WILLIAM GALSTON NOVEMBER 4, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
No doubt we’ll be talking about the 2010 election for a long time, and dueling explanations for the Democrats’ defeat will abound. Although I plan to make my own contribution to this explanatory surfeit, my topic right now is more modest—to trace the contours of what actually happened on November 2.
Let’s begin with the basics. In the midterm election of 2006, Democrats received 52.0 percent of the popular vote cast for House candidates, while Republicans received 45.6 percent. This year, projections indicate that the Republicans will end up with 51.8 percent, versus 45.1 percent for the Democrats—in short, a Republican gain of 6.2 percent and a Democratic loss of 6.9 percent since 2006.
One might hypothesize that these results reflect a selective partisan mobilization: Enthusiastic Republicans showed up to vote while depressed Democrats stayed home and pulled the covers over their heads. Not so. According to the 2006 exit poll, those who voted were 38 percent Democratic, 36 percent Republican, and 28 percent Independent. This year the split was very similar—36/36/28—which accounts for only a small portion of the popular vote shift.
Or maybe some Democrats were so disgruntled that they broke ranks and supported Republican candidates. No again: 93 percent voted for Democratic candidates in 2006; 92 percent in 2010. And by the way, 91 percent of Republicans for voted candidates of their own party in 2006, and 95 percent in 2010. Partisan polarization is alive and well.
What about age? The conventional wisdom before November 2 was that seniors enraged or terrified by changes in Medicare would turn out in droves to punish those who voted for health reform while young people disillusioned by Obama’s failure to create the New Jerusalem would abstain. That did happen, but only to a modest degree. Voters of ages 18-29 constituted 12 percent of the electorate in 2006; 11 percent in 2010. Voters over 65 were 19 percent of the total in 2006; 23 percent in 2010—noticeable but hardly decisive. If 65 and overs had constituted the same share of the electorate in 2010 as in 2006, the Republicans’ share would have declined by only .7 percent—about one-tenth of their actual gains.
We get more significant results when we examine the choices Independents made. Although their share of the electorate was virtually unchanged from 2006, their behavior was very different. In 2006, Democrats received 57 percent of the Independent vote, versus only 39 percent for Republicans. In 2010 this margin was reversed: 55 percent Republican, 39 percent Democratic. If Independents had split their vote between the parties this year the way they did in 2006, the Republicans share would have been 4.7 percent lower—a huge difference.
But why did they change? Here we reach the nub of the matter: The ideological composition of the electorate shifted dramatically. In 2006, those who voted were 32 percent conservative, 47 percent moderate, and 20 percent liberal. In 2010, by contrast, conservatives had risen to 41 percent of the total and moderates declined to 39 percent, while liberals remained constant at 20 percent. And because, in today’s polarized politics, liberals vote almost exclusively for Democrats and conservatives for Republicans, the ideological shift matters a lot.
To complete the argument, there’s one more step: Did independents shift toward Republicans because they had become significantly more conservative between 2006 and 2010? Fortunately we don’t have to speculate about this. According to the Pew Research Center, conservatives as a share of total Independents rose from 29 percent in 2006 to 36 percent in 2010. Gallup finds exactly the same thing: The conservative share rose from 28 percent to 36 percent while moderates declined from 46 percent to 41 percent.
This shift is part of a broader trend: Over the past two decades, moderates have trended down as share of the total electorate while conservatives have gone up. In 1992, moderates were 43 percent of the total; in 2006, 38 percent; today, only 35 percent. For conservatives, the comparable numbers are 36 percent, 37 percent, and 42 percent, respectively. So the 2010 electorate does not represent a disproportional mobilization of conservatives: If the 2010 electorate had perfectly reflected the voting-age population, it would actually have been a bit more conservative and less moderate than was the population that showed up at the polls. Unless the long-term decline of moderates and rise of conservatives is reversed during the next two years, the ideological balance of the electorate in 2012 could look a lot like it did this year.
61 comments
Bullshit. The under-thirties didn't vote, nor did the blacks, and the great mass of ideologically uncommitted white working class voters at the middle who leaned Republican this time around did so not because their basic inclinations are right of center but because they're feeling trapped and confused and only one of the two parties managed to articulate anything like a vision of how to get some relief. That the vision articulated is a collosal swindle is immaterial. Most voters lack the wherewithal to look behind the wizard's curtain. Given a choice between The Great Oz and a pack of cowardly lions is it any wonder that the electorate, that portion pf it that could be bothered to vote leaned Reublican?
- AaronW
November 4, 2010 at 1:25am
I predict that if the Democrats can grow some stones and come out consistently in favor of meaningful governmental economic relief and EXPLAIN why deficits are not bad but crucial, they'll be back in charge no more than two election cycles from now. Whether they, the Dems, can pull it together to do such a thing is an entirely different question. I'm sad to say that I have my doubts, but hope springs eternal.
- AaronW
November 4, 2010 at 1:35am
With all due respect Aaron, where's the data to back up your rash assumption? Aaron:"The under 30's didn't vote"---Fact: "Voters 18-29 constituted 12%f of the electorate in 2006; 11% in 2010". Big deal? Aaron:White working-class voters leaned Republican because they're feeling "trapped and confused"--the old Democrat excuse: "the voters are too stupid to know what's good for them". Fact: between 2006 and 2010, voters describing themselves as "conservative" rose from 32% to 41%. Fully three-fourths of American voters consistently self-identify as conservative and moderate, while those who reflect Aaron's views have been stuck at 20% for some time and in my view figure to go even lower. This is not something lefty Dems will be able to overcome with bluster and "stones". If you want electoral success in a democracy you need to be able to listen to the voters, not condescend to them.
- Robert Powell
November 4, 2010 at 6:39am
Do you consider the Republican con job "listening to the voters?" It would be more accurate to say that if you want electoral success you have to lie shamelessly to the voters, or at least cover them in copious bullshit. All the Dems need is a good set of lies, umm, talking points, that are "self-evident." Consistency is of no particular importance. That's what we have become since our Being There president, Saint Ronald. All platitudes, all the time.
