Categories of American politics (2018)

A study from 2018 was conducted to identify the political beliefs of the American people below the surface of their party affiliation. In other words, what are the psychological and emotional feelings that place them within a particular political ideology?

Progressive activists (8% of the adult population 20.2 million) are eighty percent white and likely have college degrees. They feel secure about themselves, most likely because they don’t have money problems. They have an aggressive approach to correcting the defects they see in American society, based on a high sensitivity to fairness and equality. They don’t mention Tribalism as a concern perhaps because they understand achieving social justice is difficult and controversial.

Traditional Liberals (11% of the adult population 27.8 million) are seventy-six percent white and likely have a college education. They reflect the liberal views of the Baby Boomer generation and support social justice with less enthusiasm than Progressive Activists do. Traditional Liberals observe Tribalism and believe it’s solution lies in America healing as a nation through tolerance of different points of view and compromise where necessary. Seventy five percent say freedom and equality are important to them.

Passive Liberals (15% of the adult population 37.9 million) are only weakly engaged in politics, but have a modern view of social issues when pushed to state their positions. This group feels isolated and alienated from their community. Seventy-two percent are not registered to vote and two-thirds do not have a college degree. They generally believe events in their lives are outside of their control. Fifty percent say the world is becoming a more dangerous place. Fifty-nine percent are female. Eighty-six percent try to avoid situations were there could be arguments.

The Politically Disengaged (26% of the adult population 65.8 million) tend to be lower income and are not engaged in politics. Forty-one percent make less than $ 30,000 per year. They are more anxious than Passive Liberals about external threats and are reluctant to discuss differences with others. They are extremely pessimistic about resolving Tribalism. Thirty-two percent say that the differences between Americans are too big to resolve.

Moderates (15% of the adult population 37.9 million) represent the political middle of the road. They are involved in their communities, volunteer, and are engaged in current affairs. This group is very troubled by Tribalism. Moderates dislike the extremism that exists at both ends of the political spectrum. They feel the American identity is slipping away. Eighty-nine percent feel that political correctness has gone too far. Sixty percent are over 45.

Traditional Conservatives (19% of the adult population 48 million) feel that America’s foundations are under attack from a liberal political culture that emphasizes diversity and downplays American accomplishments. Seventy-nine percent are white. Only forty-seven percent say America is rigged to favor the rich. Traditional Conservatives are open to discussing bipartisan solutions to America’s problems.

Devoted Conservatives (6% of the adult population 15.2 million) are the equivalent of the Progressive Activists at the other end of the political spectrum. Like their cousins, they are happy and secure in life. They see American traditions under assault and feel forced to accept Liberal dogma. This group is 88% white, 34% over 65 years of age, and 63% opposed to compromise on traditional values.

Several interesting facts emerge from these results. 

1. The radical Left is only 8% of the population yet they exert an enormous influence through Academia and the media. 

2. There are 37.9 million passive liberals who are not engaged in politics.

3. The are 65.8 million disengaged Americans who are disconnected from politics completely.

4. Devoted conservatives will not compromise their beliefs for any reason.

5. The Radical Left and the Devoted Right are mainly white and wealthy. This suggests that they can hold to a rigid ideology because their lives are secure and they don't have to make any compromises.

This data was taken from Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon. Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape. (Publisher - More in Common, 2018)

Why is America stuck in a Tribal state?

The cause of America’s tribalism is simple, if you think about it. Groups of Americans have become uncomfortable with the direction of our society, and have reverted to a tribal mentality. Tribes offer safety because they are smaller groups of like minded people.

The details explaining our tribalism are complicated and need some discussion to help understand them.

Tribalism is possible because the political morality of the Right and Left are different. People on the Left concern themselves with groups and their status. They see capitalism as unfair because it leads to poverty and inequality. Their efforts in the political seek to expand the welfare state with programs that will solve the major problems of society. People on the Right are concerned with liberty. They see man’s opportunity to succeed in the world as dependent a government that focuses on individualism and reward for hard work. To the Right, big government and welfare state programs destroy liberty through asset transfers. Expansion of the welfare state requires increased taxation, so the monetary assets of the public are transferred to government. That transfer might be legitimized if the results showed that the funded programs were effective. More often than not, they show them to be ineffective.

The personality of the Left is driven by the desire for change; a restless discomfort with the status quo and a feeling that change is normal and will make things better. The personality of the Right is driven by resistance to change and an attraction to traditions. The Right believes that traditions are the foundations for the advancement of society and dictate how much change is reasonable.

There are four major factors that push us into tribalism: changes in society, grievances of identity groups, postmodern communications, and a corrupted media.

1. The last forty years has seen enormous change to the American cultural landscape. The family has changed in character and definition, people have become less religious, and are now too busy to socialize. This is discomforting to the Right because its too much change too fast and represents a tearing down of important traditions that act to the benefit of mankind.

