Re: Republican Reversal
Voter attitudes generally reflect a conventional wisdom that is shaped by the corporate media and statist educational system. A whole series of buzzwords comes to mind--ideological hegemony, the sociology of knowledge, reproduction of human capital--but they all boil down to the fact that a fairly centralized cultural apparatus is effective at creating the kinds of public opinion the existing system of power needs to survive. Concerning the real issues involved in our politics, and the contending groups that are actually represented in the state's decision-making, I'd say Thomas Ferguson and William Domhoff were closer to the mark than the interest group pluralists are. From: Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:31:43 -0700 (PDT) These are all good comments on the Republican reversal. Thus, I take it that the list agrees that democracy works pretty well in reflecting the wishes of the voters. Alex I don't agree. What about the large literature on voter ignorance and rent seeking? Does the typical American agree, for example, that it is good policy to spend billions on farm subsidies, or are they just ignorant and apathetic? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Republican Reversal
Kevin Carson wrote: Voter attitudes generally reflect a conventional wisdom that is shaped by the corporate media and statist educational system. A whole series of buzzwords comes to mind--ideological hegemony, the sociology of knowledge, reproduction of human capital--but they all boil down to the fact that a fairly centralized cultural apparatus is effective at creating the kinds of public opinion the existing system of power needs to survive. Once again, why do you focus on the centralized cultural apparatus? Would decentralizing things really do much to change people's political views? There used to be many more newspapers in the 1930s, for example. But then you just had thousands of newspapers arguing for intervention instead of ten or twenty. What's the difference? Concerning the real issues involved in our politics, and the contending groups that are actually represented in the state's decision-making, I'd say Thomas Ferguson and William Domhoff were closer to the mark than the interest group pluralists are. I'd say it's closest to the mark to say that most voters genuinely but stupidly want government to do what it actually does. The interest groups just take care of the details. From: Fred Foldvary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:31:43 -0700 (PDT) These are all good comments on the Republican reversal. Thus, I take it that the list agrees that democracy works pretty well in reflecting the wishes of the voters. Alex I don't agree. What about the large literature on voter ignorance and rent seeking? Does the typical American agree, for example, that it is good policy to spend billions on farm subsidies, or are they just ignorant and apathetic? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it. Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
Re: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
Grey Thomas wrote: Let us assume the Bible is not true; further, that there is no Biblical God. Thus, no basis for ANY of the 10 commandments, nor thus for any absolute moral good vs. evil. So fornication, adultery, stealing, murder are not This obviously results in a selfish, mean society full of big and little criminals who are constantly calculating how to cheat and steal the most while getting away with it; life is for the current momentary pleasure. ... Irrespective of the objective truth of the Bible, the superiority of a Bible believing society is a position I strongly believe, Doesn't your position commit you to believing that the people in our society who do not believe in the Bible are in fact mostly selfish mean criminals? What empirical support is there for this claim?
