(cowritten with John Sides)
Democrats feel better about the economy when Democrats are in power, and Republicans feel better when their party rules. What’s striking, though, is how quickly these perceptions can change.
For example, in mid-September, John McCain notoriously said, “The fundamentals of our economy are still strong.” But then in early March, he said that the American people “want to know how we got into this ditch—the worst economic crisis since the great Depression.” Based on these two statements, the slide into the ditch apparently occurred sometime between September 16 and March 3.
Similarly, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan spent the end of 2008 arguing that the economy is just not that bad, but then changed course in March, writing that “the crash of 2008 did not bother me” but “the crash of 2009 is more worrisome . . . So far productivity has been good in this recession, but 2009’s stock market could well see that changing.”
It’s no surprise that John McCain and Casey Mulligan’s views on the economy differ from those of Rahm Emanuel and Paul Krugman, or for that matter Barack Obama, who just last week was beginning to see “glimmers of hope” in the economy.
But the extent of the differences in perceptions between Democrats and Republicans has increased in the past thirty years, according to the research of Joseph Bafumi in his Ph.D. thesis on “the stubborn American voter.” He found that voters are less willing to vote based on past performance but more willing to offer evaluations that, even if inaccurate, fit their partisan predispositions and vote choices.
A good example comes from the research of Larry Bartels. He analyzed a 1988 survey that asked “Would you say that compared to 1980, inflation has gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse?” Amazingly, over half of the self-identified strong Democrats in the survey said that inflation had gotten worse and only 8% thought it had gotten much better, even though the actual inflation rate dropped from 13% to 4% during Reagan’s eight years in office. Republicans were similarly biased about the Clinton-era economy: in 1996, a majority of Republicans thought that the budget deficit had increased. This partisan filter was also evident after the Democrats’ retaking of Congress in 2006. Research by Alan Gerber and Greg Huber shows that Democrats became much more optimistic, and Republicans more pessimistic, about the national economy.
Views about foreign policy manifest a similar bias. For example, from 1965 through 1968, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to support the Vietnam War, but starting in 1969, it was the Republicans who were (slightly) more hawkish.
Could such biases be a product of the relatively mild economic conditions of the past twenty years? Early returns from 2008 and 2009 suggest that partisan biases still operate. According to Gallup Poll data from just before the November election, 20% of Republicans and 8% of Democrats were “satisfied with the way things were going in the United States.” Immediately after Obama’s inauguration, the parties flipflopped: 18% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans expressed satisfaction. That gap has only grown. In February polls, 20% of Democrats but only 10% of Republicans expressed satisfaction.
The same pattern emerges in consumer confidence. ABC News surveys surveys show that the views of Republicans became 19 points more negative between October and mid-April. Meanwhile, the views of Democrats improved by 10 points, even as the economic news became grimmer.
To be sure, large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans continue to be dismayed with state of the country. Partisan biases cannot entirely erase events as salient as this dismal economy. But we have every reason to suspect that partisan bias will continue to matter. Although commentators have been debating how the parties might come together on policy issues in a “bipartisan” or even “post-partisan” fashion, a prior and equally important task is for them to come together in their perception of the facts.
4.16.2009
Red and Blue Economies?
@ 9:20 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments
Surely there's a difference here between matters of fact and matters of opinion?
If people think inflation went up under Reagan or the deficit grew under Clinton, they're just wrong, and it's reasonable to say that partisan bias has occluded their judgement.
But if the question is, "Are you satisfied with the way the country's heading?", when a Democratic administration has just been elected, it seems entirely reasonable that a Democrat might answer Yes. The issue here is not easily separable from one's ideology.
It doesn't need to be bias for different groups to report differently. Even on something as simple as inflation, different components rose/fell at different rates, and incomes for different groups rose/fell at different rates. It is entirely possible that low-income Americans felt a decline in real wages (and hence reported high inflation) at the same time that high-income Americans felt an increase in real wages (and hence reported low inflation).
What Gelman & Sides point to is important not just in the U.S. but also in other countries. People's assessments of the economic performance of the government are filtered through partisan and ideological lenses.
To those of you who think economic performance can be measured "objectively," free of the bias of such partisan lenses, it's not all that easy when there is turmoil in the economy. The "experts" (self-labeled economists) all put their own spin on things, emphasizing different things (inflation, unemployment, employment growth, national debt, investment, the stock market, etc. etc.).
The last line of Andrew's post says it all: gotta agree on what the facts actually are! Always been the problem and always will be...thus, it's left for the party in power to deal with as they feel they must and the idea of 'non-partisanship' is relegated to the status of a fantasy and wishful thinking.
