I continue to be amazed at how ideology trumps facts in some people's minds. Some people, even those very prominent within their movements, are so convinced that they are right on principle that they cannot even appear to contemplate that they might be wrong, and are oblivious to the disastrous effects that clinging to such ideology in the face of a changing reality will have to their own goals.
In yesterday's New York Times article, Grover Norquist, the president for Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent conservative, scoffed at those who called for the Republican party to move left politically. "They will be cheerfully ignored," he said.
But what does he offer to regain a political majority? What has he or his movement proposed to deal with the real issues facing people today? We just had an election, and there seemed little appetite in the public for less economic regulation, a hands-free approach to health care, or letting people get kicked out of their homes. When families have problems paying the bills, ideology purity is not on their list of priorities. Though I think claims of a political realignment may be premature, there has been a significant shift in public attitude. And unless Mr. Norquist's party adjusts, he will find their proposals being uncheerfully ignored at the polls.
The same article cites Texas governor Rick Perry as advocating that the Republican party continue to stay focused on social issues, claiming that anti-gay marriage measures in California, Arizona, and Florida show that conservative social values still matter to many Americans and so would be an asset to the party that adopts and promotes them.
But he's fighting a losing battle. Regardless of the ability of people to change their minds on such matters (and some do), the demographics regarding gay marriage at least is inexorable: older people think this issue is far more important than younger people. The California anti-gay marriage voters have been losing ground every time it has been brought up, and most people think that the outcome will flip in four or eight years. People of course are free to have their individual opinions on the matter, but it would appear to be self-destructive for a political party to bet its future on what is clearly a losing demographic battle. Why a sitting governor would think that this approach is good for rebuilding his party is a mystery.
And in another context, Stephen Moore, founder of The Club For Growth and presently on the Wall Street Journal editorial board, was on the Colbert Report last week arguing that higher taxes would kill the economy, that we should cut all government spending by 25%. This despite clear evidence that the marginally higher tax rates of the Clinton years was a period of robust growth. This despite the fact that there is no serious possibility or will to cut our massive expenditures in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense by 25% (which, with debt financing, constitute over 65% of the budget), much less aid for schools, law enforcement, environmental protection, or a host of other less costly programs. Even if he's right that smaller government will make everyone better off in the long run, such a proposal has no political support whatsoever and is simply not politically possible. It doesn't address people's present needs and won't serve as a plausible platform for Republican reconstruction.
Principles are important. But they shouldn't be considered inviolate when reality requires a different approach.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Primary Memory Lane
Remember all those arguments that we heard during the primaries?
Hillary wins the big states.
Hillary wins the swing states necessary for Democrats to win in November (implying that Obama won't win those states).
Obama can't get the white blue-collar vote.
Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.
The supposed snubbing of Michigan and Florida in the primaries will be big problems for Democrats in the general election.
Just goes to show what many of us argued all along: you can't conclude much about general election results from primary results.
The idea that if people prefer A to B, then they won't prefer B to C was fallacious from the start. Perhaps intuitively attractive, but logically fallacious. We can't know if Clinton would have done better or worse than Obama in the general election, but we do know that his loss to Clinton in Ohio primary did not prevent him from winning Ohio against McCain. Or Pennsylvania. Or Florida. Or Indiana. Or New Hampshire. And he carried Virgina and North Carolina, states which might not have been as competitive if Clinton had been the nominee, though she probably would have had an easier time in Florida.
Most Clinton supporters came home to the party. Of course most of them would, just as most Obama supporters would have voted for Clinton if she had been the nominee. There was too much at stake for people not entirely wrapped up in the personality of the candidates to do otherwise.
The early primary controversies in Michigan and Florida turned out to be complete non-factors. Michigan wasn't even contested down the stretch, with the McCain campaign withdrawing from the state long before election day. Florida was close, but it was going to be so with Obama as the nominee regardless of what happened during the primaries. I've heard nothing to suggest that the Florida primary problems affected the final tallies in the general election.
As for the white blue-collar vote, Obama won white voters earning under $50,000 by 52% to 46% and received a greater percentage of the white vote than Gore and Kerry. And Pennsylvania, home of the blue-collar Clinton voter, was called very early on election night for Obama despite the concentrated efforts of the McCain campaign to wrest the state from the Democrats.
Sure, there may have been intervening factors that prognosticators weren't thinking about when they made their assertions during the primaries. The Palin selection may have pushed many Clinton supporters to Obama who might not otherwise have voted for him or stayed home. The financial crisis may have given Obama more heft with blue-collar voters than he would have had otherwise.
But I think it's hard to refute the assertion that many of the claims linking primary results to the general election were wrong. And it makes sense that they were wrong because they had little logical basis to begin with.
Do people who make assertions that turn out to be wrong ever admit their mistakes, or become more cautious about doing so in the future?
Hillary wins the big states.
Hillary wins the swing states necessary for Democrats to win in November (implying that Obama won't win those states).
Obama can't get the white blue-collar vote.
Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.
The supposed snubbing of Michigan and Florida in the primaries will be big problems for Democrats in the general election.
Just goes to show what many of us argued all along: you can't conclude much about general election results from primary results.
The idea that if people prefer A to B, then they won't prefer B to C was fallacious from the start. Perhaps intuitively attractive, but logically fallacious. We can't know if Clinton would have done better or worse than Obama in the general election, but we do know that his loss to Clinton in Ohio primary did not prevent him from winning Ohio against McCain. Or Pennsylvania. Or Florida. Or Indiana. Or New Hampshire. And he carried Virgina and North Carolina, states which might not have been as competitive if Clinton had been the nominee, though she probably would have had an easier time in Florida.
Most Clinton supporters came home to the party. Of course most of them would, just as most Obama supporters would have voted for Clinton if she had been the nominee. There was too much at stake for people not entirely wrapped up in the personality of the candidates to do otherwise.
The early primary controversies in Michigan and Florida turned out to be complete non-factors. Michigan wasn't even contested down the stretch, with the McCain campaign withdrawing from the state long before election day. Florida was close, but it was going to be so with Obama as the nominee regardless of what happened during the primaries. I've heard nothing to suggest that the Florida primary problems affected the final tallies in the general election.
As for the white blue-collar vote, Obama won white voters earning under $50,000 by 52% to 46% and received a greater percentage of the white vote than Gore and Kerry. And Pennsylvania, home of the blue-collar Clinton voter, was called very early on election night for Obama despite the concentrated efforts of the McCain campaign to wrest the state from the Democrats.
Sure, there may have been intervening factors that prognosticators weren't thinking about when they made their assertions during the primaries. The Palin selection may have pushed many Clinton supporters to Obama who might not otherwise have voted for him or stayed home. The financial crisis may have given Obama more heft with blue-collar voters than he would have had otherwise.
But I think it's hard to refute the assertion that many of the claims linking primary results to the general election were wrong. And it makes sense that they were wrong because they had little logical basis to begin with.
Do people who make assertions that turn out to be wrong ever admit their mistakes, or become more cautious about doing so in the future?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)