| 0:33 | Intro. [Recording date: August 6, 2018.] Russ Roberts: Lilliana Mason is the author of Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity, which is our topic for today.... In a recent EconTalk episode that we'll link to, I did a monologue on the tribal nature of politics and the decline in civility. And your book takes us, I think, quite a bit deeper into those ideas and really gives some insight into what's been changing, which I think is the biggest challenge. I think a lot of people understand that things seem a little bit different. The question is why, and what has changed? And let's start with a story that you tell at the beginning of your book, the Robbers Cave Experiment. Tell us what happened there. Lilliana Mason: Yes. So, this is a very old experiment done in 1954. Social psychologists recruited a bunch of 5th grade boys from Oklahoma city, and tried to gather boys that were as similar socially to each other as possible: so, they were all white; they were all Protestant; they all did sort of, had sort of similar educational and social fitness. And, they divided the boys into two different camps, and put them in a summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park outside of Oklahoma City. And the idea was that they wanted to figure out how--what it looks like when two groups, sort of, form, and then, to what extent are they naturally inclined to engage in conflict between each other. And so they spent a week with the boys not knowing about the other team. They came up with their own names: they called themselves the Rattlers and the Eagles. And after a week, they were told about the other boys. And they immediately started competitions with the other team. Just baseball games--various kinds of competitions. And very, very early on, they started calling each other names. Derogatory names. And then, gradually, they, their conflict escalated beyond the competitions and they started doing things like attacking each other's camps. And then, by the end of the second week, the counselors--who were actually the social psychologists, had to stop all the competition, because the boys were starting to engage in violent attacks on each other--like rocks, throwing rocks, and that type of thing. So, the idea was that it took very little for these two, these two very similar groups of kids, to, you know, engage in relatively high levels of conflict. Really all it took was separation and competition for that to happen. Russ Roberts: Yeah. I'm a little bit skeptical of those, that experiment. And actually, a whole bunch that were done in the 1950s that seem to have persisted. I wonder, you know, how much the experimenters tweaked [?] the experience to get something dramatic. I wonder how many, if they'd done it 20 times, would have happened every time. But, putting that to the side, I want to read a quote from the book that I thought summed up the phenomenon quite well. You say, Humans are hardwired to cling to social groups. There are a few good reasons for us to do so. First, without a sense of social cohesion we would have had a hard time creating societies and civilizations. Second, and even more basic, humans have a need to categorize. That's how we understand the world. This includes categorizing people. Third, our social categories don't simply help us understand our social environment. They also help us understand ourselves and our place in the world. Once we are part of a group, we know how to identify ourselves in relation to the other people in our society. And we drove an emotional connection in a sense of wellbeing from being group members. These are powerful psychological motivations to form groups. And I think it's important to say from the outset that what I call 'tribalism' in my essay, and EconTalk episode, and what you call sorting or various types of identity: This is a very normal--it's a human thing. There's nothing inherently bad about it. It doesn't have to lead to violence. There are many good things about it. So, just comment about this--the human nature aspect of this. Human nature aspect. Lilliana Mason: Yeah. So, this is a point that I try to make a few times in the book, because I think it's really important: The idea that we, you know, are strongly identified with our groups is not, it's not an insult, to say that we do that. We are all doing it at the same time. We are all, really, deeply motivated to behave in this way. The, you know, there are a few studies that I talk about in the book, you know, where there are real biological evidence of group membership--people's, you know, levels of cortisol in their saliva increases when they feel a threat to their group. The idea that your body is responding to your group membership suggests that it's very hard for us to control that. You can't control the level of cortisol in your saliva. And so, these are things that we shouldn't try to avoid, but instead learn how to work with, and learn how to sort of better understand what's happening so that we can stop it from getting out of control. It's one of those things where, you know, understanding it is the first step to being able to manage it. |
| 6:22 | Russ Roberts: I think the fascinating part about this is that, it's one thing to think about your own group, or the pleasure or comfort you get from feeling part of something larger than yourself--which I think is a deeply human urge that we economists neglect, simply I think because we don't have the tools to deal with it very well. But, the other part of this, that's the darker side, is the desire to look down on The Other. To look down on people who aren't in the group, people in the Out Group. And: What kind of research--what do we know about that phenomenon? Obviously the Robbers Cave Experiment, the Rattlers and the Eagles, is an example of that. You know, whether it was increased through some decisions made by the experimenters, who knows? But it was definitely a human urge to not just feel part of your group, but to look down on the other people not in your group. Lilliana Mason: Right. So, the--one thing that we know is that there is sort of this basic--in terms of the basic group membership, there is work by Marilyn Brewer, a social psychologist, that has found essentially that, being a member of a group doesn't necessarily make you hate the other group. It just makes you love your group the most. And it isn't until there's a conflict between your in-group and your out-group that you start to despise the people in the out-group. But the most basic nature of group membership is just loving your group the most, thinking they're the best. One of the things that we know is that when you are a member of a group, you tend to view the world in a way that makes your group seem better. So, one of the examples from the Robbers Cave Experiment was that, you know, the boys were asked to pick up beans from the ground. And then they were counting the number of beans that each boy had collected. And, the experimenters were actually putting the same exact handful of beans on the projector for the boys to count them every single time. But, every single boy estimated that there were more beans when it was one of their in-group members than when it was one of their out-group members. We also know that partisans, for instance, think the economy is a lot better when their party is in power. And that literature can reverse, overnight, like overnight, after election day, or after inauguration. And so, there are just sort of ways in which we see the world in a biased way that makes our group seem to be, not just the best but also the most beloved and the most powerful. Russ Roberts: And I want to mention an essay I forgot to mention in my monologue episode which is by Scott Alexander at the blog Slate Star Codex. He wrote an essay--I'm close to the right title--"I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup," so that the modern reverence we have for tolerance breaks down when it's really somebody we're not supposed to like. And I think that's a huge challenge that all of us have. What do we know about what's happened to partisanship in recent decades? There's a debate in political science--Mo Fiorina, my colleague here at the Hoover Institution who has been a guest talked about, I'm pretty sure, in that episode I did with him a while back, and we'll link to that as well. But, he's a skeptic: He doesn't think that things have gotten particularly more partisan. And yet, there's a lot of evidence also that perhaps it has. So, talk about that dispute and why you believe it's gotten stronger--partisanship has. Or the evidence that it has; and then we'll talk about why that phenomenon is happening. Lilliana Mason: Right. So, his work is actually one of the major reasons that I started this project, because he and another political scientist, Alan Abramowitz, were having this sort of back and forth in multiple articles debating whether or not polarization was increasing in American politics, with Fiorina saying that it was not and Abramowitz saying that it was. And, in reading this debate, what I started to think is: They are both talking about polarization and defining it as 'Americans are disagreeing with each other more about policy.' And that is the traditional definition of polarization: That Democrats and Republicans are becoming more liberal and more conservative--more extreme in their issue positions. So, essentially, our attitudes are distributed across, you know, the spectrum from Left to Right in like a bimodal distribution. But it wasn't matching what I was seeing in politics, because I was seeing a lot of anger and incivility. And people seemed to be really riled up at each other but not really connected perfectly to policy positions. And so, I started looking into this and thinking, 'Well, what if we think about partisanship as just any other group identity?' And, if we do that, then there's a wealth of literature and research on intergroup conflict, mostly looking at intergroup racial conflict. And, if we can apply that research to the parties, then maybe we can understand what could motivate them to, partisans to hate each other, without necessarily disagreeing on policy positions. Because, most inter-group conflict is not rooted in policy debates. Most inter-group conflict is rooted in deep identities that people hold, and this sense of 'us versus them.' So, that was the beginning of this project--really was trying to think about Democrats and Republicans not as simply purveyors of policies, but instead as really strong groups that people can identify with so powerfully that they might be willing to even change their policy positions in order to just, sort of, have that group win. |
| 12:30 | Russ Roberts: Let's turn to that; but I want to just say as a footnote: An example would be that there would be an issue in the public debate, in the public sphere, that it used to be a source of contention--could be gay marriage, could be, say, legalizing marijuana--that used to be extremely contentious. Now, people seem to be closer together. So, there seems to be less polarization on many issues. And yet, as you point out, on the feeling of us versus them, that seems to be getting stronger. So, what evidence do we have, that that is stronger--the us versus them, or my policy, my party identification, separate from my policy positions or my ideology? [ Lilliana Mason: Right. So, we have, just sort of in general, there are increasing numbers of people that are calling themselves Strong Partisans. We have on a scale that goes from Independent to Weak Partisan to Strong Partisan: People are moving toward the Strong Partisan ends of the spectrum. Partisans are increasingly not wanting their party to compromise with the other side. They tend to rate the Out Party as much more extreme than they used to, and tend to rate their own party as not as all extreme. Partisans are happier with their neighborhood, if they are told that in-group partisans live there; and they are less satisfied with their neighborhood if they are told that outgroup partisans live there. So, we have a lot of information about partisans just sort of feeling this sense of, you know, disdain and discomfort with the other side. Russ Roberts: What's weird about that [?]--I'm not a political scientist, but I have, many of my friends are. I just want to say that right up front. So, I talk to political scientists and read political science literature a little bit. And it was my impression till fairly recently that party identification was getting weaker in the 0-1 sense: That more people were identifying as independent. So, is the claim here is that that trend is reversed? Or is the claim are that the people who still identify as Republicans or Democrats are more intensely identifying as party members, or as partisans? Lilliana Mason: Yeah. It's more the latter. You're right: There are increasing numbers of people identifying as Independent, as well. And, so, basically it's the people who call themselves 'weak partisans,' that there are fewer of. But, it's important to note that the vast majority of people who call themselves Independents, vote as if they are partisans. Very reliably. So, and there's a really great book called Independent Politics by Klar and Krupnikov that actually looks at why people are identifying as Independent. And most of them, they say, or a lot of them, are just embarrassed partisans-- Russ Roberts: yeah-- Lilliana Mason: They don't like what's happening. They don't like how nasty everything is. So they just call themselves Independents even though they still reliably vote with one party. |
