Survey proof that the Mandarin Class are the problem

This a very interesting article from a source with which I am unfamiliar. Its weakness is that it is analyzing survey data to spot some trends and draw some conclusions and I am deeply skeptical about the methodological soundness of much of such surveying. As are many people.

Despite that skepticism, it is possible that the relative results (as opposed to the absolute results) may still provide some insights.

From Avoiding the Funhouse Mirror Effect in the Democratic Primary by Lanae Erickson and Ryan Pougiales.

In this analysis, the key issue they are focusing on is that those Democrats who are most engaged display markedly different characteristics and preferences than casual Democrats. A conclusion I share and would expand to "Establishment party players and their allies display markedly different characteristics and preferences than average Americans."

It is the product of self-interest, insularity and affiliative cognitive bubbles.

The taxonomy of Erickson and Pougiales is Hyper-engaged Democrat versus Primary Voting Democrat and they are pointing out the differences between the classifications. Good as far as it goes but we also know that there is a gradient of decline between Primary Voting Democrats and what might be called Casual Democrats. Voters who identify as Democrat and routinely vote party-line Democrat but who have no active involvement in the party. A normal person in other words. I am guessing that the distribution of voting Democrats (and probably Republicans as well) is something like Hyper-Engaged (5%), Primary Voting Democrats (25%) and Casual Democrats (70%).

I would also make the assumption that the Primary Voting Democrat looks a lot more like Casual Democrat than the Hyper-Engaged Democrat looks like the Primary Voting Democrat. In other words that there is a reversion to mean voter values and the biggest reversion is from the drop between Hyper and Primary.

I have already commented about one aspect of the difference identified by Erickson and Pougiales. They point out that the Hyper-Engaged Democrat is unable to differentiate among their top ten priorities whereas the Primary Voting Democrat has a clear scaling.

Click to enlarge.

If true, I think this is pretty significant. If you are able to differentiate a hierarchy of priorities, you are able to make a series of trade-off decisions within your own constraints and when dealing with others.

An illustration. Say I have five objectives: Work only forty hours a week; have a large family; have a large house; earn a lot of money; Save a lot of money. If I want these equally and make no distinction between them, then I am going to be under a lot of pressure because in an environment of constrained resources, some of these goals are at odds.

On the other hand, if I have a clear set of priorities and trade-offs it makes it much easier to assess opportunities which allows me to optimize across all goals. I might weight the goals as 1) Save a lot of money (weighting 40%); 2) have a large family (30%); 3) Earn a lot of money (20%); 4) Work only forty hours a week (5%); and 5) have a large house (5%). If this is accurate, I can make much more informed decisions across a range of opportunities.

If you are willing and able to make trade-off decisions, then you are able to optimize your own well-being and it makes it easier to work with others who have clear priorities even though they may have different priorities. You can get along with people who are different from you because it is advantageous to get along with people who are different from you.

For those who are unable to differentiate a hierarchy of priorities, then everything is an existential struggle. It is all or nothing. There is no benefit to making trade-off decisions because there are no trade-off decisions to be made. There is no value in interacting with people with different priorities. It is a recipe for strife and conflict.

But there is yet more to be gleaned from the study.

Look at the top ten priorities:

Reducing the cost of health care
Reducing taxes on individuals
Making corporations and the rich pay more taxes
Fixing immigration
Climate change
Gun control
Good paying jobs
Single Payer Health
Raising Minimum Wage

The bold priorities are those likely to be among the top ten among Republicans as well. Four out of ten overlap is not too bad a common ground, especially as there would be agreement on three of the top five.

If you put ordinary Democrats together with ordinary Republicans with their respective hierarchy of priorities, there is plenty to negotiate where everyone comes out as a winner. And in return, interaction is usually a precursor to increased trust and increased trust is necessary for tackling the things where there might be narrower grounds for agreement.

For example, I would wager that ordinary Republicans and Democrats have a similar desire for a safe gun culture, just different policies for achieving it. If you have high trust based on past trade-off negotiations, then the terrain for agreement on gun safety widens, even though it might never be brought into full alignment.

But all that is only if you have a hierarchy of priorities. If your priorities are undifferentiated, as it is among the Hyper-Engaged, then there is no value in any negotiation because there is no value in trade-offs. The demand is an existential "Give me everything I want." Polarization in other words.

Another point from the article.

These hyper-engaged folks who are currently driving the debate have a distinct demographic makeup and lean further to the left.

They are significantly younger than the primary electorate that will choose the nominee: 40% are under 35, compared to 19% of Democratic primary voters as a whole.

They are more likely to live in urban areas (32% to 28%).

They are more likely to be male (54% to 41%) and never married/partnered (42% to 27%).

They are ten points more liberal than primary voters as a whole and a whopping 24 points more likely to call themselves Democratic Socialists (54% to 30%).