@George Mihaiu: It isn't necessarily wrong for different people to have different conclusions on the economy. The economy is not homogenous. Some states can be booming while others are in a recession. The urban economy can be growing while the rural economy shrinks. Living wages can be falling for the bottom 20% at the same time that they are rising for the top 20%. It is entirely accurate and reasonable for two different people to make different assessments of the economy, and only natural that these two people would gravitate towards different political parties.
Adrian, I take your point, but there are still economic facts. People know the difference between lower wages and higher prices, and something like the size of the balance-of-payments deficit has no real local equivalent. If Republicans under Clinton though the deficit had gone up since Bush, there's not much that can explain that except their presumptions.
And that division is bad for the country. When voters on either side of the aisle become entrenched and ask nothing of their party, and everything of the other, it is not a true democracy anymore.
Obama came in trying to address this, and the repubs steamrolled him. The tea parties are the end of bipartisanship, which is too bad.
@Boing: Perhaps, but I would give two provisos.
1. There are not really "economic facts". What is the inflation rate in America in 2009? Do you use a fixed basket of goods or a variable basket of goods? Do you seasonally adjust the values? Do you leave out high volatility items? Do you leave out luxury items? Do you leave out house prices? Do you use government figures or independent figures? Which independent figures? Do you wage-adjust the figures to inflation in the cost of living? There are many different ways of calculating "inflation", different people think different things when they hear "inflation", and governments constantly alter the way official "inflation" figures are calculated (for example, most of the change in inflation under Reagan was due to a change in how the basket of goods was calculated, increasing replacement flexibility and leaving out housing costs from the basket of goods). So again, two highly informed economists could have different opinions on whether inflation is increasing or decreasing even while looking at the same raw data.
2. People answer the question how they hear it, not how it was intended. A question designed to test knowledge of the official inflation rate may just ask "What has happened to inflation over the past five years". Perhaps one person hears "Has the official headline inflation rate released by the government increased or decreased over the last five years?" Perhaps another person instead heard: "Have you experienced the change in price rises to increase or decrease over the last five years?" A third might hear something else. Whenever a survey result gives a counter-intuitive answer it is always best to consider the actual wording of the question and how it can be interpreted.
Boing-
You really need to go watch Fox and read townhall.com every now and again. There is no balance - townhall was screaming how bad Obama was for the pirates last week, and how he is terrible for shooting teenagers this week.
What went into the ditch was John McCain's brain. The slide began the moment he and Bush did that awkward on-stage embrace--having surrendered the last shred of his principles, McCain then had to rely on others to tell him what the truth is. We are still seeing the result of this.
Andrew - maybe you're right. I'd need to see whether the data for, say, low-income voters under Reagan fit the responses. Instinctively, I reckon partisan bias is a more parsimonious explanation of such big discrepancies in responses between self-identified partisans than either variation in the definitions of economic concepts or variation in the wording of polls. But maybe my instinct's wrong.
Bradford - I don't really understand the relevance of that to any of my comments in this thread.
I think in addition to inherent partisan biases, there is an actual political-economic component to these responses as well. When either party gets in power in Congress or the White House, they tend to use the power of the government to reward their constituents. So when Democrats are in power, traditional Democratic constituencies are taken better care of, and vice versa. For example, I am a physicist. Like most of my colleagues, I tend to support politicians who support healthy budgets for scientific R&D agencies in the federal govt like DOE office of science and NSF. Given the anti-govt spending demagoguery of the GOP, in recent years that has meant that we have largely supported Democrats, although there are pro-science and anti-science members in both parties. There are three physicists in Congress, two Dems and one GOP. In recent years, the GOP has grown increasingly cozy with the know-nothing, anti-science part of their base. So science funding languished under the Bush admin. Since Obama got elected, appointed physicists to his cabinet, and passed large increases in federal science budgets, the morale in the physics community has improved markedly. I can imagine plenty of other examples of why the correlation between partisan identification and economic optimism when your party is in power has a lot more to it than just personal ideological bias. Elections have real-world consequences for many, many people. I would imagine that traditional GOP constituencies like, say, defense contractors, big business, and rich people generally are feeling down about the economy right now, because the government is shifting priorities and the favoritism and cronyism they have enjoyed for the past eight years may be coming to an end.
Bradford - I don't really understand the relevance of that to any of my comments in this thread.I do. If you limit your information sources to those that are virtually always positive for "your side" and virtually always negative for "their side", you will always believe things are good when your side is in power and always believe they are bad when your side is out of power.
The post is about people's faulty perceptions, and even complete failure to understand basic facts. The reason is because these people have immersed themselves in an echo chamber, and intentionally avoid facts that conflict with their preconceived views.
