Skip to main content

Liberalism and Conservatism - By the Numbers

I don't care much for politics and the only reason I blog about it is because I like Barack Obama. Today, I found a side of politics that could appeal to a "numbers guy" like myself. Paul Krugman cited the Poole-Rosenthal-McCarty model to determine how liberal or conservative Obama and McCain really are. Given the general perception that Obama is a big city ultra-liberal and that McCain is a centrist republican, a well-thought model was necessary to substantiate/debunk these perceptions. Instead of defining liberalism and conservatism on the basis of a person's stand on abortion, gun rights, gay rights, ... etc, I want to see a comprehensive study of all economic and social values. That's why I love Poole-Rosenthal-McCarty model.

I read that Michael Dukakis' (1988) and John Kerry's (2004) lost in their presidential bids mainly because republicans labeled as elite, liberal, unpatriotic and out-of-touch. Apparently such labels really turn off the American electorate, particularly conservatives. In the upcoming election, it appears my candidate of choice, Barack Obama will certainly be subject the same labels, but I sure hope he will overcome it.

Based on the Poole-Rosenthal-McCarty model, I want to make the following observations.

  • There clearly is a left-right or liberal-conservative divide in terms of voting record. Most members of the senate and congress lie on either extreme, and there are very few centrists.
  • Obama is not as liberal as republicans make him out to be. He is a fairly moderate democrat. McCain is also a moderate republican, but he appears a little closer to the center than Obama is. Bush, on the other hand, is a radical/extreme conservative.
  • The most interesting conclusion from this model is the evolution of partisan politics over time. In 1980, the congress appeared much less partisan than it is now. One can clearly see an overlap between democrats' and republicans' liberalism/conservatism in the 1980s, particularly in the House. The senate appears to have been very divided in the time period observed here.
I hope people would use rigorous models like this to dispel myths about candidates so that the general population does not get cheated by false notions and labels in this election cycle.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Distribution of Wealth in the US

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I heard this statement quite a bit lately particularly in light of the sub-prime mortgage and general housing crisis in the US. The country has enjoyed significant economic prosperity and both Clinton and Bush boasted economic growth under their reign. Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of the economic boom are not people from all economic backgrounds, but rather the top 10%. To make things worse, Bush gave tax cuts mainly targeting the top 10%. Being more of a numbers guy, I always wanted showing the validity of the-rich-get-richer-n-the-poor-get-poorer statement. Thanks to Wikipedia , I have finally found it!! Both the mean and median net worth of families for the bottom 50% of the population has remained absolutely flat while the 75th-90th percentile see a decent growth and the top 10% enjoy the most appreciation on their net worth. So, if you factor in inflation, the-rich-get-richer-n-the-poor-get-poorer probably holds true. The g...
1 comment
Read more

An Exercise in Obstinacy, Deception, and Self-Destruction

There is no other way to describe the policies of the current leadership in Eritrea. Please watch this appalling interview of the Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki with Riz Khan of Aljazeera and come up with your own series of adjectives to describe that incredible exchange. The fact that Eritreans are dying under the oppressive and misguided dictatorship of Isaias Afeworki frightens and saddens me very much. The fact that there is no immediate hope is downright depressing.
2 comments
Read more

Victim of Asylum Roulette

Not too many stories resonate with me as much as the plight of legitimate asylum seekers whose desperate plea to find refuge in the US is ultimately decided by the questionable preference, judgment and mood of a single asylum officer (with some oversight from a regional asylum director) on one fateful day. That decision, according to numerous credible and through studies, depends largely on the location of the regional asylum center, the legal representation of the the applicant, the gender of the asylum officer just as much as the merit of the asylum case, while in fact the legitimacy of the asylum case should be the only relevant factor. This phenomenon has become so real that researchers at the Georgetown University law school have dubbed it the Refugee Roulette . Why am I so sensitive about this subject? My most devastating tragedy of late has been the denial of my legitimate and honest application for political asylum at the Chicago Asylum Office. When I applied believing the ...
2 comments
Read more