The Pew Poll?

Clifford F. Thies

Clifford F. Thies is a professor of economics and finance at Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA.

According to a recent Pew Poll, there is a considerable left ward tilt in the population, 44 percent being in the left, relative to 33 percent in the right, with 23 percent in the middle. Before discussing any part of the detail of this poll, it must be said that it varies considerably from many others that show a definite tilt to the right. For example, the 2004 exit poll indicates that 34 percent of voters describe themselves as conservatives, relative to only 21 percent who describe themselves as liberals. And, the latest biennial survey in the National Election Studies series shows that 35 percent of voters identify themselves as conservative, while only 23 percent identify themselves as liberals. Plus, let us not forget that the President, the majority of both houses of the U.S. Congress, and the majority of Governors are Republican. So, something is fishy with the Pew Poll. Nevertheless, certain details of this poll are informative.

According to the Pew Poll, “the right” is more or less evenly distributed among the following three subgroups: “Enterprisers,” “Social Conservatives” and “Pro-government” Conservatives. Enterprisers stand out, on the right, as the most pro-free enterprise faction, and as not being highly motivated by moral issues. Social Conservatives stand out as the most pro-moral issues group, and as not being highly motivated by economic issues. The bonding of these two subgroups, which involves Enterprisers accepting much of the agenda of the Social Conservatives and the Social Conservatives accepting much of the agenda of the Enterprisers, gives the Republican Party tremendous internal cohesion, as well as a very strong agenda to present to others who are less ideologically oriented.

The third component of “the right,” i.e., Pro-government Conservatives, is quite interesting. People in this subgroup are somewhat skeptical of the free-enterprise system, desire a strong “safety net,” and are motivated by a mix of moral issues and populist (or, anti-free trade and anti-immigrant) concerns. Potentially, “the left” might be able to appeal to people in this category on economic issues, but has problems doing so because of cultural issues. What is quite interesting about this subgroup is that its members vote overwhelmingly Republican in national elections, in spite of the fact that the values of the members of this subgroup do not align well with the agenda of the Republican Party.

Turning to the first of the two subgroups of voters in “the middle” as conceived by the Pew Poll, the “Upbeats” are described in ways that are very similar to the Enterprisers. They are pro-free enterprise, positively oriented to free trade and immigration, and are not very enthusiastic about legislating morality or about foreign policy. They also vote overwhelmingly Republican. As to why the Pew Poll didn’t include the Upbeats in “the right,” I don’t know. If the Pew Poll had categorized them as part of “the right,” then the right would be about evenly split between libertarian types and conservative types, and the country would be about evenly split between “the right” and “the left.”

The other subgroup in “the middle” is the “Disaffecteds.” They are described as being somewhat similar to the Pro-government Conservatives, except that they are less motivated by moral issues and more by economic issues. They tend to Republican, but by a lesser margin than the Pro-government Conservatives and the Upbeats.

The Pew Poll describes “the left” as comprising three subgroups. The two most extreme subgroups are the “Disadvantaged” and the “Liberals.” The members of these two subgroups are as committed to the Democratic agenda (admittedly, only a latent agenda given the fact of a Republican majority) as strongly as the Enterprisers and the Social Conservatives are committed to the Republican agenda. The cohesion within these two subgroups is easy to explain: The Liberals want to tax and regulate, and they are willing to share a big chunk of the money they would raise by taxes with the Disadvantaged.

I want to make the difference between the Republican view of a safety net and the commitment of Democrats to redistributionism. In the Republican view, a safety net is justified mostly as a form of social insurance, so that we pay in when we are young, healthy and employed, and take out when we are old, sick or unemployed. As far as it is practical, we would like this part of the safety net to be actuarially sound, so that it is clear that those receiving benefits are getting what is justly their due. In addition to this, we accept that--to some extent--the government has to take care of some people who fall through the cracks of family, church and private charity. The Democratic agenda of redistributionism is altogether different. Redistributionism is not based on social insurance and charity, but on a theory of justice that sees wealth and income as properly belonging to the collective. In fact, the use of the word “Liberal” to describe the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party is a misnomer, since they are obviously Socialists.

The third subgroup on “the left” is another interesting group. This subgroup is described as “Conservative Democrats.” Notice, first of all, that there is no mirror-image “Liberal Republicans” subgroup. This is because there are no Socialists within the Republican Party. The Republican Party is a mixed bag of Enterprisers and Social Conservatives, to use the language of the Pew Poll, or Libertarians and Conservatives. We are the entire “center-right” of this country, which is why our country has an obvious tilt to the right (even though this is not recognized by the Pew Poll).

The so-called left-wing subgroup of Conservative Democrats doesn’t quite share the moral values of the other two subgroups on the left, and a sizable minority of them vote Republican in national elections. Indeed, the political success of the Republicans is described, in the Pew Poll, as the ability of Republicans to secure almost all the votes of their base (the “right”), a large majority of the voters in “the middle,” as well as to get a good percentage of the votes of Conservative Democrats.

Which brings me to the “discovery” of the politics of moral values by certain Democrats. As argued by Howard Dean, Democrats would again be able win elections if they would only better position themselves on moral values. Supposedly, Democrats will be able to again win elections by “de-emphasizing” gay marriage, gun control, their animus against the Ten Commandments, and the like. As long as the Democrats think that all they have to do is change their rhetoric, I don’t think the Republicans have much to worry about.

In the end, I think the Democrats will discover that they will have to actually reposition themselves in the political marketplace. Perhaps they will discover what Benito Mussilini did, that they need to combine Socialism with Nationalism to be successful. Or, perhaps they will reconsider their embrace of Socialism, and do to their party what Tony Blair did, at least for a time, with the Labor Party in the United Kingdom, and reorient it to a Liberal, as distinct from a Socialist, agenda.     *

“The worst of all deceptions is self-deception.” --Plato