Yes, but you have to remember that many people who were Republicans but thought the economy was in the midst of a hellstorm in 2008 became independents or Democrats. Just looking at partisans forgets that partisanship changes.
In 2004 party ID was 37/26/37 (D/I/R)
In 2008 party ID was 39/29/32 (D/I/R)
This did not reflect much of an ideological shift. In 2004 the vote by ideology was:
21/45/34 (L/M/C)
In 2008 it was:
22/44/34 (L/M/C)
At any rate, the literature on economic voting continues to hold a lot of water when you look at the electorate as a whole.
I almost never say this on this site, because the analysis is usually spot-on, but there's a big hole in this analysis. One of the main reason that, for example, Republicans are MORE negative about the economy now is because there are far fewer people who self-describe as Republicans. The former-Republicans who view the economy as getting better, or the country as starting to move in the right direction, no-longer call themselves Republican in the polls. The ones who still call themselves Republicans, are thus the most extreme ideologues. This isn't new -- and I believe it's the underlying phenomenon that drives much of this.
I think one of the things Andrew's post points to is the hyperbole in American politics that has little to do with policy or reality. Whilst campaigning for the incumbent party, of course McCain is going to try to paint as positive a picture of the economy as possible, and whilst in opposition of course he is going to paint a black picture. And what do you expect Obama to say? 'Since I took office the economy has gotten worse'?
The problem becomes when these partisan comments become more important than they should be. It isn't just economic matters its in all things, but these sorts of statements- 'were great and they are rubbish' type statements that begin the descent into partisanship and a lack of cooperation.
Adrian -I meant you when i said Andrew above, sorry.
LFC said:
I do. If you limit your information sources to those that are virtually always positive for "your side" and virtually always negative for "their side", you will always believe things are good when your side is in power and always believe they are bad when your side is out of power.
The post is about people's faulty perceptions, and even complete failure to understand basic facts. The reason is because these people have immersed themselves in an echo chamber, and intentionally avoid facts that conflict with their preconceived views.Well I quite agree. Which was more or less the point of Andrew's post, with which I also generally agree.
It could be that what research is uncovering here is not biased beliefs about the facts, but ignorance of the facts disguised by biased guesses.
When a respondent in a survey or poll gives an answer, it doesn't necessarily reflect beliefs or knowledge that the respondent held before the question was asked. So when Republican respondents in 1996 told researchers that the budget deficit had been rising, how many of them actually had heard that or believed it, and how many of them had no idea but were just guessing on the spot?
I think we can all say a collective duh to this "anaylis"
So for my "comment" I am going to highlight insights from other commenters
"When either party gets in power in Congress or the White House, they tend to use the power of the government to reward their constituents"
"If you limit your information sources to those that are virtually always positive for "your side" and virtually always negative for "their side", you will always believe things are good when your side is in power and always believe they are bad when your side is out of power.
"The problem becomes when these partisan comments become more important than they should be. It isn't just economic matters its in all things, but these sorts of statements- 'were great and they are rubbish' type statements that begin the descent into partisanship and a lack of cooperation."
Great points.
To all the hacks out there the reason I call you hacks is that you violate these fundamental truths that are needed in a modern civil society.
I will add one thing. I think there are an equal amount of people that will vote D or R no mater what aka irregardless of facts
Unfortunatly for this country I think this number is fairly high.
I wish I had more data to back me up. I think Bush II low point was around 30 so for me that means
30% are D no matter what 30% are R no matter what any only 40% of the country actually can think for themselves.
Some of what is being discussed here can be attributed to ignorance and bias. However, negative or positive assessments of the future, consumer confidence and the like, are connected to which party is in power for a very simple reason: people support a party because they think it will make American a better place. This isn't bias or ignorance of the facts, it's the reason they vote one way or another!
I'm just going to get really derogatory in this comment. By definition, 1/2 the population is below average intelligence. Even at average, you have people aligning with ideologies and not thinking for themselves. I'd like to see some statistics on the IQ numbers or SAT scores, what have you, for "self identifying" R., D. and Independents. I have a feeling the Independents will show up above average and the ideologues below. I'd also like to see that kind of analysis for self identifying Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. and so called "non-believers". I'm sure "non-believers" tend to score higher on IQ, SAT etc. It is a sad commentary on the H. Race.
The fact is, joining a political party when not seeking office or planing to help someone's campaign that is seeking office is a very irrational decision. Adhering to 4000, 2000, 1500 year old religious texts is also irrational. It should saddle one with the same ignoble epithet: stupid. A person not knowing that inflation went away down down down during Reagan, that the deficit was reversed under Clinton, actually believing that there is some entity in the sky watching over us and meddling with our attempts at survival: these beliefs are not just ignorant. They are stupid. Ignorant = does not know. Stupid = cannot be taught. Stupid people follow without questioning.
