Conservative Schizophrenia?

by Will Wilkinson on March 7, 2009

Interesting stuff from Conor Friedersdorf on the tension between Galt-going and rightwing elite-bashing populism:

But do you know why we are in a position where this sort of massive expansion of government is possible? It is partly because America’s professional class — its lawyers, engineers, and doctors, those meritocrats who “got into the better colleges and grad schools” — voted in large numbers for the Democratic candidate. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that affluent professional meritocrats, who often live in urban centers and prize competence, spent the 2008 campaign being told by the GOPticket that big city professionals live in fake America, that a diploma from an elite college is reason for suspicion, that the wine these folks drink marks them as less authentic than the beer of their compatriots, etc.

The GOP cannot wage a culture war against elites when it is convenient to rally the base, and later make a credible claim to be the champion of those same elites when it comes time to talk about marginal tax rates. What does the average, apolitical law firm partner or neurosurgeon or mechanical engineer think when he flips on the television and sees Joe the Plumber being held up as the face of the Republican Party? Do they think, “This is a party that is going to reward meritocrats like me,” or do they think, “I’ve got a choice between a party that’s going to insult my intelligence, and another that’s going to take a slightly higher percentage of my annual earnings.”

I think this tension slackens a bit if we look at one of the most interesting charts in Gelman et al’s Red State, Blue State, which shows the changing voting trends among different occupational groups [the Y axis label, which I couldn't manage to snatch from Amazon is "Republican vote compared to national average" Thanks to Alphie for the link to Andrew's blog post about this, which I couldn't find when I looked.]

Republicans have been losing doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other white-collar types in droves. This is now a pretty solidly Democratic bloc. Let’s just say that these people are important to the economy but they aren’t very entrepreneurial either. Their jobs tend to be pretty secure and sometimes even involve guild-like licensing requirements. Meanwhile the Republicans have strongly consolidated their advantage among business owners and proprietors–people who personally  bear a lot of economic risk bringing products and services to market. It’s this strongly Republican group that I’d guess will most acutely feel increases in taxes and regulations and who are most likely to get mad about it. Meanwhile, the shift of “skilled workers” toward the GOP and the solid gains among “non-skilled workers” helps bring sense to the increasing appeal of bashing latte-sipping elites. That’s one gloss, at least.

  • eaglewingz08
    Yep I'm sure doctors will remain solidly democrap when they become part of the democrap DMV Health (or is that Hellth) Care system.
    You get what you pay for and the professional class paid for Mr. Obama and his policies have already gutted their retirement funds and the rest of his policies will gut their professional career choices and freedom. Well done, best and brightest.
  • There is no real internal conflict within the Republican party. There is simply a ton of wishful thinking within Liberal media--hoping that if they talk about it enough, then it will become reality.

    Sounds kind of like Obama's "Change" doctrine--no substance, but if you repeat it long enough, people will begin to believe it.
  • Very good information. I wonder how this drills down to greentech and it professionals. These two sectors are, imo, where the future must lie for our economy. Are the innovators and entrepreneurs in these sectors more liberal or more conservative?
  • Vangel
    The future? You mean like ethanol was supposed to be? It is time that people figured out that government bureaucrats and politicians are incapable of driving innovation and allocating resources. Let the market figure out who should get capital and who shouldn't.
  • How many of those professionals make their money from regulation? Either by helping people deal with it or by being protected by it or both?
  • uknowbetter
    Interesting charts.

    Makes sense though. Risks tend to scare democrats. They want a world without risk.
  • Conor Friedersdorf
    Thanks Will, that is helpful. I wonder if anyone has ever done work on how marginal tax rates and other things that impact returns to entrepreneurship affects the proportion of meritocratic elites who pursue professions versus proprietorship.
  • The Republican entrepreneurs you're talking about could also be called employers of low-wage labor. It shouldn't be surprising if they favor policies that keep wages down.
  • Vangel
    Both major parties are failures because they favour populism over principle. But the problem that they will always have is that the electorate is fickle and what is popular one year may be seen as terrible the next. The Democrats are now in charge and when the Hoover/FDR type of tax and spend programs that the Obama administration adopted fail the Republicans will get their turn to ruin the economy once again.
  • Paul G. Brown
    Vangel -

    "Both major parties are failures because they favour populism over principle. "

    Fail. Democracy enshrines populism over principle. And thank God. Principle is a worthless abstraction.

    "The Democrats are now in charge and when the Hoover/FDR type of tax and spend programs ... "

    Read your history. Hoover's was a "tax and spend" approach. FDRs was a "spend" approach. And that made all the difference. . .
  • Vangel
    "Democracy enshrines populism over principle. And thank God. Principle is a worthless abstraction. "

    I think that the Nuremberg Trials established that principle was not a worthless abstraction even though your argument would be that genocide was fine as long as the majority voted for it. That is the big problem with the big slippery slope that you are on; it is a very short way to the abyss that leads to serfdom or slavery.

    "Read your history. Hoover's was a "tax and spend" approach. FDRs was a "spend" approach. And that made all the difference. . ."

    I don't know where you get your misinformation from but you are clearly not aware of the facts. I suggest that you actually study history before you try to write about it. A good place to start would be FDR's, 'Revenue Act of 1935.' It used to be popularly called the "Soak the Rich Act" for reasons that I will let you guess about. Of course, FDR did not stop there. In 1936 he wanted to tax retained earnings and Congress passed a graduated surtax on earnings that was based on the percentage of earnings that were retained. It also increased the tax on inter-company dividends. The net effect was to increase taxes on corporations and reduce investment at a time when capital investments were needed to create jobs.

    I have no idea why the statists think so highly of FRD because the data shows that he never ended the depression that began with Hoover's administration. At the same time the great job done by Harding is ignored. The economy also contracted sharply as GNP fell by more than 20% in 1920 and unemployment more than doubled. But by cutting taxes and reducing the burden on the productive class by slashing government Harding allowed the market to liquidate malinvestments. By 1922 both GNP and employment rose sharply and the economy was off and running. It seems to me that Bush/Obama used the wrong model and followed the Hoover/FDR approach instead of the one taken by Harding. Sadly, the approach is likely to yield similar results as what was seen during the Great Depression. Expect a collapse in the real standard of living and full time employment and expect a major devaluation in the currency.
  • Paul_G_Brown
    I think that the Nuremberg Trials established that principle was not a worthless abstraction ...

    I invoke Goodwin's Law and declare myself the winner.

    Go me!
  • Vangel
    LOL. Does that mean that we can dismiss Gore/Hansen and their 'denier' smears?

    And the point is valid. A majority can decide that it can violate the rights of a minority. According to you that is fine because there are no principles that would make such an action unjust.
  • knb
    I wonder how well you could predict people's political allegiances by knowing which elite group they feel affinity for: academic elites or commercial elites.

    I bet managers/administrators and entrepreneurs admire and (aspire toward becoming) business heroes and millionaires. I suppose professionals admire mostly academics and politicians.

    I wonder, Will, do you think that being an academic causes you to feel an affinity toward liberal-libertarian fusion as opposed to libertarian-conservative fusion?
  • You could grab the complete image off Gelman's site and get some free commentary on the charts at the same time:

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/...
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: