It’s not so easy: evaluating political consequences and voting accordingly
Commenter “F” writes:
The thing about identity politics that always confuses me is why Democrats are able to benefit from it. They have the black vote in Chicago, for example, but are black Chicagoans better off after having voted D for decades? It would not appear that way. And we have all heard what the minority unemployment figures are under Trump — better than they’ve ever been, in some cases. But the Democrats still took the House. I just don’t get it.
Good point. And then F answers his/her own question, at least partially:
Saying you care is worth more votes than showing through policies that you care.
So I’ll just expand a bit more on the reasons I think this happens.
The conservative message is rather like a “tough-love” one. It doesn’t sell all that well, because it asks people to forego easy, quick solutions for longer-term ones that might require some sacrifice. Human nature is such that this isn’t necessarily convincing.
But it’s especially unconvincing because of the modern tendency towards imagology, something I’ve discussed several times before. To refresh your memory, here’s a quote from the Czech author Milan Kundera describing the phenomenon:
…[I]magology is stranger than reality, which has anyway long ceased to be what it was for my grandmother, who lived in a Moravian village and still knew everything through her own experience: how bread is baked, how a house is built, how a pig is slaughtered and the meat smoked, what quilts are made of, what the priest and the schoolteacher think about the world; she met the whole village every day and knew how many murders were committed in the country over the last ten years; she had, so to speak, personal control over reality, and nobody could fool her by maintaining that Moravian agriculture was thriving when people at home had nothing to eat. My Paris neighbor spends his time an an office, where he sits for eight hours facing an office colleague, then he sits in his car and drives home, turns on the TV, and when the announcer informs him that in the latest public opinion poll the majority of Frenchmen voted their country the safest in Europe (I recently read such a report), he is overjoyed and opens a bottle of champagne without ever learning that three thefts and two murders were committed on his street that very day.
…[S]ince for contemporary man reality is a continent visited less and less often and, besides, justifiably disliked, the findings of polls have become a kind of higher reality, or to put it differently: they have become the truth. Public opinion polls are a parliament in permanent session, whose function it is to create truth, the most democratic truth that has ever existed.
Imagology has become especially strong, and cause-and-effect in politics is difficult to discern in terms of evaluating the policies of a given party. We all know how much arguing goes on, for example, about whether a certain president (pick a president, any president) is responsible for either a good or bad economy during his administration. It’s neither easy nor simple to figure out, although we try to simplify it, and statistics can usually be used to bolster either side of the argument.
Of course, a lot of people neither read the statistics nor understand them. But even for those who do, the situation is often murky. That leaves a lot of room—a lot of room—for propaganda and for confirmation bias.
Then we have political habit and tradition. If a person is surrounded by friends and family and newspapers that espouse one particular view, and has been since birth—for example, in many urban areas that means the liberal point of view—it takes an awful lot to strike out on one’s own and disagree, changing points of view and party. I’ve dedicated a lot of verbiage to that very topic (see this as well as this). And it’s not gotten easier over time to leave the circle, now that political polarization has reached a fever pitch.
“. . . it takes an awful lot to strike out on one’s own and disagree . . . . ” [Neo]
But first, one must have a reason to strike out on one’s own as well as certain critical thinking skills to allow one to begin to see dissonance in their former habit and tradition.and, as you say, it takes an awful lot to strike out and do this. You, Neo, have mentioned exactly this as the beginning of your own change.
Unfortunately such insularity is not relegated to liberals alone, just as in the 19th century when Christian missionaries denounced South Pacific native women for being bare-breasted.
It seems that in many ways we are ALL Saul Steinberg standing on 9th Avenue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue
[S]ince for contemporary man reality is a continent visited less and less often and, besides, justifiably disliked,
I date this from 1965 and Lyndon Johnson who destroyed, not just the black family, but the country. It has taken 50 years and will take a few more but, as I quote a favorite write, “We Are Doomed.”
Another of his un-PC insights today;
To quote from We Are Doomed again: “The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list. Scientific objectivity is a freakish, unnatural, and unpopular mode of thought, restricted to small cliques whom the generality of citizens regard with dislike and mistrust.”
The biggest reason identity politics works for Democrats is that the overwhelming majority of the media is on their side and helps them peddle it. It would not serve them nearly as well if the media were anywhere near objective.
Yep, it can’t be overstated how a big a role the media (all forms from news to entertainment) plays in helping the left maintain it’s hold on some of there key demographics. The right on the other hand must fight like hell to keep theirs.
I once lived for several years in a small city in Georgia. Blacks there, in the 1990s, voted overwhelmingly for the local Democratic city administration, in spite of the fact that black neighborhoods never got the road work and flood control they needed, and when there were budget problems, the city would close the black-area swimming pool and leave the white one open. Why on earth continue voting for politicians who don’t respond to their needs? Somehow they were convinced that all the racists had become Republicans.
Diversity or color judgments a.k.a. “identity politics”, including racism, sexism, genderism, etc.
