Robert Louis Stevenson beautifully describes the ever-shifting terrain of politics:
History is much decried; it is a tissue of errors, we are told, no doubt correctly; and rival historians expose each other’s blunders with gratification. Yet the worst historian has a clearer view of the period he studies than the best of us can hope to form of that in which we live. The obscurest epoch is today; and that for a thousand reasons of inchoate tendency, conflicting report, and sheer mass and multiplicity of experience; but chiefly, perhaps, by reason of an insidious shifting of landmarks. Parties and ideas continually move, but not by measurable marches on a stable course; the political soil itself steals forth by imperceptible degrees, like a traveling glacier, carrying on its bosom not only political parties but their flag posts and cantonments; so that what appears to be an eternal city founded on hills is but a flying island of Laputa. [From “The Day After To-morrow”]
I love the flag post on the glacier metaphor.
On the left, people have shifted from marching in support of “free speech” to opposing free speech. They went from advocating a colorblind society to the view that colorblind policies are racist. Many of the right went from outrage over “defund the police” to advocating defunding the tax police and the FBI. The Democrats once opposed abortion more than the Republicans, now the reverse is true. Republicans went from praising Houston’s lack of zoning to the being the biggest NIMBYs on the block. Attitudes toward Russia flip flopped after the 2016 election. Free trade, immigration, almost any issue you could cite has no fixed political home.
To channel Robin Hanson; in politics, X is never about X. The free speech movement of the 1960s was not about free speech; it was a demand that we tolerate left wing ideas. The civil rights movement of the 1960s was not about civil rights; it was about improving the condition of blacks in America. On both the left and the right, defunding movements are aimed at government entities that seem to persecute their voters. Republicans supported abortion rights when they saw the opposition as composed of Catholics trying to boss them around. Votes on legislation affecting trade, immigration, zoning, etc., hinge on how the policies are seen as affecting the political coalition that currently votes for their party.
Matt Yglesias recently linked to this graph:
Note that as recently as 1996, blue states like Colorado and Virginia voted for a Republican, while deep red states like Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia voted Democratic. Go back further and the changes are far greater. And yet our pundits talk about politics as if “Democratic” and “Republican” were a fixed type, unchanging from year to year. There is a subtle pressure to join one of the two tribes.
One way to think about this is to notice that 90% of American voters are mostly unprincipled. I don’t mean that as a pejorative, merely a description of their approach to politics. Presumably they would defend their approach as being pragmatic, not locked into a rigid ideology. This means that the other 10% of us end up wandering around, with no fixed tribe to call our home. And it can be quite uncomfortable to be a fixed post stuck deep in the bedrock as a glacier grinds past. Especially when the 90% believe that they are the ones with consistent views.
PS. Immediately after the quotation above, Stevenson had this to say about a gradual change in the meaning of “liberalism” during the late 1800s:
It is for this reason particular that we are all becoming Socialists without knowing it; by which I would not in the least refer to the acute case of Mr. Hyndman and his horn blowing supporters, sounding their trumps of a Sunday within the walls of our individualist Jericho, but to the stealthy change that has come over the spirit of Englishmen and English legislation. A little while ago, and we were still for liberty; “Crowd a few more thousands on the bench of Government,” we seemed to cry; “keep her lead direct on liberty, and we cannot help but come to port.” This is over; laisser-faire declines in favor; our legislation grows authoritative, rows philanthropical, bristles with new duties and new penalties, and casts a spawn of inspectors, who now begin, notebook in hand, to darken the face of England. It may be right or wrong, we are not trying that; but one thing it is beyond doubt: it is Socialism in action, and the strange thing is that we scarcely know it.
READER COMMENTS
David Henderson
Jun 27 2023 at 4:40pm
Great post, and two great quotes from RLS. Almost makes me proud that my daughter attended RLS school. Why “almost?” That’s a more personal story.
Scott Sumner
Jun 27 2023 at 7:16pm
I recently visited the RLS museum in Napa valley. Great writer.
Mark Z
Jun 27 2023 at 6:11pm
Changes in political coalitions – such as parties – aren’t necessarily reflective of changes in political attitudes of individuals, because the composition of the coalitions changes. In fact in a society generally full of rational, principled individuals, I would expect the two dominant coalitions (winner-take-all means there tend to be two) to change quite frequently and vary a lot from state to state. The ideological consistency of coalitions across decades is suggestive of party loyalty intruding on principled rationality.
While you’re certainly right to some extent that many people’s views have changed in the past X-years, the overall platforms of the coalitions are pretty sensitive to even slight compositional changes; if even a fairly modest segment of the population, e.g. midwestern factory workers and their dependent, go from being loyal to one party to being back on the market for a new party, that alone shift the marginal value of a party supporting vs. opposing tariffs.
nobody.really
Jun 27 2023 at 6:32pm
Thoughtful post.
The US labels “Democrat” and “Republican” have certainly drifted, especially regarding race/civil rights. Historically the Democrats were the party of the Deep South (and deep grievance against Northern elites), while the Republicans were the party of Lincoln. But the Democrat’s association with the underclass evolved into FDR’s embrace of organized labor, and support of the working class eventually encompassed support for black workers, too. Meanwhile, the Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” involved pursuing aggrieved white Southern voters.
And the shifts continue. In Capitalism and Ideology (2019), Thomas Piketty observes that throughout Western nations, the “labor party” has gradually become the party of the educated elite. By his assessment, the labor party begins by opposing the arbitrary advantages of the upper classes. This leads to support for EARNED advantages–to meritocracy–which leads to support for education. In the US, the Democratic Party has now become the party of the educated elite and it’s interests, especially environmentalism, which often conflict with the interests of the working class. The working class, in turn, has increasingly joined the GOP.
If the Democrat’s ultimate goal had been reducing wealth inequality, they may be encountering a Denis Moore problem.
To what extent was US opposition to apartheid about opposition to apartheid–and to what extent was it about race relations in the US projected onto South Africa?
“It is far more likely that by the time nationalization has become the rule, and private enterprise the exception, Socialism (which is really rather a bad name for the business) will be spoken of, if at all, as a crazy religion held by a fanatical sect in that darkest of dark ages, the nineteenth century. Already, indeed, I am told that Socialism has had its day, and that the sooner we stop talking nonsense about it and set to work, like the practical people we are, to nationalize the coal mines and complete a national electrification scheme, the better. And I, who said forty years ago [in the 1880s] that we should have had Socialism already but for the Socialists, am quite willing to drop the name if dropping it will help me to get the thing.” George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism (1928), republished as The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism, and Fascism (1937).
Thomas L Hutcheson
Jun 29 2023 at 12:24pm
I would dispute that reducing the harm from CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is less in the interests of the “working class” than the “educated elites. As for the distribution of the minimum cost of reducing net emissions, that would depend on how the revenue generated from the tax on net CO2 and methane emissions was used/distributed.
nobody.really
Jun 30 2023 at 12:57am
Perhaps so. Yet often the pursuit and use of fossil fuels has provides blue-collar employment; policies that shut down fossil fuel consumption trigger the loss of this employment. I’d guess that the green economy also provides blue-collar employment, but the people who will benefit are often hard to identify a priori, while the people who will suffer are easy to identify and organize.
Who is benefitting from that tax so far?
Ahmed Fares
Jun 27 2023 at 7:26pm
The drift leftward has been going on for some time now. This quote from Robert Lewis Dabney (March 5, 1820 – January 3, 1898):
Mark Brady
Jun 27 2023 at 9:04pm
The criteria that the Reverend Robert Lewis Dabney, Confederate States Army chaplain, would have used when classifying policies as either desirable (“conservative”) or undesirable (“radical”) were very different from how nineteenth-century classical liberals would have performed the same categorization.
Scott Sumner
Jun 28 2023 at 3:57pm
Most areas drift leftward, but some drift to the right. Consider the recent rise of nationalism.
nobody.really
Jun 28 2023 at 4:59pm
What a delightful quote! If anyone has a citation for it, please share.
What conclusion should we draw from this quote? Maybe it illustrates the importance of the longstanding conservatives admonition to stick to doctrine in order to resist cooptation. Or maybe it illustrates the opposite: That people who remain doctrinaire become people who stand against obviously beneficial innovations such as recognizing women’s rights—thereby rendering themselves both morally reprehensible and politically marginalized.
The Republican Party used to be the party of “traditional family values” and moral rectitude. Then it nominated Ronald Reagan, a DIVORCED MAN(!), as president. Times changed. Today the Republicans still pander to a shrinking base of religious conservatives, but they’ve utterly abandoned any discussion about the evils of divorce. Given that divorce (and out-of-wedlock births) are more common in red states than blue states, it is unclear if the party could have survived otherwise.
Perhaps growth—even ideological growth—has adaptive qualities. “Let’s trace the birth of an idea. It’s born as rampant radicalism; then it becomes progressivism, then liberalism, then it becomes moderate, then it becomes conservative, then it’s outmoded, and then it’s gone.” Adam Clayton Powell, in Robert Penn Warren’s Who Speaks for the Negro (1965).
nobody.really
Jun 28 2023 at 5:20pm
Cite: Robert Lewis Dabney (1820–1898), Confederate Presbyterian minister, from “Women’s Rights Women” published in The Southern Magazine (1871), https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2016/5/22/womens-rights-women
Komori
Jun 27 2023 at 8:35pm
Just wanted to note that for proponents of strong federalism, support for local police but opposition to federal law enforcement is perfectly consistent. The more centralized, the more damaging corruption is, and the more incentive for that corruption to happen.
Which reminds me of a recent McArdle column where she calls for a federal police training institute, to which my only thought was “Hahaha, NO. Last thing we need.”
Scott Sumner
Jun 28 2023 at 3:55pm
Yes, but the real reason is that they don’t like who is being targeted. Conservatives love strong law enforcement at the border, and love the war on drugs.
robc
Jun 30 2023 at 10:19am
is that still true? Maybe somewhat, but compared to 40 years ago, its more like a mild like than love.
Bob
Jul 2 2023 at 10:34pm
There are no strong federalists. People like federalism when a state they like favors a policy they like, while a higher level of government wouldn’t. The tune changes immediately when the policy is in the other direction. In a similar fashion, many a federalist get really mad when a city wants to pass a law they don’t like, and decide that local government is too small. Ultimately, all hypocrisy until one favors self government for places where their political opponents have a majority.
The best argument against US federalism today though is that the state borders don’t even begin to represent coherent groups of people anyway. Nobody in their right mind would, starting from zero, give the US the states it has. The federal government at least covers everyone. Local government might be somewhat responsive to their voters, who they can’t hide from. Most states group people with minimal economical and cultural ties, and end up designing policies to harm the minority of the state, as the value of keeping “those other people” out is just so valuable, given the 2 seats in the senate. Illinois might lose population, but they sure want the loss to occur in rural areas, keeping Chicago in charge. Across the border, Missouri Republicans don’t want any real growth or investment in St Louis or KC, as growth in those cities would turn them into a swing state.
MarkW
Jun 28 2023 at 7:21am
And it can be quite uncomfortable to be a fixed post stuck deep in the bedrock as a glacier grinds past. Especially when the 90% believe that they are the ones with consistent views.
In the metaphor, I don’t picture myself stuck in the midst of the glacier but rather up above and along the side, watching it grind past (in fact, what comes to mind is a very specific spot next to an Icelandic glacier that might actually be the one in the photo). But being away from the glacier doesn’t actually feel uncomfortable to me, it’s the place that feels the most natural.
