"The net effect is again an increase in polarization."

Nolan McCarty on Party Polarization:

"Polarization

By Nolan McCarty on December 24, 2008 9:51 AM | No Comments

In the aftermath of the 2006 election, the era of polarization was declared over in such astute analyses as this one:

The impetus behind such conclusions was the extraordinary success of "Red State" Democrats such as Jon Tester and Heath Shuler. But few pundits took note of the fact the these Red Democrats were only moderate or conservative on a few social issues, but quite populist on economics and trade( TRUE ). Even fewer considered the consequences of the extinction of "Blue State" Republicans for polarization in Congress.

But now that Congress has adjourned sine die, Keith Poole has fired up the NOMINATE machine, and we can look at what impact, in any, the 2006 elections had on the level of party polarization in the House and Senate.

This first figure is an update of the data presented in our book with Howard Rosenthal showing the average difference between Democrats and Republicans on the DW-NOMINATE conservatism scale.

Do you see the dramatic collapse of polarization in congressional term beginning in 2007? Me neither. In fact, polarization rose in the 110th Congress just as it has almost every term since 1975. The House had set a record for polarization in the 109th, but the 110th broke it. The Senate broke its own record set in 1867.

So what might the future bring? To get a prediction that is hopefully at least as accurate as Joe Klein's, I have forecast the average conservatism of Democrats and Republicans for the next congressional term in the following way:

1. Assigned all returning members their DW-NOMINATE score from the preceding term.
2. Assigned all new members the average DW-NOMINATE score for their party and region. In other words, a new Democrat from the Midwest gets the average of all midwestern Democrats and a new Republican from the South is assigned the average of all southern Republicans.

Essentially, this procedure captures the effects of the regional distribution of partisan seat shifts. A seat shifted from Republicans to Democrats in the Northeast increases polarization whereas a Democratic pickup in the South decreases it. So here is what the House and Senate may look like next term.

In each of the figures, the red line is the average conservatism of Republicans, and the blue line is the average conservatism of the Democrats for each term since 1969. The triangles are my prediction for the next term. The Democratic average is expected to change very little, but the Republicans will be considerably more conservative. This, of course, is due to their continued hemorrhaging of seats outside the South. The net effect is again an increase in polarization.

All of this is predicated on the assumption that there will not be any major deviations from recent historical patterns. Of course, things could change. In the conclusion of our book (written in January 2005), Keith, Howard, and I speculate that a financial crisis triggered by a housing bubble might lead to a swing in the public's partisanship and ideology that might cause the Republicans to moderate. So we have the crisis, a modest swing in public attitudes, but if the congressional votes on the bailouts are any indication, the Republicans haven't take that last step."

A very interesting analysis.

"Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates. "

Since I've mentioned giving, here's Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times:

"Bleeding Heart Tightwads

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.

So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are."

"Several top Democratic senators have launched a behind-the-scenes effort to save Sen. Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship"

I don't talk about these kind of issues much because so many other people do. But here goes:

"Several top Democratic senators have launched a behind-the-scenes effort to save Sen. Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship, despite calls from a Democratic base seeking retribution for Lieberman’s vocal support of John McCain’s presidential campaign.

Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) are all involved in the effort, according to top Senate Democratic aides. These four senators — along with other Lieberman allies — are reaching out to the rest of the Democratic Senate caucus to try to ensure Lieberman survives a secret ballot vote on whether to strip him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

This effort, along with kind words from Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) last night about Lieberman, is giving the Connecticut senator some serious momentum heading into next week’s secret vote. Dodd’s involvement in saving his home-state senator is an extraordinary turn because Dodd backed Democratic candidate Ned Lamont in 2006 against Lieberman, who won the Connecticut Senate race as an independent. Dodd, however, had backed Lieberman in the Democratic primary and only switched support to Lamont when he became the Democratic nominee.

Also driving the effort to save Lieberman — an outcast with the progressive left — is the spirit behind Barack Obama’s victory.

“He’s got momentum, and we need to keep him in the caucus, and this fits into Barack Obama’s message of change and moving forward,” said one Senate Democratic aide familiar with discussions. “The message here is that we don’t want to start off a new era with retribution.”

I agree. Keep him where he is. It reminds me of Burke's treatment by the Whigs, which, well, really pissed me off. Lieberman is a Democrat. He was for the war. How many times have we heard the phrase "No litmus test", only to find out there's a folder of them that we have to pass before being a member of a party.

People like Lieberman, Friedman, and Hitchens, strike me as Democrats or leftists. Putting a hex on them because they supported the Iraq war seems wrong. It was a frightful mistake, but we might well make one ourselves someday out of the best of intentions.

