Centerfield

And I'd argue that the same evidence shows both the relevance and importance of centrism.

Posted by: Tully at May 20, 2005 10:28 AM

I hate it when newspapers use the phrase "Some scholars say..." or "Experts say..."

In this case, the crucial element is the assertion that "voting has not been this polarized in a century." Show us some facts and figures, NYT.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at May 20, 2005 11:56 AM

Today's wash post has an article about the 12 senators, 6 from each party who have been meeting regularly to try to forge a compromise on the filibuster issue.

Watching it unfold is a fascinating example of the foresight the framers had when they created the Senate.

Posted by: tim at May 20, 2005 12:34 PM

I'd like to see some of their metrics, too. I mean, personally-speaking, it looks to me like partisanship has really hit the worst level I've ever seen. But if I've learned anything from studying the sabermetricians in baseball, it is that you can't trust your own eyes. What's the saying? "In God we trust... All others must show statistics."

Posted by: Bobby at May 20, 2005 01:52 PM

Or cash, Bobby. Lots of cash. It may not change truth but it certainly seems to help change positions....

"Partisanship" is a subjective concept that is pretty tough to measure objectively.

Some scholars say voting has not been this polarized for a century.

Which "scholars?" Using which criteria? The article implies the unnamed "scholars" are basing their claims on the same type of data presented earlier (%age of members voting with the party) but doesn't actually say so--and the NYT has a history of weasel-wording their leading statements. And then there's this:

Scholars and historians caution against romanticizing the past...

uh huh, and Amen.

Posted by: Tully at May 20, 2005 03:51 PM

I'm sure none of the scholars said "don't quote me" or "keep this on background." I bet they'd all like to have their names blazoned in the New York Times.

I'm guessing they are not quoted because there i no quote available. In other words, the reporter has read the writing of some scholars arguing it, but didn't speak to the scholar directly, and the New York Times doesn't want to cite an article that appeared in a less prestigious publication by name.

Posted by: rickheller at May 20, 2005 04:55 PM

Bet you're pretty darn close to the truth there, Rick.

Side bet: The reporter found the figures cited for the last few yers, saw non-specific discussion by scholars of past partisanship (without any empirical analysis) and placed the two fragments close together for the implied linkage.

Posted by: Tully at May 20, 2005 06:13 PM

And I'd argue that the same evidence shows both the relevance and importance of centrism.

I agree, Tully. However, I have a different take on the article in that I don't see it as dissing centrists so much as it's pointing out what seems to me to be the obviously increasing polarization of our political landscape.

Posted by: Kevin at May 20, 2005 10:15 PM

In defense of my party...

As you all know by now, I am a Republican. Since the article suggests Republicans are more partisan than the Democrats, I'd like to jump in with a little bit of counter-evidence, to show that the Republican Party, at least in the Senate, is the only place you can find any real moderates right now. In the House, moderates seem to be split relatively a little more evenly between the parties, with the Democrats having the advantage on "moderation".

Every year, the Americans for Democratic Action pick 20 votes in each chamber of Congress and assign a "liberal quotient" to each Senator and House Member. Last month they released the 2004 report. You can find the pdf file with all the data here.

In these rankings, a score of 100 is a perfect "liberal" score. Obviously, a score of 0 would by implication be a perfect "conservative".

In the Senate, only two Democrats scored 75 or less. (Not counting Kerry and Edwards; because of the campaign, they missed most of these votes, but every vote they cast was "liberal".) Lieberman got a 75, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska got a 65. Only 2 or 3 other Democrats scored even below 85.

By contrast, the entire cast of "moderates" (a score of between 40 and 60) in the eyes of the ADA were Republicans (again excluding Edwards), of which there were 4.

The Democrats had only 2 Senators score 25 or more points below the perfect liberal score. By constrast, 15 Republicans scored 25 points or more above the perfect conservative score. In other words, if we were to broaden the definition of "moderate" to include the middle 50 percent, all Senators with a score of between 25 and 75, that list would contain 15 Republicans and 2 Democrats.