The hyper-engaged are flooding the Twitter feeds of campaign staff, candidates, pundits, and the media. But we cannot forget that they are not representative of the vast majority of primary voters—let alone the coalition Democrats need to build to kick Trump out of the White House.

The face of the Hyper Engaged Democrat is a young, never-married, Social Democratic, urban, male. Antifa in other words (heh).

Young, never married, urban males have throughout modern history in all countries been recognized as a risk factor for civil unrest. It is used in risk modeling. No wonder there is such polarization.

A couple of other points.

While 67% of all primary voters want a 2020 candidate who can unite a broad range of voters, among the hyper-engaged, this drops to 47%.

And when asked which way the party should move to beat Trump, just 26% of all primary voters say “more liberal,” but this number jumps 18 points to 44% with the hyper-engaged.

Erickson and Pougiales tackle something which always drives me crazy about surveys - the absence of trade-off decision-making. Erickson and Pougiales do this in the context of healthcare but it is pertinent to anything desirable. Whatever it is I might want, my desire only has meaning in the context of trade-offs. How much do I want it?

I want a nice car? How much do I want it in absolute terms? Am I willing to pay $10,000, $30,000, $50,000, $70,000?

How much do I want it in relative terms, relative to other wants. If I have $50,000 in the bank, do I want to spend it on a nice car or to send my child to private school?

Context matters. Trade-offs matter. Priorities matter. And all that is invisible in most surveys; part of their methodological weakness.

Erickson and Pougiales tackle this head on because it is so pertinent to their objective, how can Democrats win?

Health care was the defining issue in 2018, and it likely will be again in 2020. When it comes time for the general election, the fault line will be Democrats’ commitment to expanding affordable health care to more people versus Republicans’ efforts to take it away. But right now, Democrats are engaged in a debate about the best path to universal coverage. Part of this debate centers around Medicare for All, which Republicans used as a cudgel against the Democrats in 2018 who supported it—with the knowledge that it loses significant support as soon as voters hear the details. Like the general electorate, when primary voters learn about the specifics on Medicare for All, support drops sharply. But the hyper-engaged disregard these concerns and are immune to the erosion.

Both groups begin with strong support for Medicare for All when they just hear the name; all primary voters start at 65%, and the hyper-engaged start at 82%.

A naive reading says that is a compelling desire. Should be front and center. But look what happens as you introduce context and limits and priorities.

But when provided additional details, support plummets with all primary voters.

When primary voters are told that Medicare for All would mean the end of private insurance, support drops to 45%.

When Medicare for All’s estimated annual cost of $3.2 trillion is introduced, support falls to 38%.

After voters are told that Medicare for All could double payroll taxes, less than one in three of all primary voters (31%) still support it.

And when voters learn that Medicare for All could give Republicans full control over the health care system when the GOP controls the White House and Congress, support with primary voters drops to just 23%.

Unlike both general election and primary voters, hyper-engaged, daily tweeting Democrats dismiss concerns about Medicare for All. Seven in ten still support it after hearing it eliminates private insurance, and support never goes below six in ten—even when picturing the prospect of Republicans having complete control over access to health care for women, immigrants, and LGBT people.

Initially, there is a 17-point gap in support for Medicare for All between all primary voters and the hyper-engaged. This gap expands to 36 points once all the concerns about the policy are raised. If Democrats fall victim to the funhouse effect on Medicare for All, they will be touting a proposal that is supported by fewer than one in four primary voters after all the facts come out.

When you factor in limits and trade-offs, support among Primary Democrats plummets from 65% to 23%. They are practically Republicans. While support slips among the Hyper-Engaged Democrats, it is just from 82% to 60%. Still a pretty solid majority.

Overall, a very interesting analysis and a lot of food for thought.

To me the biggest take-away is that issue of how big the gap is between the Hyper and the Primary Democrats (a fissure which I suspect is mirrored on the Republican side, mitigated by the fact that the Republicans are a pretty big philosophical tent).

The Hyper-Engaged have the loudest voices, are the most distant from normal Americans and are the least likely to revise their opinions when given context. Calling them ideologues is correct but elides the details.

And where are the greatest concentrations of the Hyper-Engaged? Where the megaphones are loudest - Academia, Mainstream media, Entertainment. And where the concentration of power is most consequential - Leviathan himself, Deep State, whatever non-pejorative term can be used for those whose well-being is most tied to government.

Our 5% establishment Mandarin Class are unable to demonstrate a hierarchy of priorities and from that flows a gross democracy deficit between ordinary Americans of either party and the Mandarin Class and their unquenchable will-to-power as the totalitarian insiders.

The issue is not with ordinary Americans or our form of government. They have a hierarchy of priorities. Our issue is with the hyperbolic, power-hungry, all-or-nothing Mandarin Class, some of whom are called Democrats and some of whom are Republicans. They do not have a hierarchy of priorities. They want it all.

All from an article exploring the results of a technique, surveying, of which I have grave doubts. But they do better here than most.