| 15:37 | Russ Roberts: So why has this intensity come along? And I--a lot of people I think casually identify it, say, with the rise of the Trump Presidency. I view the Trump Presidency as symptom more than a cause. It's just an example, it's just an example of how both sides can hate each other more intensely than they did before. And, of course--I think I'm older than you; pretty confident about that. This goes back, for me, in my lifetime, into every--I'm born in 1954, so I remember the 1960 election. I was in grade school. I was 6 years old. I remember we drew pictures of elephants and donkeys. That was politics in 1960, in Washington, rural Washington State. But, you know, shortly after that, I'd say, 1972--I'm 18 years old--I remember how vicious politics was in, when Nixon was President; when Reagan was President. When Clinton was President. When Obama was President. Now when Trump is President. Both sides angry, disdainful, dismissive. And more than just 'My side's right and your side's wrong.' It's, 'My side's right, and you are dangerous.' It does feel like it's gotten stronger in the last 5-10 years. But it's not new. So, what is new about it, in your view; and what do you think explains, if there is something new about it? Lilliana Mason: Yeah. So, this is a great point. I actually started this project in 2009. So, it's definitely not about Trump. I had no inclination that Trump was coming. Russ Roberts: Shame on you. You call yourself a political scientist. Lilliana Mason: I couldn't have known. So, yeah; this clearly is a phenomenon that predates Trump. And, I think that what you are pointing to is a really interesting sort of historical view of what's been happening. I want to sort of predicate all of this on the idea that there should be party conflict. Right? Like, we don't want the parties to be exactly the same. And, we don't--and obviously, partisans are going to want their team to win no matter what. And so, it would be weird if we didn't have parties rooting for their own side and hating the other side to some degree. Especially because elections are really just gigantic kind of games. Right? Like, it [?]-- Russ Roberts: It's like the Super Bowl. Lilliana Mason: Right. Russ Roberts: I used to have a good friend in St. Louis, when I lived there, who, we got together for Super Bowl parties and election night parties. And celebrated, to the extent it was possible--sometimes our team would wasn't in the Super Bowl and our team wasn't really in the election because, for me, I'm never happy generally with either side. But it's still fun. You still root--you get excited. You might prefer one to the other. It's exciting. Lilliana Mason: Right. And we watch it on TV [television]. And we, you know-- Russ Roberts: commentary-- Lilliana Mason: the election results have come in, little music theme that each channel has. Yeah. It's fun. It's very exciting. So, it's hard not to root for one side. The thing that has changed--and this is really what the entire book is about--is that, we've always had a lot of conflict in American politics. And we've always had a lot of conflict in American society. And just thinking about the 1960s, clearly there was a lot of social unrest that I think exceeds what we are looking at right now. Russ Roberts: Absolutely. Lilliana Mason: The difference is that, from the 1960s, through, I would say, the 1990s, we essentially went through a period where our party identities became more closely associated with other social identities. To the extent that, in the 1960s, the social unrest wasn't entirely--you couldn't say that the two sides that were fighting were all Democrats versus Republicans. There was a mixture of partisans on both sides. And so, what we are seeing now is that the sides that are fighting are associated almost completely with either Democrats or Republicans. So, the way that I explain it is, is essentially to say the Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Movement--as that became a Democratic Party Platform issue, the Southern Conservative Democrats were very unhappy about that. And, but, partisanship is very strong, so it takes a really long time to change a Party. It's like converting to another religion. And so, over a generation, they gradually became Republicans. And that process--in, you know, from the 1960s until the late 1990s, there were still some people on both sides who were sympathetic to the desire to the other team. And, I think that process really sort of culminated in, maybe the Clinton years. Or possibly even later. But, during that period, there were still some people who could say, 'Oh, I understand what the other side is thinking. They are not,' you know, 'they are not completely evil.' Of course there are some people who did think the other side was evil. But there was some mixture within each party. And that is what I think has been disappearing. |
| 21:17 | Russ Roberts: Now that I think about it, you know, the famous example from the 1970s and 1980s was, you know, Scoop Jackson was a conservative Democrat. Nelson Rockefeller was a liberal Republican. Now that I think about it, you know, there are two semi-liberal Republicans in the Senate: Collins from Maine and--who am I thinking of-- Lilliana Mason: Murkowski-- Russ Roberts: Murkowski from Alaska. I can't think of a conservative Democrat. There might be one. It just doesn't come to mind. But the point you are making, which is obviously true, is that so many votes now are party line votes. And you could say, 'Well, that's because'--in the Senate, you could say, that's just because they make sure that they get everybody roped in; they make compromises. And, of course, that's part of it. But a lot of is--which is what your book is about--is: Nobody wants to be seen voting with the bad guys. And that just seems to me to be an unhealthy thing. At least, it strikes me as an unhealthy thing. And your point about the 1960s--I always lately make the point that this is getting very close to the 1960s, which was a very tumultuous time. The difference is that were in the middle of a war, where thousands of people were dying every year--thousands of Americans. That caused a lot of unrest. We had a draft--so people didn't want to be drafted into it. And here we are--we are still somewhat at war--but no, most Americans aren't at risk of going into that war. Unemployment is 3.9% in the latest report. What would this be like if things weren't going well? I mean, it's just--we'll talk later about whether this is just unpleasant or actually frightening. I'm heading toward, toward frightening. But, the point that you make in the book, and I want to--let's hone [home?] in on this because you just mentioned it but I want to now focus on it, is the social aspect of our tribalism and our identity. So, it's not just that, 'My side in politics is right.' It's 'My side is also--all my other identities, all my other tribes are also in the same party as I am.' Let's talk about that and how that--because I think that's really the deepest insight of the book, and how--because that's plausibly something that has changed, that would explain some of the vehemence with which people look at each other. Lilliana Mason: Yeah. So, if you look at--we have--the American National Election Studies is a survey, an election-based survey, an election-year survey that's done, has been done every election year since 1948. And so, you can look at trends over time and actually find that this is happening. This has been happening. The parties are much more divided on race and on religiosity, and on calling themselves liberals and conservatives, which is a different issue but we can talk about that later. And so, you know, one of the results of this--and this is what I call social sorting--is that we, you know, we are sort of moving into the parties that are more socially like us. So, they Republican Party is increasingly the party of white, Christian, increasingly rural, more men. And the Democratic Party is sort of everyone else. And, so--and we are getting very clear cues on which side we're supposed to be in. And so we are really moving completely into these two camps. And what that does is, there is social, social/psychological research that demonstrates that, when you have two identities that are well-aligned and, by well-aligned that means that most of the people in Group A are also in Group B. So, the example that I use is like Irish Catholic. You know: People who are Irish Catholic--they know a lot of Irish people and they know a lot of Catholic people. And, maybe not as many non-Irish, non-Catholic people. And the more aligned your two identities are, actually the more intolerant people have been found to be of outsiders. And, when you have two identities that are not well aligned--so, if you are, like, Irish and Jewish--then you are going to know a whole bunch of non-Irish people and a whole bunch of non-Jewish people. And, so, you tend to be more tolerant of outsiders because you sort of have this practice, every day, of going through your life knowing that these two parts of your identity are not well-matched in society. And, that finding, alone, can explain a lot of the effect of this sorting, social sorting, on our partisanship. Because our parties are now much more socially distinct, we don't have what we used to call "cross-cutting identities," where, you know, your next door neighbor is maybe in a different party but maybe you guys go to church together; and so you have this cross-cutting identity that allows you to think of each other as normal human beings with good intentions. Russ Roberts: Or you go hunting together, which should be unimaginable for a large swath of Americans right now. Lilliana Mason: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and increasingly, the parties are--Republicans are Christian. And Democrats are, sort of everything but. But increasingly Democrats are the party of secularism. Russ Roberts: Yes. Lilliana Mason: That's the main religious divide--is religious or non-religious. Russ Roberts: Yeh. Lilliana Mason: So, the outcome of all of these sordid identities is essentially to make the other side seem more unlike you. And more difficult to humanize. Because you don't come in contact with them; you don't think about them as part of your group. You don't think about needing to respect them or their, you know, their having families or good intentions. That is--you know, that's sort of the dangerous of this: is that it's a lot easier to dehumanize the other side when you have these really well-sorted social identities. |
| 27:35 | Russ Roberts: So, that's plausible to me. I don't know that it's true, but it definitely seems plausible. It's related to a phenomenon that I've only become aware of in the last couple of years, which is Intersectionality. This idea that, if you are with me on this issue--whatever it is--you've got to be with me on every issue. You are not on the right team. And I don't know whether that's a relatively new phenomenon; but it's consistent with what you're talking about: that, you know, that you and I, say, are consistent across the board in everything; and I think it certainly is plausible that that means we are going to have a tighter bond in feeling this group identity. And, the people who aren't--someone who is different from me on not just one thing, a different political party, but on different church or doesn't go to church or hunts or doesn't hunt or likes sports or doesn't, or eats meat or doesn't--is just--it's a weird moment to me in like human history where, again, we have this tolerance--religion, to some extent--we are supposed to be tolerant of other people. And yet, it gets harder and harder because we've got all these boxes you have to check if you want to be on the right team. Lilliana Mason: Yeah. Right. The other thing--I mean, I would also say that the other effect of this is that, because so many identities are now aligned with the Party, it used to be that, you know, when you watch election night coverage, which is lots of fun--if your Party loses, then that's--your Party is one part of your identity but you still have all the other parts of your identity. They are not losers, in that moment. Russ Roberts: It's like--when the Red Sox would lose in the playoffs, I'd say, 'Here comes football season.' You know, that would be a comfort to me. But, yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. Lilliana Mason: Right. And it's the same sense. That, you are going to be okay, right? You as an individual are going to be okay. Because you have all these other things that define you, and that are part of your identity. But, if your racial identity and your religious identity and your cultural identity and your geographical identity are all wrapped up with your party, then, if the party loses it hurts a lot more. Psychologically. And if your party wins, then every part of you has won. And, so, that's--one of the effects of this increased social sorting is that when elections occur, they are not just elections--they are not just competitions between the two parties. They become competitions between racial groups and religious groups; and that kind of thing is extremely dangerous. |
| 30:12 | Russ Roberts: Russ Roberts: Yeah. It's--it's hard to put my finger on it. It does feel like--it, just to me it sort of ramps up the intensity of the feeling. I'm not sure--in theory, if I lose this election, I still have this religious identity; I still have my cultural identity. But, we're all in the same boat, all of us who have lost this, whatever it is, this election or whatever is, the other. Could be other issues as well, of course. Could be a Supreme Court decision on some social issue that I share with a bunch of people. But, and it just--I think the human urge--you know, Adam Smith says it in The Theory of Moral Sentiments: It's, I think it's deeply true. He says, 'We care, we want the people around us to like what we like'--which is what we are talking about here to some extent, this idea of social sorting and a lack of cross-cutting identity. But then he says, 'What we really care about then is that people our friends hate what we hate.' So, if I see a movie I like, I hope you'll like it. And if you don't, I'm going to be disappointed: 'Why didn't you like it?' But if there's a movie that I despised and you think it's wonderful, that's really hard for us to process. And I think that is the reason this isn't, perhaps--why it's so dangerous. Why it leads to this amplification. Lilliana Mason: Right. And if you think about, you know, just in terms of evolutionary psychology: which one is more important for you to pay attention to? The thing that you really hate or the thing that you really love? Right? The thing you really love is probably going to be there tomorrow, and you can go after it again. The thing that you really hate is right in front of you and you better deal with it immediately, because it's probably dangerous to you. So, we're naturally inclined as humans to have, to pay attention to the things that we dislike. Because, they are, you know, evolutionarily they are more dangerous. They are more important. They are immediate. And so, that idea of hating the people who are on the other side, not only does it sort of make our polarization worse, but it also makes us pay more attention to politics. And then hate each other more. And then pay more attention to politics. So, it is sort of this vicious cycle. Russ Roberts: Yeah. And I think the other part of it--you know, I talked about this in my piece on this--it's not always easy to admit, but we get pleasure from it. We get pleasure from disliking our opponents. We get pleasure--the standard way people think about it is we look down on and it makes you feel better to lower someone because you feel higher. But it's worse than that, I think. I think there's a certain visceral--I think it's clearly hardwired in us to exalt in--you know, it's Schadenfreude writ large--to exalt in the misery of our enemies. And political discourse on both Left and Right, Republicans and Democrats, is--you know, we have Trump talking about losers and we have Hillary talking about baskets of deplorables. It's not a healthy situation. Lilliana Mason: No. And in fact there is a study that demonstrated that you can actually see in people's brain activity--you put people in like an FMRI [Functional magnetic resonance imaging ] machine and show them a member of their in-group, you know, winning something, and they, you know--or, sorry--a member of their in-group losing, and they have these sort of sad, upset areas of their brain light up. And then you show them a member of their out-group losing, and the pleasure parts of their brain light up. So, it's really happening. Russ Roberts: Yeah. |
