Political scientists Mo Fiorina (Stanford) and Sam Abrams (Sarah Lawrence College) have done work analyzing and ultimately critiquing Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing’s popular Big Sort.
Synopsis of Big Sort: Bill Bishop claims that we are increasingly self-sorting ourselves into neighborhoods politically and only associating with like-minded political neighbors with all kinds of horrible consequences. Much of Bishop and Cushing’s evidence about the corrosive effect comes from psycho-sociological experiments like Asch‘s where group pressure causes people to behave immorally (a la Lord of the Flies or the Stanford Prison Experiment), or to censure their own dissonant voice even when they originally believed those views to be correct. [Note: Fiorina has made quite a name for himself on how the political elites in America have become ever more polarized and the masses have over time sorted themselves out more reliably into political parties but the masses views’ have not become any more extreme, so obviously the Big Sort doesn’t square with his other research that uses ongoing surveys like the General Social Survey, the American National Election Studies, etc.] There is a wonderful cartoon that the New York Times did about the Big Sort.
While Bishop and Cushing try to look a wide variety of evidence, among them voting records, patent applications, IRS income data, advertisers’ data, etc., Fiorina asserts that the backbone of Bishop’s evidence compares two closely fought presidential elections — 1976 where a moderate Republican Gerald Ford took on a moderate southern Democrat Jimmy Carter vs. 2004 when a Texas born-again Republican George W. Bush took on a liberal northeastern Democrat John Kerry. Bishop observes that there was an increase of 22 percentage points in the number of “landslide” counties from 1976-2004 (defined as a county that went for a candidate by more than a 60/40 margin).
Fiorina thinks that this comparison in and of itself is skewed since presidential campaigns are all about personalities and one can’t simply compare one against another and assume that one is witnessing changing behavior of voters. Furthermore, he thinks because of the contestants in those contests, there are many reasons to expect more landslide results by county in 2004 when voters were faced with a starker choice.
Nonetheless, he and Sam Abrams have searched for a measure that proxies well for voter preference but measures against a more steady yardstick than votes. They look at partisan political registration by county (which they say predicts voter choice according to other scholarly work). Comparing counties in 1976 and 2004, even if one dramatically lowers the threshold of “landslide” counties to ones where a simple majority of registered residents are one political party (e.g., Republicans), there has been a drop in such counties from 75% of counties in 1976 to 40% in 2004. This doesn’t show sorting at all. For sure, there has been a significant increase over this same time in voters registering as independents, but that itself is an undermining of the “Big Sort” hypothesis, since independents’ vote choice is much more volatile according to Fiorina. Fiorina is doing another project on independents: they are almost never just weak identifiers with a party, but either break with a party over one significant issue or have a much more esoteric alignment of political values. He says that looking at independents over time one sees that there may be as low as 35% of Independent voters from one presidential election to the next consistently saying they are Independent, voting Democratic.
Fiorina also says that even if there were a “big sort” going on, and the data found increasing polarization at the neighborhood level (his data show nothing like this happening at the county level), he’s not convinced it would have a big impact on politics for three reasons:
- Neighborhoods aren’t such an important center, especially in the age of media and blogs and where 2/3 of Americans only know at most 25% of their neighbors’ names.
- Neighbors don’t talk to each other all that much: a Howard, Gibson and Stolle 2005 CID study found that 55% of Americans never talk about politics with neighbors and Putnam’s Bowling Alone showed how interactions with neighbors has sharply declined over last generation;
- Politics is simply not that important a topic of discussion or way in which we identify ourselves. The three most important ways in which people identify themselves are family (51%), occupation (16%) and religion (10%). Even if you go down to people’s third most important factor, politics only registers 2.7% of people listing that as the third most important factor.
Questions: one person asked Fiorina about the Bischoff-Reardon study showing increased income residential segregation over the last generation (at the census tract level); since income itself predicts being Republican, she wondered how those findings are consistent. Fiorina hadn’t seen the study so didn’t want to comment.