RE: Republican Reversal
Perhaps it is just me but calling my faith wrong is more offensive than calling my economics wrong. Alex, I am sorry if I misunderstood your intent. I think you do raise a great question. However the two a little different... If I am wrong about my belief that the Bible is true (at least the first few chapters) then what is my cost (risk)? Nothing. It really costs me nothing to disbelieve the evidence of evolution. However there is risk (cost) in the other position if it turns out the Bible is right. In terms of farm subsidies if a person who supports them is wrong (as we agree he is) then there is a cost to them. In summary: In terms of religious doctrine related to our origins there is no cost associated with being wrong however there is a cost related to being wrong about economics. Lynn -Original Message- From: Anton Sherwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 6:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Gray, Lynn wrote: By saying it was inappropriate I meant it was rude. I am aware of the weight of the evidence in regard to human evolution. However, to say that those who believe in Biblical creation are dumb/ignorant is at the very least less than good manners. Worse than saying the same of people with wrong ideas about economics? -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
RE: Republican Reversal
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Gray, Lynn wrote: In summary: In terms of religious doctrine related to our origins there is no cost associated with being wrong however there is a cost related to being wrong about economics. Actually, Caplan's rational irrationality point is that there is no cost to being wrong about EITHER of these. Any individual voter will make zero difference in political outcomes, so beliefs not founded on fact or science are just as costless in voting space as in religious space. Check out one of Caplan's articles on the topic -- www.bcaplan.com .. links can be found under his academic economics section. Lynn -Original Message- From: Anton Sherwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 6:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Gray, Lynn wrote: By saying it was inappropriate I meant it was rude. I am aware of the weight of the evidence in regard to human evolution. However, to say that those who believe in Biblical creation are dumb/ignorant is at the very least less than good manners. Worse than saying the same of people with wrong ideas about economics? -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
RE: Republican Reversal
Lynn wrote: In terms of farm subsidies if a person who supports them is wrong (as we agree he is) then there is a cost to them. NO! There is a cost to society as a whole (including the individual) if the majority is wrong about farm subsidies - but the individual has no effect on this majority what so ever. Hence there are no marginal costs from being totally in the dark about the effect of farm subsidies. This is the essence of rational irrationality: that it is in fact rational, because it is costless (at the margin, to the individual). This distinguishes rational irrationality from outright (or irrational) irrationality(e.g. believing you can fly, when you are working on the roof of a tall building). Note that it may be rational irrationality to believe you can fly if you live in a cave and never venture out, since your belief is never confronted with reality. This is in fact how rational irrationality may be caught out most easily: when people are confronted with a non- costless experiment involving their belief in question (religious soldiers confident of the honour - and afterlife reward - of dying in battle actually facing an enemy shooting at them; or a religious man believing in eternal damnation for fornication actually meeting a model willing to have sex with him)) The above is based on explanations and examples taken from Bryan's work on the subject (to be found on his website). Any misinterpretations are of course mine. yours jacob braestrup
RE: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
This seems awfully off topic, but the notion that atheism implies an immoral society is not true. For a primer, visit: www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/morality-and-atheism.html Regarding believing biblical creation, every person should know that the Bible contradicts itself on creation. One example: GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. Insisting on the LITERAL truth a story that is internally inconsistent does not put one on the logical or factual high ground. That said, courtesy demands that I welcome rebuttals, but I'll not continue on this tangent myself. Thanks, -jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
RE: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
Irrespective of the objective truth of the Bible, the superiority of a Bible believing society is a position I strongly believe, Doesn't your position commit you to believing that the people in our society who do not believe in the Bible are in fact mostly selfish mean criminals? What empirical support is there for this claim? Most folks criminals/immoral? Not at all, only generally more immorally acting people as belief goes down. Further, I derive support for this from limited thought experiments: Society A: more Atheist, Society B: more Bible Believing. In which society do I expect more fraud? more cheating spouses promiscuity? more theft? more murder? Well, even without empirical support, I believe B will be better for me to live in, whether I, personally, am a weak Episcopalian/ agnostic/ atheist/ or devout believer. I'd be very interested in your answers to the following: 1) Which of the two Societies, more Atheist or more Believing, do you believe would be better? 2) Do you have empirical support for your belief? 3) Does empirical support matter in this case? Recall this is my initial attempt to answer Alex's question about what changes peoples' minds. But my 2 3 challenges above also touch on the Occam's razor issue earlier and the burden of proof with respect to the existence of God. I do not think the atheist has to prove there is no God -- his job is much harder. He has to prove, empirically, that an more atheist society is better than one with more believers. Until he can do so, it seems quite rational for believers who want a better overall society to remain believers--don't you think? Not to leave it unsaid, the recent Nazi Commie attempts at atheistic societies in practice (empirical evidence?) make me think any anti-believer has a lot of problems. Tom Grey, an American Libertarian/neo-conservative, happily living in ex-Commie Slovakia (you're welcome to write me directly too) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Republican Reversal -- from whence, belief?
