Jul 5, 2023·edited Jul 5, 2023Liked by Arnold Kling
Most people have always got their political preferences from family, neighbourhood, occupation etc.....or used to! The tragedy of Western liberalism's 21st c. accelerating ruination is that 90% of its professional, managerial and opinion-forming classes now emerge from university full of self-flattering, virtue signalling group-think. Two huge late 20th political mistakes set this trend going: 1) the massive over-expansion of mickey-mouse tertiary education 2) the fact that conservative-leaning politicians never saw this coming; never saw that while they obsessed about winning electoral power at the ballot box, the Left's long march through the institutions - via the agency of (taxpayer-funded) tertiary education - was proceeding relentlessly and all under a virtual MSM silence. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/invasion-of-the-virtue-signallers
Jul 5, 2023·edited Jul 5, 2023Liked by Arnold Kling
Re: "When children enter the American school system, they encounter role models that are overwhelmingly on the left. The young people who proceed to college see this even more."
Arnold often defends "the null hypothesis" about educational interventions. For example:
"attempts to measure the effect of educational interventions almost never find a significant, replicable, long-term effect."
Given the null hypothesis, it is striking that Arnold believes that schools nonetheless play a crucial role in the formation of youths' political preferences, via "role models" (teachers, intellectuals) in school and academe.
My intuition is that political preferences usually take form by peer interactions -- i.e., mainly via horizontal cultural dynamics. Perhaps this sounds hopelessly vague, but there it is.
An indirect vertical influence may be found in keen efforts by parents in "Belmont" to assure that their offspring always have the right peer groups.
One might object that the null hypothesis applies to the formation of skills, not preferences. True, but there is a wrinkle: "Fitting in" is a kind of cultural skill, which perhaps then shapes (a) access to opportunities and (b) productivity in teamwork.
"One might object that the null hypothesis applies to the formation of skills, not preferences. True, but there is a wrinkle: "Fitting in" is a kind of cultural skill, which perhaps then shapes (a) access to opportunities and (b) productivity in teamwork."
I think the acquisition of skills are probably limited by the IQ with which a student is born with. I think the education system is adequate enough to teach the skill set 95% of the students are realistically capable of acquiring- and the only interventions likely to improve overall skill sets are those that improve that 5% out beyond the right tail of the bell curve, and such interventions really aren't ever on the table because that 5% will turn out fine regardless- thus we get enormous effort at improving the skill sets of people unable to acquire them in the first place. Voila, null hypothesis.
However, I don't think preferences are so controlled by intelligence- most humans are able to mimic the behavior of their peers and mentors, and such behaviors don't need to be explained or rationalized via argumentation- ever- it is like walking and eating. Indoctrination done right is very, very effective on children.
Feminists seldom note that the vast majority of K-6 teachers are women. Most of whom support Dem Party good intentions of caring for others, and want a kind, generous Uncle Sugar to be nice, so as to raise nice kids.
Parents are the BIGGEST role models for most kids, tho in the teen years rebellion against parents has the teens looking for others. In behavior, their peers; in their politics, more likely
teachers. The dominance of female Dem teachers leads to a dominance in Dem political tendency of the young. Until they get mugged by reality - which safetyism tries to protect against.
Do not under-estimate the 'whom do I get to have contempt for' factor. 'Permission to hate -- or worse, making a virtue out of hatred' appears to be what some people want more than anything else on earth.
Agreed. We decide what to believe by deciding whom we disbelieve, just as much as by deciding whom we believe. I might not give a darn about Greta Thunberg or Dylan Mulvaney, even if I see them praised by my role models. But when I see them attacked by people I dislike, I might be inclined to defend them--and, to some degree, to show support for their causes--simply as a way of signaling attenuation from my anti-role models. Negative polarization as epistomology.
This is an important insight I think. People seem to be motivated by two base forces: love of something, and hate for something else. We see a lot of "I hate these people, so therefore their ideas are wrong" from all sides of the political chasm, even when it makes no logical sense. Arguably more of that than we see "I love this guy, I want to believe all the things he does" anymore, although I think in some periods that has been the stronger motivation.
Me neither. Of course, I think things work rather as a mix of Kling's theory and the opposite, people picking role models who fit their primary preferences (and then adopting some of the preferences of the role model that are secondary). My guess is that young people with few strong or well thought out preferences lean more towards role models first, then as they age shift towards picking role models based on preferences.
So that said, I am really not optimistic about how one would test this theory overall or which aspect is dominant, because whew... that's a tangled mess of causality!
Politically, it seems like the Reps are certain the changes the Dems want aren't going to work, so hate those changes & those calling for changes (defund the Police), while the Dems think they have pure intentions (stopping police brutality) so that opposition to their (stupid? they don't think so) plans means being against the Good Intentions (against stopping brutality).