Another asked how one knows whether Americans really are moderate or like to portray themselves that way. Fiorina said that any survey data is subject to such doubts but that highly volatile results, like the recent contrasting results in Ohio criticizing Obamacare while supporting the rights of unions, with many voters voting yes on both are consistent these data. Fiorina also noted that one has to look back to the late 1800s for 4 consecutive elections that show the level of political instability that exists today. [2004: All Republican control of president and both houses of government; 2006 Republican president, democratic control of both houses of Congress; 2008 democratic control of President and both houses of government; 2010 democratic presidency, republican House and Democratic Senate.] We’ve had four elections each with a distinctive result, and the next election, if current Intrade predictions pan out could show a 5th result and a flip from 2006, with a democratic President (Obama) re-elected and republican control of both houses of Congress. See also David Brooks’ interesting related column “The Two Moons.”
Fiorina who is working on Americans Elect, believes that the way this could change is for things to get bad enough that a “younger, saner Ross Perot emerges” as a third party candidate (quoting David Brooks). While this is not predictable, Fiorina cited Sid Verba who noted that before the Berlin Wall fell, no one saw this coming, and afterwards everyone could identify the reasons why this was inevitable.
He thinks Obama’s most promising re-election strategy is to assert that he’ll be the bulwark against likely control of both houses of Congress by the extremist Tea Party-led Republicans and a bulwark against the political extremism among political elites.
Fiorina believes that although trust of Congress is at all all-time low of 9%, turnout is not down because the political parties are providing a much stronger ground game and a much higher percentage of voters now indicate they’ve been contacted by the political parties. [It may also be a function that more voters see an increasing difference between the two political parties and the media and others may make stronger appeals that the stakes are ever more consequential.]
Fiorina also commended the recent research by Jim Stimson and Chris Ellis and a forthcoming book that indicates that most liberals truly are liberals whereas white conservatives are a blend of different things. 26% of conservatives are movement conservatives who really do have conservative values (what Ellis/Stimson call “constrained”); 34% are traditional-symbolic conservatives (like Mike Huckabee), many of whom are recruited through churches but don’t necessarily know the conservative party position or have consistent conservative beliefs (what Ellis/Stimson call “moral” conservatives); slightly less than a third are what Fiorina calls “clueless” conservatives (what Ellis/Stimson call “conflicted” conservatives), many of whom are younger, who actually hold liberal positions but think that the conservative label conveys greater respect (like a military official in uniform); and 10% of conservatives are libertarian (just wanting less government in general, whether it is for making marijuana legal and eliminating an army, or doing away with food stamps). Fiorina agrees with the book that when one says that 40% of Americans are “conservative” it is misleading since a far smaller percentage of them uphold conservative positions across the board.
See also this earlier post about the “Big Sort.”
Posted in Americans Elect, Barack Obama, big sort, bill bishop, Chris Ellis, CID Survey, Citizenship Involvement Demcracy Survey, congress, congressional approval, conservatives, critique, david brooks, Dietlind Stolle, divided government, elections, elites, Independents, Intrade, James Gibson, James Stimson, landslide counties, Marc Howard, Mo Fiorina, moderates, morris fiorina, partisanship, polarization, political elites, Sid Verba, Solomon Asch, sorting, Stanford Prison Experiment, summary, synopsis, Tea Party, the big sort, The Two Moons
Tagged Americans Elect, Barack Obama, big sort, bill bishop, Chris Ellis, CID Survey, Citizenship Involvement Demcracy Survey, congress, congressional approval, conservatives, critique, david brooks, Dietlind Stolle, divided government, elections, elites, Independents, Intrade, James Gibson, James Stimson, landslide counties, Marc Howard, Mo Fiorina, moderates, morris fiorina, partisanship, polarization, political elites, Sid Verba, Solomon Asch, sorting, Stanford Prison Experiment, summary, synopsis, Tea Party, the big sort, The Two Moons
Flickr photo by reskiebak
Approval ratings for Congress dropped into single digits this month for the first time since CBS News and the New York Times began asking the question more than three decades ago.
A New York Times/CBS poll conducted between October 21-24, 2011 showed just 9% percent of US respondents approving of the job of Congressional lawmakers. [The question read “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?’] This is a drop from 11% back in September and the first time approval ratings have been in single digits over the almost three and half decades that the question has been asked (since 1977). [84% in the recent October poll said they did not trust congressional lawmakers and 9% said they didn’t know.]