Tom Grey wrote Further, I derive support for this from limited thought experiments: Society A: more Atheist, Society B: more Bible Believing. In which society do I expect more fraud? more cheating spouses promiscuity? more theft? more murder? Well, even without empirical support, I believe B will be better for me to live in, whether I, personally, am a weak Episcopalian/ agnostic/ atheist/ or devout believer. The data do not seem to support the hypothesis England and France, for example, are much less bible believing than the U.S. but overall have lower crime rates (and despite their reputation the French are apparently not especially promiscious). The U.S. South is much more bible believing than the North but crime rates are higher. Atheism increases with education and income (even more clearly bible beleving falls with education and income) but crime falls with education and income. The hypothesis is not well framed but if we were to say simply that societies with more bible believing should have lower crime rates etc. than that is even more decisively refuted because most of the world is not bible believing and the Asian societies, in particular, appear to have lower crime rates etc. It's tricky, but by some measures Confucian's, for example, can be considered atheists (Confucious was a person not a god) albeit not secular atheists. I have little doubt that you will find that Confucian's in the United States say have lower rates of crime etc. than bible believers. None of this controls for other factors, of course, so I do not claim causality and of course counter-examples can be found (no need to mention them) but the limited-evidence ought to be enough to cast doubt on the limited thought experiments. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Republican Reversal
--- Michael Etchison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CongressCritter does is to decide what to do not about, say, farm subsidies generally, but about SB1234, sponsored by Sen. This and Sen. That, which goes through specific committees with specific members... So the farm bill never went to the floor for a vote? While it is possible that the general public would approve of a bill that would cost the average family $4,377 over the next decade in order to give increased subsidies to a population whose average net worth is $546,000 and who's net income was ALREADY 21% gov't handouts--handouts which are causing massive problems for some of the world's truly poor--it seems hard to believe. Certainly believeable, but hard to believe. This bill certainly must have went to the floor of both houses, where it must have passed by a majority of votes. This seems a pretty good example of a real world event. Yes, it is certain that Senator Somesuch gets bogged down in the specifics, and it is certainly true that the act of governing is ALOT more complicated than outsiders would like to believe, but none of that changes the fact that an outrageous bill was passed. While I certainly do not wish to minimize the truth of your remarks--they seem quite insightful to me--I am nevertheless skeptical that an American public that is less [insert your perjorative here] would be more resistant to such legislation. Best wishes, jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
Re: Republican Reversal
Fred Foldvary wrote: Does the typical American agree, for example, that it is good policy to spend billions on farm subsidies, or are they just ignorant and apathetic? I don't know of any survey evidence on this exact question, but protection and industrial policy to save jobs are very popular. My interaction with most Americans suggests that they support farm subsidies. I even remember being five years old and getting a lecture from my mom in the grocery store on the necessity of farm price supports - You see, little Bryan, that these supports seem to keep prices up. But if you got rid of them prices would soon be even higher. It made sense at the time. And no, we were not farmers! -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lives in deadly terror of agreeing; 'Twould make him seem an ordinary being. Indeed, he's so in love with contradiction, He'll turn against his most profound conviction And with a furious eloquence deplore it, If only someone else is speaking for it. Moliere, *The Misanthrope*
RE: Republican Reversal
In the real world we have almost 600 in Congress, dealing with innumerable matters more or less simultaneously. One of the things each CongressCritter does is to decide what to do not about, say, farm subsidies generally, but about SB1234, sponsored by Sen. This and Sen. That, which goes through specific committees with specific members, at specific times, during which times specific other things are happening, and other things are reasonably foreseeable (to happen or to avoid). Let me add a very non-economic note to this discussion. The economic approach to studying policy outcomes is essentially some combination of median voter theorem and public choice - ie, how much can the politician screw the voter before getting fired? Some political scientists have taken the approach outlined the above post. They understand policy outcomes as the result of institutions, networks of politicians,lobbyists and gov't bureaucrats and exogenous events (Ie, the terrorist attacks, Enron) that frame policy. The focus here is on the stuff that happens between the voter and the politicians. I don't think these approaches are really in conflict but what they do is capture different parts of the political procss. The median voter thing seems to capture the broad outlines of politics. America won't turn into Sweden just cause Tom Hayden read Robert's Rules of Order one day. Public opinion and honest elections set the broad paramters for what politicians can accomplish. OTOH, the gov't does so much stuff that politicians have to depend on committees, lobbiests (sp?) and gov't agencies to get anything passed. How can a semi-comprehensible law on uranium mining or Alaskan fishing rights be passed without consulting a million committess, the GAO or affeced parties? Furhtermore, all sort of random events may abruptly change how people percieve a law and add to this mix ths interactions between politicans and voters. Remember, you can do anything you want - if you can convince the median voter it was ok! If you buy this second story, then it's quite easy to see how individual policies may deviate greatly from the median voter. Fabio