| 34:02 | Russ Roberts: So, what's to be done about this? Or, let me just make one more point, which is the role of the media. Which is--I don't think you talked about in your book. What I argued in my piece is that the media has allowed us to customize our information flow and thereby reinforce this again to a large degree: I don't have to watch the news channels or the commentators who are even-handed, or who, you know, might disagree with me: I'm just going to continually confirm my bias by my Twitter feed and my Facebook feed and the social media I consume, and the cable stations I watch. Do you think that plays a role? Lilliana Mason: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. But it works in concert with a couple of things that we're already doing. So, the first thing that I would say is--one thing I haven't talked about yet that's an important part of the book is this Minimal Group Paradigm experiments, which essentially, very briefly, people were told that they were a member of a group that they had never heard of before: They are either over-estimators or under-estimators. And then they are asked to allocate money to people that they've never met and they are never going to meet. And, they give the choice between, let's say, allocating $5 to everybody in the whole experiment, or allocating $4 to their own group but $3 to the outgroup members. And, the experimenter, when he was running this study, actually expected there to be no bias in this situation, because the groups were so meaningless. And in fact what he found was people were concerned about their group winning, and willing to sacrifice money in order to get the win condition. So they were not choosing the greater-good condition where every gets the most. They were choosing the condition where everyone gets less but the out group gets even less. So, there is a natural inclination for us to want our groups to win. And so, one of the things that the media does is it tends to portray legislation, even, as Democrats or Republicans winning. And when you--when every single thing the government does becomes a win for one side or the other, then there will be no compromise. Right? There's no reason for anyone to compromise, because if they lose then the whole party has this sense of loss. Even if they came--if they did good legislation. Even if they came up with a great compromise and a really good policy that solved the problem. That doesn't matter, because it's being portrayed as a loss for one side. And so, that side's never going to agree to that policy. We essentially are like gamifying the important work the government does. And the media does this. Not only do they cover everything as a horse case, but they also cover health care as a win for one side or the other. Which is damaging. Russ Roberts: Yeah. No. You give the example of government shut down versus votes on Obamacare; and I feel like that's also what is happening right now with immigration. Neither side wants to give the other side a win, so they can't compromise and solve the problem. And now we have this issue with tariffs: We are ratcheting up a trade war with China. And it's--you'd like to think, 'Well, wiser heads will prevail. They'll compromise on some issue of intellectual property, or some issue of investment flows, or whatever it turns out to be.' But, I'm not convinced that's going to happen. It's hard for me to imagine--I know a little bit more about American politics than Chinese politics. They are both--this is a small amount in each case--but it's hard to imagine that Trump would "take a loss" on this. And I doubt the Chinese will, either. I don't think they are eager to tell their people, 'Oh, yeah, the Americans pushed us around.' So, I just--so many issues today seem beyond compromise, and it's a winner-take-all where your guys get into power and then you get to do what you want. One of the deepest, most depressing things as a small government type of person, a classical liberal, is that the idea that the executive power keeps growing--I like to fantasize that that would encourage people to think that maybe we should limit executive power because, 'The guy who is in right now isn't my guy.' And instead, people say, 'It's okay, because when my guy gets in, it will be better.' And--'I'll get mine,' or, 'We'll get ours,' or whatever it is-- Lilliana Mason: And 'We'll get everything.' Russ Roberts: Yeah. 'We'll be in charge.' And that just seems like--a parliamentary system is a little more like that. Not totally. But a little more like that. And America has always been less like that. We're heading to being more like that, where, if you can control things, that's where you get stuff done. And nothing gets done when there's gridlock--when there's literally gridlock--because the parties have mixed control of the institutions. Because they don't compromise. Lilliana Mason: Right. And the important thing--this is the 'Agreement' part of the Uncivil Agreement title--is that this is true on issues where the vast majority of the American public agrees. So--right? It's just that you can't get legislation done, because it seems like a win or a loss. So, the example, one of the examples I give in the book, is that after Sandy Hook, you know, 90% of Americans agreed that we should have background checks for gun purchases. And, like 86% of Republicans agreed to that. But then, asked whether or not they wanted the Senate to pass a background checks bill, only 57% of Republicans agreed that there should be legislation passed to enact the thing that 87% of them thought was good. And, that means that there is a disconnect between what the people actually want government to do, and what they are willing to allow government to do in order to protect their sense of victory. And, this is them sacrificing that dollar, you know, to get the victory over, you know, something that almost the entire country agrees would be beneficial. Russ Roberts: [40:26] Yeah. Well, you talk about the fact that--and I have this romance myself to some extent, though I think listeners would maybe think that it is not the case. But, there is this view that political outcomes are the aggregation of preferences of citizens. We spend a lot of time on this program talking about how there's a lot of slippage in that connection; and also the fact that we don't have a 'will'--the people. There's often a great deal of disagreement. But, your point is that the correlation between--policy preferences of citizens and political outcomes is being reduced because of this partisan intensity. Lilliana Mason: Right. When you have a zero-sum type of competition between the parties, there is no place in the middle for compromise to occur. And compromise is the only way that legislation gets done and democracy functions. There is no other way for democracy to work, if there is no compromise. |
| 41:25 | Russ Roberts: Yeah. I think you say, and this is a quote, you say: Democrats and Republicans are in a battle over health care, over abortion, over tax policy. The political fights in American politics are supposed to be about something.
An abundance of evidence, however, contradicts this view. Which is--crazy. Like, what's the alternative? And, how does this reality start to change what politicians--how they behave and how they campaign? Lilliana Mason: Yeah. So, this is a really dangerous part of it. Because once the need for victory surpasses the actual policy preferences of people--or even, you know, your party's position can actually change your policy position at this point. There's evidence that if your party switches position, then the majority of people will also switch their position on something. Russ Roberts: Well, the Trump and trade example is just a perfect example of that. So many Republicans were "free traders." I'm a big free trader. So, I kind of like the fact--again, it's kind of naive to think this, but I like imagining the possibility that because Trump is so protectionist, this will cause many people who used to be protectionist to become free traders. But, certainly, many Republicans who were free traders have started to think, 'Well, actually, you know, it turns out--'. And it's effortless. It's effortless. It's not like there's this long process by which they come to a different view. It's overnight. Lilliana Mason: Yeah. And there's not a lot of reflection about, like, 'What happened when we changed our position?' Like, 'What were the reasons?' It's as if reality shifts and no one talks about it. Russ Roberts: I interrupted you. Go ahead. Sorry. Lilliana Mason: Yeah, no, no, no. So, the problem with this, though, is that, if your party can change your policy positions, then your party can do almost anything without being held accountable for it. Russ Roberts: Yep. Lilliana Mason: So, if you--if we really did care--if we really held these trade policies genuinely--then Trump would be held accountable for, you know, shifting the trade policies of the Republican Party. But that's not happening. So, there is, essentially, our elected officials can do really bad things and be, and still be just as popular as they were before they did bad things. Because, we're so, we're so focused on winning--partisan victory--that we'll allow our, you know, our elected officials to do almost anything. It's like that picture of those two guys that's going around Twitter last couple of days saying, 'I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat.' Russ Roberts: No--yeah--that's what it was. Right. Yeah. Lilliana Mason: I mean, it's like, literally, I mean like, 'What the heck?' Like-- Russ Roberts: Yeah. That is perfect. Lilliana Mason: Like, yeah, you prefer to be in another country. Russ Roberts: That used to be called treasonous. Or, like, un-American. Let's just leave it at that. It's a perfect description. It used to be considered un-American. Now, it's not. It's bizarre. Lilliana Mason: Well, and this is actually something. This is, kind of tying this back to the very beginning of the Republic. George Washington in his Farewell Address warned about this. He said--he specifically warned about really intense partisanship. He said--I can't remember the exact quote, but basically what he said was, 'If partisanship becomes too intense, then outside--foreign influences--can start to take advantage of our divides and influence our government via party passions.' Russ Roberts: Hmm. He's on to something. Lilliana Mason: So, Washington himself figured this out, and he was worried about it. Going forward. And, of course, partisanship immediately started the very next election. Russ Roberts: Yeah. Lilliana Mason: But, it's not an unfamiliar idea that extreme partisanship is dangerous. And, but, we seem to just not care about it because we are all so focused on our partisanship. |
| 45:23 | Russ Roberts: Yeah. Well, the point about the media allowing, in the current landscape of the Internet, social media, to allow us to tailor our own information flows to confirm our biases and make us feel good about ourselves and not so good about others--that's a world where I'm talking about the honest media. Meaning, just the natural choices that people can make now are different, and for what they watch, or just through [?] TV networks that watch the news, which are all pretty much the same. But, of course, that doesn't take account of the potential for manipulation, either by partisan activists or by foreigners, to influence our election. And, I'm deeply worried about this. I don't have an easy solution. Are you worried about that? And, by 'that,' I mean the ability to inflame partisan intensity--literally with fake news or lies? Just, showing stuff that didn't happen, because people understand through their--the data that they have on people's search habits and other things--to manipulate them in ways that people don't realize. Lilliana Mason: Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's--one of the things to remember about the Russian ad-buys is that they were buying ads not just on behalf of Donald Trump--like, pro-Trump ads--but they were also buying pro-Bernie [Bernie Sanders] ads, and pro-Black-Lives-Matter ads, in order to further inflame the Democratic Party, divide the Democratic Party from itself. And make both Democrats and Republicans focus on these sort of racial differences that were there between the parties, that are these very deep divides that we've always been--that we've always had in American politics. But making sure that we remembered that that was what we were voting about. And, yeah. It is--it is particularly because we will listen to almost anything our party says: Yeah, we are very vulnerable, to any kind of influence. Including our party's influence. And also--this is the other sort of distressing thing, is that: One thing that we know about the way that people process information is that, not only do we look for information that we agree with, and we try to avoid information that we disagree with; but also, if we see information that we don't like, we tend to