- roidubouloi
November 4, 2010 at 7:32am
If voters describing themselves as "conservative" rose from 32% to 41%, they are indeed too stupid to know what is good for them. Their share of national income has been steadily declining as a result of "conservative" policies. When asked specifically what it is they want and don't want, it almost never turns out to be what the conservatives are peddling, once you exclude fantasy outcomes. But I don't think the genuine, inarguable stupidity of the voters is an excuse. Not for a moment. The voters are ignorant. Period. However, it should be clear by now that they are not going to get any smarter or better-informed. That is why real Democratic policy successes are never going to get votes. Time to get over it and start dealing with the electorate we have, not the electorate we wish for. That means insane pandering. As Frank Rich has taught us, the lies need only be "truthy." Actual truth, actual facts are of no relevance.
- roidubouloi
November 4, 2010 at 8:34am
well, the under 30 vote this time around was 3 percentage points down from 2008 with a similar fall of the proportion of the total electorate that was black. Those numbers are HUGE. Given that something like 75% of those under thirties voted Dem both in '08 and this time around and something like 90% of the black vote went Dem, so we're talking about something like a 4-5% absolute deficit in Democratic votes as compared with 2008. The Repubs might well still have taken the House with that 5%, but the margin would've been a lot smaller, and no one would be trying to argue that it was a referendum on the fundamental ideological state of the nation. Now, the fact that this Democratic 5% of the electorate didn't show up is a big freaking problem for us Democrats, but it is reflective more of the fact that my Democratic Party is a bunch of really, really shitty politicians rather than anything truly fundamental. And listen, Robert, I'm not condescending to white working class Republican voters. Really, I'm not. I suspect that better than 95% of the voting public has no very definite idea what's actually going on, and I include many if not most university-educated professionals in this. It isn't that people are stupid, it's more that they don't have the time, energy, or inclinination to do the kind of groundwork required to really understand what's what about policy, and so people rely upon politicians to paint a broad-brush picture of what it is that people should be concerned about. And the problem we face is that we have one party, the Republican Party, whose candidates are pretty much all either professional liars or crazed morons coached by behind-the-scenes professional liars, and another party, the Democratic Party, whose candidates suffer from a different brand of insanity, namely the belief that they can avoid defeat by refusing to commit themselves to any position that carries even the slightest whiff of controversy. Thus the voters are presented with a choice between convincing liars who exude confidence and competence and sniveling, milquetoast mumblers who exude nothing but uncertainty and excess caution. That voters should gravitate towards the former is only natural. It does not mean they're too stupid to figure out what's good for them; it means they have quite reasonably placed their trust in politicians to provide good information and instead have been let down by BOTH parties, by Republican lies and Democratic reticence. I just listened to Jack Hitt's piece on this week's This American Life about the Democrats' horrible messaging. Tres discouraging. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/sites/all/play_music/play_full.php?play=417&podcast=1
- AaronW
November 4, 2010 at 8:38am
How can you take seriously an analysis of what the electorate would look like in the 2012 Presidential election year when all the analysis compares two off-year election years (2006 versus 2010)?
- wildboy
November 4, 2010 at 9:18am
Again and again, in these columns Galston credulously quotes the latest poll numbers then derives naive conclusions from what they "show" about the electorate. It's weird to read such analytically superficial material in The New Republic --- it's very Time magazine.
- subterran
November 4, 2010 at 9:35am
Robert Powell said: "If you want electoral success in a democracy you need to be able to listen to the voters, not condescend to them." Listening is something you do with your ears, not your mouth. That thing they've been doing with their mouths is called lying.
- Fishpeddler
November 4, 2010 at 9:49am
It doesn't make much sense to compare off-year turnout (especially of groups like Blacks and youth) with presidential-year turnout. Not quite apples and oranges, but close. With all due respect to my disappointed lefty friends, any party with a significant element that thinks the voters are stupid and the opposition only wins because they are devil-spawn liars is in a lot of trouble. We've been here before. I voted for McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis before I figured out that we had been making the same mistakes over and over, and the same excuses. This spreading realization began to sink in via the DLC and was what, in my view, led to the success of Clinton's eight years which objectively is the best the party has done since FDR. You would never hear people like Clinton or Carville describing the voters as stupid. They know better. Far too many people in the party have this attitude, and believe me, it communicates a lot better than the vision of a social democratic nanny state to the vast American middle that actually determines our direction. It's also a mistake to think income distribution should equate with voter behavior. In the first place most Americans never had it so good, and they know it. In the second place, most voters have values that they think are more important than economic self-interest at the margins. If you already have enough, as nearly all Americans do, other things take on more importance.
- Robert Powell
November 4, 2010 at 12:30pm
Relying on self-identification to analyze the makeup of the electorate is simply not reliable. Remember that some of these "conservative" Tea Partiers were the same ones holding up signs demanding that government keep its hands off their Medicare. Does that make them conservatives, or supporters of big government? Many people may think of themselves as conservatives, but they still oppose any attempt to substantially overhaul Medicare or Social Security, two huge center-left programs. Indeed, even ardent conservatives have trouble coming up with specific cuts that would result in substantially smaller government. So while self-identification may lead one to believe that this is a center-right nation, what people do in practice may contradict that assessment. Indeed, people's specific demands may be contradictory, since they presently seem to require "cut my taxes, deal with the deficit, and don't touch entitlements--and by the way, that makes me a conservative!" So how best to explain the election results? To borrow from the post's very title: it's the economy, stupid. Unhappiness with the economy crosses ideological lines, regardless of how people describe themselves. Does anyone seriously believe that Democrats would have taken such a drubbing if unemployment were at 5.5%? If not, then the reason isn't the ideology; it's the economy.
- dsimon
November 4, 2010 at 12:36pm
Sorry, Robert, but you are confusing how one talks to the voters with how one's strategy for talking to the voters. The successes of the Republican party since Reagan are due almost entirely to its conclusion that the voters are too stupid to understand objective absurdity when it is pitched to them -- e.g., we can cut taxes and raise revenues -- and will act on what they are told something is rather than any rational evaluation of what it is in fact. In this, the Republicans have not been disappointed. Not a bit. That of course does not mean that they tell the voters that they think they are stupid.
- roidubouloi
November 4, 2010 at 12:42pm
RP: "In the first place most Americans never had it so good, and they know it." Really? In the middle of the largest downturn in decades? "In the second place, most voters have values that they think are more important than economic self-interest at the margins. If you already have enough, as nearly all Americans do, other things take on more importance." This is an interesting point. Could you give us some examples?
- Nari224
November 4, 2010 at 1:50pm
No, "IT'S THE POLITICS, STUPID!" Obama & the Dems did nothing to engage the enthusiasm and energy of working people and young people - the very folks who put him in office. The President and pols pursued - like too many Dems before - a politics that marginalized most Americans. Instead of involving those who chanted "Yes, We Can!" in recovery, reconstruction, and reform, Obama bailed out banks, secured a too-small and too-slow stimulus package, and cut deals and made compromises with his anatagonists. Americans don't care about ideology. They care about conserving the good and great of American life. And they were ready to join in to make it happen. But Obama essentially turned his back on his fellow citizens. Carter, Clinton, Obama... We'll do for you, but not with you. Hardly "DEMOCRATIC."
- hkaye
November 4, 2010 at 2:42pm
Powell, what was it about Clinton that made him so successful? Let's think back. Well, it wasn't his health care bill, we know that. Could the booming economy have had something to do with it? You may be right that a lot of people don't like the sound of a social-democratic "nanny-state." But the perception that Obama represents that -- that he's far left on anything -- is demonstrably false. Health care reform *is* center-right. It's so center-right that Republicans proposed plans just like it in the past.
- JakeH
November 4, 2010 at 3:11pm
The economy is still in the crapper because the policies stink. More centralization and meddling, complex laws passed needing reams of regulations which will take years of insider negotiations to implement. Not easy for anyone with capital at risk to plan for. The public you folks so generously excoriate for being ignorant figured this out, and quite properly fired your DEMs. Keep making excuses, its fun reading.
- ds111
November 4, 2010 at 3:28pm
Agree with AaronW, demographics are skewed in this model. As usual, young people didn't bother voting. That is maddening. But it doesn't make the US right wing. Rather, let's give credit where credit is due: to the disciplined, focused, on-message Republican surge which didn't hesitate to lie, inflame racist and religious fears and invent phony problems like "death panels."
- Sophia
November 4, 2010 at 4:01pm
Further: the Left as usual shot itself and the rest of us IN THE FOOT. Illinois would in all probability have a Democratic senator except for the fact that the Green Party split the vote. Shades of Nader. Now - imagine the US had Gore carried Florida - Now - I'm all for people voting their conscience but when the stakes are really this high - please. See above comment on the concept of "discipline" and unity.
- Sophia
November 4, 2010 at 4:03pm
But why such a marked shift in ideology in only two years? It's not the ideology, it's the ECONOMY, and the relentlessness of the Republican talking points. Fox "News" for example. Most Americans, I think, don't have a good grasp of economics, least of all an economic point of view of their own that they can defend. Economics is complex, and there are so many voices coming from all sides, that most Americans may not know what to think. So what happens? The liberals are in charge and I'm out of a job, so suddenly I'm more sympathetic to conservative arguments. The problem is that uninformed opinions change with the winds -- and with the economic times and personal circumstances. A better American educational system over the years might have produced a population more able to think clearly about issues -- who knows? But for now, and for the foreseeable future, we have what we have. Progressives need to make their case more clearly and simply.
- Erik_S
November 4, 2010 at 5:13pm
"Ideology" is plainly a moving target. This tells me that "ideology" as discussed in this piece is not really ideology. It reflects transitory attitudes rather than firm, intellectual commitments to a particular set of specific political ideas. I do think that one of the reasons Democrats lost as big as they did is because the public doesn't understand very well the U.S. economy, the budget, debt tolerance, or the administration's policies and their rationale. So, I think we'll see lots of people say that they're increasingly "social liberals" but "fiscal conservatives." We all know what the first thing means -- support for gay rights, separation of church and state, etc. But what does the second thing mean? It could mean something like "focus on the deficit and paying down the debt." That's a very specific prescription that is not good policy right now, for reasons that very few understand or appreciate. It might also mean, "No profligate spending," which is something we can all agree on, but it just invites the question as to what counts as profligate. What we have here is a feeling, an attitude. The trick is to convince people that your policies are perfectly consistent with a broad understanding of "fiscal conservatism" -- that your policies are more fiscally responsible than the other guy's. The trick is to signal that you share people's attitudes in this area and characterize your policies as serving those goals. This doesn't give us a lesson about ideology so much as a lesson about political tactics and messaging. Obama did a poor job of selling his policies as fiscally responsible.
- JakeH
November 4, 2010 at 6:10pm
More supply side nonsense, ds111. The problem is lack of demand, not lack of investment. When there is excess capacity, no one is going to invest no matter what the regulations. There were plenty of regulations during the Clinton years. Bush the Idiot knocked the economy off its rails with a combination of radical deregulation of finance and high-end tax cuts putting too much money in the hands of the investor class at the expense of demand. In other words, the supply side dogma is a disaster, because it has NOTHING to do with economic reality.
- roidubouloi
November 4, 2010 at 8:00pm
In the two says since the midterms I detect a real convergence of opinion among the professed Democrats here at TNR. We all seem to agree that Obama's halfhearted promotion of stimulatory fiscal policy and his weak--dare I say nonexistent--defence of the suboptimal fiscal stimulus he did push through weakened the Democratic electoral position considerably. We also seem to agree that Obama is showing no signs of any readiness or ability to lift his game. The NY Times says that Obama has invited Republican leaders to dinner. Are you kidding me? He should be inviting Republican leaders to go eat Dominos pizza while they try to figure out how they're going to spin their insistance that middle class tax cuts stay linked to tax cuts for the richest 2%. I'm seriously starting to come around to drofnats' way of thinking. If Obama won't step up, he needs to be challenged from the left. I think what the Democratic Party needs right now is a northeast--or Chicago--liberal ballbreaker. The guy--and sorry ladies but this time around I think it has to be a guy--needs to have a head full of brains, but more importantly he has to be fearless. He could come from a business background (though NOT Wall Street) but I'm thinking more state or big city government. I'm thinking this hypothetical insurgent may well be a Jew. Anybody have any ideas?