The Dems believe in "defund the police" because of the Dem leaders. The Reps believe it won't work, and look for any leader to stop it.
That's only part of the picture. The Dem leaders are malicious, but what puts millions of "useful idiots" at their command is that they are pretty much the entire population of both the civil service (including schools) and the media companies. Thus they get to indoctrinate us in their lies and keep most people that way, and then it's Katy bar the door.
Thus the most important things to do are to homeschool your children, and teach them to question and distrust all purported news sources but especially those with slick, trillion-dollar corporations behind them. Also show them how to find or create alternative media sources. Junking the TV will help, too.
Hanania will be correct if the SCOTUS decision is reliably upheld in trial cases at the district court level. The schools will definitely try to change nothing, but if they don't, they can now be sued via large class action lawsuits and the schools will not be able to hide the data without such behavior becoming prima facie evidence of tort and, worse for them, the disparate impact shoe is on the other foot. Losing a couple of billion dollar class action lawsuits will change their behavior. However, it is completely plausible that the district courts will refuse to enforce the SCOTUS ruling at trial, dismissing most of the lawsuits like before. If every case has to go all the way up the chain appeal before getting heard at all, it will like watching grass grow or paint dry. The process will drag it out until the conservatives on the court die off and are replaced.
At some point constitutional reform may be needed so that appeals courts whose orders are repeatedly disregarded by legislatures can take the affected subject matter out of the legislature's powers. Gun rights is another example of an area where this happens repeatedly.
I think these models can all, to some degree, explain what's going on here, but I'd argue for understanding it using the role model argument through a lens of economic self-interest.
Role models are role models in part because they're models of economic "success". Progressive legal, academic, and bureaucratic systems are essentially gigantic, highly regulated make-work schemes. Everyone recognizes they're a farce from an economic perspective. They aren't adding any value to the economy. Quite the opposite, they're wasting tremendous resources and thus, less is available for productive work for which there is actual demand.
However, for any individual, getting a lifelong sinecure as a "mandarin" is a comfy gig. A lot more comfy, in fact, than subjecting oneself to the market, where one must compete to provide products that people have a choice in buying.
Hence, I believe the only way to stop these folks from being role models is to eliminate their money.
1. Vastly reduce the network of regulations requiring higher education and
2. Vastly reduce the subsidization of higher education
3. Greatly reduce the ability of the federal government to borrow money.
My one major political shift came in my late 20s, when I became less libertarian and more conservative. This came from observing the difference (especially as relates to dating, marriage, sex, drugs, and politeness) between secular and religious folks. To be very blunt, I felt the religious people I hung out were just better human beings than the secular people I hung out with. Like that "bizarro" Seinfeld episode where Elaine meets better versions of her friends.
I continue to believe the big dividing line is between those that maintain the pre-sexual revolution values and those that don't.
So true. I see this in my family. They sacrifice their own deep-seated values and sever ties with the very role models that shaped their lives and who care most about them in order to fit with their current tribe of those they feel align with them.
I like this theory, but I think there are some important questions it needs to address.
1: Why do people choose the role models they do? Some people look up to their teachers (and I think this is where a lot of the preferences come from, being the good student in little people school) but some people decide their teacher is an idiot. Why are some people prone to be led astray while others stick to their principles? Are previously created, strongly held preferences preventing them from adopting the new role model? If so, why was one role model more influential than another? Was it perhaps that their preferences were already aligned on important issues?
You used Kendi as an example of a role model. Who knows anything about him other than his book about what preferences are proper? Is anyone picking him because of some other aspect and merely adopting his views? It seems to me he became a thought leader because of his views.
2: Why do the role models have the preferences they have? A little circular, but consider again Kendi. Who did he get his views from? How much of what he advocates is from whole cloth, building out preferences to become the most radical? That is to say, not following another role model per se but pushing the current zeitgeist out far past what others do in an effort to please other's preferences and become the thought leader. In other words, is his book due to his supply seeking a market or perceived demand for that sort of thing?
3: Isn't the observation that your Democrat friends are more comfortable discussing the topics that they agree with Democrats on and less the topics they disagree on better explained by a theory that says they picked their political party based primarily on a few key issues they care about, and are willing to accept the rest of the positions (and perhaps adopt them by osmosis)? Otherwise, how does one square that they don't match their role models' views one to one? You could say that their role models have different preferences, but then one has to address again why they are picking those role models, and why they full throatedly adopt some of their preferences but are bashful about the preferences of some other role models. To roll with your example of Jewish voters who favor abortion and support Israel, why is the pro-abortion side the one they are really ready to argue while soft pedaling the Israel side? Did both come from some role model or another? Is one role model better than the other? If so, why? I can see an answer that suggests they are ashamed of their political party choice, because it shows they care more about abortion than Israel when made to choose, but then why would they be willing to talk so much about the one and not the other?