2. Our society has become divided by identity and lost the ability to come together as Americans. Identity groups, who have grievances, work to correct them but, even when progress is made, remain separated from the whole.

3. During the last two decades, technology has overwhelmed us. Instant communication has made us all feel that the world is moving faster. We feel pressure to live in the instant. That pressure is unsettling.

4. The traditional media has to compete with the internet for audience share, and has corrupted itself in the process. Because the internet has no filter, the most awful ideas are presented and hyped there. Every idiot has a platform. The traditional media could take the high road and provide a rational alternative, but instead chose to participate in the same game. The presentation and discussion of extreme political positions creates a misleading picture of reality to the public, while ignoring the good stories and the fundamental fairness of the American people. The artificial world presented is depressing.

The political parties are polarized because the American people are polarized. The moderate senators and Congressmen who used to populate the Congress are gone, so all that remains are the extremes. Moreover, each of the parties is fractured by ideological arguments. Democrats fight themselves over how far to the Left they should be; liberal or socialist? The Right fights itself over fiscal responsibility and the politicization of traditional values. The divide between them will not be fixed unless the American people tell the Congress to get their house in order.

How will American tribalism resolve itself? The short answer is that it will abate when the opposing tribes realize their lack of communication is not healthy and stands in the way of progress; when progress and unity start to mean more than stagnation and enmity.

Conservatives will continue to advocate for traditions and their will always be conservatives to do that. The Left, which contains many who believe in the American ideal, needs to separate itself from the radical Left and show its willingness to communicate with the Right. The identity groups need to see themselves as Americans rather than merely human beings with a set of personal characteristics.

We all need to slow down. The idea that human life must be lived through a cell phone is an absurdity that belittles the capacity we all have to make the world a better place.

What is Populism?

Populism is a word that is commonly used today to describe political trends across the globe. It is not a new concept and has existed throughout the history of human society. Populism appears under specific circumstances and acts as a warning sign of problems in a political system.

Historian Michael Kazin defines populism as “a language whose speakers conceive of ordinary people as a noble assemblage not bounded narrowly by class; view their elite opponents as self-serving and undemocratic; and seek to mobilize the former against the latter”.

In other words, when government fails to meet the needs of a group or groups, within the society, a reaction will appear that opposes the government. Populism on the Left is different than populism on the Right. Left-wing populists take the side of the people against an elite group or the establishment. Their energy comes from the common man opposing the elites. Right-wing populists take the side of the common man against elites they accuse of favoring a third group.

In the last decade and a half, a populist movement emerged in America when white men became frustrated by the federal government’s lack of interest in addressing their concerns. The media commonly report that the movement is driven by blue collar workers but the constituency is actually much broader than that. The group also includes evangelical men, men over 50, men earning at least $ 50,000 per year, and non-college educated men.

White men in America feel that all of the other identity groups are ahead of them in line: women, African-Americans, Hispanic, Gays, immigrants, etc. They see the other groups receiving attention and benefits from the government they have no access to. In addition, the radical Left’s attack on “white man’s privilege” ignores the important role white men have played in building our country.

In recent decades, post-industrial societies have embraced a neoliberal agenda of free movement of capital and labor to achieve prosperity. This view supports increased immigration as a way to adapt to changes in labor requirements. In the United States, both parties supported free trade deals. These policies impacted white men, especially after the Great Recession, when the housing bust destroyed Americans most important asset – the equity in their homes. The loss of asset value and the risk of job loss due to the immigrant pool and increased automation has caused the reaction against the government.

Donald Trump is the first populist candidate, in American history, to be elected president. He sailed through the nomination process by beating back a large group of establishment candidates who didn’t understand the populist wave. He won the election by holding the Republican base and using populist rhetoric to convince white men to vote for him. His slogan of “make America great again” suggested the renewal of a time before identity politics and political correctness began to dominate the American cultural narrative.

Populist movements are temporary, exhibiting an emotional response from the electorate that eventually burns out. These movements may or may not achieve their objectives, depending on whether the practical demands of implementing programs that fix the problem are achievable. Often, populist demands are co-opted by the major parties as attempts to entice the constituencies to join their ideology. As we saw in 2016, adding the populist constituency to the votes of one of the major parties can win an election.

Oddly, with less than a year to go before the 2020 election, the Democrats don’t seem to be addressing their problem with white men. Is it possible that the most radical elements of the Left are opposed to that effort because it would compromise their narrative?

Income inequality as a political issue

Income inequality is a highly publicized and much debated topic. How do we reconcile the arguments over this issue with reality, given the battle lines between one side and the other?

The origin of the inequality as political issue begins with Marxist theory.