counter-argue it in our heads. Russ Roberts: Yup. Lilliana Mason: And the more political information we have, the better we are at it. So, the people who are paying the most attention to politics are actually the ones that are best able to counter-argue any argument that they don't want to hear. So--and it's not necessarily that they have good information. They just have a lot of information. Russ Roberts: That's fascinating. Lilliana Mason: So, it's not like educating people or giving them tons of corrective information is going to solve anything, because the people who know the most, and therefore are the most active, usually, are also the most biased in their processing of information. Russ Roberts: Yeah; I love that. So, their--it's true in economics, too, of course; in social science, generally--that so-called experts, people like you and I who have Ph.D.s, what we're really good at is telling a story and finding, cherry-picking the data--one of the things we're good at is cherry-picking data to show that we're still right: We can find that study because we know about a lot of studies. So, we can find the studies that confirm our ideological or methodological biases. And, it flips on its head the idea that, you know, people who are uninformed, you kind of hope they don't vote much. But, maybe they are the ones who are the less vulnerable to this. But, I think we are all vulnerable to it, obviously. It's so easy to dismiss the other side's arguments: 'If we can't think of the arguments of the studies, we'll just dismiss them, because they are just wrong anyway. We know that.' Lilliana Mason: Well, this is actually--it's sort of a controversial argument. But, one of the earliest books about political behavior--it's just called Voting--the authors actually said, 'We actually need the disinterested and cross-pressured voters. They may not have a lot of information, but they will respond to large things.' And so, if something gigantic happens and the government needs to be held accountable for it, those are the people who are going to create accountability. We actually need the people who don't know much to be in the electorate, because they are the only place where we have any room to hold elected officials accountable. |
| 50:17 | Russ Roberts: So, one of the ways you'd think we could do something about this is to have a third party that was based on civility, based on tolerance, more centrist. And, of course, people who are out there say, 'That's my party. That already exists.' And I can't--it's amazing to me how often people write me and say--and I'm sure you get this, too--that this is only true of one party, or one type of views. But, of course, it's both sides. We're both vulnerable. Both sides are vulnerable to these psychological phenomena. So, you think, 'Well, let's have a party that's--we need a third party.' And, of course, as you say, the Democratic Party was greatly challenged by the 2016 election. As was the Republican Party. Either party could split, very, very dramatically. The populist wing of the Republican Party, which was basically silent until very recently, now seems to be totally in charge: the nationalist--what I'd call the Nationalist Populist/Protectionist side. So, there's room among Republicans, in theory, for a more economically free market party or socially liberal party to come along and peel off some Republicans who are uncomfortable with the direction that Trump has taken the Party. And similarly a lot of Democrats want to go much farther to the left than, say, Hillary Clinton--who was the last candidate--in their next election. And that may not be sustainable. That may lead to a--I think that's what's going to happen, and that could easily lead to the re-election of Trump, which could is going to cause a lot of hair to be pulled out. So, you'd think this is a time when a third or fourth party with some serious potential to have an impact could start. And yet, it's very hard in a two-party system to get a third party that's effective. Do you have any thoughts on that? Lilliana Mason: Yeah. That's--so, Lee Drutman at the New America Foundation has been writing a lot of really interesting stuff on how what we actually need to do is change to a parliamentary system. Because, until we have proportional representation, we will never have a third party. This is, Duverger's Law, which is that, if you have a first-past-the-post, majority wins electoral system, then you will always have two parties. Right. It's because if we had a proportional representation system, then, if there's a party that won 15% of the vote, they could get 15% of the seats--that would be great. Right? Then you could actually have a viable [?]-- Russ Roberts: You'd have to compromise; you'd have to get stuff done; you'd have to take them into account. Lilliana Mason: Right. And there would be coalitions. And therefore, different, you know, the different parties would be sometimes working together and sometimes not, so that reduces the zero-sum aspect of what we currently have. Russ Roberts: Of course, if you go to a system that's parliamentary--like, my favorite's Israel--they all will tell you the only problem with the Israeli political system is it's parliamentary. Lilliana Mason: Hah, hah, hah. Russ Roberts: It's always greener-- Lilliana Mason: The grass is always greener. But, I think I'm more, in terms of--I don't think America is going to move to a proportional representation system. And that takes--that's probably a step too far. Who knows? But, a more realistic possibility would be something like what happened to the Southern Democrats in the 1960s. Which is that sort of a wing of one of the parties, or a substantial group of one of the parties starts voting with the other side, in a somewhat reliable way. And that really changes the dynamic of the, you know, win/lose, zero-sum part of it. So that gradually, these, you know, sort of like libertarian Republicans would, you know, vote with Democrats, centrist Democrats, you know, more and more. And maybe gradually, if, you know, the Trump wing and sort of populist and also somewhat, like also, sort of like White Supremacist wing of the Republican Party is still there, that will turn away a lot of the more libertarian Republicans. And they might start voting with Democrats, if it means they are voting against White Supremacy. Right? Russ Roberts: The only problem with that is, if Bernie--Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or someone, Kamala Harris--is the nominee, it's going to be really hard, I think, for those Republicans to hold their nose and vote for them. And, part of it, of course, is: I just can't put on a Yankee's hat. I'm sorry. It's just not happening. 'But it's really sunny out. It's all I've got.' I know. It's okay. I'll get sunstroke. Lilliana Mason: Okay, the sunburn. Yeah. Well, so--that's--I think a really good example of this is the Alabama Senate race-- Russ Roberts: Oh, yeah-- Lilliana Mason: Where, it wasn't that a whole bunch of white Republicans voted for the Democrat. Although, some did. Russ Roberts: Some did. Yeah. Some did. Lilliana Mason: But mostly, the most pro-Roy Moore districts in Alabama just had much lower turnout-- Russ Roberts: yep-- Lilliana Mason: than normal. And so, that is one way that this could go. Is that, you know, if, if there is such an extremism within the ascendant, within the Republican Party, that might just turn off enough people that they are just going to stop voting. And that--you know, if they don't vote, that swings the election. So, that is--one--you know, there should be some accountability, maybe not in switching to voting for the other party, but in just not turning out, that would be sort of the only way I can imagine accountability working. Russ Roberts: Well, that's the same thing that happened on the Democratic side-- Lilliana Mason: Yeah-- Russ Roberts: If they end up pushing way to the Left--very few Democrats are going to vote for Trump, but they just won't vote. They just will stay home. |
| 56:26 | Russ Roberts: Well, we don't have a lot of time left--but, which is good, because we are going to turn now to what we can do about this. And, since, it's a short list for me, I have a few thoughts. But, most of my listeners have heard mine. I have one to add. What are your thoughts? What can we do as human beings, not necessarily as--we are not giving consulting advice now to operatives within either party--which is an interesting moral question, what you should do in that situation. You know, how to manipulate people. But, just as citizens, or as policy positions that might--policy things that might change to make this better: What are you thinking? Lilliana Mason: So, one thing is actually for the media to stop doing the horse-racing, legislation. I think that will be helpful. Russ Roberts: Then they'll get fewer listeners, and viewers-- Lilliana Mason: Exactly! Russ Roberts: That ain't going to happen. Lilliana Mason: It's boring, if you talk about the minutiae of a bill. So, that's unlikely. The thing we can do as individual people is, first of all, acknowledge that we are inclined to think this way-- Russ Roberts: yeah, big thing-- Lilliana Mason: By understanding it, it's easier to counter-argue it in your own head. And to try not to do it so much. The other--the other thing is to--honestly, because politics is so fraught at this point, my argumentation is always just like, 'Don't talk about politics. Go hang out with people who are not like you, but don't talk about politics with them.' Do something else. Like, everybody go do some service together. Or, you know, join a club with people who are in your outgroup party and don't talk about politics. But, find ways to connect with people that are-- Russ Roberts: as humans. As human beings. Lilliana Mason: Yeah. And so then, and then you can start thinking of them as people who have families. And then when, you know, when they come up with their, when they are thinking about politics, they have thoughts in their head, and they are trying to work things through, and they are trying to be good people. Sometimes. And so, you know, it's this idea of trying to reach out. The problem with this, though, is that the people who are most likely to do that are also the people who are also the least needing of it. Right. So, you have to be motivated to want to create less of a divide, to want to do that. And the most divisive people don't want a less, don't want less of a divide. So, it doesn't work exactly--it doesn't work all that well. Because the people who need it are not doing it. And in fact, I think, maybe we should just enforce it somehow on a national level, like have some kind of some kind of national service. This is--you know, in the military, this--you know, partisanship sort of disappears. So, if there was some way to get Americans working together at some point to, you know--I'm not sure how--but, you know, working on some type of national service could bring people together in ways that are unlikely in their current lives. And, yeah. Other than that, it's very--it's just very hard to get people who don't want to do this, don't want to heal a divide, to heal it. You can't really force them to. |
| 59:43 | Russ Roberts: Yeah. I do think what we are doing right now, to make people aware of it, is a good thing. I think most people don't like the idea of being disdainful of others, and switching their views to satisfy their party identity. I think most people, when confronted with that in the light of day think, 'I wouldn't do that.' And if they are doing it would go, 'Maybe I shouldn't.' So I think that helps something. I think we're doing something here. Though, we think about the media--and I wasn't joking, obviously--very much in the media is interest in a world that's extremely competitive and where there's been an immense amount of disruption, to desperately seek eyeballs and clicks. So I understand why they do what they do. But there are organizations like ProPublica that have been started by foundations that are not as driven by clicks and views. Which I think has some potential. In my essay, and in my podcast on this episode, I suggested that people follow people on Twitter and Facebook who aren't like them. And yet, one of the problems there is that actually can make it worse. Because a lot of the people aren't like me--I do, I follow on Twitter, I do increase my outrage because they are so unfair. They are so wrong. Or whatever it is. So, when I give that advice, I now add, and try to find the quieter, more thoughtful ones--there are some on the other side, no matter what side you are on. But the other advice that I, that your book made me think of, and I had just, was actually writing about it a little was: Find some different groups to hang out in. You know: Get outside your partisan group. My joke was, 'If you are a Democrat, go to a NASCAR race.' And, 'If you are Republican, do some Yoga.' Of course, there are people who, there are Democrats who go to NASCAR races. There are Republicans who do yoga, already. The problem there, again, is that if you pick the wrong group to try to humanize the other side, it could just might make you madder to see--it just confirms your prejudices if you are not careful. So, you need to find an activity that isn't likely to make it worse. Lilliana Mason: And, also, you know--what we're--we don't want to recommend that, for instance, an African American Democrat go by themselves to a NASCAR race. They are probably going to feel possibly threatened there. Russ Roberts: I don't know. I'm not sure about that. I mean, I think that's a prejudice. I don't know if that's true. It's hard for me to say. I've never been to a NASCAR race. Lilliana Mason: Me, neither. Russ Roberts: So, it's--but that's a fascinating question, right, of how far you should go out of your comfort zone, right? If you are not a church-goer, to go to church. If you are not a hunter, to go hunting. I think that would be extremely difficult. It's true: I think you'd find out that there are nice, normal people. Many of them. Maybe some of them aren't, of course. But, I think that is a way--I think exposure in general is good. So, I'm all for that. I think the question is: There may be some challenges people have with their biases and processing those experiences that might be challenging. That's all. Lilliana Mason: Yeap. |