>They then rationalized voting Republican by saying that X mattered to them.
See also “save women’s sports” or “end human trafficking”. These are not bad causes, but I’m puzzled to see so much excitement for them on the right all of a sudden. Voters and politicians must find it necessary to grab onto these vague unobjectionable positions to compensate for cultural weakness that makes it hard to take broader, more substantive stances of the kind Hanania advocates.
“We believe that there are only two human genders, males and females are naturally different, and society, culture and law should reflect an acceptance of and comfort with those differences. Trans women in sports implies that gender is a choice, and that those with XY chromosomes are anything but boys and men. We think this is an unhealthy trend, and want to draw a bright line saying that gender is determined by biology, not choice or subjective “identity.”
I think you might be underestimating the conservative or right wing preferences for women's sports and against human trafficking. Consider that most of this issue affects people children: women's sports are really "girls' sports" because vanishingly few adults compete in sports compared to school age kids, and human trafficking is mostly an issue with the young (although I don't know the numbers there, so I might be off.) Moms and dads don't want their girls changing in the same locker rooms as boys, don't want their girls losing to boys constantly, and don't want their kids kidnapped. People don't care about women's professional sports so much because that is a profession and their kids aren't going to be in it for 95% of them, but they care about their kids' school prospects.
When it comes to human trafficking, I agree a bit more, though. I think it largely flew under the radar because it is/was a comparatively small problem in comparatively out of the way places. The number of actual human trafficking kidnappings is very small relatively speaking, so it wasn't on people's radar unless they lived near someplace where it was a big issue. I think awareness of the problem has gone up, and possibly the incidence as well, yet I still suspect that you are right in the sense that it has a lot more to do with the awareness raised because it is politically convenient. Although there was the whole kidnapping panic back in the 80's and 90's, so it might be less a political thing and more a generalized panic topic.
I should note, I think the reactionary excitement over girls' sports is just that: reaction to the trans-activist left's moves on the issue. People were ok with how things were, and very not ok with how things have become.
I’m more than ok with defending status quo in sports and opposing human trafficking—these are eminently reasonable positions. My point is that having to rely on such narrow issues (that very few people ultimately disagree with strongly) as a crutch suggests that even a lot of people who really want to vote Republican feel an intense pressure not to do so. Otherwise they would feel perfectly comfortable advocating the broader, more substantive moral intuitions underlying traditional values directly instead of framing it in vaguely progressive terms (fighting for female equality, protesting oppression, etc.)
Hmm... I think I might be confused about your broader point here then. I read your original comment as expressing that you didn't think the right (or Republicans) cared much about women's sports or human trafficking as issues until recently when it suddenly became their main talking points, and that this was evidence of their needing to justify voting Republican.
Did I misunderstand your original post?
My sense about these two points, particularly the women's sports one, is that they are very highly accepted as proper (women should have their own sports and human trafficking is bad) and thus make a strong wedge when arguing against those who advocate for men competing in women's sports, etc. It is a good example of how the leftist ideology is internally inconsistent, and obliges leftist advocates to pick one or the other issue as mattering more. That is my sense of why it became so popular, at any rate.
I’m saying that the only justification for people with conservative moral intuitions to invest so much time and emotional energy on women’s sports and human trafficking specifically is extreme cultural weakness. Ideally one would be able to spend a little bit of time talking about them as narrow special cases of broader principles that matter a lot more (e.g. family formation and stability are a lot bigger issues than sports and depend on conservative social norms).
There are perhaps some people who vote Republican because girls sports in and of itself affects their family a lot but such people are probably few and far between. Since individual votes don’t affect outcomes at the margin, the relevant matter at stake is maintaining a coherent and defensible public identity in the eyes of people you interact with on a regular basis.
In the case of modern Republicans, it is possible to coexist with peers who are moderate democrats, apolitical, or poorly informed on the basis of opposing trans women competing with biological women but much harder to justify the same identity by saying that society should encourage males and females to conform to traditional roles consistent with their biological sex.
Ok, I think I see what you mean, although I don't know quite what you mean by "extreme cultural weakness". Could you clarify that a bit? Whose cultural weakness? Which culture? What does "weak culture" mean?
(I am honestly asking, because I expect you have a good idea in mind :D )
My political preference has been dominated by personal experience. I was married with a child on the way when Jimmy Carter’s economy had mortgage interest rates at 22%. I worked two jobs and went through hell. The Dem scare tactics over a Reagan presidency turned out to be hogwash. The next Dem presidency wiped out my small business attempt via NAFTA. It has been all-downhill for Democrats and everything they claim to stand for, ever since.
