Ezra Klein: Liberalism On The Rise?

« My Commenters Are Smarter Than Me: Mass Transit Edition | Main | The Aftermath »

August 30, 2007

Liberalism On The Rise?

To make one more point on Ross Douthat's article projecting a swing towards liberalism in this country, political science professor James Stimson has been using aggregate poll data to track public opinion towards policy over the last few decades. Here's what the trend looks like:

Liberalism, as measured through public attitudes, is higher than at any point since the 60s. Now, foreign affairs often take precedence over domestic populism, our political system is much more responsive to the attitudes of elites than the general sentiments of the electorate, our Madisonian structure makes large-scale change very hard, and so on. But there's serious movement here, and it will have an impact.

August 30, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

I like how the three periods of greatest gain all correspond to republican presidencies: Ike, Reagan, and Bush. Why the decline during Kennedy? Red panic or racial anxiety?

Posted by: Glenn | Aug 30, 2007 3:33:14 PM

Yeah, but do the increasing number of people who are more liberal, as indicated on the graph, actually view themselves as liberal?

Many people have rather liberal opinions but -- based on what the GOP has conditioned them to believe "liberals" are like, what the liberals and Democrats about which they know the most (corrupt big-city politicians, effete out-of-touch rich urbanites) are like, etc. -- would never call themselves "liberal" and might be leary about voting for Democrats because "they are too liberal".

People might prefer Cola X in a blind taste test, might describe their favorite Cola using characteristics most matching Cola X over Pepsi or Coke, etc. ... but they'll still be loyal to the Coke Classic brand because they "know" that they don't like Brand X as well ... just ask Coca-Cola about this one: people prefer New Coke, but look at how that went over marketing-wise.

Liberalism might be the New Coke of politics right now: people prefer it in "blind taste tests" (i.e. surveys of attitudes and beliefs), but they might still disdain it as a "brand".

Posted by: DAS | Aug 30, 2007 4:21:16 PM

Is Professor Stimson using the same metrics to define "liberal" during the entire period covered by that graph? Because I have a hard time believing that 1988 represented a peak of liberalism between 1968 and 2002. I remember the 1988 election -- Willie Horton anyone?

The population *may* be more "liberal" today in the sense that today's public may be more inclined to agree with positions espoused by today's liberals. But that is largely because liberals (and conservatives) have shifted pretty far to the right.

Back in the late 1980s, the big conservative-liberal debates were on things like criminal justice, welfare, gun control, and racial policy. And the conservatives won pretty much all of those fights. The death penalty is entrenched, minimum mandatory sentences are widespread, gun control is dead, and no one seems to be pushing to expand affirmative action. Except for a few bloggers here and there, these all are basically dead issues in the public discourse.

Another big liberal-conservative issue was policy toward the Soviets, unilateral disarmament, Pershing missiles, etc. The conservatives basically won that one, too, and then it became moot.

As I sit here, the only issue I can think of where the public has really become more liberal is gay rights. Otherwise, while liberals may be doing better in the debate on the issues that remain, that does not mean that the public has become more liberal.

Posted by: Steve H. | Aug 30, 2007 5:57:11 PM

Ezra, I don't quite understand your sentence "foreign affairs often take precedence over domestic populism". In 2002, 2004, and 2006, this was true. It's also likely to be true next year. However, this is actually quite atypical. I've got 1968-1972 as years possibly influenced by foreign affairs since realignment. Reagan's anti-Communism mattered, but it was part and parcel of "Morning in America" - the international aspect was less important than his domestic policies.

Posted by: Sam | Aug 30, 2007 6:01:34 PM

I think DAS nailed it. A large sampling of data re: policy positions:

http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report

Posted by: Lewis Carroll | Aug 30, 2007 9:18:44 PM

Many people have rather liberal opinions but -- based on what the GOP has conditioned them to believe "liberals" are like, what the liberals and Democrats about which they know the most (corrupt big-city politicians, effete out-of-touch rich urbanites) are like, etc. -- would never call themselves "liberal" and might be leary about voting for Democrats because "they are too liberal".

This is so true. Anecdotally I see it all the time. When my mom watched Fox News on a regular basis, she mentioned that Pelosi was "too liberal." I asked my mom, who honestly is probably more liberal than I on most issues, exactly how she was too liberal. She had no idea. A friend suggested gun control, but given that my mother actually cried at the mere suggestion that I wanted to learn how to shoot, I'm confident that is not her issue with Pelosi.

She's come around, but she has a good friend who similarly hates liberals. Said friend has a picture of George Bush on display. And yet, the same suggested there ought to be laws restricting income on the most wealthy.

Liberals' failure seems to be as much an issue of marketing as anything. Rather than defenders of the poor and oppressed, we've let these decidedly nasty people paint us as baby killers and haters of individual wealth.

Posted by: Magenta | Aug 31, 2007 12:02:00 AM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