Why There Is Stalemate in Washington
My favorite study (pdf) in this space was by Yale’s Geoffrey Cohen. He had a control group of liberals and conservatives look at a generous welfare reform proposal and a harsh welfare reform proposal. As expected, liberals preferred the generous plan and conservatives favored the more stringent option. Then he had another group of liberals and conservatives look at the same plans, but this time, the plans were associated with parties.
Both liberals and conservatives followed their parties, even when their parties disagreed with their preferences. So when Democrats were said to favor the stringent welfare reform, for example, liberals went right along. Three scary sentences from the piece: “When reference group information was available, participants gave no weight to objective policy content, and instead assumed the position of their group as their own. This effect was as strong among people who were knowledgeable about welfare as it was among people who were not. Finally, participants persisted in the belief that they had formed their attitude autonomously even in the two group information conditions where they had not.”
On a related note, this is why I think that campaign-finance disclusre laws are wrong. As discussed in a recent NY Times article (http://tinyurl.com/3njf65k), the Citizens United Supreme Court case, which allows free political speech by organizations, permits laws that compel disclosure of who the organization is.
According to one scholar: “If all I tell you about a candidate is that he is backed by the N.R.A. or Planned Parenthood, that is all many voters need to know. The disclosure serves a shortcut function.”
But this “shortcut” is harmful because we all tend to rely on authorities who confirm our existing biases. We don’t make decisions based on the information or argument itself.
This is rather disconcerting. I agree that Members of Congress should look to their party for guidance. But they should also feel free to make their own decisions based not only on what’s best for their constituents but also what’s best for the country as a whole.
“Were there not even inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.”
–Alexander Hamilton, founder of the first American political party
If state legislatures weren’t allowed to gerrymander congressional districts to the extent they do, Members of Congress would likely be more moderate in their views. Districts are too safe for most incumbents. This polarizes the political positions.
The sample size for this study was 58 “liberals” and 31 “conservatives.”
The paper is larded with warnings like “Because of the limited number of students in the participant pool, the relevent selection criteria [of conservative as opposed to liberal classification] was weakened somewhat.”
What this paper may really show is that relatively liberal undergraduate psychology students at university X rely on group identity rather than facts.
Groupthink are its finest.
I find this interesting, but like Linda Gorman, I question it with such a low sample size, and a sample size made entirely of university students, who tend to be joiners and probably more disposed to groupthink.
Also, the Op-Ed linked to it horrible. At the end the author comes to the conclusion that the “GOP has no plausible solutions for our economy.” Really? Who made this person the arbiter of plausibility.
Personally I think opening up domestic energy production would plausibly create millions of jobs. Personally I think rolling back the regulatory cost of hiring a new employee, which has almost doubled under Obama, would plausibly create millions of jobs. Personally I think finally signing those 3 free trade deals the president is holding hostage would plausibly create millions of jobs – and even Obama agrees with that one, but he is still holding the bills hostage. I watch CNBC a lot, every CEO interviewed asks for clarity on regulations and taxes. I think creating more permanent pro-growth policies would provide that instead of short term measures and constant threats of new regulations – plus regulatory risk as unelected bureaucrats continue to write rules from the thousand page Dodd Frank and Obamacare bills.
Apparently the only plausible solution to Ezra Klein is more government spending.