- AaronW
November 4, 2010 at 8:37pm
Did anyone ask the people identifying themselves as conservative/moderate/liberal whether that was across the board, fiscal or social policy? I believe most Americans favor limited government in terms of reducing the scale of those pieces of government they don't care for while maintaining or expanding the scale of the other pieces they like. On the other hand, nearly all Americans would prefer to pay less for both the parts they like and those they dislike. The founders were right: give the mobocracy power, and they'll vote for bread and circuses and against taxes every time. And because we have historically weak parties, we don't even have the arguable benefit of party discipline. As Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” But back to the types of conservative/moderate/liberal, I'd agree that a majority are social policy conservatives, probably considerable majorities outside reliably Democratic House districts. I have to wonder to what extent the federal judge in California ruling Don't Ask/Don't Tell unconstitutional may have spurred social policy conservatives to vote. 'Tis the season to be cynical. Just following the Republican lead.
- hrlngrv
November 4, 2010 at 8:39pm
As I finished that last post I realized that I had just described Rahm Emmanuel.
- AaronW
November 4, 2010 at 8:41pm
"I'm thinking this hypothetical insurgent may well be a Jew. " Why?
- noga1
November 4, 2010 at 9:29pm
American are not social policy conservatives. Just the reverse. They are much more liberal and tolerant than the Republican party. They imagine themselves to be fiscal conservatives because they do not understand that, once you set aside defense, social security, and existing medical care, the things they like, plus interest, the entire balance of the Federal budget is not that much money. You could set it to zero and not put a big dent in the deficit. Safety net programs are 9% and every other thing for government operations are 18%. With the Republicans wailing all the time against big government, excluding of course Medicare which they are pledged to protect even from efficiency gains, the hoi polloi are totally confused about what the Federal government consists of. But you cannot call yourself a fiscal conservative if you are in favor of borrowing to pay normal operating expenses. The Republicans are not fiscal conservatives, they are fiscal lunatics. When a recession hits, tax receipts go down, which is an automatic stabilizer because it is those whose income has shrunk who pay less taxes. And it makes sense to boost spending, even if you have to borrow to do it because that replaces lost demand. It does not make any sense generally to cut taxes in a recession, especially for the rich whose spending behavior will be largely unaffected. Cutting taxes makes the cost of fiscal stimulus prohibitive which is exactly the shitty situation we are in because of Bush's structural deficits.
- roidubouloi
November 4, 2010 at 9:48pm
I don't know why, noga. I was just riffing and the Jew thing came into my head. Probably I'd already starting slipping Emmanuel into the silhouette I had cut out. Also I think some of the savvier, tougher northern liberal pols I can think of tend to be Jewish. I'm thinking Barney Frank, Rus Feingold, Emmanuel, Ed Koch (tho he isn't exactly liberal)...
- AaronW
November 4, 2010 at 11:06pm
Wait, noga, I have a better answer. I just think that to make a broad generalization--and to every generalization there are numerous exceptions--you're more likely to find the desired combination of liberal politics and ruthlessness in a Jew. Too many WASP liberals are of the mamby pamby, Unitarian, NPR, Dean & DeLucca phenotype which is basically what we already have in Obama.
- AaronW
November 4, 2010 at 11:15pm
Keep whistling past the graveyard, Roi. Keynesian economics is bunk, voodoo economics, if you will. "When a recession hits.." Recessions don't simply hit, they are the result of prior economic distortions (overconfidence, overvalued collateral). Forestalling reality simply kicks the can down the road, delaying and extending a needed and healthy clearing of price, supply and demand. Nobody minded when housing prices went through the roof, but dear god let's not let them fall too much! But they must fall to find a true clearing level. Keynes voodoo conjures up a clearing level. See QE II today. I'm not wholly against various stabilizers, but for every person helped, there is another hurt. The problem today is excess supply at too high a price, not insufficient demand, as the prior demand, that which you are trying to replace, was false. The price needs to fall in order for supply and demand to come into balance. The fed has decided to accomplish this by devaluing our currency, making the entire nation poorer. The common sense, and non-Keynesian method would to be to maintain the value of the currency, but allow prices to clear (fall). It would happen rapidly, and be much healthier in the end than this farce. One thing I have agreed with you on - much of the healing could have been accomplished if the shareholders and creditors of the blown-up banks had been wiped out. That is how you allow a market to clear.
- ds111
November 4, 2010 at 11:51pm
By the way, speaking of people who can connect with blue-collar voters, where is Joe Biden in this story? Has he been kidnapped, or taken up by the Rapture?
- ironyroad
November 5, 2010 at 12:19am
I have a very bad feeling about this. All the talk about the stupidity of the voters, and the idea that everything would have been fine if Obama had just behaved more like someone he's not and advocated more stridently for positions he doesn't seem to actually believe in--this is a recipe for another Republican victory in two years, and another round of devastating single-party rule. Predictably, Democrats are lining the firing squad up in a circle again. Don't you guys ever learn? The voters aren't stupid, they just disagree with you! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110303844.html On the economy, ds111 has it right. There is a dearth of demand because most peoples' principal asset, their home, has lost value. Pouring tax dollars down various ratholes in Washington is not going to address this basic fact. And doing so while bailing out the bankers and their richest stockholders was political suicide. It is inconceivable that they were allowed to walk away with fat bonuses, and impossible to do so without grave political consequences.
- Robert Powell
November 5, 2010 at 6:19am
Last paragraph, apparently eaten by the link above: On the economy, ds111 pretty much nails it. We have a dearth of demand because most folks' principal asset, their home, has lost much of it's over-inflated value. Pouring more tax dollars down various Washington ratholes isn't going to address that problem. Allowing the bankers and their biggest shareholders to get off with big bonuses was an obvious case of political malpractice.