Rates of approval peaked in the early 2000s when over 60% approved of the way Congress was handling its job and has dropped precipitously since then.
The same precipitous drop is true about trust of national government. [Question: “How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?”] Trust of national government hit an all-time low in October 2011 of 10%. Back in the early 2000s, about 55% of Americans said they trusted the government in Washington.
One can see the time series for Congressional approval and trust of the federal government since 1977 here.
For sure, a heavy component in these declines in trust are macro assessments about the economy and the country. That said, at least in the short-term, the precipitous decline in trust of government presents a strong headwind for those who aspire to mobilize government to do something either about record high levels of inequality or to help stimulate the US out of the deepest recession it has experienced in the last century. I am also working on some scholarship with Chaeyoon Lim (not yet published) that suggests that partisanship may be greater in times of greater economic woes, so this may also be playing a role in the declining trust.
See earlier comments of Bob Putnam from 18 months ago on these declines in governmental trust.
Posted in CBS, congress, congressional approval, distrust, government, new york times, trust, trust government
Tagged CBS, congress, congressional approval, distrust, government, new york times, trust, trust government
President Obama responded to the tragic shooting of 20 on January 8, 2011 including Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in with a wonderful and healing memorial speech in Tucson, calling for a higher level of political discourse. Obama’s passionate voice seems to have returned.
The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better in our private lives — to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud. It should be because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country, and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American dream to future generations.
I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here –they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.
That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.
I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us — we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.
Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called “Faces of Hope.” On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child’s life. “I hope you help those in need,” read one. “I hope you know all of the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart. I hope you jump in rain puddles.”
If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.
We hold Gabby and the other victims of the January 8 shooting in the Light with hopes for strong recoveries (amid recent reports of Gabby’s eye opening and cognitive understanding that showed “raw courage” and “raw strength”).
In addition, may Obama’s speech have life beyond the tragedy and start to transform our politics. I hope for our country’s sake that it does, but it involves politicians putting aside point-scoring and running Congress to focus far more on critical problems facing our country (global warming, a decline in educational performance relative to other advanced nations, an investment in jobs of the future, etc.) and focus far less on trying to unseat Obama from the re-election campaign of 2012.
Read transcript here
Posted in Barack Obama, Christina Taylor Green, citizenship, congress, Gabby Giffords, Jared Lee Loughner, John Roll, memorial, political discourse, political engagement, political interest, political voice, politics, politics of hope, public discourse, speech, tragedy, tucson
Tagged Barack Obama, Christina Taylor Green, citizenship, congress, Gabby Giffords, Jared Lee Loughner, John Roll, memorial, political discourse, political engagement, political interest, political voice, politics, politics of hope, public discourse, speech, tragedy, tucson
(Photo by Lergik)
Gallup’s recent Ethics survey showed how low opinions of Congress have fallen.
In late August, a Rassmussen survey suggested that 57% of Americans would prefer getting rid of all Congresspersons and re-electing a new slate.
In a Pew survey from November, 2009: “About About half (52%) of registered voters would like to see their own representative re-elected next year, while 34% say that most members of Congress should be re-elected. Both measures are among the most negative in two decades of Pew Research surveys.”
Of course, there is always a strange discrepancy here: Americans say that Congress is terrible, but most Americans think highly (or at least more highly) of their OWN representative. [For example, a 2006 FOX poll found that 27% approve of Congress’ performance but 53% approve of their own representative’s performance.] And more than 90% of Congresspersons are re-elected each year.
Between 1980 and 1994 net ratings of own representative (% approve minus % disapprove) ranged from 40 to 60 points positive (with highs in 1984 and 1988). Net ratings of Congress ranged from 20 points positive to almost -40. The trends in both net ratings (Congress and own representative) have been sharply down since 1988. (See “Great Theatre: The American Congress in the 1990s.”) See also recent NY Times poll (4/10) that showed 17% approving of Congress and 73% disapproving (or a net approval of -56); this was even stronger among Tea Party sympathizers where net approval of their representative was -9 percentage points and net approval of Congress was -95 (1% approved and 96% disapproved).