Re: Republican Reversal
Yes, I believe that the majority of the American public supports farm subsidies. The rational ignorance assumption fails to explain this - it's not like the information that governments spends billions on the farmers is hard to find. Some combination of Bryan's rational irrationality and just plain irrationality explains the results much better. Forty four percent of the American public thinks that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (November 1997, Gallup Poll) so why should we be surprised that many Americans also support farm subsidies? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Republican Reversal
You mean He didn't? Rodney Weiher Alex Tabarrok wrote: Yes, I believe that the majority of the American public supports farm subsidies. The rational ignorance assumption fails to explain this - it's not like the information that governments spends billions on the farmers is hard to find. Some combination of Bryan's rational irrationality and just plain irrationality explains the results much better. Forty four percent of the American public thinks that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (November 1997, Gallup Poll) so why should we be surprised that many Americans also support farm subsidies? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Republican Reversal
fabio guillermo rojas wrote: . . . lobbiests (sp?) . . . Since you ask: lobbyists. `y' changes to `i' before `-est' (superlative) and `-(e)th' (ordinal) but not before `-ist' (agent). -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/ athier than thou
RE: Republican Reversal
The implication that those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible are ignorant was inappropriate, Alex. Lynn -Original Message- From: Alex Tabarrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Yes, I believe that the majority of the American public supports farm subsidies. The rational ignorance assumption fails to explain this - it's not like the information that governments spends billions on the farmers is hard to find. Some combination of Bryan's rational irrationality and just plain irrationality explains the results much better. Forty four percent of the American public thinks that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (November 1997, Gallup Poll) so why should we be surprised that many Americans also support farm subsidies? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Republican Reversal
Lynn Gray wrote: The implication that those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible are ignorant was inappropriate, Alex. Forty four percent of the American public thinks that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (November 1997, Gallup Poll) so why should we be surprised that many Americans also support farm subsidies? Why is this inappropriate? Don't we have far more reason to believe that humankind is more than 10,000 years old than we have to believe that farm subsidies don't work? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Republican Reversal
--- Alex wrote: Yes, I believe that the majority of the American public supports farm subsidies. Why do corporations, lawyers, unions, and other interests provide candidates and elected representatives with millions of dollars of funds and favors if they just vote to satisfy the median voter? Is the literature on rent seeking empirically irrelevant? For example, if the typical American favors subsidies to sugar farmers and does not mind if the domestic price is over twice the world price, and does not care much if candy-making jobs are moving to Canada, why do sugar farmers contribute funds to candidates if the representatives would vote for the subsidy anyway? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
Re: Republican Reversal
Actually, if you read closely, you will see that I implied that Americans who believe that God created human beings pretty much the way they are now about 10,000 years ago are *not* ignorant. The remarks were appropriate because they address the issue under discussion. As economists, we are often surprised that government policy differs so dramatically from what we think is efficient (and also equitable). Sometimes we like to think, as Fred put it, that the reason for this is that the public is ignorant and fooled by the government/special interests etc. We like to think that if only the public were informed they would denounce farm subsidies as many of us do. But why should we think this when information about, for example, the farm subsidy program is widely available? The evidence is even stronger in other fields that information per-se often does not change people's minds. The scientific consensus in favor of evolution is far stronger than the economic consensus against farm subsidies and the scientists have the advantage of support from the public school system and the media and yet, in America, they have not managed