poor minorities to steal their jobs and control their lives, but it’s the failure of trickle down economics of the Republicans that caused their job loss and poverty (economic disparity has been overall increasing ever since the start of Reagonomics).

This brings me to my second point.  In states with high economic disparity, the poor vote Democrat (i.e., Disadvantaged Democrats) and the rich vote Republican (with the Disaffecteds partly aligning with the rich Republicans).  In states with low economic disparity, the poor and the rich both vote Democrat.  This makes me wonder why Democrats don’t win more often.  I’ve seen various research about how the poor minorities are the most disenfranchised and have low voting rates (partly because the justice system is biased and so more of them end up in prison, and I suppose there are other obstacles such as the lack of transporation).

I’d love to see how population numbers of each group relate to the actual numbes who vote in each group.  Also, I think it would help if I knew which groups tended to vote the same way.  For a quick breakdown, here is the basic population data (from this page):

• Enterprisers: 9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
• Social Conservatives: 11% of adult population, 13% of registered voters
• Pro-government Conservatives: 9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
• Upbeats: 11% of adult population, 13% of registered voters
• Disaffecteds: 9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
• Liberals: 17% of adult population, 19% of registered voters
• Conservative Democrats: 14% of adult population, 15% of registered voters
• Disadvantaged Democrats: 10% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
• Bystanders: 10% of adult population, 0% of registered voters

These categorizations seem to show that no particular political ideology is more disenfranchised than any other.  The Bystanders demographic is merely the catch-all category for those who either stopped caring or never did care (interestingly are no more prone towards Republican or Democrat), and they apparently they are fairly disenfranchised from organized religion as well (second only to Liberals in their lack of religiosity).

What I do notice is that Liberals are the largest by far of any group in terms of both adult population and registered voters.  The second largest are the Conservative Democrats.  Together, those two groups almost a third of the adult population and more than a third of the registered voters.

Looking at the actual opinions, many of the groups that aren’t specifically liberal support certain liberal policies and values.  Social Conservatives are cynical of business and moderately support environmental protection and other regulation.  Pro-government Conservatives don’t trust the marketplace and so support government regulation and social safety nets.  Upbeats are fairly Republican and yet have positive views of immigrants.  Only Enterprisers and Disaffecteds are apparently conservative on all issues (the odd alliance between rich business owners and the unemployed/underemployed poor which seems to be the bedrock of the conservative movement).  Furthermore, Conservative Democrats represent a large percentage of Democrats and so that disproves the argument that the Democratics are radical socialists/communists (Conservative Democrats identify by far more as Democrats than do Liberals).

It’s hard to know if these 2005 statistics still apply to present demographics, but there is an odd conclusion that can be made.  During the Bush administration, Republicans did seem to represent the largest demographic.  The Republican party has decreased in number, but I’m not sure what that says about the actual beliefs of the public.  More recent data shows the majority of the population leans towards moderate positions on Progressive values.  Even in this 2005 data, many of these Republicans hold values that aren’t what many people think of as conservative.  Americans, including conservatives, aren’t necessarily against big government and many are for government regulation and assistance.  And yet, in past decades, a few social wedge issues have being wielded successfully by the Republican party to sway voters towards the GOP.

Now, I’ll list some of the other specific demographic data:

• Enterprisers:

WHO THEY ARE: Predominantly white (91%), male (76%) and financially well-off (62% have household incomes of at least $50,000, compared with 40% nationwide). Nearly half (46%) have a college degree, and 77% are married. Nearly a quarter (23%) are themselves military veterans. Only 10% are under age 30.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: 59% have a gun in the home; 53% trade stocks and bonds, and 30% are small business owners ­ all of which are the highest percentages among typology groups. 48% attend church weekly; 36% attend bible study or prayer group meetings.

• Social Conservatives:

WHO THEY ARE: Predominantly white (91%), female (58%) and the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older); nearly half live in the South. Most (53%) attend church weekly; 43% are white evangelical Protestants (double the national average of 21%).

LIFESTYLE NOTES: 56% have a gun in their home, and 51% attend Bible study groups.