| 1:02:52 | Russ Roberts: So, let's close with a really cheerful question. Do you think we are at risk of a Civil War? I've started to wonder whether that's a possibility. If we did get, say, 10% unemployment in this world that we are in now or worse--you know, a terrorist event of some kind, equivalent to 9-11, which, you know, I think the aftermath of 9-11 most people would say was pretty good for America: We did come together for at least a couple of days. Maybe even a few weeks. But, in this time maybe that wouldn't be the response. Maybe it would be something worse. And different. So, what are your thoughts on that? Do you think we are in a uniquely dangerous time here, or is this just sort of where we are and we are over-exaggerating? Lilliana Mason: Yeah. I go back and forth on this, partly because I don't want there to be a civil war, so I'm trying to find ways to suggest that there won't be one. There's work on, like in comparative politics looking at other countries, that, you know, where scholars are, they make models predicting, you know, the probability that a nation will descend into civil war. And there are certain things that are really good predictors of that. Racial and ethnic political divisions is one of them. Or, religious political divisions. We have both of those. Adverse regime change, which I think, you know, some people would say is what Trump was--Democrats would say is what Trump was for them. And economic struggles. So, the last one is the one that we don't have yet. And, I don't want to say, like all of, if we have a recession then we're going to, you know, descend into civil war, because I think a lot of that is in countries where democratic institutions are not as strong as ours, presumably, are. The--one of my concerns in 2016, actually--was that if Clinton did win, that we would have a legitimacy problem, because Trump was already starting, you know, 'The election is rigged' type of language. And so my one concern is that if we have a close election, our--the amount of faith that voters have in the electoral system right now is probably not that great. And, so, any question about the validity of an electoral outcome, that could be the type of thing, I think, that causes a type--a really dangerous clash between Democrats and Republicans. Because it puts partisanship right up front. It seems like an unfair thing that happens. And, people are going to get very, very angry if that type of thing happens. So, for me, that's my biggest concern. Russ Roberts: Well, I think we're already there. To some extent. I hear, constantly, in my Twitter feed from people on the Left, that Trump is illegitimate because he only won the Electoral College. That is the way we elect a President. You might not like it, but that is the way you are elected in America. And, of course, it's the way people campaign. At least, they are supposed to, if they are smart. So, I feel like--it's just so easy to spread rumors of voter, you know, dishonesty, corrupt voting--which is a real problem on both sides of the political divide, the partisan divide. And we're not going to have--I don't think we are going to have a non-close election, for a while. Lilliana Mason: Yeah. No. It's very unlikely-- Russ Roberts: It seems that way. Ehhh, it's hard to say. But I think that is a good point. I think the feeling that an unfair result happened--which is what I think people would use to justify violence--is really scary. Lilliana Mason: Yeah. And we're not there yet in the sense that there isn't violence. We're not in a violent place, yet. The question is, you know, if: The difference between the Left and the Right is that the Left is generally not armed. Russ Roberts: Yes. Exactly. Lilliana Mason: As well. Russ Roberts: Well, that'll change. Don't worry. But you're right. Lilliana Mason: Well, it might. But, so that the--so, the Left goes, does marches. And that's why I was concerned about the Clinton victory was that I was concerned about sort of, you know, there are hundreds of identified, you know, armed militia groups in the United States. And they tend not to be Democrats. Or liberals. Russ Roberts: That's true. But that will--I'm saying though, that will change. Historically there has been, there is violence on both sides. So, it's not-- Lilliana Mason: Right. So, if violence begins, then, yeah. Russ Roberts: But you are right. Right now, it's--at least, that seems to be the case, that Republicans are more likely to own guns than Democrats. That's definitely true. |
| 1:07:57 | Russ Roberts: Let's close on a slightly cheerier note. Do you have anything positive, anything encouraging, that makes you feel somewhat comfortable, comforted, going forward? Lilliana Mason: I don't usually have a lot of comforting research. But, I did just finish a project looking at providing information to voters about candidates' character and whether or not that can, a). whether you can correct misinformation that they might hold, and b). whether that changes their approval of the candidate. And we found a little bit of evidence that if you explain, you know, if the assumption--the story was Trump was a sort of a self-made billionaire. And, all we did was say, 'Were you aware that Fred Trump--Donald Trump's father--was a successful businessman and loaned him millions of dollars?' And, just asking them the question introduced that information into respondents' minds. And after reading that, they rated Donald Trump as less sympathetic and less good at business. And their approval ratings of him declined. Not a lot. But a little. Like 12 points or something. Russ Roberts: That's a lot. Lilliana Mason: That's--yeah, that can be a lot if you are in the middle. So, that to me was like, 'Oh, we actually--you can provide information in some contexts' that can change people's opinions. And correct misinformation that they may be holding. So, that's one tiny little bit of optimistic evidence. |
Political scientist Lilliana Mason of the University Maryland and author of Uncivil Agreement talks about the book with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Mason argues that political partisanship has become stronger in America in recent years because it aligns with other forms of community and identity. People are associating primarily with people who share their political views in their other social activities outside of politics. As a result, they encounter fewer people from the other side. The intensity of partisanship can even overcome ideology as partisans change their policy positions in their eagerness to be on the winning side. The conversation closes with a discussion of what might be done to improve political discourse in America.
READER COMMENTS
Nonlin_org
Aug 20 2018 at 11:13am
[Comment removed. Please consult our comment policies and check your email for explanation.–Econlib Ed.]
Michael F
Aug 20 2018 at 11:51am
This was a really great (though slightly depressing) episode.
One thing that I don’t understand (sorry in advance if it was covered and I literally didn’t understand it) is why this win at all costs doesn’t actually cause 1 party to push towards the center?
It could work like this: you have 10 voters, 4 left, 4 right and 2 centrists. If you could stake out a position or run a candidate that was more in the center, you might pick up the 1 or 2 undecided voters and get a 6-4 or 5-4 win.
You could say that you’d lose a few partisan votes of the extremists who would sit the vote out because it (candidate or ballot initiative) is not aligned with their extreme desires, BUT then that would contradict Lilliana Mason’s claim that it is more about the winning than policy in which case the extremists would vote (even for something they consider lukewarm) because they’d still get to notch the victory.
Note: I can see that this is NOT happening in real life. If it was then you would expect big rhetoric and bland (ineffective) policy but we are getting big rhetoric and unfortunately big policy (that could be very impactful) tariffs and Obamacare come quickly to mind…
Michael Byrnes
Aug 21 2018 at 9:42am
I think primary elections are a big part of why this doesn’t happen. There are a lot of districts that are partisan enough that the in-power party’s primary essentially determines the winner. Candidates trying to state out a centrist position are likely to lose their primary.
SaveyourSelf
Aug 22 2018 at 9:59am
There might be an answer in something Nassim Taleb wrote about. He called it the minority rule. The idea is that an inflexible minority can have an oversized influence on group behavior. In majority-rule mechanisms that is easy to see why. If a minority of decision makers can oppose the majority, then they can sometimes block the desires of the majority. They are then in a position to extract rents from the majority to motivate them to vacate their unpopular position. What Taleb found interesting is that something similar can happen even when everyone in the group is operating independently. His examples were the general absence of peanuts in food even though very few people have peanut allergies. This minority rule might explain why extremists do not move to the center. They are a minority and they know it. Their power—when they have any—comes from inflexibility, not from numerical superiority.
Which leads to a question I had while listening to this podcast. Why is moderation, cooperation, and concession assumed by Lilliana Mason to be a good thing? She insinuated several times during the podcast that polarization was a problem, but she didn’t explain why. Perhaps because she thought it was one of the predictors of civil war?
One other thought I had: The extreme elements in a party may not consider themselves part of the party. I am a Libertarian, for example, but end up voting republican because we have a two party system. I have no party affiliation, so I am not willing to sacrifice my principles even if it would mean the difference between republicans winning or losing.
Joe Fuess
Aug 23 2018 at 3:58pm
I think it’s a combination of factors working in tandem that is driving people into this tribal form of politics. Hubris, insecurity, hate and Twitter(pick your social media) are making it easy for people to attack each other. It has become more about “winning” and less about finding common ground. The more radical and controversial voices are wining out over those who are more pragmatic and centralized. These are scary times indeed.
Thanks for great show Russ. I appreciate you and others who are willing to actually speak up about topics that are weirdly unpopular at times.
Michael Byrnes
Aug 24 2018 at 5:08am
She did acknowledge early on that there are benefits to polarization. I think her point is less that polarization is bad, but that (once again in life) the dose makes the poison. There’s some amount of polarization is optimal, while too much more or too much less are bad.
I would say that the biggest problem with excessive polarization, in the US specifically, is that it undermines the 3-bravh, checks and balances structure of the government established in the constitution.
Practically speaking, the checks and balances in government we have now is more like this: Republicans are a check on the Democrats, and vice versa. And this particular check will be used as
much if not more for partisan political reasons as for constitutional reasons.
SaveyourSelf
Aug 24 2018 at 8:35am
Good call and well said.
Noted, but, assuming we accept the greater polarization as real, I think you have the causal direction backwards. I will counter argue that the failure of the checks and balances—in particular the judicial branch’s repeated failure to hold the other branches accountable to the actual text of the constitution—has led to greater harm by government resulting in a classic human threat response which is described in this podcast as polarization. This fits the model nicely that I’ve been fleshing out since reading Hayek and Adam Smith.
Michael Byrnes
Aug 20 2018 at 12:20pm
I just wanted to add a thought about Russ’ suggestion of following people with whom we disagree politically. He noted that this can be difficult (I think because there are a lot of sarcastic, disagreeable partisans out there).
My little spin on this is to find people on the other side with whom you agree on at least one issue. This can be challenging, of course, because people’s opinions on all issues tend to align with their party’s view. But those relatively rare cases of people whose views don’t uniformly align with their party are useful people to follow.
szymon moldenhawer
Aug 20 2018 at 12:55pm
[Comment removed. Please consult our comment policies and check your email for explanation.–Econlib Ed.]
Don Jansen
Aug 20 2018 at 1:51pm
FWIW, 1 in 5 NASCAR fans are members of groups designated as minority.
William Towne
Aug 20 2018 at 9:59pm
white women?!
SLC
Aug 25 2018 at 10:18pm
Exactly. I was greatly amused by Professor Mason’s apparent certainty that minorities would be uncomfortable at a NASCAR event having admitted to never attending one herself. Perhaps she could book a research safari in the interest of political science. Could be quite an adventure for her.
At least Professor Roberts expressed a smidgen of uncertainty. Wish he had managed as much at the blithely asserted existence of a “white supremicist” wing of the Republican Party.
By this point in the interview, I was laughing at the neuroticism of both that leads either to think that we are anywhere near to an impending civil war. Need to get out a tad more I think.
Greg Alder
Aug 26 2018 at 3:38pm
My thoughts exactly. Thank you for that.
Jon
Sep 9 2018 at 4:38pm
[Comment removed. Please consult our comment policies and check your email for explanation.–Econlib Ed.]
edgar
Aug 20 2018 at 1:58pm
Leftists are not as well armed? Scalise might disagree. And antifa was allowed to burn limousines, riot, and attack inauguration goers with impunity. I think you are missing a lot of violence that is already going on.
Eric R Meakins
Aug 21 2018 at 2:59pm
The violence is vastly over-reported by the media
Dan
Aug 20 2018 at 2:48pm
Some thoughts from an independent libertarian turned Trump Republican:
– If you look at what Republicans said about the issues decades ago, it’s not that different from the party today. Goldwater pamphlets wouldn’t look at all out of the ordinary in any conservative publication today. Look up any prominent Democrat (Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, the Clintons) on immigration from the 90’s and they are unrecognizeable from their former selves (much more radical today).