Karl Marx originally proposed an economic theory that suggested how and why capitalism should be replaced. In Marx' view, capitalism, as expressed in the industrial revolution, cruelly exploited workers and turned them into valueless machines. Moreover, there was great inequality between the managers of the corporations and the workers who worked for them. Marx predicted that, at some point, workers would revolt against this exploitation, and create a transitional government that would eventually become a communist society. The new society would be egalitarian (all people would be equal) and not have an economic hierarchy.

Marx' theory developed into mature Socialist movement in Europe during the latter part of the 19th Century. Socialist leaders attempted to organize workers to prepare for the inevitable revolts, but they never happened. Meanwhile, Russia became a Communist state, during World War I, when it was taken over by a revolutionary gang. The same process took place in China under Mao. Neither followed the roadmap Marx had constructed.

In the period between the two world wars, socialist intellectuals began to think about why workers had not revolted. Was there something wrong with Marx' theory? The Frankfurt School was founded in Germany, in 1923, with the express purpose of correcting flaws in Marx' approach, using a tool called "Critical Theory." Critical theory attempted to look at Marxism from the outside in order to analyze it objectively. One conclusion they drew was Marx had not included psychology in his analysis of worker class behavior.

Using Freud's theories, the Frankfurt School concluded that workers did not revolt because they had been psychologically seduced by capitalism and were under its control. Working in a capitalist society forced the worker to earn the money that would allow him to achieve the lifestyle enjoyed by his neighbors. He was stuck on a treadmill and couldn't get off. They concluded it was a mistake to concentrate on the worker class as a constituency because it was too narrow and could not generate a revolution by itself. Instead, they would focus on all of society.

To that end, the German Social Democratic Party (SDP) published a document in 1959 called the Godesberg program. This program changed socialism's focus from exploitation of the worker to economic inequality across the whole culture. The party believed that if they could not defeat capitalism as an economic theory, they would have better luck attacking it for creating inequality. From the early 1960s to today, socialists have been attacking capitalism as the cause of inequality in the West. Their solution is to utilize government to alleviate inequality as a step toward transition to a socialist state. This tactic remains a core component of the Left’s playbook today.

To test the socialist’s idea, we examine historical income levels by economic class in the United States.

Here we see the income distribution in the United States at three different time periods: 1774, 1860, and 2011. What's notable here is that there is very little difference between income levels for each class over the two-hundred-and-forty-year span. The top tier has produced about 50% of the income, the middle tier about 35%, and the bottom tier about 10%.

These results are surprising given the state of American society when they were measured. In 1774, the United States did not exist and income was based on the colonial economy. In 1860, the industrial revolution was underway and the Civil War would soon begin. In 2011, eight years ago, the United States was operating in a mature post-industrial globalist society. Could these periods have been any different?

The most likely conclusion, to be drawn from the chart, is that a capitalist society operates by a set of poorly understood mechanisms that determine income distribution. Income is related to human capabilities and motivation. The results are similar for any time period and there is no manmade way to change the result. This means that throwing money and government programs at inequality will accomplish nothing.

How do Americans really feel about income inequality? The answer is surprising. For all the press about CEOs making 2000 times the salary of the average worker, Americans don't care about that metric. Study after study has shown that people care about their income as it relates to their peers, not some CEO. In other words, if I'm an attorney, I want to know that my income is similar to what other attorneys make. If I am below that standard, I will be unhappy.

If there is no way to make inequality go away, why waste time and money trying to do so? Focus on education and job training to help people get better jobs. And focus on keeping the economy strong so jobs are available.

Socialists understand that inequality cannot be eliminated from a capitalist system, so they advocate replacing capitalism with socialism. The only problem with that idea is that socialism has failed every time it has been tried. Socialists continue to use inequality as a hammer against capitalism to tear it down, even though they have no practical alternative.

Poverty as an on-going problem

Poverty is a subject that is constantly discussed in the United States and there has been great effort applied to alleviating it.

Here is a chart showing recent numbers.

The poverty rate has been flat since about 1968. Why is that?

To me, there is one of two answers. Either poverty is endemic to a capitalist democracy and nothing can be done about it OR every program that been tried in the past 50 years has been poorly designed and/or poorly funded.

Major anti-poverty programs include Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Food Stamps, housing subsidies, Head Start, job training programs. With all these programs in place, the poverty rate remains the same.

One could argue that the programs listed above may have prevented the poverty rate from being higher than it is, but that doesn't change the fact that they have not been able to help the bigger problem.

The devil is in the details. We need to drill down inside the poverty rate itself to understand the causes. For example, what percentage of the poverty rate is fluid, meaning it consists of people going into and out of poverty on a short-term basis. I will do that in a subsequent post.

Governments need to implement programs that have a sound basis for success, otherwise they just waste money. The lessons learned from the welfare experience of the 1970s is that throwing money at a problem has little chance of fixing it.