“…[S]ince for contemporary man reality is a continent visited less and less often” Czech author Milan Kundera
Technology does allow a society a certain amount of disconnection from reality. But the greater the disconnection, the more certain that it will not last. Just look to Cuba, once the most economically well off country south of the US and now Venezuela… providing a new demonstration of that truth.
As commenter Kinuachdrach over @ the Belmont Club pointed out the other day, “Strange thing is that the ascendant Extreme Leftists don’t seem to realize that every day they are sawing through the branch upon which they sit.”
Marxist/progressive premises are profoundly disconnected from reality, given that they reject basic aspects of human nature and key operative principles that govern the external reality within which we all exist.
Politics is downstream of culture.
And a major, major influence on culture are the intellectual elite, the Professors.
Who mostly hate capitalism, and hate Christianity.
For decades it has been an “open secret” that Harvard, Stanford, and other top colleges are discriminating against hiring pro-life, pro-market professors and administrators.
The Reps have been failing at education, especially Universities but also K-12; and because of Rep failure, the lousy Universities might start failing. Perhaps then many or even most would get better; perhaps other certification would take over from school accreditation.
At this point, supporting on-line testing and accreditation instead of college would, very slowly, start changing the heading on the education rudder of the very very slow turning culture aircraft carrier.
Neo, thank you for the Kundera quote. To me it’s quite convincing.
FWIW, I got the Kundera book for Christmas.
Trying to pronounce the original Czech title (“Nesmrtelnost”) made me think of this picture at PowerLine Saturday.
https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/01/IMG_1136.jpg?w=1125&ssl=1
…[S]ince for contemporary man reality is a continent visited less and less often and, besides, justifiably disliked, the findings of polls have become a kind of higher reality, or to put it differently: they have become the truth. Public opinion polls are a parliament in permanent session, whose function it is to create truth, the most democratic truth that has ever existed. –Kundera, as quoted by Neo
French philosophe sophistry at its most seductive. Polls, which reflect ever-shifting public opinions, are truth? And truth, one of whose virtues is durability, is captured by changing, shifting, unpredictable public opinion?
Absurd and silly. Any further ratiocination based on such illogic is a non-starter, for me.
Ah, the unbearable lightness of irony….
(Kundera is being full-bore ironic here. You and he are on the same page….)
“Just look to Cuba…”
To be sure, there is the occasional exception….:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6558991/Rich-kids-COMMUNISM-Fidel-Castros-model-grandson-flashes-wealth-European-vacations.html
I date this from 1965 and Lyndon Johnson who destroyed, not just the black family, but the country. It has taken 50 years and will take a few more but, as I quote a favorite write, “We Are Doomed.”
Great Society policy had bad incentives incorporated within it. However, we have reason to conclude that economic incentives are a weak vector in influencing how people order their domestic lives. See the period after 1996. AFDC had 12 million beneficiaries in a population of about 260 million while TANF has 4 million beneficiaries in a population of 320 million. Observable change in the share of children born out of wedlock is nil. Most firstborn children are so out of wedlock (though many are legitimized with a post-partum marriage. That’s just how the wage-earning stratum does business these days and the practice is found also in and among the bourgeoisie as well; this has been so for at least a generation. I’m recalling the woman in my office twittering expectantly about a baby due to one of the lawyers working across the hall, with no one remarking that she had no husband. That baby is now 29 years old. The vast majority of people producing bastard children today are drawn from strata which have only tangential contact with the welfare system if they have any at all.
Look at what was going on in the larger society ca. 1965. The ratio of divorces to extant marriages hardly changed between 1947 and 1967. It declined mildly between 1947 and 1958 and increased mildly between 1958 and 1967. Then it trebled in 12 years. The propensity of people to file divorce suits increased as much during those 12 years as it had in the previous century. You had in social life something akin to a biogeographical ‘ecosystem’ flip. Since 1979, there’s been a mild decline in people’s propensity to resort to divorce courts, and as we speak, perhaps 40% of all marriages are dissolved by the courts (and a somewhat lower share of 1st marriages), but the basic picture’s the same. Coincident with the mild decline was the escalating willingness of people to have children out of wedlock. In the period since 2000, you’ve seen a large drop in marriage rates. It’s a reasonable inference that 30% of the population will now go through life unmarried.
These are all unsalutary phenomena and they don’t have much to do with the welfare system in any uncomplicated way. The black family was a more rickety structure to begin with so it’s not surprising the rubble is in smaller pieces as we speak.
I have given up responding to Art Deco.
Ah, the unbearable lightness of irony….
Whaa? Wha say, Barry? I didn’t GET IT? It went over my head??
[insert primal scream here]
Maybe, maybe not, can’t tell as the quoted part ends there so I don’t know what followed. I DO know that when I read Kundera, I felt it was a waste of time. I don’t even know which of his interchangeable titles I read. All I got was the unbearable lightweightness of Milan. But I am pretty sure I can smell a French philosophe. Imagology…. [snort] Makes me want to Hume!
Kundera says: “My Paris neighbor spends his time in an office, where he sits for eight hours facing an office colleague. . .”
More likely, his Paris neighbor these days spends a fair amount of his time nursing a cup of coffee, then standing in a picket line protesting what he sees as unfair labor practices. He almost certainly does not spend 8 hours sitting in an office.
Neo says: “It doesn’t sell all that well, because it asks people to forego easy, quick solutions for longer-term ones that might require some sacrifice.”
Reinforcing, if reinforcement is needed, the social science finding about delayed gratification improving one’s prospects in the long run. It’s a hard message in the era of instant messaging, “just do it” and selfies. (Kundera’s Moravian grandmother would never have taken a selfie, or shared a photo of her lunch, even if she had the technology.)
Tom Grey says: “. . .the Professors. Who mostly hate capitalism, and hate Christianity.” I agree. But why do they? Because of Marx? He’s a century-old failure. Yes, I dare to use the word, because it’s true. The professoriat has been protecting him for six generations. Eventually their reputation should crash along with Marx’s.
The professoriat has been protecting him for six generations. Eventually their reputation should crash along with Marx’s.
Maybe they are just worried that half off all colleges will close in the next decade.
What’s more, Selingo points out that the Northeast and Midwest—where steeper declines in the numbers of students await—have a greater number of colleges than other parts of the country.
There seem to be more crazy colleges, like Oberlin, in that area also.
“Maybe they are just worried that half off all colleges will close in the next decade.” [Mike K @ 11:50]
Given what most universities have become, it can’t happen fast enough for this former tenured professor.
This simple chart of the Black Unemployment Rate from ’08 to ’18 will answer your question.
As you can plainly see, Trump inherited falling unemployment rates from his predecessor. The bulk of the gains occurred under Obama. If the backup QB take over a game with a 30 point lead, increases the lead to 33, fans don’t run around saying we are better of under the new QB, do they?
More sophisticated observers will tell you that fiscal year 2017 is mostly Obama’s budget.
Even more sophisticated observers will point out that unemployment numbers are lagging economic indicators: they reflect policies that happened in the past.
You have to wait until at least 2018 to see the effects of Trump’s policies.
As you can plainly see, Trump inherited falling unemployment rates from his predecessor. The bulk of the gains occurred under Obama. If the backup QB take over a game with a 30 point lead, increases the lead to 33, fans don’t run around saying we are better of under the new QB, do they?
You’re attributing the business cycle to BO’s wonder-working? Buy my bridge.
And more sophisticated observers anticipated the end of Obamanomics and the faint possibility of a change for the better once BHO (PBUHN) and his minions were gone. For history will show how all things good were the consequence of BHO (PBUHN). Just channeling the inner Manju here.
Manju has again come unstuck.
You have to wait until at least 2018 to see the effects of Trump’s policies.
I thought that was last year.
You can see how successful Trump’s policies have been because, like Iraq, the left tries to take credit for them. Remember when a quiet Iraq was Obama’s legacy ?
Right…so at the end of 2017 the Black Unemployment rate was at 6.7%. By the end of 2018, it was at 6.6%.
Trump has a reasonable claim to the 0.1 difference.
So to go back to Commenter F’s original question, imagine if Tom Brady leaves the game with 35-3 lead. Rex Grossman takes over late in the 4th quarter and extends that lead to 38-3.
Rex Grossman wonders why Tom Brady still wins the MVP when the lead under his leadership was larger than the one under Tom’s.
If you were Bill Belichick, what would yo say to him?
Manju doesn’t understand calendars, when elections happened, and that non-government entities don’t work at governmental rates of change. But all that is good is from BHO (PBUHN) and all that is bad is due to the Bad Orange Man. Of course the Bad Orange Man is all that is bad.
The horrible unemployment rates of the 1970s didn’t start receding until around the beginning of 1983. Given that Congress would also have an effect on the economy, is it fair to say that Reagan’s policies took until his third year in office to really start taking effect?
If so, then it’s fair to say the same about Trump. By the beginning of his third year in office, I think it’s fair to start giving him credit for the employment situation.
Of course, we also have to remember that Obama promised that if we didn’t pass his trillion-dollar stimulus that unemployment could reach 8%. We did pass it, and unemployment reached 10%. Even if that 10% wasn’t Obama’s fault, it just goes to show how horrible his experts were at predicting things.
I recall reading the harsh criticisms and dire forecasts people made regarding Reagan’s economic plans. I also read a Reagan quote where he said he knew his economic program was working because the critics and political opposition had stopped calling it “Reaganomics” and were instead claiming credit for it.
You have to remember that Bob Dole, as Majority Leader in the GOP Senate, managed to delay Reagan’s tax cut into 1982 so that the Senate majority was lost in the 1982 mid-terms. Dole was called “The Senator from Archer Daniels Midland” for good reason. He was not interested in Reagan’s plan and resisted, until he was no longer Majority leader. The Reagan Recovery was delayed into 1983-84.