- Robert Powell
November 5, 2010 at 6:32am
Actually, ds111, Keynes' economics is pretty much the only general theory for which there is evidence. See, e.g., World War II budgets, deficit financing, end of Great Depression, as well as the impacts of budgets, loose and tight, through the Great Depression. In contrast, all of the macro-models of the Chicago school are an abject failure. Zero. And so-called "supply side" economics doesn't even rise to the level of a model because its advocates can never explain how it works, what the "channels" of action are. It is just suppose to inspire the desired economic activity through --- voodoo. Of course, ds111, something must precipitate the start of a recession, although it is seldom the same thing twice. The critical factor for this one was the run-up in housing prices, unsustainable as left-wing economists were warning for years. Do you ever read Paul Krugman? And how do you explain this? The stupidity about government mortgage companies? Subprime mortgages are the ones that are ineligible for government financing. When there are asset bubbles, the short explanation is either 1) printing of private money, which we had in spades due to radical deregulation of the private sector -- what is called endogenous money and/or 2) too much money chasing too few investment goods. We had both due to the idiot policies of Bush. The impact of the Bush tax cuts was to starve demand by reducing the income share of workers which has been falling for decades for other reasons and increasing the share of the wealthy. As they need no consumption goods, they go looking for assets to purchase. As there is not enough demand to generate demand for productive assets, they start bidding up something, in this case mortgages. And there you have it, an epic boom and bust BECAUSE SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS IS NONSENSE. And you need to get a grip on the difference between real and nominal price changes before anyone can even sort out what you have to say about price levels. _________________ As for the voters being stupid, the Republicans have proven that. The difference is that the Republicans assume the voters are stupid and that they can sell them any sort of contradictory nonsense. And they are right. The Democrats keep thinking the voters are smart and will respond rationally to what is going on around them. They don't. So, the answer is the opposite of what you say. The Democrats need to understand that the voters are easily manipulated by the endless repetition of simplistic messages, come up with useful simplistic messages, and repeat them endlessly. They need to stop the delusion that sound policy will be rewarded. The voters even believe that the Republicans were for punishing the banks when all the Republicans were doing was resisting any sort of financial re-regulation. Now, how is that not evidence of stupidity, or at least of extreme ignorance? Take the voters as they are. Uninformed. And get used to it. So, let's see. Your many suggestion is that would encourage or allow deflation. Typical ultra-monetarist nonsense. This is known to be the immediate precipitating cause of severe recession known as depression. Indeed, it could be said that deflation is what distinguishes recession and depression Bad call. Oblivious to economic reality. Typical therefore of
- roidubouloi
November 5, 2010 at 7:00am
Obviously that got screwed up by having to type in this blasted little box. The last para should have been first and the ending is "typical of 'supply-side' economics."
- roidubouloi
November 5, 2010 at 7:38am
See Brooks today? The pathetic bugger is begging for the government to rescue those in the middle of America who are the biggest victims of supply side insanity, while they themselves keep sipping the Kool-aid of how we have to shrink government. Incoherent. First the supply side shoots them in the gut, then they want they government they abhor to rescue them from the folly they have been supporting. This is not stupid?
- roidubouloi
November 5, 2010 at 7:40am
maybe it is not the 'ideology' as much as the PERCEPTION that the Federal government focussed on the wrong priorities mid-2009, e.g. health insurance reform instead of the mortgage and jobs crisis, that led to a third in a row 'anti-incumbent' House election. Or, in the surprising words of one of my doctors on Tuesday, "better crazy than a crook" in explaining his former-Dem-now-independent all GOP vote in NY. AaronW: be careful what you wish for - Mayor Bloomberg continues to fantasize about the presidency as social moderate-fiscal conservative. Sophia: when voters split to a third party, it usually means they are protesting their usual party candidate. Giannoulias was a flawed candidate. I would add a suggestion to candidates that they really should not take voters for granted. ONLY my NY assemblyman sent me one piece of mail and left three robo-calls. It was as is if no one else wanted to even remind me there was an election.
- K2K
November 5, 2010 at 8:34am
Just because one does not understand the voters points of view does not make them stupid (or crazy). One of the biggest hurdles Democrats face is that they are widely perceived as elitists who think they know best what's good for "the little people", which is their domination by a State that perpetually rachets up its power. Best thing I've seen so far on this perpetual ideology debate:http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/condescending_left. Terminology Alert: Europeans, like everyone else but Americans, have a different definition of "liberal".
- Robert Powell
November 5, 2010 at 9:13am
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/condescending_left For some reason the link in above comment didn't work. Trying again, but this is a must-read column on this subject--worth the trouble to type it in if the link is still on the fritz.
- Robert Powell
November 5, 2010 at 9:20am
Here's from the column linked by Robert Powell: "One sees progressive managerial elitism most clearly in the left's public-health and environmental paternalism. The rarely uttered idea is that the people who know best need to force the rest of us to do what's good for us. Whatever you think of this sort of state paternalism, it isn't liberal or liberty-enhancing in any non-tortured sense." This is about as capsule a version of the standard libertarian/conservative (short of nutcase Tea Party) argument that you can find. And it is all completely wrong. The reason for the progressive-regulatory approach to both health care and the environment is ultimately purely technical: there is no market solution. These are both examples, indeed they are two of the three outstanding examples, of market failure (the third being the manner in which unregulated financial markets will ALWAYS produce disaster). These are problems that the market cannot solve for intrinsic reasons. Thus, we have two alternatives, not to solve the problems or use the power of government to manage the market past its failure mechanisms. There are no other alternatives that exist in the real world. None. Therefore, the claim that using government power in this way is paternalism or nannyism is simply false. It can be ignorantly false or maliciously false, but it is false either way. There is no free-choice mechanism to solve these problems. There are constrained choice mechanisms that address the market failures and then allow the market to operate within constraints. These include cap and trade and some version of the Dems HCR. But these too will be blasted by the right as paternalism, blah, blah, blah. The right does not want to solve these problems because, one way or another, the solutions transfer wealth or spread risk and the right worships only the solutions of the completely unfettered market, however disastrous, because these permit the maximum wealth, freedom and power for the monied elite whom they serve. That's all there is. I once asked the head of Cato Institute whether his radical libertarianism would condone even slavery if someone wanted to sell themselves into a state of slavery. The answer was essentially yes, or at least that he could not see why not. The problem for the Democrats is that they continue to believe that 1) people will respond to good policy, 2) the policy if it has to be sold can be sold on the merits, 3) selling is unnecessary. All three are untrue. The Democrats must get used to the idea that they must sell themselves constantly. They must also get used to the idea that what they need to say to sell themselves is whatever sells. It has no necessary relationship to the policies they want to implement. Whatever they do in fact, they merely have to repeat endlessly that they are giving the public exactly what the marketing hype claims. Any convoluted excuse will do. There is no necessary relationship whatsoever between political rhetoric and reality. The Republicans have demonstrated this over, and over, and over again. Time to get with the program.
