OPEN UNIVERSITY AUGUST 31, 2006
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A few years ago, I was involved in some studies that
uncovered a funny fact: When Republican-appointed judges sit
on three-judge panels with other Republican appointees, they
show unusually conservative voting patterns. So too,
Democratic-appointed judges on three-judge panels show
especially liberal voting patterns when sitting with fellow
Democratic appointees. In short, like-minded judges show a
pattern if "ideological amplification."
The presence of even one Republican appointee often makes
Democratic appointees much more moderate. Republican
appointees often become much more moderate when even a single
Democratic appointee is there.
We now know that ideological amplification is pervasive on
federal courts--that it can be found in numerous areas,
including sex discrimination, affirmative action, campaign
finance law, disability discrimination, environmental law,
labor law, and voting rights.
It turns out that ideological amplification occurs in many
domains. It helps to explain "political correctness" on
college campuses--and within the Bush administration. In a
recent study, we find that liberals in Colorado, after
talking to one another, move significantly to the left on
affirmative action, global warming, and civil unions for
same-sex couples. On those same three issues, conservatives,
after talking to each other, move significantly to the
right.
It's unclear whether anything can be done about ideological
amplification. But it's entirely clear that when private
organizations and governments blunder, ideological
amplification is often the culprit.
--Cass Sunstein
5 comments
I fail to see why we need to do anything about "ideological amplification". Presumably they were appointed in part to create that amplification. Voters voted in like-minded representatives so they could appoint like-minded judges. Your post does not articulate or explore why this may be a negative thing. It is simply asserted in a throwaway fashion. If you want to continue down this path, consider using some freakonomical analysis showing that ideological amplification leads to increased crime or something. It'd probably make for a great book too!
- fejta
September 5, 2006 at 3:53am
I am ecstatic to see this new blog on TNR's site, and this is one of the first entries I followed up on to "read more." I disagree with fejta's ridicule, but agree that the entry doesn't even try to explain the mechanism, why amplification might result in voters might be getting more than they asked for, and the like. The entry does include a link to an academic article. But that is what I think the bloggers need to sort out--are they just going to link to articles, or actually explain/summarize them. I hope that most of the contributors start to take the time to anticipate and address predictable concerns (like fejta's), just as they would if they were writing for their "day job".
- rjb9
September 5, 2006 at 8:16am
I am likewise thrilled to see this blog appear. The idea of genuinely informed discourse about the pressing issues of the day being made available to shlubs like me is terribly appealing. I also agree that it's clearly going to take some time to get a coherent voice, and to find its mission. Part of why I'm interested in what the contributors have to say is that I'm...well, just some shlub with opinions. In order for this to be a valuable resource, the thoughts of the contributors need to walk a fine line between accessibility and erudition. I'm a little concerned that much of the posts thus far have been about the goings-on at a panel, with (from what I can tell) not much time spent on the real content of what was said, and more talk about who was there and how they seemed to get along. (Maybe I missed something.) I long to be a more informed citizen, but the information has to be presented about relevant things in a manner that can be appreciated by people from outside the contributors' respective fields.
- drdannyu
September 5, 2006 at 4:15pm
I for one don't want the academics' initial entries to be any longer than they are. Let the pros come back and rebut arguments like fejta's, above, in the comments section. I would expect Sunstein to be able to do so with little effort, and would enjoy watching the cuta nd thrust of such debate. ps TNR PLEASE CHANGE THE FORMAT. Top-down, one-way conversation threads suck. Please experiment with "circles", links between and within related threads, any-to-any discussions. Also maybe try putting posts in buckets like "Point" and "Counter-point," "Most viewed" etc?
- teplukhin
September 5, 2006 at 4:41pm
I liked this short blurb. I took it to say that Americans tend to be a bit innocent in holding the guise of impartiality as indicative of true impartiality. Another example would be registry of voters. In Puerto Rico there is no innocence in vote counting and partisanship maneuvering is assumed to be present. So every polling place is required to have a representative from each party. Likewise our own systems should acknowledge partisanship and seek to establish equal representation in all forums.
- johram
September 5, 2006 at 11:04pm