« Does the rise of Christianism increase libertarianism? | Main | Mathematics of the inheritance dividend »

June 25, 2006

Comments

Of course, you should keep in mind that by the "middle" you mean people too dumb to graduate from a selective college with a real degree (e.g. not education, accounting, sociology, or the like), people who probably report on polls that they believe in angels, Satan, etc, and who can't identify Canada, the UK, or China on a map (Can they identify the US?). People who actually know ANYTHING that MIGHT be relevant to making informed decisions as voters lean Democrat.

By the way, with respect to the equation of Liberal with Leftist, Kerry and Gore are MUCH closer politically to George Bush Senior or Reagan than they are to Chomsky, Zinn, Moore, or the like. Leftists are a boogie man with no real power outside of universities. By contrast, Right wing psychopaths almost as vile as Zinn are actually Running our government as we speak.

"People who actually know ANYTHING that MIGHT be relevant to making informed decisions as voters lean Democrat."

Except, you know, economics.

The Democrats' base has long been people who feel powerless, at least in social terms. These generally do not do well on IQ tests because they are social minorities loosely connected to the cultural assumptions that underlies IQ teste, or they work under the direction of others in occupations that require little creativity or verbal prowess. To that base they have added another base of people who are very highly trained in verbal occupations - law, education, social sciences, etc., and score highly on IQ tests. These also feel powerless because communications monopolies are being broken by new technologies. The intellectual base may be smaller in numbers, but has a higher intensity in political action

The traditional Republican base was middle America, and especially those in middle America who had some power - bankers, small business owners, corporate managers, farmers. With higher incomes and family connections, these were able to attend college before settling into a role in business. Their IQs, then, would have been above average by virtue of their education and place in society. That base, however, was dwindling proportionately in comparision to the Democrats's growing base of frustrated intellectuals. To that base Karl Rove and others added formerly non-voting white fundamentalists who feel powerless in the face of intellectual dominance of government , academia, and especially the courts. This base, feeling threatened, is now very politically active.

I agree with Austrian about the lack of economic knowledge in the Democrats' base; but by introducing the irrational prejudices of the fundamentalists into public policy and ignoring economics the Bushies are alienating those who do know something about economics and rationality, thereby creating a new group who are frustrated at their lack of power.

Perhaps the instability mentioned in the post portends a rise of libertarianism. Hope so.

"But today, the Democratic Party is the party of both the less intelligent and the more intelligent while the Republican Party is the party of the middle. This doesn’t seem to me like a stable situation."

It might be. You can have a situation where the top and the bottom (at least in class terms) are allied against the middle; witness your own article over the problems with NEST. (Looks like they're going to lose, BTW.)

In many cases this can take on quite sinister overtones as the top mashes the middle into the bottom to keep them from getting too close (as in NEST.)

If there can be Rich-and-Poor party, why not a Stupid-and-Smart party? Certainly the Democrats are having no problem maintaining a base, although winning over the middle is another story.

Could just be because of Dubya. By this point, you've got to be either pretty stupid or pretty stubborn to continue supporting him.

"Could just be because of Dubya. By this point, you've got to be either pretty stupid or pretty stubborn to continue supporting him."

I was all set to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate in 2004, but the line at the polling place in the Ballston area of Arlington Virginia was so long that I gave up on the idea.

"Could just be because of Dubya. By this point, you've got to be either pretty stupid or pretty stubborn to continue supporting him."

These results go back a lot further than the recent trouble--and, after all, he did win the popular vote second time around.

The thing you have to realize, JA, is that a lot of the country is way way right. They love their God, they love America, and they think men who don't like football are probably gay. They think gay marriage is an offense against nature and abortion is murder. These things are important to them--would you vote for a Democrat who had previously been a member of the KKK in the next election? White Nationalists oppose corporate power, seeing it at as (you guessed it) a Jewish plot. Would you vote for a Nazi who promises to cut down on private sector profiteering and tax the very rich?

Or, being more reasonable, how about a Democrat inspired by Catholic social thought. Healthcare for all, more taxes on the rich...but no abortion, and homosexuality is wrong.

scifigeek:

Good point. I've come across many people who could easily be described as liberal save for their opposition to legal abortion. I'm not sure how their IQ would measure as a group -- being against abortion isn't a stupid position. Maybe they make up a significant chunk of the middle-IQ people who remain Republican.

There are of course "pro-life" Democrats, but they couldn't get past the presidential primaries. It's a shame that Republicans get to have a monopoly on that side of the issue.

The Republicans and Democrats are both going to become dumber. The Republicans will need to attract more dumber whites to counteract the Democrats who will gain dumb Hispanics. So the Republicans will pull some dummies out of the Democratic Party while the Democrats gain other dummies.

How this will work out in terms of relative dumbness is hard to say. My guess is that the Democrats will become the dumber party.

"These also feel powerless because communications monopolies are being broken by new technologies. "
????

HS, I think voting libertarian is a decent strategy. I do so to in the hope that inflating their rolls yields more influence. The Libertarian Party itself is a bunch of doctrinaire nuts who will not swerve from anarcho-capitalism to get a few votes. There's actually a website dedicated to reforming the LP.

SciFiGeek,
Exactly how much power (or numbers) do you impute to the white nationalists? Besides, judging by American Renaissance internet comments, I don't think they're mostly Nazis. They seem more like whites disgruntled by a turbulent past and precarious present and looking to a political solution. Few of the comments about a Stephen Pinker article about Ashkenazi Jewry for example, were antisemitic.

I fail to see how an IQ difference matters when it is so small.

At the presidential level both parties have internalized the gestalt of multicult-political correctness-cultural marxism. The real division here is over questions of sexual morality. And on the GOP side they simply sing the tune of the fundamentalists but hardly ever deliver. So the partisan divide is mostly a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

The comments to this entry are closed.