- roidubouloi
November 5, 2010 at 10:55am
"One of the biggest hurdles Democrats face is that they are widely perceived as elitists who think they know best what's good for "the little people" I find the term "elitist" a bit misleading. When Obama and his wife were accused of being "elitist" during the presidential campaign, Stephen Colbert thought it was hilarious because he took it to mean coming from a privileged, well-padded background. But that is not what is meant, is it? What the little people say is that these people (Democrats) behave and express themselves not only as if they know better but as if theirs is the only possible plausible way of interpreting the current realities and if that means they have to ignore the heat and noise that come from swaths of these little ignorant selfish people then they are perfectly capable and more than willing to do so. This is not conducive to inspire trust in their leadership, is it? The stock exchanges have soared in the day the Republicans won their majority. Someone who understands these things foresaw this happening. Apparently money trusts Republicans more than it does the Democrats. Why is that?
- noga1
November 5, 2010 at 11:40am
Dang, blown up by the box again. "..monied elite whom they serve.." What drivel - do you really believe this stuff? As to 1) people will respond to good policy - they will, to good policy, just not the crappy policy of modern DEMs; 2) policy has to be sold on the merits - true, which is hard to do when it's crappy policy; 3) selling is unnecessary - of course it is necessary, that's what politics is for. NO, Roi, your political advice is wrong. I would hope that readers here and any sentient being, especially you, would reject it for being Macchiavellian. Stick to what is right - when you hit on it, the public will agree. DEMs were given that chance but blew it on crappy pollicy. Better policy next time.
- ds111
November 5, 2010 at 12:00pm
"The answer was essentially yes, or at least that he could not see why not." These qualifiers "essentially" and "at least" may suggest that the answer was not a "yes". I would have liked to hear or read what the head of Cato Institute really answered to this astonishing question. Perhaps roi could reconstruct it?
- noga1
November 5, 2010 at 12:06pm
Verbatim: "If a poor person wishes to sign an irrevocable lifetime employment contract with the salutary effect of alleviating his poverty, we do not oppose such a contract. What we oppose is the remedy of specific performance in the event of breach -- i.e., allowing the employer to enforce the terms of the contract notwithstanding a change of heart by the employee. We would not, however, oppose the assessment of damages against the employee for any losses by the employer due to detrimental reliance on the contract. Nor, of course, would be oppose damages flowing in the other direction if and when justified."
- roidubouloi
November 5, 2010 at 12:32pm
Maybe most of us don't have much faith in the "progressive regulators." Market failure? Environmental damage has a cost which can be quantified - though not always easily. So charge appropriately for the cost of repairing the damage. No, No, lets instead tell everyone what kind of lightbulb they must use - that's progressive regulation. Life and health entail risk, the costs of which can, along with food, shelter, etc, be self funded to the extent attainable and desirable. This can be done individually or societally, with each having benefits and drawbacks in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. The progressive regulators see only one solution. Perhaps its the best, but there is certainly no consensus around that, outside of the pro-reg community. Examples of market failure? Nonsense. Only under your pro-reg understanding. Not a priori.
- ds111
November 5, 2010 at 12:32pm
I take it then, ds111, that you imagine that the Republican party has achieved its electoral successes by propounding good policy, such as, for example -- cutting the deficit while making permanent Bush's high-end tax cuts. Does it still count as good policy if it is impossible, indeed completely fantastic? As for "drivel," whose interests do you think the Republican party serves? Why do all those lobbyists lobby? Why is there a revolving door between the party, the lobbyists, government "service?" Why do shadowy, wealthy interests donate millions to the Republican party? Are they stupid? Or do they perhaps understand very well who serves their interests? Have you ever noticed that the "social agenda" of the Republican party is never actually enacted, keeping the unwashed in a state of constant moral agitation, while the corporate agenda is achieved on multiple levels? Who hollowed out the SEC enforcement division? Do you have any idea? Same at EPA and on, and on, and on. Facts kind of a problem for you ds111?
- roidubouloi
November 5, 2010 at 12:37pm
I agree with roi that Dems wrongly think that policy doesn't need to be sold if it is "good". The problem is that everyone doesn't agree about what constitutes good policy, and you're not likely to improve what you've got in terms of saleability if you think people with different ideas are stupid, malicious, and/or crazy. People WILL respond to good policy if it really is, and is sold on the basis of actual merits. It's also true that healthcare and at least some environmental concerns haven't been adequately addressed by the market alone, and probably can't be. But the implication that the Dems proposals in these areas are the only possible choices for "purely technical" reasons, and that if there is dissent it's only because of stupidity and/or the machinations of a rapacious, unaccountable oligarchy, is the kind of analysis guaranteed to turn off the voters, all the while reinforcing the image of Democrats as arrogant elitists using the power of the State to run increasingly large parts of people's lives. Americans have distrusted government power since our founding as a nation. It's part of our political DNA, and when a wide sample of us served in the armed forces for at least a couple of years, we usually had this distrust reinforced (perhaps ironically, since the armed forces are arguably the most functional part of the entire Federal leviathan). If Dems can't get past seeing this perfectly legitimate distrust as a function of stupidity, craziness, or bad faith, they will continue to shoot themselves in the foot on a regular basis.
- Robert Powell
November 5, 2010 at 12:41pm
While it doesn't amount to a lot of money, I believe a lot more voters would favor scrapping CPB, NEA, NEH, etc. than reducing military expenditure. The problem we face is that most voters favor keeping all of these AND lower taxes. As for social policy, I believe 55/45 or 60/40 majorities in or near large cities on the Pacific coast and the Atlantic coast north of D.C. and maybe the larger upper midwest cities favor gun control, but 75/25 or 80/20 majorities favor the NRA's position in the rest of the country. Of course using the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' with respect to gun control is problematic. Re gay marriage, consider the recent judicial elections in Iowa: supreme court discovers a right to gay marriage, and 3 justices voted out of office this past Tuesday, and in a state usually considered one of the most moderate in the US. Also there's a difference between tolerating something and believing it's reasonable if not a positive good. I have no difficulty tolerating people with tattoos and multiple piercings, but I think they're fools.
