...a new Gallup poll show[s] that the number of Americans who self-identify as conservative is twice the number who self-identify as liberal...
Twas always so. Harris has been tracking liberal vs. conservative ID for several decades, and the numbers have been pretty rock solid. Ronald Reagan made conservatism slightly more popular and Clinton made it slightly less, but the changes have been modest and today we're in almost precisely the same spot as we were in 1976. What's more, the fact that this supposedly conservative country continues to favor operational liberalism hasn't changed much either. Apparently we just don't like to admit it.
What are we to make of this? Is liberalism just less popular than conservatism as an ideology? Or have Republicans simply succeeded in turning the term "liberal" into a bad word?
Yglesias notices that black people, who vote straight Democratic than any other group, are less likely than whites to identify themselves as "liberal." A commenter suggests that maybe this is because black people tend to be economically progressive but socially conservative on issues like gay marriage. The implication is that people vote on economic issues, but identify themselves based on social issues - and that Americans are much more likely to favor traditional values than "conservative" economic policies.
I think there's some truth to this. But I think that there is an even deeper force at work here, which is that people know what "conservative" means a lot more than they know what "liberal" means.
If you're a conservative, it means you support low taxes and traditional family structure. Do these things have anything to do with each other? Not necessarily. But for decades, Republicans have been telling America that they go hand in hand - if you support low taxes but think gay marriage is OK, you're some kind of weird libertarian, and you aren't invited to the party. Ridiculous? Sure, but you have to admit, my definition of conservative was unambiguous and took less than one line to write.
Can we think of a similar definition for liberals? To say liberals support "higher taxes and non-traditional family structure" would be A) mostly wrong, and B) missing the real point of liberalism. So where does that leave us?
First of all, as the commenter on Yglesias' blog noted, social liberalism and economic liberalism aren't as linked as their conservative counterparts. But even within those categories, there's a lot of confusion.
Take economic liberalism, for example. Economic liberals used to be in favor of redistributing wealth by taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Some still are. But this idea fell out of favor when old-style welfare seemed to hit a dead-end in the 1980s. There are still lots of ideas floating around for how to use government to improve people's lives - universal health care, for instance - but it's no longer an ideology for most people. No coherent liberal economic philosophy has emerged to replace the old government-centric model. No wonder people support the policies but not the label!
And social liberalism is only marginally clearer. Civil rights and women's equality are mostly done deals. Non-traditional family arrangements are now the norm, and - with the glaring exception of gay marriage - widely accepted, if not always smiled upon. In fact, until George Bush's recent executive overreach, real oppression in American society has been hard to come by for the past few decades. One consequence of having the freest society on Earth is that there's not much work for a freedom fighter.
It's just plain hard to label yourself something when you don't know what that something is.
Now, I predict that the number of people calling themselves "conservatives" is going to continue to fall. George Bush and his authoritarian ways, not to mention the pork-and-deficits-crazy Republican Congress, have given the movement a bad name. But that, by itself, is not going to raise the "liberal" number. Before people start calling themselves liberal en masse again, the term is going to have to get a whole lot less mushy.
Bonus Reading Guide
I was on top of the Westin Hotel being shown the sites of the city, and I had a sudden crisis as I looked out at the extraordinary skyscrapers the architecture and the art deco. I thought to myself, well, the mandate of heaven has passed from us and come home.
It may be true that China is overtaking the U.S. as the world's preeminent power. But the idea that this is the historical norm is a bit ridiculous. China has not been regarded as the world's preeminent power or cultural center at any prior time in its history, except, ironically, when it was under the domination of the Mongols in the 1200s and 1300s. And if building art deco skyscrapers is the sign of the mandate of heaven, then the mandate of heaven now definitely belongs to Dubai.
0 comments:
Post a Comment