« How easy would it be to trade with aliens? | Main | The economic impact of Arctic melt »
Deliberately derivative blogging
I want to link to two posts I liked, here, and here. Here too. Think of this post as my equivalent of expressive voting. No, I'm not feeling rage but my calmness in such matters is probably just my personal defect and general lack of manliness when it comes to politics.
Kevin Drum wonders why Clinton and Obama supporters get so worked up at each other. Any fan of Dr. Seuss will know that policy similarity hardly matters. The two candidates represent two diametrically opposed portraits of the relationship between aesthetics and politics. Should we expect beauty, grace and universality, or should we derive our feel-good sentiments about politics from righteousness, confrontation, and sheer dogged persistence and feelings of ultimate desert? Given his desire for partisan confrontation, Paul Krugman is quite consistent in his skepticism about Barack Obama. The far more conservative but also far more aestheticized Andrew Sullivan is quite consistent in liking and indeed at times almost loving Obama. There really is a lot at stake in the Democratic primary; it's our current sense of the aesthetic, and of desert, that drives what our substantive policy views will be twenty or thirty years from now. Given the high turnout (never an accident), in an odd way there may be more at stake in the Democratic primary than there would be in a Clinton vs. McCain general election.
As an outsider, the dilemma is whether to side with the values you admire or whether that is a kind of fool's gold. If nothing else, we have Hillary Clinton to thank for reminding us (again) this week that politics is ultimately about power.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 7, 2008 at 06:51 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
This election cycle has stripped the mask off of "gay conservative" Sullivan; his blue-state blood is showing.
The invective flying back and forth between the Democratic contenders and their supporters is just another reminder of the difference between libs and cons. Most conservatives may think your garden variety liberal is incorrect, midguided or uninformed, but many liberal aquaintances of mine seem to find people disagreeing with them immoral or evil. I mean, come on, Obama's foreign policy twit Samantha Power was quoted in the Scotsman today as saying Hillary is a monster, and her only complaint was that she thought the comment was off the record!
Posted by: Brutus at Mar 7, 2008 7:56:31 AM
a bit more pejorative, brutus...I think most conservatives think your garden variety liberal is not just incorrect, but stupid.
Posted by: shawn at Mar 7, 2008 8:57:59 AM
Signs you're an Obama supporting Marginal Revolution reader: I had a nightmare last night that Obama was down to 60% on InTrade.
Posted by: Joel W at Mar 7, 2008 9:12:50 AM
Brutus,
Come on, there's vitriol on both sides.
Posted by: josh at Mar 7, 2008 9:24:08 AM
Vitriol on both sides, sure. But to deny Brutus the point is to be blind to experience. The vitriol from each pole has a different character.
I suggest it revolves around the *compassion*. Lefties want to help immediately (give handouts, treat the populace as infants). Righties want to help gradually (demand work for aid, treat the populace as teenagers). Immediacy appears more compassionate when every problem is reported as a dire emergency crisis.
Those who disagree with lefties are seen by lefties as evil and heartless: Who would let a baby starve on the street or deny a bleeding man bandages? Selfish B*stard!
Those who disagree with righties are seen by righties as naive or retarded: Can't you follow the reasoning that handouts create dependence or that people are crafty enough to game any utopian scheme? Grow up!
Posted by: foxmarks at Mar 7, 2008 11:21:34 AM
Have Brutus and Foxmarks been paying any attention to the American politics? Who calls themselves the "moral majority"? Who calls the other side sinners and/or unpatriotic?
It's the right wing that is more likely to preach "moral majority", "values voters", sin, damnation, faith, patriotism, etc. Newt Gingrich sent a memo to his fellow GOPAC partisans to use words like "disgusting", "corrupt", "sick" "pathetic" "anti flag" "anti family" "bizarre" when describing their opponents. Karl Rove, Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater repeatedly used this approach with great success (although Atwater expressed deep remorse on his deathbed).
Meanwhile, the Democrats are more often mocked for being excessively tolerant, soft, forgiving and/or overly intellectual.
Both sides have different values, of course, and both sides use hyperbole and emotion. The strategy of appealing to "hot button" emotional issues has been better mastered by the GOP.
Posted by: A student of economics at Mar 7, 2008 11:56:47 AM
I suggest it revolves around the *compassion*. Lefties want to help immediately (give handouts, treat the populace as infants). Righties want to help gradually (demand work for aid, treat the populace as teenagers). Immediacy appears more compassionate when every problem is reported as a dire emergency crisis.
