What I know and you don’t

Hans Noel has a great article entitled “10 Things Political Scientists Know That You Don’t.”  It’s good stuff.  Hits at a lot of points I’ve discussed here over time.  Here’s some of my favorite parts:

#6.  Party On

It is a fantasy of many a journalist and voter that politicians will come to Washington (or wherever) and sit down and just make good decisions. Politicians in this fantasy will set aside their differences and just find out what is best for the country, and then do it. They will not try to score political points. They will not stick to their ideologies. They will just do what is good for America.

In other words, can’t we all just get along?

Unfortunately, no, we can’t. Policy disagreements happen because people disagree about policy. Liberals believe the government has an important role to play in managing the economy, and conservatives do not. Conservatives believe that the government must protect a set of cultural values that liberals do not share.

It is true that politicians also want to win, and scoring political points is a part of that. But this winning is in service to policy goals that are divergent. Some compromises are just incoherent.

He hits my favorite bugaboo (I did write my dissertation on the matter):

#7.  Most Independents Are Closet Partisans

Fortunately, most Americans are willing to give parties a chance. You just would not know it from the way “independents” are revered. The biggest non-story of the last half-century is the rise of political independents.

It is true that if you ask a survey respondent if they identify with a major party or are “independent,” a growing number over the last several decades will say they are independent. The problem is that a majority of those independents act like partisans when it comes time to vote or take positions on issues.

I’ll close with his #1– the bane of political journalists:

#1.  It’s The Fundamentals, Stupid

The most exciting and visible part of politics is the political campaign. Politicians and their team of strategists, pollsters, and surrogates wage battle for the votes of the public. Slogans are trumpeted. Gaffes are made. Tactics are deployed.

And it probably does not matter all that much.

At least not as much as the political environment matters. Presidential elections can be forecast with incredible accuracy well before the campaign really begins. In fact, if all you know is the state of the economy, you know pretty well how the incumbent party will do. See, for instance, Figure 1. If you account for a little bit more, like whether the country is at war, how long the president’s party has held the office, and which candidate is more ideologically moderate, you can do even better. (Gelman and King, 1993, Vavreck, 2009, Hibbs, 2000, Bartels and Zaller, 2001).

This piece should actually be required reading for anybody who ever writes a political story.  It’s understandable that ordinary Americans don’t necessarily know these things– it’s inexcusable when political journalists do not.

Bored to Death

So, I was just going through Netflix new releases and noticed that HBO’s “Bored to Death” season 1 has just been released on DVD.  This show got off to a bit of a slow start, but once it truly embraced itself as an absurdist farce (reminds me of Curb Your Enthusiasm in many ways) it’s been extremely funny (season 2 is currently underway).  Ted Danson is terrific– and I’ve never been a particularly big Jason Schwartman (hated Rushmore) or Zach Galifinakis fan, but the three of them are great together.  Give it a try.

Christine O’Donnell: the gift that keeps on giving

I’m going to miss Christine O’Donnell when this election is over and she is remembered only by political junkies and PS professors (I think I may show her “I’m not a witch; I’m you” ad to students for many years).   The latest: she was somehow unaware that the 1st amendment actually calls for a separation of church and state:

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that “religious doctrine doesn’t belong in our public schools.”

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”

Yikes.  My guess is that O’Donnell is so used to listening to the conservative claptrap about the particular phrase “separation of church and state” not being in the Constitution that she failed to realize that the concept most definitely is embodied in the Constitution– in the establishment clause referenced by Coons.   Those Tea Partiers who love their Constitution so much might want to learn what it actually says.

Chart of the day (it’s the partisanship, stupid)

Gallup chart via The Monkey Cage:


I like to tell my intro students that partisanship is pretty much seeing the world through red or blue colored sunglasses.  This chart is as dramatic a demonstration of that fact as about anything.  It’s also worth noting that he independents line is surely deceptive.  If you broke that up into Republican and Democratic-leaning independents, you would surely see the exact same pattern among them.

Finally, though I find the 57% among Democrats under Bush higher than I’d like– though, if one were a citizen of Middle Eastern origin it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that the government was an immediate threat to citizens– that is still a good bit lower than the 2/3rd’s or Republicans who are clearly delusional about the “threat” that Obama poses.

%d bloggers like this: