Comments on: Emotions and Politics

By: Jim Jasper

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:46:12 +0000

You raise a key question, Christian: what is the role for expert evidence and knowledge in a democracy? There are industries of social and natural scientists who know an enormous amount about various challenges we face as a nation and as a world. There are also economists who can plausibly tally up many of the costs and benefits of various policies.

We should not be controlled by experts, but we should take account of what they tell us, just as you suggest. Unfortunately, this has not worked well in practice. On the one hand, the experts tend to be arrogantly dismissive of the public. On the other, people tend to ignore what the experts say, often BECAUSE the experts say it. This is especially true in the US, with its strong Protestant heritage that suggests each person’s view is as good as anyone else’s. The populist right has done very well by targeting elite egghead intellectuals and professors (one of the reasons they have been able to starve public universities, but that is another issue).

The alternative to careful weighing of evidence is Faith, still very powerful in the US. Only a third of us believe evolution should be taught in schools without also teaching Creationism, and another third believe that Creationism should be taught and NOT evolution. A large and growing number of Americans do not believe in global warming.

In 2008 a near-consensus of economists thought we needed a giant stimulus package to prevent the collapse of the economy. That’s exactly what we got, because Obama believes in scientific evidence. Had McCain been elected, I am not sure we would have gotten this. Certainly, most Republicans opposed it, and blocked additional stimulus funds.

Let’s face it. The Republicans generally and Bush II especially have succeeded in part by appealing to faith rather than to evidence. The Democrats are not much better, but they are somewhat better. They do not reject scientific reason out of principle.

]]>

By: Christian

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 05:51:53 +0000

James, why not advocate the development of a movement that values both civility and progress? Does civility not appeal to the “masses”? How about facts and reason? It looks to me that there is plenty of emotion on both sides of the political spectrum. I think what is most needed is an understanding of the problems. If people understood the problems most comprehensibly, they would vote better–whatever this means–and we would ultimately end up with an improved country. So what I see as key is a group of intelligent, principled people enlightening the public about the nature of our nation’s problems. I don’t see any other path to sustained progress. If we focus on the emotional push to edge out a win, the same should be expected from the other side. So what you end up with at net is stagnation–not to mention the continuance of frustration and ignorance.

]]>

By: Jim Jasper

Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:21:44 +0000

Gary, I did not mean to say that all Democrats are nice, all Republicans naughty. But it does seem as though a smaller proportion of Republicans value procedural rationality over the logic of substance. The reason is obvious: more Republican voters derive or justify their positions on the basis of scriptures that they believe are the word of God. Compared to that, democratic procedures, constructed by flawed humans, are poor tools indeed. The tendency of Republicans to make disparaging comments about the judiciary suggest they do not accept its validity (like some of Bush’s comments in 2000), apparent evidence of a fundamental rejection of Constitutional procedure.

And my point was the the Obama administration passed up a fine opportunity to demonize the financial industry in classic populist style, even if money, not inherent sweetness, was the reason.

By the way, you don’t think Dick Cheney is the spawn of Satan?

]]>

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:59:54 +0000

I also appreciate James Jasper’s humor, and his insight. I think it is an empirical question about whether Republicans or Democrats use charged demonizing language. Certainly there is no equivalence between the President and those around him, in contrast to his opponents. And does it follow from what Jasper writes here and in his next post that pungent politics makes for good citizenship? Perhaps sometimes. But certainly at others, it does not.

]]>

By: Gary Alan Fine

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:00:05 +0000

My good friend James Jasper is well-known for his comedic prowess. He is among the wittiest of social scientists. In his essay “Emotions and Politics” he is insightful as usual. And he and I agree about the value of savory political speech.
However, he includes a claim, quite undefended, that is sure to provoke loud laughter and wild guffaws among any conservative who happens upon his commentary. Jasper argues that “Democratic politicians are rarely as cutthroat as their Republican opponents, who simply do not believe in democratic procedures as much as they believe in the substance of outcomes.” Huh. Here is a party that argues that Republicans want to kill old people (remember Alan Grayson), that the Tea Party is fundamentally racist, that Republicans are reprising Goebbels, that they are responsible for the shooting of Rep. Gabi Giffords and that Dick Cheney is the spawn of Satan (or is it the reverse?). Jim, remember how Obamacare was passed after the election of Senator Scott Brown. It was hardly a triumph of the niceties of democratic process over the substance of outcomes. I was just talking with Chief Justice Bork about this very point.
Despite partisan blinders, we have no good evidence on which party is sweeter and more tender, but it is absolutely true that partisans of each believe that their opponents are the blue meanies. Perhaps we can construct such a test with liberals and conservatives agreeing prior to collecting data on what will constitute a fair test. My bet is on “no significant differences.”
Until then Jim and I can agree that pungent politics makes for good citizenship.

]]>