"The fact that conservatives’ attempts to replace these elites have “repeatedly and conspicuously failed” is hard for us to explain." Not really to me. They keep shooting themselves in the foot by lack of circumspection. Choosing hills like complete abortion bans with severe criminal penalties is not one to die for most (esp many conservative/libertarian leaning women). I grew up in the conservative south where most church goin' folk expressed strong outrage at the idea of any and all abortion. That is until their daughters got pregnant and the hypocrisy manifested itself during and after their short "medically necessary" jaunt to Mexico the poor would not likely have easy access to. I know, I know killing babies and all but in the real world abortions should be legal, safe and ETREMELY rare. Hot button that it is there are many "conservatives" that are sympathetic to accessibility and women who will quietly change their votes over it.
"The fact that conservatives’ attempts to replace these elites have “repeatedly and conspicuously failed” is hard for us to explain." Not really to me. They keep shooting themselves in the foot by lack of circumspection. Choosing hills like complete abortion bans with severe criminal penalties is not one to die for most (esp many conservative/libertarian leaning women). I grew up in the conservative south where most church goin' folk expressed strong outrage at the idea of any and all abortion. That is until their daughters got pregnant and the hypocrisy manifested itself during and after their short "medically necessary" jaunt to Mexico the poor would not likely have easy access to. I know, I know killing babies and all but in the real world abortions should be legal, safe and ETREMELY rare. Hot button that it is there are many "conservatives" that are sympathetic to accessibility and women who will quietly change their votes over it.
In answer to Douthat's question of why academic elites' opinions are more accepted, I'd think it likely that this comes in part from there being far more who have attended and graduated college.
I agree with your reason people hold their political opinions but there are other likely contributors:
1 I was recently reminded that Biden, Harris, and Cuomo all spoke against Trump's covid vax before it was available. Biden became President before most could get vaccinated and it became his vax. Would Trump followers have been against the Covid vax if Trump had been reelected? Would have liberals been?
2 There is a rather high correlation between political beliefs and many non-political behaviors and preferences. It would seem people are born with many of their political positions.
Abrams claims that " the most important issue for American Jews today is the future of democracy. "
The Democratic Party has successfully demonized Trump into a "like Hitler" caricature of a Republican dictator. We had 4 years of Trump - and all the dirty tricks were by the Dem deep state against Trump.
In fact, it's far more that the Dem Party, supported by most not & not very religious Jews, are treating Republicans like the Nazis treated Jews. Name & shame; not do business, make dishonest claims about how bad they are.
Many Jews and college educated folk identify with the Democratic Party, and the good intentions the Dems claim to have. They choose "who to believe", whether NY Times or WaPo or MSNBC, based on which ones give the most reasonable arguments to confirm their prior Dem policy bias. Once they choose such a leader to believe, if the leader changes policy priority, the vast majority of Dem believers change their priority. Like the drift from Free Speech to being against Hate Speech.
Most Reps don't like most suggested Dem policy changes, knowing that seldom will they make things better but often the policy will make real results worse. (Dem leaders claim this shows the Reps don't like the Good Intention, which makes them Evil). College educated Reps look for policy wonk types who have good answers - most working Reps look for guys who seem practical and can stop the Dems from doing dumb changes, which includes some or a lot of "fighting for our side".
A huge number of Trump voters didn't like some of his personal characteristics, but opposed the Dem changes strongly, and liked Trump's honest opposition to bad Dem suggestions, as well as the positives of better economics and reduced illegal immigration -- as many previously supported H. Ross Perot in 1992 for similar reasons. Looking for a "leader willing to fight" for one's ideas is contrary to choosing what to believe by choosing who to believe.
Lots of pro-life folk supported Trump, without believing him or in him, because they did believe his promise to appoint conservatives / pro-life judges. Which he did - which is hated by pro-abortion / pro-promiscuity Jews.
It's mostly Dems who believe what the current leader believes because he's the current leader. Republicans have their beliefs are looking to follow a winner, maybe like Trump or maybe DeSantis, to get those ideas into practice. (The success of Dems in controlling the Administrative State/ deep state, means "the government" won't be Republican no matter who wins; it's a total FUBAR from Republicans.)
I get my preferences on different issues from different people and places, none of the aligning at all with either political party, The difference is (in my perception) that Democrats have more people that share come of my values and are just confused bout which policies advance those values at least cost. I think it's more likely I could persuade a Democratic politician to tax net emissions of CO2 than I could a Republican politician to support merit based immigration or raise taxes to close the deficit.