- hrlngrv
November 5, 2010 at 12:45pm
Cap and trade is one means of levying a charge to resolve the market externality of pollution. Are you then in favor of cap and trade? The market failure of the health care financing market is that you have to allocate services on some basis. This is true of all goods and services. Most are allocated by price and this works fine for most things. However, if we want to have risk-spreading for healthcare, which the public certainly does want, then the patient is no longer in a position to allocate his expenditure on an efficient basis. Co-pays barely make a dent. Therefore, some process must make the allocation. Right now the allocation is made by insurance companies who have an affirmative self-interest in denying care. Every dollar they do not spend goes into their own pockets. Making matters worse, theirs is an oligopoly. Since they can pass on the costs to the insureds, the have little incentive to regulate cost. And, indeed, they cannot regulate cost without denying coverage, certainly without denying choice, which they cannot do in an unconflicted way. Do we want people who need care to be able to get the care they need at a price they can afford or not? That is the question. Despite all the bullshit, the mountains and mountains and mountains of bullshit, the Republican-Conservative-Tea Party answer to that question is, "Hell no." The purpose of the bullshit is purely to obscure that fact. The market alternatives are either no insurance or the mess we have now. If you can think of a market solution to this problem that does not involve replacing insurance companies as the allocators of care, please explain. The world wants to know. And if the insurance companies are not going to allocate care and control prices, exactly who do you think is going to do that? The tooth fairy?
- roidubouloi
November 5, 2010 at 12:46pm
"But the implication that the Dems proposals in these areas are the only possible choices for "purely technical" reasons, and that if there is dissent it's only because of stupidity and/or the machinations of a rapacious, unaccountable oligarchy, is the kind of analysis guaranteed to turn off the voters, all the while reinforcing the image of Democrats as arrogant elitists using the power of the State to run increasingly large parts of people's lives." I am not running an election campaign here and hence have no reason to be concerned about turning voters on or off. I am addressing myself to the people who do conduct campaigns and urging them to consider who these things are actually won and lost. Policy is not the basis for electoral success. And, yes, we do have a rapacious, unaccountable oligarchy in this country. Look around. Look around. Look at how legislation gets written and whose interests are served. There is an unholy alliance between money and government that has made a sham out of our democracy. I do not recall the Republican party proposing any rational alternatives to Democratic proposals, rational in the sense of being able to solve the problem let alone do so more efficiently. The Democrats practically begged then, groveling, to table an alternative and, of course, they wouldn't. There is no basis at all for the claim that the Democrats were unwilling to negotiate and accommodate alternative means of achieving the goal.
- roidubouloi
November 5, 2010 at 12:51pm
I think everyone, at least everyone here, is well-acquainted with the problems in our healthcare system, including the fact that the 46% of spending on health care already comes by way of the Federal government (according to Joe Biden on Meet the Press). And of course the role of these programs in escalating costs and contributing colossal amounts of waste, fraud, and corruption to the mix. There were a number of good proposals that addressed the most pressing issues without giving the appearance of a Federal takeover, most notably the Wyden-Bennett plan which would have been a great, bi-partisan starting point. The road taken wasn't optimal by anyone's lights, and in effect presented the Republicans with a gift they were glad to accept. The myth that Dems "begged" for Republican input is just that, and there's a vast amount of evidence for that. Reid/Pelosi took the bit in their teeth and dismissed every single Republican attempt at input except for some transparent sham "outreach". A few low-cost concessions in areas like tort reform and a larger role for existing state insurance commissions would have gone a long way towards picking off a few key Republicans and pre-empting McConnell's ultimately successful strategy of presenting a solid "NO" front. This is water under the bridge, but a prime illustration of the kind of over-reaching encouraged by single-party rule.
- Robert Powell
November 5, 2010 at 1:56pm
While all here continue to bloviate - from the right and the left, let's not lose sight of the simple fact that this country, The United Statist Corporations of America, is well on its way to perfecting the best, most perfect form of plutocracy - masquerading as republican democracy - that the world has ever seen. Move over, Ancient Rome; here we come. USA USA USA
- bonsaibush
November 5, 2010 at 2:11pm
If I thought the enforcers at SEC and EPA were "progressive regulators," I'd sure as hell hollow out their budgets. Didn't seem to stop the charade at FNMA and Freddie Mac. Which, by the way, S&P now estimates will ultimately cost almost $700 billion to work out. In comparison TARP might cost, what, $50 billiion - and all of that on AIG. Nice "roll the dice," Barney. Now that is progressive regulation at its most corrupt best. Sorry, but it's the nature of the beast. Tho a few Repubs tried to rein them in, their corrupt tentacles were unfortunately bipartisan. Right about Cap and Trade. If one could trust the poliltical class to treat the proceeds like the Alaska Oil Trust, i'd be all in favor. But they won't - too much power to give up. Didn't mind old Al's BTU tax, either, but troubling for the same reason. There is a considerable amount of ordinary and expected health spending that should be each family's responsibility, with reasonable subsidization. Beyond that - call it "catastrophic" - I have no problem with what would probably need to be a two tier system. Basics covered by the state, bells and whistles, including advanced and expensive treatment options, available privately. Indiana under Mitch Daniels might make sense. Suspect Wyden-Bennett would have moved us in this direction, without the rigidity envisioned in Obamacare. I'm happy to have State govts experiment. And I don't mind the feds picking up, say, a fixed per capita amount - through a block grant mechanism (block grants - the best legacy of GHW Bush). But that should be the end of fed involvement - it's the strings that kill. The closest thing to a rapacious, unnacountable oligarchy I see resides in the public sector these days. What, the seven wealthiest counties in the country now surround DC, hmm? Why, because that's where the (public) money is.
- ds111
November 5, 2010 at 2:14pm
"The closest thing to a rapacious, unnacountable oligarchy I see resides in the public sector these days. What, the seven wealthiest counties in the country now surround DC, hmm? Why, because that's where the (public) money is." You, sir, have obviously never work in the public sector.
- zardoz67
November 5, 2010 at 3:11pm
Wyden-Bennett was a head-fake. Even its Republican sponsors wouldn't commit to vote for it. It was pure political theater. For all those fans of Wyden-Bennett, I defy you to explain the meaningful differences between that and the bill that was adopted. Both have a mandate, both have regulated insurance pools, both have subsidies for insurance premiums, neither had strong cost controls. So, what is the significant reason that we should have preferred Wyden-Bennett given that its Republican sponsorship was mythical? The reasons that the Republicans wouldn't commit to voting for the bill the sponsored is that it was not significantly different than the bill that passed and what they wanted was nothing. _____________________ The whole point of cap and trade, ds111, is that there were no proceeds for the government. The proceeds were retained by the firms that initially received the quota and decided to trade it rather than use it. So then, I take it you are a happy supporter of cap and trade because it meets your objections? No? You mean that your objections are a bottomless pit -- there is always something else -- because you are playing the same rhetorical game as the Republican party. You won't admit that you have no interest in solving the problem, so you pretend to have one objection or another that really doesn't hold water. How about if we had auctionable quota rather than cap and trade, so that the proceeds actually did go to the government, and thus to the public instead of to particular capitalists, but then reduced the payroll tax by an equal amount so that the thing would be revenue neutral. Then you couldn't say that the political class was getting ahold of any new revenues. You would be very happy with that, right? With zardoz. Do you think it is government employees populating those counties or is it lobbyists and the like who siphon money from the government and take a cut? Here's a proposal for the Republican party that wants to fight big government and corruption: A bill to require all correspondence between lobbyists and officials to be on the public record and all meetings between lobbyists and government officials to be held in public with audio and video recording of the proceedings. Let the lobbyists plead for whatever special favors they want, but make public officials do the public's business out in the open. Will you go for that?
- roidubouloi
November 5, 2010 at 3:57pm
OK, a shorter version of the post that got blown up. If "progressive regulators" were doing the enforcing, then I sure as hell would hollow out their funding. The fed had plenty of power, but allowed leverage to max out because it misunderstood the risk - as, apparently, did everyone else. If I recall, it was Repub Richard Baker, with little support from the bought-and-paid for pols (bipartisan, tho prominently DEM) who tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those darlings of the progressive regulation fan club. Failure to do so? S&P now estimates total loss near $700 billion - hell, TARP net loss will be only $50B, with all of that from AIG. Worth that roll-of-the-dice, Barney?
- ds111
November 5, 2010 at 4:10pm
Robert Powell, you refer to the "appearance" of a federal takeover. I call b.s. The only reason there was such an appearance is because the right demagogued it as such. ObamaCare is RomneyCare, is DoleCare, is NixonCare -- a center-right solution by any honest reckoning, even if it would not have been the ideal plan from the perspective of any of those Republicans. An ideal plan is no *real* plan, because Republicans are simply not committed to expanding health care coverage, and many are ideologically opposed to it. No, there was no way even a few more Republicans were going to sign on to significant health care reform that would expand coverage to the uninsured -- the main point of it. You're pushing fantasies here. As for your repeated admonishments to stop calling voters "stupid," I would like to point out that you're the one using that word. I'm talking about misinformation. Do you take the view that the electorate is accurately and fully informed about the myriad aspects of various pieces of legislation? Do you think that the electorate is deeply familiar with and understands the myriad technical and moral arguments for various policy proposals in this indisputably complex area? Of course not. You don't have to be "stupid" to be walking around with some misconceptions about an exceedingly complex area of public policy, especially when you're getting information from sources that are invested in putting those misconceptions across. It would be nice to be able to recognize the reality of the situation without getting bogged down in your fanciful defense of the voters' honor. It's beyond serious dispute that voters can be mistaken, hold inaccurate impressions, cling to vague attitudes, vote based on irrelevant or trivial matter, vote based on circumstances not within the control of politicians, etc., and on a large scale.
- JakeH
November 5, 2010 at 4:25pm
Zardoz. No, I haven't, but I do get to pay for it! The heavy burden of the public sector is mainly a state and local issue, and explains well the difficulties of NY and CAL. Also the reason a chunk of the stimulus bill included direct payments to the states. DC draws all kinds of pleaders, because that's where the money is. And the bigger you make it, the more "progressive regulation," the more supplicants to influence and corrupt that regulation. Same thing in the broke State capitals. Shrink it, or absent that, devolve decision making downward through block grants.
- ds111
November 5, 2010 at 4:49pm
I guess you haven't noticed that state and local governments are laying off people left and right to balance their budgets. Some "rapacious, unaccountable oligarchy"!
- zardoz67
November 5, 2010 at 5:28pm
Robert, further to the second paragraph of my last post, courtesy of Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn at http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/11/what-good-is-a-message-sent-by-ignorant-voters-.html: A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 24-26 finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters ... think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered. “The public view of the economy is at odds with the facts, and the blame has to go to the Democrats,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the nationwide survey. “It does not matter much if you make change, if you do not communicate change.”.... The view that taxes have gone up is shared by a majority of almost all demographic groups, including 50 percent of independent voters, among the linchpins of Obama’s victory in the 2008 election. Even a plurality of Democrats, 43 percent, holds this misperception. As Zorn asks, "what good is a message sent by ignorant voters"?
- JakeH
November 5, 2010 at 11:26pm
Z - Most state and local govts ballooned their employment during the go-go years - so cutting back is both necessary and logical today. That being said, a large strain on public budgets, belatedly recognized by Libs, is the ridiculous public pension and OPEB obligations that many state and local govts are now saddled with. This will have to be dealt with, and soon, if there are to be any funds remaining for legitimate public purposes. Promises were made, corrupt promises, that can't be kept. There should be a reasonable way to work this out - Ken Feinberg, anyone? - but I'm not confident that we have the political will. Well, at least Texans are not on the hook - the chumps in California, New York, and New Jersey will have some problems though, as their moneyed populations increasingly flee to more hospitable climes.
- ds111
November 6, 2010 at 12:04am
Will Texas opt out of Medicaid rather than submit to the sneaky way Obamacare is planning to cover the uninsured - by expnading Medicaid to near New York levels of eligibility and benefits? I hope Texas blows it up by opting out of Medicaid the same week Andrew Cuomo is crawling through the Capitol on his knees, begging for another five billion handout...for the monster that is New York Medicaid.
- K2K
November 7, 2010 at 2:56am