Yet, the US electorate, nay the human race got it right in the last election, so there is hope.
My $.02 worth.
Dr. Karl Hudnut, UCAR - COSMIC
If we accept as valid the notion that parties govern differently, of course the assessment of the economy will differ by partisan identification.
If we accept as valid the notion that players do not change their preferences, then we need to know what their preferences were (time 1) and are (time 2). I do not think we know for certain what Ben Bernanke really was thinking when he was working on the economic crisis under the Bush administration.
Look at how the Bush administration governed the economy. Hank Paulson took the lead and it was not altogether clear that Ben Bernanke wanted to go along with him. But, Bernanke stayed mum most of the time and rarely (I cannot think of a time) contradicted Paulson.
Now, under the Obama administration, I have heard Bernanke publicly stake out positions that at least have the sound of being at odds with the Bush administration's stances.
An impartial observer might conclude that partisanship may have some evaluation of how Bernanke is perceived, but even acute observers might detect a change that seems odd given the political insulation the Fed Chairman has from politics.
There's also, IMHO, a problem with the term "inflaton". We've had low "inflation" for the last eight years, but the worth of the dollar valued in oil, gold, or other such commodities showed extreme "inflation".
The last recession (2001-2) was not dealt with in the way this recession is being dealt with. There were no massive spending programs (unless you count the war!). Instead, the Fed dropped rates to historical lows - and kept them there. As a result, the dollars sunk like a rock. And oil producers, who typically were paid in dollars, began to demand more of the "worth less" dollars for a given quantity of oil.
Now somebody explain to me what that ISN'T inflation!
Sorry - WHY that isn't inflation...
The higher prices for commodities definitely show up in any measure of inflation. For example, the price of gasoline, which is measured in the consumer price index, is almost entirely determined by the price of crude oil.
Of course, basic commodities don't make up a very big portion of many of the other goods any services we purchase. Medical care, laptop computers, and movie tickets are all also included in the consumer price index yet are not influenced very much by the prices of any underlying commodities.
"I'm just going to get really derogatory in this comment. By definition, 1/2 the population is below average intelligence. Even at average, you have people aligning with ideologies and not thinking for themselves. I'd like to see some statistics on the IQ numbers or SAT scores, what have you, for "self identifying" R., D. and Independents. I have a feeling the Independents will show up above average and the ideologues below..."
That is because you are making a pretty ad hoc argument and assuming people make decisions in the national interest based on facts.
Voters don't. Voters respond to their personal values, and the personal interests. Independents (of which I am one) tend to have weaker senses of either because they are less educated and informed (which probably implies lower SAT scores).
Lets look at general social survey data.
% of Independents w/high school or less: 57.8%
% of Strong Democrats w/high school or less: 44%
% of Strong Republicans w/high school or less: 42.1%
The real problem with your analysis is that you have equated intelligence with virtue, and like most liberals (I mean liberal in the international sense wherein Bush is a right-wing liberal, Obama a left-wing liberal) assume that if people were just educated appropriately they would be model citizens.
What Prof Vic said.
The commodity price rise (and eventually a slice of OPEC switching selling their oil priced in Euros) was offset by another of other changes. For example the imports from China rose while the Chinese government worked hard to keep the Yaun artificially pegged to the US$ (so they could keep exports going). This diluted other inflationary pressures (such as the Iraq war, weakening US$ vs other currencies which it floated against, etc.).
"I'm just going to get really derogatory in this comment. By definition, 1/2 the population is below average intelligence."
LOL, that's pretty funny khudnut. Funny in "I guess you are in the bottom half" way. ;) By definition 1/2 the population is below median intelligence.
The average doesn't say anything about how many people are above or below it, other than there has to be at least 1 above the average and at least 1 below (unless every value in the set in the same).
P.S. Does not understanding those basic definitions really put you in the bottom half? Sadly, probably not.
khudnut said... The fact is, joining a political party when not seeking office or planing to help someone's campaign that is seeking office is a very irrational decision.
There's at least one big exception. Here in Pennsylvania, registering for a specific party is required if you want to vote in that party's primary.
Completely OT, but the AK legislature just slapped Bible Spice by turning down the moron she nominated for AG.
I'm sorry, but isn't this study (and really, all studies on party perceptions) an analogue of the contraction and rightward shift of the Republican party?
Nova_middle_man said "I will add one thing. I think there are an equal amount of people that will vote D or R no mater what aka irregardless of facts...