Most people have always got their political preferences from family, neighbourhood, occupation etc.....or used to! The tragedy of Western liberalism's 21st c. accelerating ruination is that 90% of its professional, managerial and opinion-forming classes now emerge from university full of self-flattering, virtue signalling group-think. Two huge late 20th political mistakes set this trend going: 1) the massive over-expansion of mickey-mouse tertiary education 2) the fact that conservative-leaning politicians never saw this coming; never saw that while they obsessed about winning electoral power at the ballot box, the Left's long march through the institutions - via the agency of (taxpayer-funded) tertiary education - was proceeding relentlessly and all under a virtual MSM silence. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/invasion-of-the-virtue-signallers
https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
Re: "When children enter the American school system, they encounter role models that are overwhelmingly on the left. The young people who proceed to college see this even more."
Arnold often defends "the null hypothesis" about educational interventions. For example:
"attempts to measure the effect of educational interventions almost never find a significant, replicable, long-term effect."
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/the-null-hypothesis-and-school-closures
https://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/null-hypothesis-watch-20/
Given the null hypothesis, it is striking that Arnold believes that schools nonetheless play a crucial role in the formation of youths' political preferences, via "role models" (teachers, intellectuals) in school and academe.
My intuition is that political preferences usually take form by peer interactions -- i.e., mainly via horizontal cultural dynamics. Perhaps this sounds hopelessly vague, but there it is.
An indirect vertical influence may be found in keen efforts by parents in "Belmont" to assure that their offspring always have the right peer groups.
One might object that the null hypothesis applies to the formation of skills, not preferences. True, but there is a wrinkle: "Fitting in" is a kind of cultural skill, which perhaps then shapes (a) access to opportunities and (b) productivity in teamwork.
"One might object that the null hypothesis applies to the formation of skills, not preferences. True, but there is a wrinkle: "Fitting in" is a kind of cultural skill, which perhaps then shapes (a) access to opportunities and (b) productivity in teamwork."
I think the acquisition of skills are probably limited by the IQ with which a student is born with. I think the education system is adequate enough to teach the skill set 95% of the students are realistically capable of acquiring- and the only interventions likely to improve overall skill sets are those that improve that 5% out beyond the right tail of the bell curve, and such interventions really aren't ever on the table because that 5% will turn out fine regardless- thus we get enormous effort at improving the skill sets of people unable to acquire them in the first place. Voila, null hypothesis.
However, I don't think preferences are so controlled by intelligence- most humans are able to mimic the behavior of their peers and mentors, and such behaviors don't need to be explained or rationalized via argumentation- ever- it is like walking and eating. Indoctrination done right is very, very effective on children.
Feminists seldom note that the vast majority of K-6 teachers are women. Most of whom support Dem Party good intentions of caring for others, and want a kind, generous Uncle Sugar to be nice, so as to raise nice kids.
Parents are the BIGGEST role models for most kids, tho in the teen years rebellion against parents has the teens looking for others. In behavior, their peers; in their politics, more likely
teachers. The dominance of female Dem teachers leads to a dominance in Dem political tendency of the young. Until they get mugged by reality - which safetyism tries to protect against.
Do not under-estimate the 'whom do I get to have contempt for' factor. 'Permission to hate -- or worse, making a virtue out of hatred' appears to be what some people want more than anything else on earth.
Agreed. We decide what to believe by deciding whom we disbelieve, just as much as by deciding whom we believe. I might not give a darn about Greta Thunberg or Dylan Mulvaney, even if I see them praised by my role models. But when I see them attacked by people I dislike, I might be inclined to defend them--and, to some degree, to show support for their causes--simply as a way of signaling attenuation from my anti-role models. Negative polarization as epistomology.
This is an important insight I think. People seem to be motivated by two base forces: love of something, and hate for something else. We see a lot of "I hate these people, so therefore their ideas are wrong" from all sides of the political chasm, even when it makes no logical sense. Arguably more of that than we see "I love this guy, I want to believe all the things he does" anymore, although I think in some periods that has been the stronger motivation.
Yes. I suspect that anti-role-models have more influence than role models, but I don't know how to go about measuring this.
Me neither. Of course, I think things work rather as a mix of Kling's theory and the opposite, people picking role models who fit their primary preferences (and then adopting some of the preferences of the role model that are secondary). My guess is that young people with few strong or well thought out preferences lean more towards role models first, then as they age shift towards picking role models based on preferences.
So that said, I am really not optimistic about how one would test this theory overall or which aspect is dominant, because whew... that's a tangled mess of causality!
Politically, it seems like the Reps are certain the changes the Dems want aren't going to work, so hate those changes & those calling for changes (defund the Police), while the Dems think they have pure intentions (stopping police brutality) so that opposition to their (stupid? they don't think so) plans means being against the Good Intentions (against stopping brutality).