• Pro-government Conservatives:

WHO THEY ARE: Predominately female (62%) and relatively young; highest percentage of minority members of any Republican-leaning group (10% black, 12% Hispanic). Most (59%) have no more than a high school diploma. Poorer than other Republican groups; nearly half (49%) have household incomes of less than $30,000 (about on par with Disadvantaged Democrats). Nearly half (47%) are parents of children living at home; 42% live in the South.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: Most (52%) attend religious services at least weekly; nearly all describe religion as “very important” in their lives. Gun ownership is lower (36%) than in other GOP groups. Just 14% trade stocks and bonds in the market; 39% say someone in their home has faced unemployment in the past year.

• Upbeats:

WHO THEY ARE: Relatively young (26% are under 30) and well-educated, Upbeats are among the wealthiest typology groups (39% have household incomes of $75,000 or more). The highest proportion of Catholics (30%) and white mainline Protestants (28%) of all groups, although fewer than half (46%) attend church weekly. Mostly white (87%), suburban, and married, they are evenly split between men and women.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: High rate of stock ownership (42%, 2^nd after Enterprisers).

• Disaffected:

WHO THEY ARE: Less educated (70% have attended no college, compared with 49% nationwide) and predominantly male (57%). While a majority (60%) leans Republican, three-in-ten are strict independents, triple the national rate. Disaffecteds live in all parts of the country, though somewhat more are from rural and suburban areas than urban.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: Somewhat higher percentages than the national average have a gun in the home, and report that someone in their house has been unemployed in the past year.

• Liberals:

WHO THEY ARE: Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal. Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000).

LIFESTYLE NOTES: Largest group to have been born (or whose parents were born) outside of the U.S. or Canada (20%). Least likely to have a gun in the home (23%) or attend bible study or prayer group meetings (13%).

• Conservative Democrats:

WHO THEY ARE: Older women and blacks make up a sizeable proportion of this group (27% and 30%, respectively). Somewhat less educated and poorer than the nation overall. Allegiance to the Democratic party is quite strong (51% describe themselves as “strong” Democrats) but fully 85% describe themselves as either conservative or moderate ideologically.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: 46% attend church at least once a week, 44% attend Bible study or prayer group meetings, a third (34%) have a gun in their house.

• Disadvantaged Democrats:

WHO THEY ARE: Low average incomes (32% below $20,000 in household income); most (77%) often can’t make ends meet. Six-in-ten are female. Three-in-ten (32%) are black and 14% are Hispanic. Not very well educated, 67% have at most a high-school degree. Nearly half (47%) are parents of children living at home.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: Nearly a quarter (23%) report someone in their household is a member of a labor union, and 58% report that they or someone in the home has been unemployed in the past year­ both far larger proportions than in any other group. Only 27% have a gun in the home

• Bystanders:

WHO THEY ARE: Young (39% are under age 30, average age is 37). Lowest education (24% have not finished high school). Less religious than any group other than Liberals (26% attend church weekly). Largely concentrated in the South and West, relatively few in the East and Midwest. One-in-five are Hispanic.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: About half (49%) say they often can’t make ends meet, fewer than among Pro-Government Conservatives, Disadvantaged Democrats or Disaffecteds; 30% attend bible groups or prayer meetings; 30% own a gun.

This does show some of the demographic dividing lines.  It’s amazing how much the Republican party is dominated by whites.  It’s also quite telling that the groups with the most conservative values are dominated by males.  It’s not exactly surprising.  White males are more highly represented as business owners and in the upper socio-economic classes, and so of course they’ll vote for their own interests.  However, that doesn’t explain why some groups such as the Disaffecteds vote against their own interests.  I thought it funny that Enterprisers (who are the prototypical rich white male conservatives) are the most avid watchers of Fox News (in fact, it’s their primary source of news).

There is so much ideological posturing and the media loves to portray everything in black and white terms.  It’s hard to determine what people actually believe.  It seems to me that liberalism is fairly moderate and mainstream.  Many liberal values and policies are supported by a majority of Americans, and the Democratic party represents the widest range of the American demographic.

