Posted by Ilya Somin:
Political Ignorance and the Power of Labeling:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_08-2009_02_14.shtml#1234164290
Economist David Friedman has [1]an excellent post on the power of
political labeling to influence opinion:
A well chosen name wins an argument by assuming its conclusion.
Label cash subsidies to foreign government as "foreign aid" and who
can be so hard hearted as to oppose them. Call subsidies to the
public schools "aid to education" and you neatly skip over the
question of whether additional spending in the public school system
results in more education. Label something "pollution" and is no
longer necessary to offer evidence that it is bad, since everyone
knows pollution is bad�even thermal pollution, otherwise described
as warm water. Occasionally we even get dueling names. Both "right
to life" and "pro-choice" are obviously good things; how could
anyone be against either?
For a more recent example, consider Obama's economic policy.
Everyone�including Obama, back when he was running for President�is
against deficit spending. Relabel it "stimulus" and everyone is for
it. The label neatly evades the question of whether having the
government borrow money and spend it is actually a way of getting
out of a recession�a claim for which evidence is distinctly thin.
It is stimulus, so obviously it must stimulate.
Friedman's list of rhetorical manipulations can easily be extended.
For example,[2] polls show that whether the public supports or opposes
race-conscious policies that seek to aid minorities depends crucially
on whether they are described as "affirmative action" (which gets
strong majority support) or "racial preferences" (a term that triggers
overwhelming opposition). Conservative activists use rhetorical ploys
to prop up support for their positions no less than liberal ones do.
For example, they label critics of harsh sentencing guidelinesas "soft
on crime," even though the point at issue is precisely whether these
laws really do reduce crime better than alternative policies would.
Why is such rhetorical manipulation effective? If voters were
well-informed about the details of public policy, clever labeling
would be unlikely to sway them. If you have a well-informed opinion
about affirmative action or Obama's stimulus plan, you probably won't
change your mind merely because of a change in terminology.
In reality, however, most citizens know very little about politics and
public policy, and [3]it is perfectly "rational" behavior for them to
remain largely ignorant. As a result, they can be swayed by rhetorical
ploys such as the ones described by Friedman. That, in turn,
[4]explains why politicians and activists expend so much effort
manipulating voter ignorance by cloaking their policies in attractive
rhetoric, and making those labels stick in the public mind. Often, the
side with the better rhetoric or more easily packaged programs will
win over the side with the better, but more difficult to label
policies.
References
1. http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2009/01/stimulus-power-of-names.html
2. http://volokh.com/posts/1187306551.shtml
3. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916963
4. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_14-2008_09_20.shtml#1221851645
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
