The Qualitative Left
Sorry about my lack of posting the last couple of weeks. I’ve had lots of things on my mind, lack of motivation at night, David Lapidus County Board work, an inability to finish posts, and other poor excuses. I’m going to try to be a little bit less rhetorical in the future because I’m much more interested and focused on the real issues and real status of our society today politically, socially, religiously, etc. than loosely throwing out partisan talking points or irrational criticisms. Thus, I’m sorry if I have offended others in previous posts. The following piece has been in the works for quite a long time but I’ve finally finished it. While numerous writers have looked at extreme liberal thinking and have tried to paraphrase their encounters generally, they have not come up with an accurate label for these far-left individuals. Labels tossed around include “socialists”, “moonbats”, “limousine liberals” and “
Who these people are?
One of the quickest things I picked up on campus, both within the classroom and outside discussion is that the left loves to make claims about conservatives and big business and will offer talking points consisting of ignoring the poor, destroying the environment, caring only about money, and the list goes on. These same people will speak harshly about Republicans who aren’t in favor of increasing the minimum wage, want a more equal tax policy, don’t want more social welfare programs, want to drill in the Artic. But are these people usually able to discuss issues objectively and understand why raising the minimum wage might be detrimental to the business climate, why a tax policy may be hurting investment opportunities, why social welfare programs in the past have not proven to always get people out of poverty, and why drilling in the Arctic may be wise to keep oil prices down? No, and very often you will be talking to people of the “qualitative left”, a mass of demographic that pulls disproportionably from woman, minorities, liberal arts professors, social service professionals, teachers, artists/creatives, and nonprofit activist types.
There are many factors that are central to forming people’s political beliefs and typical answers will include parents’ political beliefs, religious beliefs, geographical upbringing, and education. I think one of the key components is your college concentration which not only helps form your worldview but also is an indication to what type of thinker you are. All people think both quantitatively and qualitatively but the Qualitative Left tends to be draw from liberal arts majors based on humanities and less math intensive social sciences. The data from Facebook reflects that students in more qualitative majors will be more liberal and the more quantitative and career-oriented majors are more conservative (or less liberal). These liberal arts majors are where the Qualitative Left draws their strength from and these students will be the teachers, artists, professors, nonprofit activists, social workers, etc. of the future.
Real Estate= Lib (31) VLib (3) = 34; Con (41) VCon (1) = 42
Finance= Lib (60) VLib (6) = 66; Con (85) VCon (10) = 95
Math= Lib (106) VLib (38) = 144; Con (35) VCon (2) = 37
Accounting= Lib (76) VLib (9) = 87; Con (76) VCon (6) = 82
Mechanical Engineering= Lib (125) VLib (22) = 147; Con (137) VCon (9) = 146
Physics= Lib (64) VLib (18) = 82; Con (15) VCon (2) = 17
Civil Engineering= Lib (31) VLib (6) = 37; Con (17) VCon (4) = 21
Economics= Lib (211) VLib (33) = 244; Con (137) VCon (12) = 149
Qualitative Majors
English= Lib (387) VLib (32) = 419; Con (62) VCon (3) = 65
Political Science=Lib/VLib= NA (Exhausted Search Engines, estimation over 1,000 each category); Con (229) VCon (24) = 253
Art= Lib (149) VLib (58) = 207; Con (17) VCon (0) = 17
Social Work= Lib (90) VLib (24) = 114; Con (5) VCon (0) = 5
Journalism= Lib (397) VLib (71) = 468; Con (74) VCon (5) = 79
Education= Lib (114) VLib (20) = 134; Con (24) VCon (1) = 25
History= Lib (399) VLib (122) = 521; Con (116) VCon (11) = 127
Sociology= Lib (247) VLib (96) = 343; Con (42) VCon (6) = 48
Nursing= Lib (169) VLib (22)= 191; Con (78) VCon (3) = 81
Marketing= Lib (90) VLib (7) = 97; Con (35) VCon (0) = 35
Management/Human Resources= Lib (20) VLib (1) = 21; Con (12) VLib (0) = 12
Problems with Qualitative Thinking
There are many problems with qualitative thinking in terms of public policy. First, in terms of looking at policy decisions from a cost-benefit analysis and exploring the trade-offs of particular legislation, qualitative thinking leads a person to believe that particular legislation is either good or bad. To the qualitative left, they see a tax policy such as the ending the estate tax as “unfair” or “a give-away to the rich” because it would effectively give wealthier people (who have large estates) the right to not be taxed again on their financial assets. These same individuals would fail to understand the argument that these individuals have already paid taxes on this sum of money or that private-sector investment and private giving might substantially increase. Quantitative people can obviously disagree and can make sound arguments pro estate-tax or anti estate-tax but the problem is the qualitative left often cannot even debate or begin to understand the issues.
Second, when discussing the merits of a particular policy in quantitative terms, the qualitative left will change switch the discussion framing the issue emotionally in qualitative terms. I experienced this ploy often during SSFC meetings and one particular instance stands out. When we were discussing the merits of SAFEwalk in terms of financial dollars per walk, hours on duty, and whether SAFEcab could be a more cost effective alternative, members of FUSE kept bringing up woman’s safety using the language of “a rape should be prevented at any cost”. Maybe the city of
Third, the qualitative left in general puts much more weight in evaluating public policy decisions on a social level and factoring in other qualitative variables. Social variables are very hard if not impossible to measure, even more difficult than environmental variables. Thus, the idea of triple-line accounting (economic, environment, social) is so hard to implement in a cost-benefit analysis. But even within triple-line accounting, the environmental and social costs need to be quantified and often the left will refuse to do it. They will refuse to try to quantify these variables because they’d rather that the social and environmental costs/benefits be put ahead of fiscal issues or they don’t have the ability themselves to even estimate these variables. If we have absolutely no ability to estimate the social or environmental costs/benefits, I believe that they should not be included in any analysis. Here’s a quick example of the left putting excessive emphasis on social and community well-being. When hearing about a plant of a large company closing in their city or country, they think solely about the people who are going to be losing their jobs and not about the efficiency of the economy, the possible gain to shareholders, or effect of people in another geographical vicinity gaining jobs. Typical blame will be placed on greedy management rather than restrictive union rules, low productivity, or a change in the economy. Sympathy will go out to the workers who lost their job and people will lament the loss of social ties and future of the community. The losers will be emphasized and any gain to particular stakeholders will not be mentioned. The discussion of the alternative (ie socialism) will not be discussed but surely aspects of capitalism will be criticized. Why? One possible reason: comparative advantage probably isn’t even in the vocabulary of the qualitative left.
The idea of the difficulty in engaging liberals in political discussion has been well documented by conservative writers including John Leo, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Jonah Goldberg among others. This is because of a number of reasons but it most definitely stems from the qualitative thinking of many in the far left. Go to the central hubs of the far-left blogosphere like The Huffington Post or Daily Kos and this pattern of thought will be reiterated. Why actually discuss the trade-offs and central aspects of legislation when you can throw inflammatory comments and make unsound but rhetorically witty comments? It’s because the left’s ideas often do not make sense quantitatively and hold little objectivity. Being outnumbered in a qualitiative left bastion of thought, educated conservatives and libertarians can continue to win debates because of the ability to think logically, numerically, objectively. Hopefully, the Republican Party can fully return to being an objective party with an emphasis on fiscal restraint, social restraint, and clear quantitative thought. The Democratic Party in its current state with its far-left electorate and supports will never advocate rationale and objective policy.
posted by Tim at
2:39 PM
6 Comments:
There's still a problem with your broad brush of liberals being too qualitiative.
As the statistics point out, self-identified liberals aren't just confined to qualitative majors. The math and physics majors in particular seem to tilt very leftward, and several of the other quantitative majors are more or less even.
So, it appears that the left is very well represented across the academic spectrum. I don't see why this prevents or disuades us from using methods such as cost-benefit analysis.
By
Ben, at 11:07 PM
Yes, I agree that math and physics stick out greatly amongst the rest of the other quantitative major in terms of being clearly left of center. But what's clear is that most people who are advanced quantitative thinkers and use math/physics are not math/physics majors but rather are in engineering, computer science, or business. Why the small segment of people in these basic sciences are liberal I'm not certain? I have a couple of guesses (interest in basic research rather than applied research; future in academia/basic research rather than applied/private firm research) but I do not really know. The fact though is that math and physics are still much more conservative than many qualitative majors within the liberal arts including english, art, sociology, social work, education, etc.
The left is very well represented across the spectrum but clearly the right isn't. The qualitative left as a group isn't mostly business, engineering, or health workers but rather traditional liberal arts graduates who then move into jobs such as education, creative arts, non-profit work, etc. There are demcrats and liberals who are analytical (I know several who work with me at a economic consulting firm). They would use cost-benefit analysis in terms of making public policy decisions but you never hear strong cost-benefit arguments from Democratic politicians or most far left individuals. The majority of Democratic Party draws mostly from an electorate of qualitative thinkers however. There are a lot of qualitative thinkers on the right also (think Religious Right) but in my opinion they are a much smaller minority.
By
Tim, at 1:49 AM
Interesting analysis - fascinating little blip in Nursing.
Generally, I think conservatives are not accurately accounted for on the facebook. I know many here on campus who simply don't feel it's necessary or even worth the time.
Facebook is a very "qualitative" beast except, perhaps, for the total number of friends one has.
This must be added onto the general dearth of conservatives at the school to begin with.
By
Brad V, at 11:11 AM
Tim, I wouldn't say that only the "left" has childish logic when it comes to debating politics, or that it's a result of qualitative thinking. However, you are correct in asserting that the ideology of democrats is based more in quality (morality, commitment to the poor, etc) while conservatives are more in quantity (business growth).
But I do object to your name calling at the beginning, particularly in calling liberals "socialists." There are a number of students on this campus who dabble in social theory, and they are typically capable of having a decent conversation without relying on saying "fuck bush!" As you'd probably find, it's much more intelligent ideology, as most of them have a general understanding of market economics, enough to form a well-reasoned critique (independent of whether you agree with them). Personally, I am studying econ, and if you study it enough, you'll see that there's a normative side, and the split comes when you decide on equity vs. efficiency, and many on the "left" (although I would argue most dems are moderates, as they still support free trade and relatively free but limited markets) would side with equity on moral grounds, you know, since Jesus was all about helping people and hated on profiteers.
So just in general, it was a nice effort, but also keep in mind that the "left" and "democrats" are not synonymous, and most liberals on campus are just as afraid of socialism as you are.
By
Anonymous, at 11:18 AM
Thanks for commenting John and I agree with you on most of the points you offered. The right often does take unobjective stances sometimes in the name of "homeland security", "morality", etc. and I didn't really talk about them in this article.
I am economist also John and have thought a lot about normative and positive economics. Positive economics is the study that we can truly measure ("what is"). Normative economics is "what ought to be" which is opinion. Right now, I'm not exactly sure where I stand in terms of government interplay especially within distribution. At the present time, I've basically taken the stance that in terms of government and business, the one thing we can control is efficiency and our policies should reflect this. Therefore, government should be small and public goods (ie infrastructure, civil law, security, education, environment) should be its emphasis. In terms of equity, it should be individuals and private/religious organizations that help out the poor and people who have made bad decisions.
"Jesus was all about helping people and hated on profiteers"--Yes, he did warn against "loving money", "greed", etc. but he never advocated the government to be a force of redistribution. He placed the blame on individuals...that is why while calling for a small/efficient government I must also speak out against selfishness, luxury goods, MTV-style living.
I never labeled anyone socialist. These are labels that conservatives throw out consistently. I do think that on this campus though many people are border-line socialists and do not even know it. Many of their views will be altered once they get into the workforce and grow older.
"As most of them have a general understanding of market economics.."
--I disagree with you John the most on this premise. Most students do not understand economics on this campus or choose not to follow the principles they've learned. Many will criticize big-box stores (ignoring economies of scale), complain about urban sprawl (ignore housing supply/demand), refuse to recognize the free market as the source of prosperity for most in this country.
--There are many liberal economists and I definetly respect them. Often times I move leftward in terms of economics (ie ecological economics). But these people are rationale thinkers and have good basis for their beliefs. Economists such as NY Times writer Paul Krugman should be taken seriously. Much of the left in my opinion doesn't and this part of the reason why I wrote this article.
"Most dems are moderates as they still support free trade"
-Not true. A majority of the caucus voted against NAFTA in both the House and Senate. In the recent CAFTA vote, barely any DEMs in the Senate or House voted for the measure voted (Senate vote 55-45; House 217-215). And CAFTA was a fairly small and insignifcant trade agreement. I think the DEMS will move to the left on this issue in future elections (i've heard others say this also). It's too bad because the gains from trade through comparative advantage are great and usually the losers can be compensated.
Kellie--I do truly care about making the world a better place. I would not essentially donate hours of my time to SSFC if I didn't care (SSFC means very little to my resume). Even if you tried to make the presumption that I was simply trying to save myself SEG fee money, I spent at least a couple hundred of hours in committee/looking at budgets--not to save myself money but to make this world more efficient, keep groups cost-effective, represent the students who don't use most of the services GSSF groups provide. I wouldn't tithe if I didn't care. I wouldn't be going into urban planning/real estate development if I didn't care or enjoy what I was doing.
By
Tim, at 5:00 PM
"Most students do not understand economics on this campus or choose not to follow the principles they've learned."
I agree with you on this; however, the people I was talking about are a select few--I'd say there's maybe a dozen or two in the category of the intellectual left, those who do understand the economics behind Walmart and much of what the left "whines" about. Most democrats (and unrealized socialists) only know that they should despise these things, yet they couldn't tell you why. There are a few of us who understand the economics, that understand that these things do yield better market efficiency, but who still question their necessity, or even the necessity of laissez-faire efficiency.
I'm sure that you're familiar with the "political compass" idea, that it's not a linear spectrum with liberal at one end and conservative at the other. It's probably a 5 dimensional, looping and transporting plot of politics in real life. Although you and I are at very different ends of the linear spectrum, in many ways we are very similar. In fact, I'll probably agree with you more than I'll agree with Krugman.
I do self-identify as a "radical leftist" (but not in the sense that I wear tie-died shirts and birkenstocks and spoke hash after a long day of protesting the establishment). I'm kind of cross between green-anarchist and non-authoritarian socialist (so somewhat Marxist but not Leninist or Maoist). I too do not fully know what the role of the state should be; at this time the nation-state apparatus is necessary. I don't know if central planning is the answer, but the market system as it is now is inherently oppressive. If the markets were to reform today, with everyone on a level playing field, it could be successful--however, people started out ahead at the beginning of modernity and the formation of capitalism, and gave certain individuals a head start on others, which resulted in the majority being kept down.
"He placed the blame on individuals...that is why while calling for a small/efficient government I must also speak out against selfishness, luxury goods, MTV-style living."
I also agree that the role of the state shouldn't necessarily be to redistribute wealth; but this is the most equitable way to provide for others--to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the afflicted, etc. It would be wonderful if charity could replace state intervention, or even that there would be no need for charity--we are all seen equal in the eyes of God but not in the eyes of the market. But I see most philanthropy as self-serving, as a way for the rich or corporations to do PR. It's like the Nobel effect--he created the prize out of guilt of the harm TNT created; but I would seriously doubt that there is usually any guilt at stake, typically it's a fear of losing business. As you know, charity is usually not self-interested behavior (at least with a financial payoff), so there's typically ulterior motives. Also, there's problems with biases or conditionality with charity--people might only give to white males, or require that recipients convert to a particular religion, etc. Not to mention that there really isn't any significant charity given on behalf of most people--the Waltons only dish out a few thousand a year, while many of their employees struggle to make ends meet.
I also agree with you that lavish living is unnecessary--I personally have a loose diet of rice, bread and milk, don't shop at the mall, and prefer used books to big-budget movies. While my roommates have energy-sucking mini-fridges and waffle-makers, I try to buy out of necessity alone. For everyone to do this would definitely hurt our economy, but i don't think it would be critical--people wouldn't need more money to buy huge pickup trucks and mansions. That would be interesting to study, how people would be affected by reduced consumption. The main problem is that capitalism is dependent on constant innovation and expansion, (Marx says it is revolutionary and will continually overthrow itself) and relies on consumerism and materialism.
As for NAFTA democrats, Clinton enacted it and Bush seeks to expand it, so it clearly crosses the aisle. Many Dems supported both, and Many Repubs opposed both. All liberals in Congress (with the exception of Sanders from VT) are still bonafide Capitalists, which I would argue keeps them in the moderate bounds of the spectrum.
There are many on campus who are borderline Socialists, as you say, but none have either an intellectual or pragmatic basis to make the plunge into the "dark side." They have some reproduced social interests, yet are apathetic enough to drink instead of attempt to make change. While you may not disagree with the politics of myself and some of the left (like SLAC or WISPIRG) I'm sure you appreciate our commitment to what we believe in, and dedication to creating the world we wish to live in (free of poverty, pollution, oppression, etc.). To me, that's what democracy is, not just voting. Unfortunately, most Democrats have no commitment to make change, and thought that Kerry would make all their wildest dreams come true.
Hopefully that all made sense, I'm in the middle of reading Malthus.
By
Anonymous, at 9:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home