I know a lot of people who are dedicated partisans on both sides, and I don’t think they actually would argue that their views have not changed since the 90s, but rather that the old views were outdated or wrong or proved to be unworkable. But where I think they are deluded is in the belief that they were led by evidence or reason to their new principles rather than following their tribe — otherwise, they might have reasoned themselves out of their tribe by now, but that very rarely happens. I do not point this out, because I don’t imagine many people can be persuaded to be political wanderers. They would not like it out here. And I understand why that is, given the kind social species humans are. We political wanderers are the weird ones. There’s something not quite normal about us.
But, anyway, it’s a great metaphor. It’s one I’ll remember.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Jul 2 2023 at 10:52pm
That’s why my Substack is “Radical Centrist.”
steve
Jun 28 2023 at 12:25pm
Meh. As a voter I dont find that much worth voting for so I decide whom I want to vote against. If I dont know enough about the people on the ballot I just alternate votes between the two tribes.
Looking back at periods of history when it is claimed that socialism was increasing I think what you almost always find is a corrupt, inept, self interested ruling/wealthy class. Attempts by those not in the elite class to change that were called socialism and sometimes they were, but there weren’t a lot of options to change things. One of the problems that all political/economic philosophies face is what happens if the wealth/power elite dont live up to the standards they supposedly embrace? So in pure socialism we see the elites also become corrupt and self serving. Probably why the most economically successful countries are hybrids that find a good balance.
Steve
nobody.really
Jun 28 2023 at 4:12pm
David Frum, “How to Rebuild the Republican Party,” The Atlantic (October 7, 2016)
Mark Z
Jun 29 2023 at 1:58am
I think Frum is pretty much the opposite of correct here. From a left-of-center perspective, it’s a perennial temptation to interpret populism on the right as really being about class warfare, as it basically means the solution to populism is to… do all the things they want to do anyway: raise taxes, expand the government, increase regulation. But Trump’s popularity ‘despite’ following a pretty typical cut-taxes and deregulate Republican approach to the economy belies this. In all of the countries Frum mention, the right-populist revolt is primarily about culture, not class. The AfD in Germany is likely the most pro-free-market party in the country. In short, the so-called culture wars really are about culture; they’re not a covert cry for more welfare.
BS
Jun 29 2023 at 12:04pm
There can’t be a solid ground because there are always things to be done. Across the spectrum from most progressive to most conservative, the important difference is the velocity of change (and even among conservatives, the direction is mostly towards the progressive side). It is inevitable that the (calculated) center must move; it is likely that almost any two political frames of reference will each perceive the other to be becoming more extreme. Occasional great crises may bring people (abruptly) closer together, and then the divergence begins again.
I suppose the apparent shifts in which party stands for what policy happen because politicians chase voting blocks and can never hold onto all of them at the same time because interests are antagonistic. That in turn suggests the ultimate political movement should first aim at squeezing all the voters into one block of belief and interests, with dissenters persecuted into either becoming invisible or joining the parade.
Scott Sumner
Jun 29 2023 at 1:44pm
There can’t be a solid ground because there are always things to be done.”
I don’t believe a preference for free speech or free trade has to change just because there are “things to be done.” But I do agree that change is almost inevitable.
MarkW
Jun 29 2023 at 2:58pm
I don’t believe a preference for free speech or free trade has to change just because there are “things to be done.”
Likewise free markets, free movement of peoples, the impartial rule of law, etc, etc. A good set of rules allows society to adapt to events and changing circumstances as necessary without the need to constantly tinker with the rules themselves.
nobody.really
Jun 29 2023 at 8:25pm
I sense BS is arguing that (consistent with many libertarian principles) often the optimal government response to an issue is INaction–which is typically also the default position. Under this understanding, deviation from the optimal policy–that is, doing ANYTHING–results in sub-optimal policy.
Yet politicians, loathe to appearing indifferent to some problem, have an incentive to take conspicuous action–almost without regard to wisdom of the action. Thus we get the following syllogism:
Yes, Prime Minister, Season 2, Episode 5 “Power to the People” (1988).
mucherie
Jul 3 2023 at 9:29am
Almost the same idea in a great speach of Lord Acton about the surprising life of institutions, around 1878
Comments are closed.