The blog post originally appeared on Freakonomics.com
Matthew Yglesias recently noted that the very rich are unhappy with President Obama because he would like to increase the taxes on the very rich. Although this might be true, the number of people unhappy with Obama exceeds the number of people who comprise the very rich. So why are many of the non-rich unhappy with Obama? And why are so many other people quite happy with our current president?
Perhaps the answer is similar to a story frequently told about sports fans.
Back in the early 1990s, a friend of mine declared his hatred of Charles Barkley. At the time, Sir Charles was an All-Star for the Philadelphia 76ers. Sometime after this declaration, though, Barkley was traded to the Phoenix Suns. As a fan of the Suns, my friend changed his tune. With Sir Charles in Phoenix, my friend was now a fan of Barkley.
More recently, LeBron James was an extremely popular athlete in Cleveland. But when he changed his uniform to something from Miami, his popularity in Ohio plummeted.
These stories are not uncommon among sports fans. In fact, Jerry Seinfeld once observed that fans who behave like this are essentially "rooting for clothes."
Although many fans -- and I am one of these -- are essentially "rooting for clothes," the emotions sports generate are quite real. When one of my teams wins, I am quite happy (at least for awhile). And when my teams lose, I am unhappy (for more than just "awhile"). Sports may just be entertainment, but the power to alter our perspective on life -- if only for a short time -- is quite amazing.
Such power reminds me of how people react to politics.
A few days ago Brendan Nyhan -- a professor of political science at Dartmouth -- was interviewed on NPR's Morning Edition (discussing a paper Brendan wrote with Jason Reifler). This interview noted the following:
When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't.
But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control.
The flipped perceptions on gas prices isn't an aberration, said Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan. On a range of issues, partisans seem partial to their political loyalties over the facts. When those loyalties demand changing their views of the facts, he said, partisans seem willing to throw even consistency overboard.
The NPR story doesn't provide "a range of issues." But it isn't hard to come up with such a list. For example, consider these two issues:
One might think that in sports fans are rooting for players. But in reality, many fans are just rooting for clothes. Likewise, we might think that voters are interested in issues. But the above examples suggest that many voters are just rooting for parties. The actual issues each party says they care about don't seem to be very important. What is important is that the party the voter follows actually wins the elections.
And when this doesn't happen, as it did for Republicans in 2008, voters become very angry. A Gallup poll seems to capture this point.
Voters have been asked over time: "Do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens, or not?"
Over time, 46 percent of people generally say they believe the federal government poses such a threat. But who voted yes -- as the following graph indicates -- changed quite dramatically over time.
As Jeffrey Jones noted:
The results suggest that Americans' perceptions of the government as a threat may be less dependent on broader, philosophical views of government power, and instead have more to do with who is wielding that power. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to perceive the government as a threat. Now that a Democratic president is in office, the reverse is true.
One should note that while Democrats and Republicans changed their answer depending on whether their team was "winning," independents (like me) didn't change their view very much.
All of this suggests two research questions (and these questions may have already been addressed by someone -- in fact, some related research is referred to a recent New Yorker article by Ezra Klein).
First, it appears that issues may not matter as much as pundits think. So at least (and I am not sure how this can be done) I think we need to see how much voters are rooting for issues and how much voters are rooting for parties. If the latter effect dominates, maybe we need to have sportscasters discuss our elections (and maybe many voters would be happier waving pennants instead of protest signs).
In addition, it would also be interesting to see if sports and politics are treated the same by the human brain. Are these different activities mentally? My sense is that sports and politics really are the same. And again, that suggests the pundits often focus on the wrong issues in discussing why people are angry or happy about election results. Pundits often seem to think it is the actual issues that are driving people's reactions. But in the end, it might be that the parties -- or, following the sports analogy, "the clothes" -- that drive people's reactions.
Let me close with one more observation. If people are just rooting for parties, then efforts to "reach across the aisle" may be quite difficult. Again, think about sports. When LeBron left Cleveland, fans of the Cavaliers suddenly hated LeBron. He was still the same player, but his clothes had changed. The same story seems true in politics.
Regardless of the policies he pursues, many Republicans are not going to be happy with Obama because he plays for "Team Democrat." And the same may be true if Mitt Romney becomes president in November. As long as he persists in playing for "Team Republican," Democrats will not be happy with Romney.
If this is true, then "reaching across the aisle" may be pointless. Fans of the opposite party are not against the President because he doesn't agree with them on the issue. They are against the President because he plays for the "wrong" team. And unless he is willing to change teams (i.e. change clothes), he can try to "reach across the aisle" all day and he will never make the other team's fans happy.
Egypt election 2012 day two - live
Election 2012: Buena Vista Township Supervisor Dwayne Parker running for ...
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
I have always, and will always, loathe conservatism.
But the utter hypocrisy I have seen over the past 4 years has pretty well soured me on liberalism, as well.
Ex.- For YEARS, any thread on this site that mocked Bush for taking too long or too many vacations would have 1,000's of comments. I know. I was one of those mocking him.
But then, a few years later, when it's Obama and family taking constant vacations, the same people who mocked Bush are now defending Obama. AND they now call him a GOP'er for saying the SAME THINGS about Obama that I said about Bush.
Team Red vs. Team Blue.
You could not be more right. Very, very few people possess intellectual integrity.
I'm not convinced that a lot of the pundits are doing the intellectual work, either. I'm not seeing much effort to explore the thinking behind a given policy beyond the basics. For the most part, they are already sportscasters.
If a new President came into office in 2012 and in conjunction with a majority of the Senate and House announced a great expansion of oil leases (both on and off shore) and a relaxation of regulations it would have a dramatic effect on pricing. Sure, it would take a few years for the increased production to hit the market but oil is traded based on future expectations, not present.
In my opinion Obama has a deeply flawed understanding of basic economic principles. His policies not only don't accomplish the stated objectives, they are deeply destructive and regressive. Romney is better but his less than able defense of capitalism betrays a superficial knowledge.
I don't vote for my own personal benefit, if I did I'd jump into the ring for Obamacare because as a senior my health care costs would be subsidized by the young.
The country has become polarized, the media reports most things that way, and the government reflects those attitudes. Or did the government become more polarized, the media reports in that way and the populace reflects those attitudes. Either way, it's not pleasant or productive.
There are other claims here that do not quite ring true to me. For instance, claiming that Republicans were relatively quiet about the debt being racked up on their watch is definitely misleading. In fact, a large number of them, from VP Cheney on down, frequently pronounced that "deficits don't matter". I wish that I had been taking names.
Republicans have made me think of foot ball fans in a lot of their actions, seemingly having no focus other than winning at any cost to the nation. Democrats never have seemed like that to me. I suppose a Republican would call me simply biased, but I can only say that I am sincere.
Infantiley viewing these through semi-biased questions.
Bipartisan groups liked Clinton and liked Reagan, though the later could be said to have performed terribly (personal opinion).
Partisan groups hated bush (well by the end almost everyone did) and the same is true of Obama.
What I might also analyze is the degree (during good times) that various party members are willing to support the policies of the other party vs during bad times. I think you will find a direct correlation.
Or, said another way, political analysis is done with statistics, but you still have to know what you are analyzing to have it make sense.
You also made three co-variance and biased question errors in the analyses you presented.
The "government risk" questions. The "national Debt" question. "Health care act" question.