If this is so, why do conservatives complain so much about radical liberalism?  Also, the weatlhiest states are Democratic and the most educated people are liberal… so, why doesn’t liberalism have more power than it seems to have?   Why can’t President Obama who campaigned on Progressive ideals, who was voted into office by a majority of voters, and has a majority support in Washington, why, why, why can’t even moderately liberal bills get passed?  Most Americans want health care reform with public option and the President who they voted for wants it (heck, even most doctors want it)… but apparently the minority of conservatives have enough power to block even the most popular of bills.

Glenn Beck: Left, Right?

I don’t know how accurate this description is of Glenn Beck.  My father who is a fan of Beck would, of course, vehemently disagree.

I haven’t followed Beck’s career closely, but I find the theory being presented is quite interesting.  If his political view changes so easily, it would explain why I’ve had a hard time trying to grasp who he is or where he is coming from.  His stance is more an attitude on life and society rather than an argument for a new form of government.  There is a sense that Beck is more clear about what he is against than what he is for.

The following is an excerpt from the beginning of an article that analyzes the complexity of positions and movements that have no clear ideological definition.  The author seems to be saying that this is a problem of much of politics at present.  Politics has become so polarized that it’s become a show and the conflict becomes more important than any underlying beliefs or principles.  This seems to relate to Sam Tanenhaus analysis of conservatism.

 

Salon.com

Glenn Beck and left-right confusion

By Glenn Greenwald

Last night during his CBS interview with Katie Couric, Glenn Beck said he may have voted for Hillary Clinton and that “John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama.”  This comment predictably spawned confusion among some liberals and anger among some conservatives.  But even prior to that, there had been a palpable increase in the right-wing attacks on Beck — some motivated by professional competition for the incredibly lucrative industry of right-wing opinion-making, some due to understandable discomfort with his crazed and irresponsible rhetoric, but much of it the result of Beck’s growing deviation from GOP (and neoconservative) dogma.  Increasingly, there is great difficulty in understanding not only Beck’s political orientation but, even more so, the movement that has sprung up around him.  Within that confusion lies several important observations about our political culture, particularly the inability to process anything that does not fall comfortably into the conventional “left-right” dichotomy through which everything is understood.

Some of this confusion is attributable to the fact that Beck himself doesn’t really appear to have any actual, identifiable political beliefs; he just mutates into whatever is likely to draw the most attention for himself and whatever satisfies his emotional cravings of the moment.  Although he now parades around under a rhetorical banner of small-government liberty, anti-imperialism, and opposition to the merger of corporations and government (as exemplified by the Bush-sponsored Wall Street bailout), it wasn’t all that long ago that he was advocating exactly the opposite:  paying homage to the Patriot Act, defending the Wall Street bailout and arguing it should have been larger, and spouting standard neoconservative cartoon propaganda about The Global Islamo-Nazi Jihadists and all that it justifies.  Even the quasi-demented desire for a return to 9/12 — as though the country should be stuck permanently in a state of terrorism-induced trauma and righteous, nationalistic fury over an allegedly existential Enemy — is the precise antithesis of the war-opposing, neocon-hating views held by many libertarian and paleoconservative factions with which Beck has now associated himself.  Still other aspects of his ranting are obviously grounded in highly familiar, right-wing paranoia.

So it’s not surprising that confusion has arisen over someone who transformed overnight from a fairly typical Weekly Standard/Wall St. Journal Editorial Page/Bush-following polemicist into some sort of trans-partisan populist libertarian.  All of that, in turn, is colored by the powerful influences on him from the profoundly strange conspiratorial Mormonism pioneered by Cleon Skousen, as documented by the superb Salon seriesauthored by Alexander Zaitchik.  Ultimately, Beck himself is just a histrionic intellectual mess:  willing to latch onto any hysterical accusations and conspiracy theories that provide some momentary benefit, no matter how contradictory they might be from one moment to the next.  His fears, resentments and religious principles seem fixed, but not his political beliefs.  Like the establishment leadership of both political parties, he has no core political principles or fixed, identifiable ideology.