"The new fusionism may well be fiscally conservative and socially tolerant "

Ilya Shapiro with a nice point on Cato:

"Indeed, this Tuesday’s election probably saw the highest-ever percentage of libertarians — depending on how you count them – vote for the Democratic presidential candidate (at least in the modern era, with the possible exception of the Nixon years). This despite that Democratic candidate being commonly seen as the most statist major-party candidate in history."

Makes sense to me.

"But this type of discussion may be beside the point; libertarian-conservative (in the sense of socially conservative, economically squishy) fusionism may have run its course, a relic of the Cold War. The new fusionism may well be fiscally conservative and socially tolerant (not necessarily liberal, just not wanting government to do anything about the way people live their private lives), including folks who might call themselves conservative cosmopolitans, crunchy cons, South Park conservatives, or indeed libertarians. Or they might eschew labels altogether but are sick of the rot coming from (or to) Washington. In other words: Purple America."

Goodbye Conservative/ GOP - libertarian fusion. Welcome to my world. Come on in.

Why Do I Focus So Much On Economics?

I tend not to comment on the following things:

1) Polls : They're imprecise, and, if you like the results, they're meaningful, but if you don't, they're crap.

2) Gaffes: Everybody makes them.

3) Changes Of Opinion : Quite often it makes sense, and, if you agree with the change, it's enlightenment, but if you don't, it's hypocrisy or putting your wet finger in the air.

There are probably others.

Also, Andrew Sullivan, Ron Chusid, Kos, a number of people, focus on everything the candidates say or their shortcomings, and that gets the lion's share of the press anyway, and, well, I don't enjoy it.

Some issues, like Gay Rights and Drug Policy, I've left to others like Andrew Sullivan and Reason, although I'll probably mention them more in the future.

However, my main point in focusing on economics and economic policy is that it is where libertarians most blow a gasket about the Democratic Party, and I endeavor to zero in on the crux of the problem. I don't guarantee to do it well, but, you get the point.

"will fret over the ballooning budget deficit brought on by slower growth and the enormous expense of bailing out Wall Street. "

New post by Robert Reich:

"Today will determine whether Barack Obama will be President of the United States beginning 12:00 noon, eastern standard time, on January 20, 2009. The next question is what he can accomplish thereafter.

Each of Obama's major initiatives – affordable health care, high-quality schools along with early-childhood education, an end to oil dependence along with a cap-and-trade system that reduces carbon emissions, a more equitable tax system, and a withdrawal from Iraq – would be difficult to achieve on its own. Together they comprise one of the most ambitious presidential agendas in living memory.

Is it achievable? Not even a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress – not even sixty Democratic votes in the Senate – can easily overcome the obstacles."

Read the whole post. Here's my comment:

Don said...

There is never just a president, there is an administration.You know that better than me, a nobody. As to this:

"Fiscal conservatives – including a newly-enlarged group of “blue-dog” Democrats – will fret over the ballooning budget deficit brought on by slower growth and the enormous expense of bailing out Wall Street. They’ll want to put any new spending initiatives on hold."

If you're a Democrat, we're in the same party. It's my job to fret. However, in the end, we'll work it out. That's my plan, at least.

Don the libertarian Democrat

Tuesday, 04 November, 2008

"who represent competing strains of Democratic economic thought": I'm A Sort Of Non-Competative Strand

Yesterday Free Exchange commented on the post by Robert Rubin and Jared Bernstein about interest and debt, and how they are viewed in the Democratic Party. My party. Now, you might well ask where I fit in, but I've about 600 posts now trying to answer that, so let's move on:

"ROBERT RUBIN and Jared Bernstein are two left-leaning economists (both of which have advised Barack Obama) who represent competing strains of Democratic economic thought. Mr Rubin, Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, was known as an economic centrist—pushing free trade and fiscal responsibility. Mr Bernstein is a more progressive economist, who has emphasised international labour standards and a robust social safety net.

Today, the New York Times published an opinion column co-written by Mr Rubin and Mr Bernstein. It lays out the broad areas of agreement between the two men which, one assumes, hints at what might emerge from an Obama administration. It's not particularly scary stuff—short-term stimulus, infrastructure investment, long-term fiscal discipline, sympathetic labour policies, and a trade policy that seeks to protect workers but not jobs or industries. A change in direction, to be sure, and one that deserves vigilant oversight, but not a new social democratic state."

Now, I didn't respond to this column because I also didn't see it as particularly scary or even interesting. It dealt at the level of nostrums. I'm more on Rubin's side, but I actually am concerned about Bernstein's concerns.

"What's most interesting to me are the areas where the two authors are forced to concede disagreement. One of these issues—the effect of long-run deficits on interest rates and economic growth—is one of the most contentious areas of debate for lefty economists. The authors write:

One of us (Mr. Rubin) views long-term fiscal deficits — in combination with a low national savings rate, large current account deficits and foreign portfolios that are heavily over-weighted in dollar-dominated assets — as a serious threat to long-term interest rates and our currency and, therefore, to our economic future. The other views these economic relationships as much weaker.

