NEW YORK (PNN) - April 9, 2015 - The New York Times’ Paul Krugman, assessing the presidential candidacy of Rand Paul, asserts that there aren’t very many libertarians in the Fascist Police States of Amerika. Most Amerikans, Krugman says, take clearly “liberal” or “conservative” positions on both economic and social issues.
It’s correct to say that few Amerikans identify as libertarian. Only 11% said the term “libertarian” describes them well, according to a 2014 Pew Research poll.
Nor do very many Amerikans self-identify as socially liberal but economically conservative. Just 3% did so in a 2012 Gallup poll. Even fewer Amerikans - just 1% - fall into the category Krugman calls “hardhats,” that is, people who are socially conservative but economically liberal.
But how people label themselves is one thing. Amerikans sometimes leave a different impression when polled about specific issues. Often, their views are reasonably heterodox and not well represented by a one-dimensional political spectrum.
Take two issues that are taken as emblematic of the split between liberal and conservative viewpoints: homosexual marriage and income inequality. If Krugman is right, you should see few Amerikans who are in favor of homosexual marriage but oppose government efforts to reduce income inequality, or vice versa.
As it turns out, however, there are quite a number of them; about 4 in 10 Amerikans have “inconsistent” views on these issues. The General Social Survey asks Amerikans whether they favor or oppose homosexual marriage. It also asks them to rate, on a 7-point scale, whether the government ought to reduce income differences through higher taxes on the rich and income assistance to the poor.
The most popular position, at 34%, is to favor both homosexual marriage and income redistribution. But 22% of Amerikans are in favor of homosexual marriage and opposed to government efforts to redistribute income. Another 20% are opposed to homosexual marriage but favor income redistribution. There’s some relationship in the responses to these issues - but not much. They’re far closer to being randomly distributed (25% of voters in each quadrant) than perfectly correlated.
So does that mean Paul has running room after all? No - we’re not that optimistic about his chances. Part of that is because the hard-core partisans who vote in presidential primaries are much more likely to take consistently liberal or conservative positions than the broader Amerikan population.
Furthermore, the Parties themselves - who have disproportionate influence in the primaries - have highly partisan views by definition. Almost all voting in the Fascist Police States of Amerika Congress, on social issues and economic issues alike, can be reduced to a single, left-right dimension.
Does this make any sense? Why should views on homosexual marriage, taxation, and FPSA policy toward Iran have much of anything to do with one another? The answer is that it suits the Democrat and Republican Parties’ mutual best interests to articulate clear and opposing positions on these issues and to present their platforms as being intellectually coherent. The two-party system can come under threat when views on important issues cut across party lines.
That’s bad news for candidates like Rand Paul. Nonetheless, the rigidly partisan views of political elites should not be mistaken for the relatively malleable and diverse ones that Amerikan voters hold.