– The question of “who started it” is relevant because generally they are best positioned to stop. Like many Trump Republicans, I was dragged into identity politics reluctantly by increased group-based attacks on men, whites, and heterosexuals by an increasingly radical (and increasingly violent) left. I think also, like many Trump voters, I would be happy to return to individualism if the acute attacks on my identity from the left were to stop.
– Public sentiment for extreme left politics up to and including communism has warmed considerably over the last couple of decades where the same had not occurred for fascism/Nazism. You can be a communist professor or office worker. You cannot be a Nazi. Political violence has followed the same track: hold a right-wing rally in e US and Antifa will show up and attack you. Hold a communist rally and nobody will bother you.
Maybe all this implies the radicalization is more on one side than the other and something is going on besides Trump voters being unprincipled.
SaveyourSelf
Aug 22 2018 at 10:30am
Therein lies the key to this conundrum, except it is not caused by the “Left”. When people feel threatened they group together tightly. This behavior has survival benefits. Nothing predicts the outcome of a violent contests better than numerical superiority and coordination. This grouping reflex is built into our DNA. The key to the observed political pattern is that people on the right and left are responding as if they are threatened with violence. The thing that everyone misses or ignores—I can’t tell which—is that any operations of the government that exceeds the limited criteria of the citizenship agreement is violence against someone. And in a majority rule democracy that “someone” is the minority. People are getting hurt by their government. They are responding by grouping tightly and attempting to wrestle control of the government back so they are no longer its target. What is mystifying is that, once in control, they do not stop the carnage. They simply redirect it on the losers of the political contest, causing the losers to group that much tighter. The solution is simple, and it isn’t involuntary work camps. It is to stop using the government for activities unrelated to justice. Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security. Even Education. They all steal from minority citizens and force obedience upon them. It’s slavery and it’s theft and it’s harmful.
I loved this podcast. Lilliana Mason is smart and interesting. I learned a lot. But she missed her target.
Arde
Aug 23 2018 at 6:08pm
I have exactly the same observations. I am a European who sometimes tries to follow the American politics. I try to get a more objective picture by reading different websites: I read one conservative website (National Review), one on the left (Salon.com) and one which has articles on both sides (New York Times, although this is also seems more left leaning). I have read in salon.com articles, which full of pure hate towards whites, men, Trump voters etc. I have never read any comparable hate mongering in the National Review. Yes, those on the left are getting more and more positive about socialism and try to whitewash the crimes of the communists, while I haven’t noticed anything comparable regarding the right and nazis. Antifa is violent, and I dont see any comparable violent group on the right. Speech restrictions, campus protests, banning speakers, firing people for wrong thoughts, all these undemocratic and uncivil things are predominantly on the left.
Allen Hutson
Aug 20 2018 at 3:04pm
There is a lot to unpack in the episode, and I for one think your guest is on point.
I am a bit lost by the idea that we can’t have proportional representation in the United States (a parliamentary system). This would be entirely plausible using the House of Representatives and (potentially) increasing the number of reps to ensure that all states have at least 5 (just throwing a number out) reps. It would be a state by state parliament, which would make it unique, but I see no reason why, instead of every state having district level voting, we couldn’t have party driven voting for the House of Representatives – similar to the Dutch House of Representatives. This could happen at the national level or state by state, although constitutionally, a national level system would be harder to create.
Michael Byrnes
Aug 20 2018 at 5:59pm
I like the Fair Vote (I think that’s the group) proposal: Larger, multi-member congressional districts (3-5 members per district), with instant runoff voting. That would ensure a more representative House.
I’ll again suggest Arthur Brooks as a potential future guest on this topic (or related ones) based on his new podcast, which is focused on the art of disagreement. As a liberal myself, Brooks is one of those conservatives I keep an eye on because some of his work interests me.
Allen Hutson
Aug 20 2018 at 3:16pm
Oh good lord…everyone is welcome at NASCAR races. No joking, the NASCAR crowd is overwhelmingly white, but it is not uncommon to see African American, Hispanic, Asian, and middle eastern folks at races.
I’d be far far far far more concerned for someone showing up at an Eagles game.
Bob Anderson
Aug 20 2018 at 4:51pm
These comments made me sadder than the episode.
Mark Hatzilambrou
Aug 21 2018 at 8:31pm
Unless you elaborate, it will be difficult to know why so.
bonaparte
Aug 20 2018 at 5:19pm
Oh, man. “One side is rural, White, men, Christian; the other side is everybody else”. This biased statement needs to be countered by the host immediately.
Mark Hatzilambrou
Aug 21 2018 at 8:47pm
Mr. Roberts’s restraint was typical of him and wise. The guest unintentionally provided her own demonstration examples of the tenacity of confirmation bias in the final twenty minutes after the brief discussion starting at 47:30. Mr. Roberts gently but pointedly noted her prejudice with regard to NASCAR fans. One either sees that all the organized political violence actually being perpetrated is on the left; or one sees the horrible potential on the right, taking for granted that the new Republican populism is dominated by white supremacism. With the guest, it appeared that nothing would pop that bubble.
Roman Lombardi
Aug 20 2018 at 5:37pm
I have to say I was seriously taken aback at the guest’s comments regarding NASCAR. It was such a proverbial “fly in the ointment”, I almost slammed on the brakes! Not only does it reveal her biases, but it underscores how wrong they are.
What anyone would find at a NASCAR race is a significant number of African-American fans. Serious diehards. Her comments were, well, dare I say ignorant? They were also said with a kind is self-assuredness that is frankly alarming.
Overall, I thought it was a very interesting episode. It’s election day here in Florida. I just drove past the local library with throngs of people holding political signs screaming for their team. Just like the Super Bowl.
Arnold Layne
Aug 20 2018 at 6:23pm
Does anyone have suggestions for progressive and conservative voices (podcasts, blogs) that, like Russ and Arnold Kling, take the most charitable view of those they disagree with?
Eric R Meakins
Aug 21 2018 at 3:01pm
The Politics Guys is a good one
Gregory McIsaac
Aug 21 2018 at 10:59pm
I think “Left, Right and Center” at KCRW is pretty good https://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/left-right-center
Michael Byrnes
Aug 22 2018 at 2:10am
Seconded. On that podcast, Josh Barro does a great job of moderating discussion between liberal and conservative panelists – as more of a centrist, Barro is a good follow for anyone anywhere along the spectrum of polarization.
Arnold Layne
Aug 30 2018 at 10:09am
Thanks a lot for the recommendation. I checked it out and it was civil and had representation from both sides, but was still very partisan. What’s really turning me off (perhaps unreasonably) is the virulent anti-Trumpism of the left, and the episode I just listened to had one side emphatically calling Trump and sessions racists for things that, when charitably viewed, aren’t necessarily so.
Basically, what I wanted was progressive and conservative versions of Russ Roberts: someone who has a perspective, but is open to being challenged and charitably explores people’s opinions.
Arnold Layne
Aug 20 2018 at 6:30pm
NASCAR fan demographics: about 20% minority, 9% Hispanic, 8% black.
http://brentsherman.com/PDFS/NASCAR.pdf
CowboyProf
Aug 20 2018 at 7:06pm
Many Thoughts.
1. Most of this talk was about the political arena, but at the end Prof. Mason noted that folks who are most vulnerable to segmenting into closed political tribes (my language) are those who tend to be the most informed and passionate about politics. (She cited a book called “Voting” – not yet in transcript.)
If I may, allow me to hold up a mirror to academia itself. Is this “uncivil segmentation” affecting faculty, not only in terms of politics but also in terms of schools of thought? As for politics, I have observed a rather exaggerated response on the part of academics to the Trump election, so much so that there is routinely “Tourette’s Syndrome”-type swearing about the current political landscape that seems more heightened than the past. It is almost as if there are “two minute hate” sessions to lead off meetings that have nothing to do with the current political landscape. And those who don’t toe the line are immediately jumped upon. This “raging” phenomenon includes many of the folks who are the ones who are supposed to be professionally (dispassionately) analyzing the political landscape. But are we doing this? The social science profession seems to be approaching the Trump Administration as being some major outlier (several standard deviations above the mean), but has anybody asked whether or not the administration is really that “far out”? In short, is what Prof. Mason studying in the political world writ large also affecting the profession in which the analysis is being conducted?
Outside of the national political scene, it appears what Prof. Mason is observing there is also occurring within academia with respect to different schools of thought. I’ve been around the academic landscape for three decades now, and it seems as if faculty hires, graduate admissions, and other professional activities are becoming increasingly “partisan” and locked in. I am surprised by the frequency with which new terms or concepts are introduced and if one questions those new concepts the herd comes to lambast them. Maybe I am not seeing things here clearly.
2. I was a bit worried about one of Prof. Mason’s quick solutions being “national service” (if I heard that correctly). That seems to ring of something that people are “forced” to do to interact with one another, or at least strongly incentivized to do. I think that will have disastrous results. Would Prof. Mason propose a policy that requires people of different political stripes to work together in “national service”? And who would choose the nature of that “national service”? (I fear that trying to “force” people to work together would make them want to be apart more.)
During the discussion in the second half of the conversation, I kept thinking about how sports has tended to serve as a way of bringing individuals together on a dimension that aren’t necessarily political. We can always be Red Sox fans whether or not we vote Blue, Red, or Green. It was, in essence, a “safe space” for people to learn about each other. True, there is a tribal aspect to it in that the Red Sox don’t like the Yankees, but within smaller regions you have the ability to develop cross-cutting cleavages that have the effect of moderating other differences — “I disagree with you on X politically, but we both want the Red Sox to prevail this year; let’s share a beer.” (Alas, I think that we have brought sports into the “my tribe or nothing” realm in recent years — cf. the NFL kneeling stuff.)
Instead of “national service” (which does hint at hard or soft coercion … and much like what is done in requiring high school students to volunteer), I would rather prefer less obstacles on civil society organizations that would allow people their own autonomy in finding cross-cutting cleavages. I think the tribal politics of the political sphere is encroaching on Tocqueville’s civil society and really pushing the “all or nothing” divisions in society.
3. Finally, is all of this (perceived) increase in incivility and “all-or-nothing” tribal identities related to the increasing amount of what is at stake with policy at the national level? With a more expansive government, even small policies can have large distributional consequences across broad swathes of the population — both geographically and demographically. Might the increased “all-or-nothing” incivility be a function of the increased stakes of the game? Would devolving decision-making to the lowest possible level help to alleviate incivility?
Szymon Moldenhawer
Aug 20 2018 at 7:23pm
Polarization will continue. This conversation is a a good example why I have little hope of any improvement any time soon. In this conversation after first insightful analysis showing how bias blinds us which it does. How technology exaggerates the deep seated biological prejudices. In the discussion section guest demonstrated bias making it really hard to take point seriously. And her point is a serious valid point Currently most violence is on the right ( forgetting Antifa ) and fact that from 1950 violence as a means of struggle has been almost totally concentrated on the left in both US and Europe. That restriction of free speech on campuses by violent tactics has been overwhelmingly concentrated the left. In US right wing is still in non violent but seething stage accumulating and exaggerating feeling of being victimized.