to convince a large segment of the population about the most important and fundamental fact of biology. If information doesn't change people's minds - what does? Or, at least, what causes people to have the beliefs that they have? This is where Bryan's important work comes in. Understanding these sorts of questions will give us a much better understanding of social change. Alex Gray, Lynn wrote: The implication that those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible are ignorant was inappropriate, Alex. Lynn -Original Message- From: Alex Tabarrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Yes, I believe that the majority of the American public supports farm subsidies. The rational ignorance assumption fails to explain this - it's not like the information that governments spends billions on the farmers is hard to find. Some combination of Bryan's rational irrationality and just plain irrationality explains the results much better. Forty four percent of the American public thinks that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (November 1997, Gallup Poll) so why should we be surprised that many Americans also support farm subsidies? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Republican Reversal
By saying it was inappropriate I meant it was rude. I am aware of the weight of the evidence in regard to human evolution. However, to say that those who believe in Biblical creation are dumb/ignorant is at the very least less than good manners. Lynn -Original Message- From: Robin Hanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Republican Reversal Lynn Gray wrote: The implication that those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible are ignorant was inappropriate, Alex. Forty four percent of the American public thinks that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. (November 1997, Gallup Poll) so why should we be surprised that many Americans also support farm subsidies? Why is this inappropriate? Don't we have far more reason to believe that humankind is more than 10,000 years old than we have to believe that farm subsidies don't work? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Republican Reversal
Fred Foldvary wrote: ...if the typical American favors subsidies to sugar farmers and does not mind if the domestic price is over twice the world price, and does not care much if candy-making jobs are moving to Canada, why do sugar farmers contribute funds to candidates if the representatives would vote for the subsidy anyway? The public supports farm subsidies in general. The politicians and special interests joust over the details. This is a long way from saying that government policies can be explained by rational ignorance and/or rent seeking. I will certainly grant that these ideas explain some things such as details of the tax code but if you look at the budget the vast majority of it goes to programs that the public supports in large numbers. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Republican Reversal
Gray, Lynn wrote: By saying it was inappropriate I meant it was rude. I am aware of the weight of the evidence in regard to human evolution. However, to say that those who believe in Biblical creation are dumb/ignorant is at the very least less than good manners. Worse than saying the same of people with wrong ideas about economics? -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
RE: Republican Reversal
--- Alex wrote: Yes, I believe that the majority of the American public supports farm subsidies. to which Fred Foldvary replied: Why do corporations, lawyers, unions, and other interests provide candidates and elected representatives with millions of dollars of funds and favors if they just vote to satisfy the median voter? Is the literature on rent seeking empirically irrelevant? There is a difference between supporting farm subsidies and supporting a particular pattern of subsidies, and that is no doubt worth fighting over. It remains possible both to think American generally support farm support, and to have reservations about particular aspects (such as the support of all the mohair grown in my area, or sugar). Of course, as a practical political matter, a whole bunch of logs have to get rolled for a farm-support bill to pass, so the question is, again, whether the representative American voter (or eligible voter) thinks that overall he is better served by something like the rent-ridden present system or by a system in which there is no rent -- and _his_ favored projects are not supported. Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
Re: Republican Reversal
These are all good comments on the Republican reversal. Thus, I take it that the list agrees that democracy works pretty well in reflecting the wishes of the voters. Alex I don't agree. What about the large literature on voter ignorance and rent seeking? Does the typical American agree, for example, that it is good policy to spend billions on farm subsidies, or are they just ignorant and apathetic? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
RE: Republican Reversal