Aristotle and Democracy

Aristotle in his Politics lays out a thorough discussion of the various forms of government – monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. His focus is the character of men and their ability to govern rather than identifying the best political system.

In Book 2, he is harshly critical of Plato and his Republic. Plato envisioned a communist society where all citizens are alike. To Aristotle this is impossible because the differentiation of functions is a law of nature. Moreover, the abolition of property will produce dissention and not harmony. As Aristotle pointed out, the advantages expected from the communism of property would be better secured if private property were used in a liberal spirit to relieve the wants of others. Private property makes men happier and enables them to cultivate generosity.

In Book 3, Aristotle tackles the aims of the state and how they are represented in the various governmental models.

“A constitution is the arrangement of magistracies in a state, especially of the highest of all. The government is everywhere sovereign in the state, and the constitution is in fact the government. For example, in democracies the people are supreme, but in oligarchies, the few; and, therefore, we say that these two forms of government also are different: and so in other cases.” No matter what the form of government, knowledge of its true forms is essential to be able to understand its perversions.

“The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions.”

It’s not a great leap to see how this statement applies to the United States today, where the Congress and the people have gravitated to their own parochial interests and away from the common good.

Aristotle goes on (Book 3 Chapter 7) to describe the perversion of Democracy as the needy. What does he mean by this? When Democracy becomes extreme and the numerous poor control the state, they will not be good rulers because they do not have the skill. Better to limit their function to a deliberative one, such as participation in the courts.

“Our conclusion, then, is that political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship. Hence they who contribute most to such a society have a greater share in it than those who have the same or a greater freedom or nobility of birth but are inferior to them in political virtue; or than those who exceed them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.”

This means that a successful political system must employ those possessing the greatest skill in its most important roles. But skill in itself is not enough, because power must be used for good.

“There is also a doubt as to what is to be the supreme power in the state: Is it the multitude, or the wealthy, or the good, or the one best man, or a tyrant? Any of these alternatives seems to involve disagreeable consequences.

If the poor, for example, because they are more in number, divide among themselves the property of the rich- is not this unjust? No, by heaven (will be the reply), for the supreme authority justly willed it. But if this is not injustice, pray what is? Again, when in the first division all has been taken, and the majority divide anew the property of the minority, is it not evident, if this goes on, that they will ruin the state? Yet surely, virtue is not the ruin of those who possess her, nor is justice destructive of a state; and therefore this law of confiscation clearly cannot be just. If it were, all the acts of a tyrant must of necessity be just; for he only coerces other men by superior power, just as the multitude coerce the rich. But is it just then that the few and the wealthy should be the rulers? And what if they, in like manner, rob and plunder the people- is this just? If so, the other case will likewise be just. But there can be no doubt that all these things are wrong and unjust.”

Doesn’t this property confiscation sound amazingly similar to the Progressive agenda before us today in the United States – the leveling of wealth the current administration seeks? We must take care that social agendas do not break down our society for the wrong reasons. At the end of the day, human beings have behaviors that cannot be re-programmed into some kind of utopian construct.

What is the difference between Political Parties and Political Ideology?

This is another important question that leads to confusion.

As most people understand, political parties are defined across a spectrum. On the left, sit the Progressives and next to them on their right are the Liberals. Moving farther to the right, we see the independents who have no strong affiliation with either party. At the extreme right are the Conservatives. Most people, when asked, would say they are "on the Right" or "on the Left" or "in the Middle" politically; a shorthand way of describing their political beliefs.

The ideology spectrum is much different. Politics, since the Enlightenment, has been a battle between Collectivists and Individualists, meaning those who believe society should emphasize the group versus those who believe society should emphasize the individual. Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are examples of Collectivist models. Classical Liberalism is an example of a individualist model.

During the development of Collectivist thinking, a split occurred. One group embraced Collectivism by group management of a society (Socialists), and the other embraced Collectivism as an Authoritarian management of society (Fascists). As you can imagine, Socialism has government controlling the economy to achieve equality. Fascism has a single political party with an Authoritarian structure controlling the society. Fascism is a group model because the whole society is considered one large group. Fascists believe that their structure is the best to avoid society's problems because the state will solve them. They also believe that theirs is the best form to protect people from outside interference or attack.

As you can see on the chart, Socialists are on the left of the ideology spectrum and Fascists are on the right. Liberalism sits in the middle because it is an individualism model and not a group model like the other two.

People create confusion when they mix up ideology and politics. For example, some on the Left call Trump a Fascist. That's wrong. He is not interested in becoming a dictator, but he is interested in exercising the full power of the presidency. He actually isn't a Conservative either because many of this beliefs are not a part of the Conservative ideology. Trump is most correctly labelled a "populist", meaning he has tailored his programs to his major constituencies. He won the election by convincing blue collar men that he would look out for their interests (jobs). They voted for him instead of the Democratic Party because they felt abandoned.