I didn't look as closely at the House side, because that would be too much work. But a quick count of the "moderates" as defined by the ADA shows that there were 30 moderates in the House, 13 Republicans and 17 Democrats. There were also noticeably more "zeros" than there were "heros" (perfect 100 score), again giving the Democrats an edge in "moderation" in the House.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 21, 2005 01:58 PM

Pat, you're not really suggesting there's an objective way to assign a 100% subjective evaluation, are you?

My take on these scores is that they must be telling us at least as much (if not much more!!) about those doing the scoring as they are telling us about those being rated.

I mean, come ON!! Some group is telling us that all but 2 democratic senators are "perfect liberals" and but that many GOp senators are moderates. And because they are using a rating system and numbers we are supposed to think this is objective. Frankly, that's ludicrous.

I can pick any solid partisan conservative out of a hat and he or she would tell me that most democrats are perfect liberals whereas, by comparison many republicans are the picture of moderation, not partisan at all. This only tells me about their views, not so much about the views of the rated.

I think it's intellectually embarassing to the people who trot out these ratings numbers with the appeal to superior objectivity. I've found you to be a fair-minded and reasonable voice here, but I think less of you for trotting out these ratings. Really. They're meaningless without s7ubtstantial detail as to how they work. The only tale they tell is about who is setting the bar, and where they are setting it.

Posted by: bk at May 23, 2005 10:01 AM

bk,

Did you read the study I linked to? Once you do, I'll be happy to accept your apology. This was not some conservative group casting aspersions about liberals.

As I said in my post, this was a report from the Americans for Democratic Action ("America's oldest independent liberal lobbying organization", according to their own website). Every year, the group picks 20 votes taken in each chamber of Congress and assigns ratings on that basis. Basically, each member of Congress get 5 points for every item where he or she cast the vote identified by the as being the "liberal" vote. For example, one Senate vote it chose was "HR 1997, Unborn Victims of Violence Act", which would make it a federal crime to injure or kill an unborn fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The group opposed the bill because it would grant some kind of legal status to the unborn, even though it specifically would not apply to consensual abortions. A "no" vote on HR 1997 gave a Senator 5 points toward his "liberal quotient".

Here's what the ADA says about how it chooses which votes to count:

"(3) The votes selected cover a full spectrum of domestic, foreign, economic, military, environmental and social issues. We try to select
votes which display sharp liberal/conservative contrasts. We often chose procedural votes: amendments, motions to table, or votes on
rules for debate. These votes can reveal true attitudes obscured in the final votes."

I certainly don't believe the Republican Party is free from harsh partisanship. As I pointed out in my post, the numbers from the ADA study for the House show more Republican partisanship than Democratic. But the general assumption on this board leans against the Republicans (for some, like Rick, this is an "oppositional bias", opposing whichever party is in power). So I thought I'd put up some numbers which show, according to a liberal organization, there are more "centrist" Republicans than "centrist" Democrats. This data meshes with our current observations about the judicial filibuster issue, where there are about 6 Republicans public wavering from their party's position, and only 1 Democrat (Nelson of Florida) wavering from his. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it food for thought? I think so.

Crow is available in the cafeteria.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 23, 2005 10:24 AM

By the way, many, many organizations, both "conservative" and "liberal", prepare voting scorecards each year specifically to come up with an objective calculation of how strong a Congressman's support is for their group or issues. I picked the rating system of the "oldest independent liberal political organization" in America because it provided a simple liberal versus conservative comparison. There are dozens and dozens of scorecards out there. Here's a very partial list of scorecards listed by the National Organization for Women PAC. You can find a very comprehensive selection of issue and interest group ratings of Congressmen at Project Vote Smart

Posted by: PatHMV at May 23, 2005 10:35 AM