Ed Hoopman
Aug 21 2018 at 8:28am
I understand skepticism of the Robber’s Cave study, it’s certainly possible researchers encouraged dramatic/ behavior, but these are also young boys.
Look at the behavior of adults at sporting events.
It is possible the experiment wasn’t conducted 100% bias-free, but it’s easily possible that this would be a pretty typical result.
Mark Hatzilambrou
Aug 21 2018 at 9:01pm
I got from Mr. Roberts’s skeptical comment, mentioning “1950s” studies, only that he’s seen too many revelations of warped studies from mid-century to take it at face value. He freely admitted that he did not know the particulars but was unwilling to concede its veracity because the guest made it central to her point.
JFA
Aug 21 2018 at 8:30am
A few comments:
yes, tribalism exist, but the Robbers Cave experiments are not a good jumping off point as the experiment can best be described as fraudulent: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/a-real-life-lord-of-the-flies-the-troubling-legacy-of-the-robbers-cave-experiment
Russ, intersectionality is not the view that “you must be with us on everything” [paraphrased]. I think the viewpoints of those who espouse intersectional thinking tend toward this extreme, but you should be able to separate intersectional theory from the actions of its proponents.
Yeah… that comment about Nascar was utterly offensive (and I’m not even a Nascar fan).
John McCue
Aug 27 2018 at 1:10pm
Thanks for the link to the Guardian article!
Paul A Sand
Aug 21 2018 at 9:47am
Coincidentally, I noticed a relevant NYPost op-ed from Ken Stern, a former NPR CEO. He’s flogging a book (Republican Like Me: How I Left the Liberal Bubble and Learned to Love the Right). But it was interesting that he explicitly took the Russ Roberts cure:
David Foster
Aug 21 2018 at 10:29am
Loved the episode and Professor Mason’s book. The study in which providing information about Donald Trump’s background altered people’s views was very interesting. I suppose that could be used for partisan purposes, but it’s encouraging to hear that people’s views aren’t necessarily set in stone.
My organization is all about providing information to voters to reduce polarization — if you’re curious check out http://www.knowthesystem.org, @KnowTheSystem.
Kevin
Aug 21 2018 at 11:13am
The irony of this biased partisan talking about bias without declaring her bias was rich. Republicans will be violent if Hillary wins? Democrats WERE violent after Trump won. Republicans have more guns? Chicago called and is deeply interested in your perception of the intersection between voting habits and gun possession.
Others have already said what is true empirically – there is an aggressor in this situation with most the violence and it seems more vitriol on the left. I propose the reason why is that as left leaning people have fewer non-political identities the political identity looms larger and larger.
The is empirically testable- right leaning people identify with a party but it makes up a small portion of their overall identify. If you asked me to list various identities I see for myself my political affiliation would not make my top ten. I strongly suspect this differs by left right significantly (and interacts with age in the multivariate model) and is driven by
1) Differences in family structure – single vs married; childless vs children. Married women lean right, single women lean left. If you are a mother and wife its less likely that *PARTY* makes up a significant piece of your identity.
2) Religion – my religion is far more a part of my identity than politics. As we further divide between the secular party vs a party with more religious people, the secular party is more likely to see the party as an important part of their identify.
3) Urban vs rural vs suburban: This is really community vs less community. I am a member of my community. I contribute to the schools, I go to community meetings that have issues which are non-partisan on the national stage. However, in large urban environments people are less likely to be connected to their community so have a weaker community identity. In larger urban environments the issues also will tend to fall along more partisan lines because the population is just bigger.
4) Identity politics: This is a product of the left and so if I identify as “black” or “gay” than I know which “team” I belong to – or I am supposed to belong to. That has not historically been the case with whites. But thanks for the constant racial aggression in this country whites are slowly joining the game but way behind. So, identify groups are more likely to deeply identify with a political affiliation than whites.
The Professor wondered if there was some way we could help everyone interact to understand others. Might I propose the economy serves that function. Everyday I interact with people and speak with people and never worry or care about their politics. Its wonderful.
Will there be violence if Trump loses? Not a chance. Will there be violence if Trump is removed from office via impeachment given what we know about the way the left has treated the president as illegitimate and the way investigations have gone. Yes, there will most certainly be.
Finally, civil war? No way we are not even close. Do I want to shoot my neighbors over something as unimportant to my daily life as politics? It worries me more that left leaning people see it as a possibility. A civil war of this type would be very messy as it would essentially be urban vs everyone else.
JFA
Aug 21 2018 at 12:10pm
As a counter point to the right not engaging in violence: you’ve got Dylan Roof shooting up a black church, a dude shooting up a pizza parlor because he thought Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of it, various bombings of abortion clinics and murder of abortion-providing doctors, and a few mass shootings performed by right-wing men’s rights incels.
I don’t think it would be anywhere near accurate to dismiss the possibility of violence from either left or right given that they have all engaged in violence in the past.
Kevin
Aug 21 2018 at 2:19pm
Most of your example are not of the “right” and most of them were not political. I apologize if I wrongly said all violence is of the left. But claiming a crazy person who shoots something should be ascribed to the left or right is usually folly. Racial violence is usually not of the right or left unless Ferguson’s riots should be attributed to the left (it should not).
Political violence isn’t a random person committing random violence. Political violence is like James Hodgkinson shooting up Republican congressmen in the hopes it will change the balance of power in elections (amazing how that overt political violence is so often forgotten).
Abortion clinic bombings…thats pretty rare but it is political and on the right (I just scanned the wikipedia article). I agree that violence comes from both sides, but the trend in the US lately is unfortunately clear and I think for the reasons of identity I specified.
Jim
Aug 21 2018 at 12:33pm
Russ love the show. In this you bring up free trade, as if the right has let it go to win. I would really like to here how you think we can get to free trade without pressuring countries with are own tariffs who have been on the winning side of tariffs?
Russ Roberts
Aug 21 2018 at 4:57pm
There is no such thing as a “winning side” for tariffs. Tariffs make a nation poorer but along the way, they help some citizens at the expense of others. Using tariffs to get to free trade is lovely if it actually works. That remains to be seen. I would prefer that the US simply announce that we are not going to punish our citizens with high tariffs and instead, we will open our borders freely to products from around the world.
Mike Diaz
Aug 22 2018 at 1:32pm
“Using tariffs to get to free trade is lovely if it actually works.”
That’s an important statement that I think deserves a serious discussion. Calling the tactic “lovely” seems a bit dismissive (not sure if that was your intention).
That statement probably explains why many Republicans are sticking with Trump for now, me included.
I’m not simply “changing my policy position to win” as Ms. Mason suggests. I have a portfolio of policy preferences and I know I can’t have them all, but I vote for the one with maximizes my policy preferences.
Good podcast. Thank you.
SLC
Aug 28 2018 at 3:59pm
I think that can only be correct if you hold free trade and economic development as a highest order value. Ghandhi would make a similar case against war. Humans, however, have placed a higher value on things other than free trade, economic development, destruction and death repeatedly over their long history. That will not change.
A.G.McDowell
Aug 21 2018 at 1:52pm
Where you believed characteristics were inherent in all humans, I would have appreciated hearing a comparative politics angle on this. I think in the UK vicious criticisms of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher have not yet been surpassed, which suggests that the internet is not the only factor to be considered. Northern Ireland may also be of interest, since the UK government made adjustments to non-parliamentary voting systems intended to reduce polarisation, without obvious success, and because on the local level it may be the literal truth that your political opponent with whom you have cooperated to get roads improved had a parallel career as a terrorist responsible for killing and maiming people on your side – which the cynic might see as the bonding power of cooperation in pursuit of money from central government.
Cody Custis
Aug 21 2018 at 5:04pm
Mason’s example of gun control as a disconnect between the people’s will and policy ignores the bias inherent in polling. Respondents adjust based on phrasing or the political conditioning of the day, rather than answer complicated questions that balance liberties and securities.
Michael Byrnes
Aug 22 2018 at 2:18am
You have a good point here, but I think she may as well. What you suggest is pretty well established (poll responses depend on phrasing and context) but I don’t think that necessarily precludes her point from being true, either.
Ben Riechers
Aug 22 2018 at 8:18am
The other thing to consider with polls is that they uniformly have the interpretation problems that come with holding all other variables constant. It’s as if polltakers just assume citizens completely trust the intent of the lever pullers in government and their competency, which has never been true. Plus, polls are taken at least as often to drive opinion as they are to assess it.
Power has a way of corrupting the people who hold it. Some might look at the Patriot Act as one that has given us some additional protection from terrorists that we wanted, but at a cost of our privacy. There are good reasons to be tentative of definitively trading away our rights for hoped-for reductions in violence and improved security.
Ben Riechers
Aug 21 2018 at 10:47pm
How does the primary turnout vs. general election turnout align with the narrative about how tribal we are? In Minnesota and Iowa, caucus and primary turnout in 2016 for Republicans was 8.6% and 13.2% and for Democrats it was 15.0% and 15.6% respectively, of the general election totals for Trump and Clinton. Those results suggest Lilliana Masonare and Russ Roberts are overstating the tribal aspect of politics. On the other hand, New York, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma were 30.8%, 54.0% and 48.5% for Republicans and 39.9%, 58.1% and 79.9% for Democrats. My intuition is that the higher the percentage, the higher the tribal connection…though this still just considers one lens.
Compromising was a little oversold as a good thing regardless of what is being compromised. It doesn’t require much thought to create a long list of things we should NOT compromise on. It hardly seems like a good compromise to go over a cliff at 50 mph, a compromise between going over a cliff at 100 mph or not going over the cliff at all. In my view, the root cause of our inability to compromise is a fundamentally different view of the role of government. For example, if the economy is underperforming (real or imagined), free market Republicans will generally want less government and more freedom to help the economy and the Democrats will almost certainly want more government and more control (even nationalize industries) to help the economy. The compromises so far have created more government than we are willing to pay for…which is about like going over the cliff at 50 mph.
Related to your theme about economics, most adults have witnessed how bad relationship situations are made an order-of-magnitude worse when combined with financial problems. We are all pretty ho-hum about debt and unfunded entitlements…do they ever explode in our faces and turn nasty politics into significant civil unrest including group-initiated violence?
John H Penfold
Aug 22 2018 at 11:36pm
I’m not convinced about this return to tribalism, in group out group, yes of course, that’s not new nor obscure. There are other things going on, not just the internet and social media that have brought formerly invisible people out in mobs. An important factor might be better understood by looking at truly tribal societies that move to centralized governance, socialism in some form. They end up killing each other because the controlling tribe gets to allocate private goods as weak as jointly consumed public goods. If you have bunches of children of different ages and and sexes you understand also, because you know that they won’t fight over the private good of toys because tastes differ by age and sex, but will dispute until you the dictator or the oldest bully steps in to decide public good go watch on the TV. because tastes differ by age and sex. We’ve many on the collectivist side who tell us private competition in markets is divisive. It’s quite obviously the opposite.
As to the interview. I wonder if Dr. Mason realizes that she presents a living example of what she’s talking about.