I can assure you that if I thought this was a plausible interpretation of movement conservatism in the US today, I would not have nearly the same kind of moral objections to it. I think many of the members of that movement, in the media and in politics are evil b/c your description is not merely generous, but completely wrong.
Posted by: mpowell at Mar 7, 2008 11:58:28 AM
I would say not just aesthetics but also ethics. Despite the cherished stereotypes of some folks, not everyone who votes for a Democrat sees politics as the mere pursuit of swag, and some of us are morally distressed by a politics of division and demonization from any side. I don't know how Obama will play out, but he offers a language linking personal responsibility to national purpose. He's also clearly gets a lot of the smarter conservative critiques, and I'm surprised you all don't engage.
Posted by: Colin Danby at Mar 7, 2008 1:09:34 PM
Well then, mpowell, it appears the devil shift is complete...
Posted by: Doug at Mar 7, 2008 1:35:01 PM
well done, Doug.
Posted by: josh at Mar 7, 2008 1:47:15 PM
I think that "beauty" vs. "confrontation" is an oversimplification of the difference between Obama and Clinton. There are other differences that have driven the split in the party, including a dispute over whether Clinton's explanation for her Iraq war vote was disingenuous, whether Obama's health care and immigration ideas are too libertarian, and who has a better shot in the general election (i.e., democrats who think all republicans are racist vs. democrats who think no republican will vote for Hillary). These are real differences, not just superficial, stylistic issues.
Posted by: Bandwagon Smasher at Mar 7, 2008 2:11:09 PM
In the past few years, Republicans have thrown overboard all else save winning. (Remember redistricting in Texas? Swift-boats for truth?) As the administration in power, they have not hesitated to insult and assault the institutions of this country (constitution, military, fiscal policy) -- all under the guise of "national security" and knowing what's going to keep american safe from the haters. What Hillary has backed is that regime -- she will answer the phone at 3am. Obama has said that change involves working together (dems/repubs, US and world) -- and those SIGNIFICANT differences in tone will translate into policy. Tone matters (FDR, JFK, Reagan, anti-Carter) -- a lot.
If it's McCain vs. Clinton, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain took over Obama's mantle and placed her as the divider. If he can pull that off (and execute the plan among all the "strange bodies" present in the republican world these days), then we shall have a redder version of Obama. If McCain or Hillary pull in their respectively radical directions, we get another 4 yrs of Bush-style destruction. (I back Obama :)
Posted by: David Zetland at Mar 7, 2008 2:28:45 PM
"Meanwhile, the Democrats are more often mocked for being ... and/or overly intellectual."
Mocked for being overly intellectual?? Where have YOU been?
Posted by: Tom at Mar 7, 2008 3:38:05 PM
"Mocked for being overly intellectual?? Where have YOU been?"
E.g. Dukakis excoriated for being cool rather than irrationally emotional when asked about the death penalty for a hypothetical rapist of his wife - a dreaded "technocrat". Gore being called "ozone man" and wonkish compared to Bush's plain spoken folksiness and lack of interest in science, academics, etc.. Kerry being mocked for being "nuanced" and overanalyzing things as opposed to seeing everything as black/white and good/evil instinctively. Right wingers objecting to evolution as a liberal/science conspiracy by intellectuals. Ditto the scientific consensus on global climate change.
Pop into talk radio some time to hear this point of view expounded. I have little doubt that if Obama wins he'll be portrayed as an out of touch intellectual from Harvard who writes too many books while McCain's bottom of the class ranking will be trotted out as a plus to show that he's a regular guy who'd be fun to have a beer with.
Posted by: A student of economics at Mar 7, 2008 4:05:58 PM
Wow, the firestorm I lit...I have to check back more often.
The code words are instructive. The truly nasty ones, Nazi and racist, are the sole property of the Left. Would that some of my lib friends had something more substantial in their arsenals; these words are not the last refuge, but the opening move for many.
Student, any examples from this century? Gingrich had any sway when? How long has Atwater been dead? (I bet he wishes he were still alive to to cross swords with the new Prince of Darkness, David Axelrod).
But I've always cried "a plague on both your houses". I live in Massachusetts, the bluest of the blue states, where our Republicans are that non-dogmatic brand that are only fiscally conservative (gay marriage happened under which party here?) and our liberals are that extra-irritating brand that rely on decibels instead of facts in political discourse. The shrill tone of your basic lib here skews my opinion.