The Dems believe in "defund the police" because of the Dem leaders. The Reps believe it won't work, and look for any leader to stop it.
That's only part of the picture. The Dem leaders are malicious, but what puts millions of "useful idiots" at their command is that they are pretty much the entire population of both the civil service (including schools) and the media companies. Thus they get to indoctrinate us in their lies and keep most people that way, and then it's Katy bar the door.
Thus the most important things to do are to homeschool your children, and teach them to question and distrust all purported news sources but especially those with slick, trillion-dollar corporations behind them. Also show them how to find or create alternative media sources. Junking the TV will help, too.
Hanania will be correct if the SCOTUS decision is reliably upheld in trial cases at the district court level. The schools will definitely try to change nothing, but if they don't, they can now be sued via large class action lawsuits and the schools will not be able to hide the data without such behavior becoming prima facie evidence of tort and, worse for them, the disparate impact shoe is on the other foot. Losing a couple of billion dollar class action lawsuits will change their behavior. However, it is completely plausible that the district courts will refuse to enforce the SCOTUS ruling at trial, dismissing most of the lawsuits like before. If every case has to go all the way up the chain appeal before getting heard at all, it will like watching grass grow or paint dry. The process will drag it out until the conservatives on the court die off and are replaced.
At some point constitutional reform may be needed so that appeals courts whose orders are repeatedly disregarded by legislatures can take the affected subject matter out of the legislature's powers. Gun rights is another example of an area where this happens repeatedly.
All too likely.
I think these models can all, to some degree, explain what's going on here, but I'd argue for understanding it using the role model argument through a lens of economic self-interest.
Role models are role models in part because they're models of economic "success". Progressive legal, academic, and bureaucratic systems are essentially gigantic, highly regulated make-work schemes. Everyone recognizes they're a farce from an economic perspective. They aren't adding any value to the economy. Quite the opposite, they're wasting tremendous resources and thus, less is available for productive work for which there is actual demand.
However, for any individual, getting a lifelong sinecure as a "mandarin" is a comfy gig. A lot more comfy, in fact, than subjecting oneself to the market, where one must compete to provide products that people have a choice in buying.
Hence, I believe the only way to stop these folks from being role models is to eliminate their money.
1. Vastly reduce the network of regulations requiring higher education and
2. Vastly reduce the subsidization of higher education
3. Greatly reduce the ability of the federal government to borrow money.
Bingo!
"Where did you get your political preferences?"
My one major political shift came in my late 20s, when I became less libertarian and more conservative. This came from observing the difference (especially as relates to dating, marriage, sex, drugs, and politeness) between secular and religious folks. To be very blunt, I felt the religious people I hung out were just better human beings than the secular people I hung out with. Like that "bizarro" Seinfeld episode where Elaine meets better versions of her friends.
I continue to believe the big dividing line is between those that maintain the pre-sexual revolution values and those that don't.
So true. I see this in my family. They sacrifice their own deep-seated values and sever ties with the very role models that shaped their lives and who care most about them in order to fit with their current tribe of those they feel align with them.
Once the boomers finally die, millennials will vote in either Joe Rogan or Andrew Tate - if the role model theory holds.
I like this theory, but I think there are some important questions it needs to address.
1: Why do people choose the role models they do? Some people look up to their teachers (and I think this is where a lot of the preferences come from, being the good student in little people school) but some people decide their teacher is an idiot. Why are some people prone to be led astray while others stick to their principles? Are previously created, strongly held preferences preventing them from adopting the new role model? If so, why was one role model more influential than another? Was it perhaps that their preferences were already aligned on important issues?
You used Kendi as an example of a role model. Who knows anything about him other than his book about what preferences are proper? Is anyone picking him because of some other aspect and merely adopting his views? It seems to me he became a thought leader because of his views.
2: Why do the role models have the preferences they have? A little circular, but consider again Kendi. Who did he get his views from? How much of what he advocates is from whole cloth, building out preferences to become the most radical? That is to say, not following another role model per se but pushing the current zeitgeist out far past what others do in an effort to please other's preferences and become the thought leader. In other words, is his book due to his supply seeking a market or perceived demand for that sort of thing?
3: Isn't the observation that your Democrat friends are more comfortable discussing the topics that they agree with Democrats on and less the topics they disagree on better explained by a theory that says they picked their political party based primarily on a few key issues they care about, and are willing to accept the rest of the positions (and perhaps adopt them by osmosis)? Otherwise, how does one square that they don't match their role models' views one to one? You could say that their role models have different preferences, but then one has to address again why they are picking those role models, and why they full throatedly adopt some of their preferences but are bashful about the preferences of some other role models. To roll with your example of Jewish voters who favor abortion and support Israel, why is the pro-abortion side the one they are really ready to argue while soft pedaling the Israel side? Did both come from some role model or another? Is one role model better than the other? If so, why? I can see an answer that suggests they are ashamed of their political party choice, because it shows they care more about abortion than Israel when made to choose, but then why would they be willing to talk so much about the one and not the other?