Since 1994, net approval ratings have fallen further. For example, polls by Gallup and FOX in late 2008 had negative net ratings of Congress of -60 (generally with approval rates in teens and disapproval rates in the -70s). For some of these trends, see here. Net approval ratings of one’s own Congressperson fell to the high twenties or low thirties by 2006/2007 (in ABC/Washington Post polls). But a most recent NY Times poll conducted of the general public (in conjunction with a poll on Tea Party sympathizers), found that 46% approved of the job of their representative versus 36% that disapproved.
How is it possible that most Congresspeople are highly rated by constituents but the collective body is poorly rated? Few bad apples. Everyone doing a relatively job of representing their constituents but relatively few putting national priorities ahead of their parochial interests. Ratings are lower for individuals who they just don’t know. Political parties as an institution are more interested in making other party look bad (to increase number of seats in the next election) than in getting things done. Increasing role of special interests, PACs, lobbyists. And the decline of the numbers of moderates in Congress (as articulated by Mo Fiorina and McCarty/Poole/Rosenthal) are decreasingly enabling Congress to find important middle ground.
And this is the graph over time of trust of government from Pew Surveys (darker blue line), which staged a resurgence from 1996-2001 but has been declining steadily since then, and is now at a near all time low.
Posted in approval, congress, ethics, gallup, Howard Rosenthal, Keith Poole, morris fiorina, Nolan McCarty, partisanship, pew, professions, representative, trust, trust government
Tagged approval, congress, ethics, gallup, Howard Rosenthal, Keith Poole, morris fiorina, Nolan McCarty, partisanship, pew, professions, representative, trust, trust government
Many people wish to know inspiring Randy Pausch’s current medical condition. Alas he passed away last night at home in Virginia early on July 25, 2008 from pancreatic cancer at the age of 47. Here are the 8 ways I see him influencing my life (his legacy).
I wrote about his amazing Carnegie Mellon University “Last Lecture” earlier (which has been viewed by more than 6,000,000 Americans. I also wrote how he has lived to fulfill his last unfulfilled dream of playing with a professional football team. [Randy was the head teaching assistant when I was a teaching assistant in an introductory computer class at Brown University some years back.]
He lived a bright life to the end, he went back in June to give a charge to the graduating seniors at his beloved Carnegie Mellon University. Randy who called himself an “accidental celebrity” and says there are not many of these for pancreatic cancer since people don’t survive long enough for there to be a Michael J. Fox, mustered the energy, in March, 2008, to testify powerfully and movingly before Congress on pancreatic cancer research.
Pausch noted that no progress has been made on pancreatic cancer research in the last 30 years and there is now a far better chance of living with AIDS than pancreatic cancer. Randy noted that pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths, a disease which strikes innocent victims: Randy exercised, ate right, didn’t smoke, didn’t drink, but still contracted this disease. Randy Pausch thinks we can protect ourselves from this disease but not without dramatically increased funding for research. The disease is genetic and he goes to sleep at night fearing whether kids (ages 2-9) have this genetic marker, although he hoped with dramatically increased funding for pancreatic cancer research that by the time any of his kids get this disease (which usually strikes later in life), doctors will know how to cure it through genetic treatment.
See notable quotes from Randy here and his life wisdom here.
Note: Randy’s book The Last Lecture (Hyperion Press) was released (April 8, 2008), co-written with WSJ reporter Jeff Zaslow. See Randy’s video about the book and preview of interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News special about the book (airing April 10, 2008).
Posted in ABC, ABC News, alive, book, brown university, carnegie mellon university, CMU, condition, congress, dead, death, diane sawyer, died, dies, health, hyperion, inspiration, inspiring, last lecture, life wisdom, medical condition, news, pancreatic cancer research, pausch, randy, randy pausch, RIP, special, testimony, update, updates
Tagged ABC, ABC News, alive, book, brown university, carnegie mellon university, CMU, condition, congress, dead, death, diane sawyer, died, dies, health, hyperion, inspiration, inspiring, last lecture, life wisdom, medical condition, news, pancreatic cancer research, pausch, randy, randy pausch, RIP, special, testimony, update, updates