The wedges that the hard Left and hard Right have driven between the various factions in our society seem to me to guarantee "working together" will no longer be a hallmark of American politics.
A hot button topic here is instructive. The ultra-liberal mayor of Boston, Thomas "Mumbles" Menino, and his police commissioner have set up a program, the Safe Homes Initiative, where the police can wander up to your front door and and take advantage of frightened residents in high-crime areas by "offering", without probable cause or a warrent, to search their homes for weapons that unruly youngsters may have hidden in their bedrooms, a sort of lefty version of the warrentless wiretaps so popular with the Bushies.
I don't see a modicum of difference between the left and right when it comes to infringing on my civil rights.
Posted by: Brutus at Mar 7, 2008 4:38:26 PM
Actually, Brutus, accusations of 'nazi' and 'racist' aren't the sole property of the left.
One of the most popular talk radio hosts in the US is Rush Limbaugh, and he has compared Obama's charisma and the enthusiasm of his supporters to Hitler and the Nazis.
He also has accused the Clintons of racism on a number of occasions, notably during the contentious South Carolina primary.
Posted by: john paul at Mar 7, 2008 4:49:32 PM
"There really is a lot at stake in the Democratic primary; it's our current sense of the aesthetic, and of desert, that drives what our substantive policy views will be twenty or thirty years from now."
I'm sorry but I don't have the slightest idea what you're trying to say here. Could you please restate or expand?
Posted by: vanderleun at Mar 7, 2008 7:26:55 PM
Does anyone over 30, wacky libertarian idealogues excepted, actually vote based on *issues*? Haven't people learned from past experience that when people get elected, all the rhetoric is thrown out the window?
Posted by: Paul N at Mar 7, 2008 8:20:49 PM
Isn't anyone else excited Tyler has shown a hint of political preference? He works hard to remain apolitical, thus his post is 'deliberately derivative', as he wouldn't dare utter the words "I like.." or "I'm leaning towards.." himself. Well I like it Tyler, and I'm sorry the rest of the commenters aren't as excited by your coyness.
Posted by: O at Mar 7, 2008 11:34:44 PM
Seeing the situation as a contest between Obama's aesthetic virtue and Clinton's confrontational competence is certainly the the most interesting way to view the Democratic primaries. Regardless of the outcome, the argument will probably drive politics for decades to come. After all, it took Reagan 12 years to become the Republican nominee before he was elected president. If Obama is a Reagan, Clinton could be the Nixon.
Posted by: CG at Mar 8, 2008 1:58:07 AM
mpowell:
Help me out. When I read the response I think many of the members of that movement, in the media and in politics are evil b/c your description is not merely generous, but completely wrong, I hear either: "they're evil, so I think they're evil"; or, "righties don't want to help anybody but themselves...you're naive to think they have any social compassion".
What do you really mean? I assess the righties, even the most repugnant *moral majority* crusaders, motivated by the same desire to help fellow man as the repugnant lefty *equality is justice* wingnuts.
student: True, the religious righties adorn their rhetoric with moral assessments. The distinction I think you miss is that between sin and sinner. Kennedy/Clinton/Dukakis/whoever are called corrupt/disgusting/sick/whatever, but that different from being called evil by nature and construction. The Christian righties in your example have to work from the biblical pronouncement that man is corrupted by the devil. The lefties aren't burdened by any Christ-like optimism over human nature, so they can just directly say Bush/Reagan/Nixon is evil.
Also, the perspective that righties are anti-intellectual simpletons is another version of lefty attacks on the essential nature of their opposition. Righties do mock the ivory tower eggheads of the left, but they do not appear to consider themselves stupid or take pride in ignorance. Those qualities that are called folksy are also taken as markers of sincerity. GWB is not going to fool anyone with fancy linguistics, and he pretty much says the same thing all the time. That has a popular appeal which the lefties cannot match, so they have to resort to the ad hominem. Bush isn't fooling us, he's either an idiot or evil.
Posted by: foxmarks at Mar 8, 2008 3:11:38 AM
We know from all those rational voter calculations that voting is not a rational ends-oriented activity for the most part.
It's an expressive act, either expression of support for/against a candidate or expression of one's concept of self and civic duty.
Therefore, I it's hugely unlikely many people do strategic voting. I think it's much more likely that people allow their sympathy/antipathy for a candidate to dictate their views on electability.
Posted by: Mike D at Mar 10, 2008 6:33:00 PM