>They then rationalized voting Republican by saying that X mattered to them.
See also “save women’s sports” or “end human trafficking”. These are not bad causes, but I’m puzzled to see so much excitement for them on the right all of a sudden. Voters and politicians must find it necessary to grab onto these vague unobjectionable positions to compensate for cultural weakness that makes it hard to take broader, more substantive stances of the kind Hanania advocates.
“We believe that there are only two human genders, males and females are naturally different, and society, culture and law should reflect an acceptance of and comfort with those differences. Trans women in sports implies that gender is a choice, and that those with XY chromosomes are anything but boys and men. We think this is an unhealthy trend, and want to draw a bright line saying that gender is determined by biology, not choice or subjective “identity.”
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-dishonest-trans-women-in-sports?s=r
I think you might be underestimating the conservative or right wing preferences for women's sports and against human trafficking. Consider that most of this issue affects people children: women's sports are really "girls' sports" because vanishingly few adults compete in sports compared to school age kids, and human trafficking is mostly an issue with the young (although I don't know the numbers there, so I might be off.) Moms and dads don't want their girls changing in the same locker rooms as boys, don't want their girls losing to boys constantly, and don't want their kids kidnapped. People don't care about women's professional sports so much because that is a profession and their kids aren't going to be in it for 95% of them, but they care about their kids' school prospects.
When it comes to human trafficking, I agree a bit more, though. I think it largely flew under the radar because it is/was a comparatively small problem in comparatively out of the way places. The number of actual human trafficking kidnappings is very small relatively speaking, so it wasn't on people's radar unless they lived near someplace where it was a big issue. I think awareness of the problem has gone up, and possibly the incidence as well, yet I still suspect that you are right in the sense that it has a lot more to do with the awareness raised because it is politically convenient. Although there was the whole kidnapping panic back in the 80's and 90's, so it might be less a political thing and more a generalized panic topic.
I should note, I think the reactionary excitement over girls' sports is just that: reaction to the trans-activist left's moves on the issue. People were ok with how things were, and very not ok with how things have become.
I’m more than ok with defending status quo in sports and opposing human trafficking—these are eminently reasonable positions. My point is that having to rely on such narrow issues (that very few people ultimately disagree with strongly) as a crutch suggests that even a lot of people who really want to vote Republican feel an intense pressure not to do so. Otherwise they would feel perfectly comfortable advocating the broader, more substantive moral intuitions underlying traditional values directly instead of framing it in vaguely progressive terms (fighting for female equality, protesting oppression, etc.)
Hmm... I think I might be confused about your broader point here then. I read your original comment as expressing that you didn't think the right (or Republicans) cared much about women's sports or human trafficking as issues until recently when it suddenly became their main talking points, and that this was evidence of their needing to justify voting Republican.
Did I misunderstand your original post?
My sense about these two points, particularly the women's sports one, is that they are very highly accepted as proper (women should have their own sports and human trafficking is bad) and thus make a strong wedge when arguing against those who advocate for men competing in women's sports, etc. It is a good example of how the leftist ideology is internally inconsistent, and obliges leftist advocates to pick one or the other issue as mattering more. That is my sense of why it became so popular, at any rate.
I’m saying that the only justification for people with conservative moral intuitions to invest so much time and emotional energy on women’s sports and human trafficking specifically is extreme cultural weakness. Ideally one would be able to spend a little bit of time talking about them as narrow special cases of broader principles that matter a lot more (e.g. family formation and stability are a lot bigger issues than sports and depend on conservative social norms).
There are perhaps some people who vote Republican because girls sports in and of itself affects their family a lot but such people are probably few and far between. Since individual votes don’t affect outcomes at the margin, the relevant matter at stake is maintaining a coherent and defensible public identity in the eyes of people you interact with on a regular basis.
In the case of modern Republicans, it is possible to coexist with peers who are moderate democrats, apolitical, or poorly informed on the basis of opposing trans women competing with biological women but much harder to justify the same identity by saying that society should encourage males and females to conform to traditional roles consistent with their biological sex.
Ok, I think I see what you mean, although I don't know quite what you mean by "extreme cultural weakness". Could you clarify that a bit? Whose cultural weakness? Which culture? What does "weak culture" mean?
(I am honestly asking, because I expect you have a good idea in mind :D )
My political preference has been dominated by personal experience. I was married with a child on the way when Jimmy Carter’s economy had mortgage interest rates at 22%. I worked two jobs and went through hell. The Dem scare tactics over a Reagan presidency turned out to be hogwash. The next Dem presidency wiped out my small business attempt via NAFTA. It has been all-downhill for Democrats and everything they claim to stand for, ever since.