30% are D no matter what 30% are R no matter what any only 40% of the country actually can think for themselves."You completely discount that people might vote for a party's candidates because they believe in that party's principles? I vote for Democrats because I believe in the principles of the Democratic party and I want to see them prevail. This does not make me less intelligent or less able to think for myself; it merely means that I have made a reasoned judgment that it is in my best interest and that of my country that Democrats should be in power. There are such clear differences between the two parties that I can't see what "facts" you think should persuade me to vote for a Republican.
In fact, I am incredibly confused by the general fetishizing of "independence." Exactly why should we see an inherent virtue in the inability to make consistent decisions? It reminds me of something my father always warned me: don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out.
This should help put the rest the idea "The other side has so many people completely out of touch with reality. OUR side is realistic."
I'm sorry, but this "Study" simply does not demonstrate what it purports to. Yes, the frequency of factual inaccuracies are probably influenced by your partisan views (e.g. inflation in the '80s or deficits in the '90s). But polls asking "is the country headed in the right direction" are not asking factual questions, they are opinion polls.
Perhaps the partisan divide (e.g. how much leeway the other party gives to the party in power) has gotten worse since the 1970's, but nothing in this article support such a conclusion (and I don't think it should be assumed a priori).
There is no such things as "sets of facts". There is only one set of facts, even if people are quibbling over a few of them. The allowance of this post-modern gibberish into socio-economic policy debates has hurt our ability to hold discussion in this country more than any amount of monetary influences (which is ironic since it was a byproduct of a small group of academic leftists a few decades ago).
Regardless, this article utterly fails at testing its thesis, that partisan understanding of facts has grown worse/more divided, and hasn't even provided enough information to see if partisan confidence/opinion has changed.
LOL, that's pretty funny khudnut. Funny in "I guess you are in the bottom half" way. ;) By definition 1/2 the population is below median intelligence.To butt in, the IQ distribution is symmetric enough to make the mean and median IQs not particularly significantly different. Both the mean and the median are often referred to as averages.
I assume that any actual study of the distribution of IQs by partisan identification will correspond - albeit weakly - with the oft-cited educational breakdowns.
That is to say, I expect that Democrats will have marginally more people on the outside of the bell curve, while the Republicans will tend to be closer to center.
The IQ-education-occupation-income associations are well-studied. Rampant anti-intellectualism certainly does not help the Republican cause among the high-IQ set.
Regarding the issue of inflation -- isn't it possible that the responses reflect the respondents' situations? I mean, yes, the actual rate of inflation may have dropped under Reagan, but is that not also the time in which wages for the lower half of workers began stagnating? An inflation rate of 4% is far better than a rate of 13%, but when your annual pay only increases by 1 or 2% (if at all) you are still faced with the costs of goods rising faster than your ability to pay for them.
Let me use the analogy of a car speeding toward a brick wall. Maybe those Democrats in the 1988 survey felt like they were doing 120 mph toward the wall in 1980. In 88 they may have felt like they had dropped to 80, but their brake line was leaking and they were being told to wait for the rich's surplus fluid to trickle down. Slower, maybe, but not especially comforting.
Also what methods were used? If the Democratic sample from the survey was relatively homogeneous and had buying patterns different from the country as a whole then those from the sample could have had a different experience regarding inflation than the rest of the country which would have been reflected in their responses.
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifact5.htm
As to the intelligence of independents vs those allied with a party -- I don't think any of us have the ability to realistically assess such things. First, the registration rules vary from state to state, meaning that what constitutes an independent varies as well. In a different state I would register as a Democrat so I could vote in the party primary. In Georgia we don't register under either party which means I can vote in whichever primary I choose and claim to be an independent...
...which is, secondly, very much in vogue right now. Witness the "undecided voters" interviewed by CNN after each of the Presidential debates. After two debates between Obama and McCain (and one between Biden and Palin) how were they able to fill up a room with people who hadn't decided? What, after those first three debates, could possibly be leaving you undecided? Ironically, people have an almost sheep-like mentality with the devotion to the idea that they are open-minded.
And how many self-described "independents" vote for a particular party's candidate almost without fail? I freely admit that I vote Democrat unless there is a Green running or the Dem. candidate is an obvious mistake. I've yet to vote for a Republican over a Dem and I honestly don't know under what circumstances I would do so. I'm to the left of the Democratic Party on most issues. Green would be my party of choice, but I don't have to choose. I imagine there are plenty of "independents" on the other side who always vote Republican unless they can vote Libertarian and would never, ever vote Democrat. Should we be considered Independents or should we be considered members of the party for whom we vote 95% of the time?
Post a Comment