Joe P
Aug 24 2018 at 1:01pm
Russ commented “in my podcast on this episode, I suggested that people follow people on Twitter and Facebook who aren’t like them. And yet, one of the problems there is that actually can make it worse.” So, I tried this and began following Paul Krugman’s Twitter. Made it almost 72 hours before un-following. Thinking I went too “all in” for my first time.
Rick Carpenter
Aug 24 2018 at 11:04pm
Thank you Russ for another terrific show. A group of folks from Letcher County Kentucky and from Western Massachusetts have been doing wonderful work on this issue, through a cultural exchange/dialogue project between their two communities. Perhaps a drop in the bucket of a very large problem, but a beautiful and inspirational drop nonetheless. A link and a video for those listeners who are interested:
https://www.handsacrossthehills.org/
https://player.vimeo.com/video/258300119
JK Brown
Aug 25 2018 at 4:43pm
This unfortunately revealed unserious thinking. Sure people will poll for background checks, which is why we have background checks on all commercial sales.
However, when it comes to letting loose the randomness of legislation, people give deeper thought to the risks. And deeper thought to the real question, which is do you think background checks which will create a system to make private sales difficult, if not prohibitive. Not to mention the facility for a registration database.
And create a new way for the hostile party in government offices to harass and eat out the substance of lawful gun owners.
In sum, good ideas upon reflection, especially in a highly partisan environment, open up risks from your opposition.
Edward Bunetta
Aug 25 2018 at 7:25pm
The section about The type of democracy and the number of parties was very interesting. I would even like a socialist party. I’m not a socialist. But I think it would be a good barometer to show when the economic system get out of balance.
Mark Zobel
Aug 26 2018 at 12:56pm
Fascinating episode. Couple of questions for Russ:
How does the declining role of organized religion contribute to this, especially on the left which reports lower levels of religious affiliation? Everyone worships something and it seems for the left, that something is the state.
As Deenen has written, classical liberalism has resulted in expansion of individual rights and the state. But there is a third space; Moulton’s “Realm of Manners”; where individuals self-regulate behavior based on societal norms. It could be argued the size of the Realm of Manners is directly related to the health of civil society. As the state and individual rights expand, they decrease the space where the individual learns to negotiate with their fellow citizens.
Could the above explain the guest’s observation of segregation of non-political, voluntary civil organizations and even geography with political parties, i.e. Reform Judaism and Democrats; evangelicals and Republicans?
Earl Rodd
Aug 26 2018 at 3:46pm
I was disappointed in the monologue episode on civility in politics, not because of the content – it was well done and I was sympathetic – but because I listen to econtalk to get away from partisan one-liners and into substance.
However, this episode degraded all the way into the swamp of partisan politics. I felt insulted by the assumption that erudite psycho-babble is the only reason behind my political and political economy preferences. Again, I suspect I’m not the only econtalk listener who listens to econtalk to get more depth than one-liners, which this guest produced in great quantity. By contrast, I recall a time when there were a number of episodes with eminent economists presenting logically compelling arguments for two wildly opposing views: that our current low-interest rate, high deficit operation is sustainable or that it must inevitably lead to a crash. Now those challenged any pre-existing thinking I had on the subject. Another example of excellent econtalk adding depth to the conversation were the episodes critiquing Jeff Sachs model cities efforts and his defense of them. After those, I felt I knew enough to talk about the issue – and enough to know the question is a work in progress.
Listening to this podcast, I found myself going to a frequent topic in econtalk: cause and effect. I had to think of the first presidential campaign for which I was actively aware – 1960. We had active debates in school – my best friend from kindergarten days (and in the future co-member of our state championship debate team) and I were on opposite sides. Both Nixon and Kennedy came to the Civic Center in town and I went with friends after school to hear both – we wanted to know what they looked and sounded like in person. I remember some pretty hard hitting newspaper ads, but in social life, things were more civil (I’m not sure that the underlying political activity wasn’t dirtier than today). So what has changed? Human psychology has not so we can discount the current podcast as offering no insight. I know one trivial thing that has changed: due to security, it is so hard to attend a campaign rally than only strong partisans go to the trouble to attend. I think this podcast dealt with effects, not causes. But the “what has changed” is a big topic. What about substance has changed? We had a strong two party system then. Yes, social structures have changed, but I suspect there are matters of substance. What are they?
For me, the guest descended in obvious partisanship while trying to remain aloof: sort of like a CNN or Fox anchor claiming to have no horse in the race. Two examples:
Guns. The guest cited a survey that after Sandy Hook, 87% of Republicans (I may have the exact number wrong) said they wanted background checks, yet later, only 57% said the wanted the Senate to pass such a law. She attributed this change to some psychological dissonance. The assumption that there was not substantive reason for this apparent contradiction is very condescending. There are obvious possible reasons. I was likely in that group. My reasons would have been A) I favor back ground checks, but at a state level for all the reasons I prefer anything that can be done at the state level to be so and B) I would not trust the “sausage factory” of the Senate to produce a clean bill about background checks. It was insulting to have the guest try to use psycho-babble to tell me I am illogical.
Tariffs. I had this discussion with a long-time friend yesterday. We are both free traders at heart based on our understanding of the benefits of division of labor etc. Your guest assumed that the only reason for current tariffs is simplistic protectionism (as did my friend). However, as my friend and I talked (loudly outdoors during end changes in tennis), where we differed was on our confidence in the motives and outcomes of the current tariffs: is this simplistic protectionism or a negotiating strategy to deal with non-tariff barriers, intellectual property protection disparities etc. Again I felt insulted by your guest. I conceded with my friend that I could be wrong about what we actually disagree about. But telling me that I am inconsistent to consider that the president is acting wisely is to be ignorant of what he campaigned on.
In the discussion of “what to do” about partisanship, as feared by Washington in his farewell address, I was surprised that the radical measure (and acknowledge as a “will not happen”) of changing to a parliamentary system was all that was mentioned. Maybe a good econtalk episode would be a deep discussion of what effects other ideas might have such as: preferential voting (Australian third parties are interesting examples), ballot access laws (an area where Republicans and Democrats sadly agree), campaign finance laws (which, having been on a federal primary ballot once, I see their purpose as keeping out newcomers) and other ideas that are more possible.
Sadly, the podcast ended on several radically partisan disclosures: assumptions about how Russia stole the election via Facebook ads (with no mention of the relative importance of spying on the campaign), the insinuation that the current president’s main support issue is white supremacy (the host did push back on this one), a one-sided example of a rigged poll of telling people that Mr. Trump is not “self-made” (but without either adding more information to that poll or considering one on the other side), and the assumption that the “right” is the only likely source of violence in the political arena ( I have known “militia” people and they can be scary, but has the guest not heard of antifa engaging in actual not potential violence?). These kind of one-liners are clearly part of the problem, not the solution. Everyone one of them could make interesting econtalk (or Law and Liberty) episodes.
For example, I would find it interesting to hear someone who knows a lot talk about Mr. Trump and perhaps the Clintons: how they made their money and how competitors, employees, and suppliers view them and their enterprises.
I look forward to econtalk getting back to substance – that can and has seriously challenged and changed my thinking. I enjoy putting summaries of some econtalk episodes that I find especially interesting on Facebook and my friends tell me they like reading these. Telling me that tribalism is the only reason someone could approve of any policies of the current president does not challenge or inform. It does confirm that there are a lot of anti-Trump people who have no understanding of people like my and many of my family and friends – but it is a waste of my time listening to confirmations. I want informed and challenged.
The guest did mention that psychologically, when we hear opposing ideas (I think the guest meant one-liners), we tend to construct our counter arguments as we listen. This is true – if all we hear are silly one-liners like the ones the guest kept using. What changes things is substantive discussions like econtalk (as well as other sources and substative discussions with friends).
BT
Aug 28 2018 at 5:36pm
This was very informative until the guest’s biases were put on full display toward the end. Thank you, Russ, for pointing out that Clinton and democrats have tried to delegitimize the election since 11/9 and have also engaged in violence several times to do so. This is exactly what she says she’s afraid of happening in the future. Additionally, it’s clear that she wants to point out to Republicans how uneducated they are with her final comment. It seems that even someone who can educate about our biases is prone to the most egregious errors themselves.
That being said, I did find the substance of her work interesting and appreciate the self-reflection it caused. I wish more people would engage in this. Unfortunately, the current situation feels like “you walk away [from your bias] first, then I’ll do the same”.
Michael Byrnes
Aug 30 2018 at 6:45am
I cannot speak for the guest, but I don’t think the italicized text is correct.
Hillary Clinton, if you recall, conceded on 11/10. Barack Obama and family departed the White House on the day of Trump’s inauguration. Neither has attempted to litigate the question of Trump’s legitimacy as President.
“Clinton and Democrats” have not engaged in any violence, to install her in the White House or for any other reason.
There’s reason to doubt whether Trump, after a hypothetical loss in 2020, would do the same. Reason #1 I’d point to would be his refusal to say he would do so prior to 2016. If Trump loses by anything short of a landslide, I’d bet that rather than conceding, he will openly chalenge the legitimacy of the election, at least for a time.
MG
Aug 30 2018 at 7:34am
NASCAR races. Hum. Perhaps enough has been said about this comment — sadly, one of many in which Ms Mason showed her blind spots even as she seeks — I assume sincerely — to balance the accounts of Right-Wing extremism versus Left-wing convictions. However, I think Ms Mason and your readers may want to gauge what the real status of NASCAR’s social conscience is. It is best summarized by this recent story:
https://freebeacon.com/culture/nascar-driver-loses-sponsorship-father-racial-slur-35-years-ago/
Yes, a NASCAR driver loses corporate sponsorship for something his Father said before the driver was born!
Life in NASCAR is no different from life anywhere in America where wealth and status is transacted. Left-Progressives ideas flourish, and as they flourish they get more extreme. Right-Libertarian views are under siege and guilt is even by association. My concern is that well-meaning exercises “civility-regaining” will simply lock place the censorship of political correctness — whose language will be stipulated as mainstream and its criticism as fascism.
k jensen
Sep 5 2018 at 3:31pm
I am a bit surprised that Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals hasn’t come up when discussing polarization and civility in this & other recent EconTalk episodes. The book has had a large audience, influencing Ms. Clinton & Mr. Obama. Just a few points to illustrate some of its messages:
Early in the book, the author includes a chapter arguing that ends justify the means. It is necessary, as much of what he is recommending is ‘uncivil’ & a bit deceptive by its nature. For example, he refers to this later when some on his team question the ethics of personally attacking a ‘good’ man who stood in the way of a particular policy they were advocating.
In a separate section of the book, he argues that you must characterize your enemies in extreme terms to mobilize your supporters (e.g. Nazi’s, racists), even if your differences are not that significant. Otherwise people will not be motivated to take the action necessary to effect change. He notes that some on the team will not understand when you later negotiate a solution with the people you earlier demonized.
In the section on tactics, he notes ‘in a fight, almost anything goes’.
And of course, his thirteenth rule is ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it’. We see this happening frequently now.
While this book’s approach is not unique, it deserves more credit than it’s been given for the lack of civility we are experiencing now.
David
Sep 5 2018 at 8:54pm
This could be a remedy to the two-party system. The Alternative Vote.
It’s called The Alternative Vote. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate and he/she doesn’t win your vote can still go towards another candidate.
Comments are closed.