No role models. Common sense. Experience.
"The fact that conservatives’ attempts to replace these elites have “repeatedly and conspicuously failed” is hard for us to explain." Not really to me. They keep shooting themselves in the foot by lack of circumspection. Choosing hills like complete abortion bans with severe criminal penalties is not one to die for most (esp many conservative/libertarian leaning women). I grew up in the conservative south where most church goin' folk expressed strong outrage at the idea of any and all abortion. That is until their daughters got pregnant and the hypocrisy manifested itself during and after their short "medically necessary" jaunt to Mexico the poor would not likely have easy access to. I know, I know killing babies and all but in the real world abortions should be legal, safe and ETREMELY rare. Hot button that it is there are many "conservatives" that are sympathetic to accessibility and women who will quietly change their votes over it.
"The fact that conservatives’ attempts to replace these elites have “repeatedly and conspicuously failed” is hard for us to explain." Not really to me. They keep shooting themselves in the foot by lack of circumspection. Choosing hills like complete abortion bans with severe criminal penalties is not one to die for most (esp many conservative/libertarian leaning women). I grew up in the conservative south where most church goin' folk expressed strong outrage at the idea of any and all abortion. That is until their daughters got pregnant and the hypocrisy manifested itself during and after their short "medically necessary" jaunt to Mexico the poor would not likely have easy access to. I know, I know killing babies and all but in the real world abortions should be legal, safe and ETREMELY rare. Hot button that it is there are many "conservatives" that are sympathetic to accessibility and women who will quietly change their votes over it.
In answer to Douthat's question of why academic elites' opinions are more accepted, I'd think it likely that this comes in part from there being far more who have attended and graduated college.
I agree with your reason people hold their political opinions but there are other likely contributors:
1 I was recently reminded that Biden, Harris, and Cuomo all spoke against Trump's covid vax before it was available. Biden became President before most could get vaccinated and it became his vax. Would Trump followers have been against the Covid vax if Trump had been reelected? Would have liberals been?
2 There is a rather high correlation between political beliefs and many non-political behaviors and preferences. It would seem people are born with many of their political positions.
Abrams claims that " the most important issue for American Jews today is the future of democracy. "
The Democratic Party has successfully demonized Trump into a "like Hitler" caricature of a Republican dictator. We had 4 years of Trump - and all the dirty tricks were by the Dem deep state against Trump.
In fact, it's far more that the Dem Party, supported by most not & not very religious Jews, are treating Republicans like the Nazis treated Jews. Name & shame; not do business, make dishonest claims about how bad they are.
Many Jews and college educated folk identify with the Democratic Party, and the good intentions the Dems claim to have. They choose "who to believe", whether NY Times or WaPo or MSNBC, based on which ones give the most reasonable arguments to confirm their prior Dem policy bias. Once they choose such a leader to believe, if the leader changes policy priority, the vast majority of Dem believers change their priority. Like the drift from Free Speech to being against Hate Speech.
Most Reps don't like most suggested Dem policy changes, knowing that seldom will they make things better but often the policy will make real results worse. (Dem leaders claim this shows the Reps don't like the Good Intention, which makes them Evil). College educated Reps look for policy wonk types who have good answers - most working Reps look for guys who seem practical and can stop the Dems from doing dumb changes, which includes some or a lot of "fighting for our side".
A huge number of Trump voters didn't like some of his personal characteristics, but opposed the Dem changes strongly, and liked Trump's honest opposition to bad Dem suggestions, as well as the positives of better economics and reduced illegal immigration -- as many previously supported H. Ross Perot in 1992 for similar reasons. Looking for a "leader willing to fight" for one's ideas is contrary to choosing what to believe by choosing who to believe.
Lots of pro-life folk supported Trump, without believing him or in him, because they did believe his promise to appoint conservatives / pro-life judges. Which he did - which is hated by pro-abortion / pro-promiscuity Jews.
It's mostly Dems who believe what the current leader believes because he's the current leader. Republicans have their beliefs are looking to follow a winner, maybe like Trump or maybe DeSantis, to get those ideas into practice. (The success of Dems in controlling the Administrative State/ deep state, means "the government" won't be Republican no matter who wins; it's a total FUBAR from Republicans.)
I get my preferences on different issues from different people and places, none of the aligning at all with either political party, The difference is (in my perception) that Democrats have more people that share come of my values and are just confused bout which policies advance those values at least cost. I think it's more likely I could persuade a Democratic politician to tax net emissions of CO2 than I could a Republican politician to support merit based immigration or raise taxes to close the deficit.