Fred Foldvary: Does the typical American agree, for example, that it is good policy to spend billions on farm subsidies, or are they just ignorant and apathetic? But that is not an example of anything that happens in the real world. In the real world we have almost 600 in Congress, dealing with innumerable matters more or less simultaneously. One of the things each CongressCritter does is to decide what to do not about, say, farm subsidies generally, but about SB1234, sponsored by Sen. This and Sen. That, which goes through specific committees with specific members, at specific times, during which times specific other things are happening, and other things are reasonably foreseeable (to happen or to avoid). And CongressCritter Smith has, all this time, to consider voters Jones and Garcia, and donors Baker and Charles, and potential rival Taylor. So the relevant question would be not whether CongressCritter Smith does exactly what Voter Jones would have him do -- but what Jones would do in Smith's place that is any different. Or -- more accurately yet -- is what Smith actually does so different from what Jones would do that it is worth Jones's getting upset about it? If not, then it makes some sense to say that Smith is not accurately representing Jones. But, of course, he may be representing a large enough group of non-Smiths that to represent _Smith_ would be to fail to do his duty to represent his constituency. Pseudo-economic analysis would be much easier, of course, if there were only a single issue, and every voter were a single-issue voter. Michael
Re: Republican Reversal
These are all good comments on the Republican reversal. Thus, I take it that the list agrees that democracy works pretty well in reflecting the wishes of the voters. Alex I'd say democracy reflects general trend in voter opinion pretty well, although some policies may be way out of whack. For example, who would argue that either Bush or Gore is very far from the median voter (except on abortion)? Or that conservative states like Idaho tend to have more conservative policies? Fabio
RE: Republican Reversal
There is some political science on this question. Perhaps the leading article in Dynamic Representation by James Stimson and his colleagues, American Political Science Review, 1995. They argue policy follows public opinion closely. John Samples Washington, DC -Original Message- From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wed 6/26/2002 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Republican Reversal These are all good comments on the Republican reversal. Thus, I take it that the list agrees that democracy works pretty well in reflecting the wishes of the voters. Alex I'd say democracy reflects general trend in voter opinion pretty well, although some policies may be way out of whack. For example, who would argue that either Bush or Gore is very far from the median voter (except on abortion)? Or that conservative states like Idaho tend to have more conservative policies? Fabio winmail.dat Description: application/ms-tnef
RE: Republican Reversal
I always thought the Republican challenge was given voice by an elderly woman in USA Today who said, when asked about the government shutdown, They can close the whole thing down as far as I'm concerned as long as they get the Social Security checks out. John Samples Washington, DC -Original Message- From: Carl Close [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tue 6/25/2002 8:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Republican Reversal Alex asks whether the Radical Republicans that were swept into the House in '94 were co-opted by institutions (Hypothesis #1), or co-opted by their constituents' softer views (Hypothesis #2)? I am inclined to hold Hypothesis #2. Why? Two reasons: First, if the Republican politicians softened while their constituents remained hardliners, then in the next elections they would have lost to challengers who castigated them for selling out. Second, the Radical Repubican Revolution didn't run deep in the electorate. Much of the Radical Republican strategy and image was forged by Newt Gingrich, who convinced many freshman Republicans to sign the so-called Contract with America. Gingrich saw the public's anger with Clinton (re: tax hikes, health care, and don't ask, don't tell) as an opportunity to shoot for a radical Republican agenda, but apparently misread the public, or at least misread its support for Gingrich himself, who lost popularity when his efforts contributed to temporary shutdowns of federal services. (Remember federal buildings being forced to close down for a day at a time, due to budget uncertainties?) With the demise of Gingrich, the Radical Repubicans lost their figurehead, and the so-called Radical Republican movement evaporated. It evaporated because it was thin to begin with. I don't think the above fully answers Alex's call for a way to distinguish between Hypothesis #1 and Hypothesis #2, but perhaps it's a good enough story to satisfy some of us. Comments? Criticisms? Carl Remember when the Republicans took control of the house in 1994 for the first time in something like 40 years and all the new young blood was talking about cutting government programs and scaling back everywhere? Remember all the newspaper reports about how everything would now change. Yeah, I can hardly remember it either. How distant those days seem. Notice that in recent days the Republicans have been proudly asserting how much *more* expensive their prescription drug plan is than the one Democrats have proposed. There are different ways of interpreting this volte-face. One way is to assert that this shows how corrupting the institutions of Washington are, how even people with good ideas are sucked in to the spending way of life etc. Calls for term limits etc. follow. An alternative interpretation, but ultimately perhaps the same thing, is to say that the public didn't really want what the Republicans said they were offering and the failure of the cut government group is simply a reflection of the public's desires. In this view it's the American people who are to blame for their government and not peculiar institutions. Comments? Ways to distinguish these explanations? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] winmail.dat Description: application/ms-tnef