This is the view that shaped Clintonian deficit reduction. It also angered many Democrats, who would have preferred that increased revenues be used for a health insurance solution or public investments. Mr Rubin's position strikes me as fairly orthodox. The thing is, I'm not sure that it makes sense in light of recent events. A lot of people expected a dollar run to precipitate crisis. Instead, crisis precipitated a dollar boom."

Again, here I'm on Rubin's side. But I see the problem.

"And now, Calculated Risk is arguing that declining American deficits might result in higher long-term interest rates. Why? A reduction in the current account deficit would trim growth in foreign central bank investment in dollar-denominated assets, pushing up interest rates. In short, so long as Bretton Woods 2 held up, American deficits meant low interest rates. Only when that financial system comes apart can we expect Mr Rubin's conditions to obtain.

Mr Rubin was right about interest rates given that he was in a certain financial equilibrium, but he was wrong about which equilibrium he found himself in. Given Bretton Woods 2, and the resulting ability to borrow cheap, America should have borrowed heavily and ploughed Chinese capital into long-term domestic investments. By instead running a surplus, Mr Rubin simply made easy credit available to the private sector which, understandably, poured that credit into heavy consumption and investment in non-tradable sectors (like housing!) which weren't rendered comparatively unattractive by Chinese currency policies."

I saw the Calculated Risk post as well, and it bothered me. ( but see Setser here )

"So which should America choose moving forward? For the moment, the risk of a dollar collapse seems low, and the need for deficit spending appears high. Beyond that, we must see whether China will continue to finance American borrowing, or if China will allow domestic spending to flourish by letting the RMB appreciate. Increasingly America is learning that neither its monetary policy or its fiscal policy is as independent of international forces as it believed."

So, this really is food for thought. I agree with:

1) Risk of dollar collapse is low ( I also agree with 'seems' )

2) That's why I accept some deficit spending in the short term and a stimulus plan.

Where to go from here. Let me utter some nostrums:

1) A banking system based on Bagehot's Principles

2) Reducing government spending

3) Lower debt

4) A slight budget surplus or debt in normal times

5) Lower taxes, and fairer and more efficient taxes

I fear:

1) Inflation

But I have to admit, all these gyrations are making things hellishly complicated.

However, this post by Bob McTeer seems to echo more or less the same view, although I would disagree with him on some specifics:

"The most important near-term thing you could do to reassure financial markets and quell the turmoil is to announce early that you don't intend to eliminate President Bush's marginal tax-rate cuts. If you can't go that far, keep the adjustments as small as possible and announce your intentions to be moderate early. A little bad news early is better than great uncertainty and expecting the worse. ( I'm fine with small adjustments )

You have an education job to do. You must be able to articulate clearly how high tax rates on capital (capital gains, dividends, corporate taxes, the death tax, etc.) diminishes the demand for labor and keeps wages from rising. ( I agree )

While tax-rate increases are bad anytime, they are particularly bad in a recession. The timing couldn't be worse for a tax increase. ( I tend to agree, but the debt bothers me more )

Energy limitations must be attacked on all fronts: drill, drill, drill, nuclear, clean coal, wind, solar, and so forth. Don't push for energy independence; push for less energy dependence. ( I sort of agree, but have more environmental concerns )

Everyone knows that exports create jobs, but few focus on imports, which represent the gains from trade. Help educate people on the benefits of low prices via imports. ( I agree, basically )

Don't overdo the regulatory reaction to the current financial crisis. Another Sarbanes-Oxley is the last thing we need." ( I agree )

In other words, while things are in flux, let's stick to our general principles, while confronting reality and bending them where necessary. But like Becker and McTeer, I agree that we don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

As to Rubin and Bernstein, I'm not that bothered by either of them. I see them as sensible people. I've no fear of some massive economic shift. There will be tinkering, but tinkering can often be wise.

I Vote Democrat

I'm about to vote. I'm a Democrat. Unlike most Americans, I enjoy being in a party. I didn't always, but I do now. I like being in with a heterogenous group of people and principles and interests. It seems to make sense to me.

I'm more of a Tester, Schweitzer, Richardson, type of Democrat, but I like this ticket well enough, and I hope my party does very well this week.

In any case, I intend to keep developing the ideas and principles associated with being a libertarian Democrat. As I say, like the griffin, were not that hard to understand, only hard to find. I enjoy being a mythical creature.

I'm voting absentee. So here goes. I'll fill it out as the night goes on. I hope you vote as well, but you'd be wise to follow my example, just for the hell of it. Happy voting!