On Libertarians and Tea Party supporters



A colleague at ACC and I have been conversing via a departmental Google+ site about the Tea Party and the positions of its members on social issues. We agree that Tea Party members are economic conservatives and that economic issues are most important to them; however, we disagree on whether Tea Party supporters are conservative on social issues (my position) or that many of them are liberal on social issues (and thus libertarians), which is his position. I am familiar with Abramowitz’s argument that Tea Party supporters are conservative on both economic and social issues and a similar finding by the Pew Center study, which states that “In addition to adopting a conservative approach to the economy, Tea Party supporters also tend to take socially conservative positions on abortion and same-sex marriage.”

My colleague did not provide the basis for his belief, but I subsequently found the following sources, which support his position. David Kirby and Emily Ekins wrote a report for the Cato Institute that claims that one-half of Tea Party supporters are libertarians. Emily Ekins had made a similar claim in an earlier working paper.  David Kirby had also collaborated with David Boaz on a Cato Policy Analysis that considered the voting behavior of libertarians. The Boaz and Kirby policy analysis also provides the framework for their typology of ideologies, which is from Maddox and Lilie’s Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Reassessing the Political Spectrum (1984), which greatly influenced my ideas about ideologies in the United States.

So, do these studies actually substantiate their claim that one-half of Tea Party supporters are libertarian ideologically (that is, economically conservative but socially liberal)? By their measure of what constitutes a libertarian, they come close to substantiating their claim. But the rub is that their measure of libertarianism is very lax. In fact, I would contend that because of their methodology, their results are flawed. Here’s what I mean. By definition, an ideology involves a set of consistent and interrelated attitudes on a particular public policy dimension. Thus, any measure of ideology should include several questions on a particular dimension of public policy. Maddox and Lilie, for example, used three questions relating to government’s economic role and three questions relating to government’s social role to determine a person’s ideology. In most of the surveys that Kirby and Ekins use, they consider only one question relating to the social role of government. How can consistency be demonstrated using only one question? Second, that one question is whether government has a role in promoting moral values or not. This question is highly abstract. In only one survey do they use a specific question about a social issue, and the so-called “liberal” response on same-sex relationships is whether civil unions—not marriage—should be permitted for same-sex couples. In American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, Putnam and Campbell note that two issues are most important to the Religious Right: abortion and same-sex marriage. These issues with whether one supports same-sex marriage and a women’s right to choose an abortion should have been used to determine whether there is a 50/50 split between libertarians and conservatives among Tea Party supporters. I contend that the so-called libertarians in the Tea Party are not really “liberal” on social issues; they are, by the most generous standards, somewhat less conservative on the social issues. Thus, they are not truly libertarian.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more