Kevin Drum remarks a bit on the perennial unpopularity of self-identifying as a "liberal" no matter how popular liberal policies may or may not be. I now can't find the link, but I think one of the most telling pieces of data I ever saw on this was something that broke ideological self-identification down by race. Self-identifying as a liberal turned out to be less popular among African-Americans than it is among white Americans. This even though everyone knows that African-Americans are much more likely to vote for Democratic candidates and have more left-wing views than white people on most issues.
« On The Ground | Main | The Pardon Issue »
Liberal Unpopularity
11 Mar 2007 02:21 pm
Comments (22)
I would guess that African Americans probably go liberal on economic issues and more to the center on social issues. That might suggest that the 'liberal' label is tied more closely to one's stance on social issues.
Dick Gregory once said that a liberal is somebody that believes everything a racist says. There may have been some history there.
Is there any relation to non-self-identification as a liberal and socio-economic status and/or background? And is this what's important, not the racial aspect?
Part of the problem we liberals have is that liberalism is seen as a luxury: e.g. to be a liberal of stereotype -- easting organically grown foods, worrying about the environment rather than your next paycheck, etc. -- is not something you can afford to do if you're poor or working class.
A lot of this comes, as I write time and time again, from the Vietnam war era: the kids of professionals could protest and the working class kids got shipped off to 'Nam. So the liberalism of the protest movement was pretty much seen as a upper-middle class movement divorced from the real needs of the lower classes, in spite of rhetoric otherwise. And the class warriors of the GOP have used this to their advantage while we liberals have done nothing to eliminate this image that we care more about "the rights of icky people to do icky things" than about the needs of Joe and Jane Sixpack.
Where we actually stand is not the issue (even most working stiffs are surprisingly socially liberal nowadays -- we need to get it in our heads that we won the culture wars!) but rather it's the perception of where are priorities are that is an issue (also an issue is that people think, thanks to the GOP's liberal media mantra -- that the media are liberal: so they think of liberals in terms of the "liberals" they know best -- the effete media types who de facto speak for us) -- and that you have people who view those of us even trying to address this as "priority trolls" is a problem.
You can't really draw any conclusions whatsoever from these statistics. For twenty years DLC types have argued that because there are less liberals than conservatives, dems must ignore their base in favor of centrist voters, and the dems have listened.
But liberal and conservative have non-political meanings, and we know lots of people are unsure or completely ignorant what they mean in political terms. I'd bet that if pollsters asked about leftwing vs. rightwing instead, there'd be a leftwing advantage.
I'd bet that if pollsters asked about leftwing vs. rightwing instead, there'd be a leftwing advantage. - David Weman
True, but so long as people are convinced that they are not liberal and convinced that every Dem. to the left of Joe Lieberman is a liberal, they are going to be reticent about voting for Democrats.
Of course, given the actual opinions of people, all DLC style "capitulation" will do is move us further from how people are thinking and will be thought of, correctly, as just another example of how effete and defeatist (DLC type) Democrats are. The solution for us is not to move to the center, but to move the center back -- to convince people that they are indeed liberal and that's not a bad thing: i.e. to undo what the GOP did in moving the center right!
To me, on the other hand, "Liberal" sounds a lot better than "Progressive," so I think of myself as a liberal.
Sorry for the cut-and-paste comment, but here's what I wrote in my own blog entry about Kevin Drum's post:
I think that the basic problem is that people know what "conservative" means a lot more than they know what "liberal" means.
If you're a conservative, it means you support low taxes and traditional family structure. Do these things have anything to do with each other? Not necessarily. But for decades, Republicans have been telling America that they go hand in hand - if you support low taxes but think gay marriage is OK, you're some kind of weird libertarian, and you aren't invited to the party. Ridiculous? Sure, but you have to admit, my definition of conservative was unambiguous and took less than one line to write.
Can we think of a similar definition for liberals? To say liberals support "higher taxes and non-traditional family structure" would be A) mostly wrong, and B) missing the real point of liberalism. So where does that leave us?
First of all, social liberalism and economic liberalism aren't as linked as their conservative counterparts. But even within those categories, there's a lot of confusion.
Take economic liberalism, for example. Economic liberals used to be in favor of redistributing wealth by taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Some still are. But this idea fell out of favor when old-style welfare seemed to hit a dead-end in the 1980s. There are still lots of ideas floating around for how to use government to improve people's lives - universal health care, for instance - but it's no longer an ideology for most people. No coherent liberal economic philosophy has emerged to replace the old government-centric model. No wonder people support the policies but not the label!
And social liberalism is only marginally clearer. Civil rights and women's equality are mostly done deals. Non-traditional family arrangements are now the norm, and - with the glaring exception of gay marriage - widely accepted, if not always smiled upon. In fact, until George Bush's recent executive overreach, real oppression in American society has been hard to come by for the past few decades. One consequence of having the freest society on Earth is that there's not much work for a freedom fighter.
It's just plain hard to label yourself something when you don't know what that something is.
Now, I predict that the number of people calling themselves "conservatives" is going to continue to fall. George Bush and his authoritarian ways, not to mention the pork-and-deficits-crazy Republican Congress, have given the movement a bad name. But that, by itself, is not going to raise the "liberal" number. Before people start calling themselves liberal en masse again, the term is going to have to get a whole lot less mushy.
There are plenty of hard as nails, liberty-minded liberals out there. Put 'em on camera.
Identifying as conservative (or possibly moderate) gives minorities a chance at privilege that would be off-limits to them otherwise as a minority, I would bet. You've already got one strike against you in society if you're black; if you're a self-identified liberal black, then you risk being seen as the "self victimizing" etc. sort, which pretty much earns you automatic dismissal in many's eyes.
I've seen data similar to the data that MY is referring to. This leads me to believe that people in American associate liberalism not with social equality, civil rights, etc., but with private libertinism and the political movements associated with such. So for example the pro-choice movement and the gay rights movement (which African-Americans, of the constituencies of the Democracy Party, are among the least enthusiastic about) are most strongly associated with liberalism. That's at least the way it seems when I talk to people I know who claim not to like "liberalism", and that's what it seems that conservative most often allude to when they demonize liberalism.
Intellectually-sophisticated conservatives should be ashamed that some of their fellow conservatives go around bashing liberalism (and some of them are). Left liberalism or welfare liberalism started out in the U.S. as a movement trying to convince people that it was not 'socialism light' but in fact a version (or a revision of the letter, true to the spirit) of the same liberalism that the founders believed in (read FDR's Commowealth Club speech). Today the New Right obviously embraces some classic liberal economic ideas, but by happily allowing the left to have the term liberal, they give credence to the leftist charge that laissez-faire policies are put to quite illiberal ends. They basically agree with Marx on that point.
Myself, I like "liberal", because I'm not sure that progressive has any positive content to it, and because I'm proud to be a part of the only group in America willing to identify with the most successful, respectable political ideology in the history of the world.
The fact is that there were two elections in 2006 in which a black conservative lost big among black voters to a white liberal (i.e. Steele lost to Cardin in Maryland and Swann lost to Rendell in Pennsylvania). The bottom line is that most black voters can spot an uncle tom.
I'm a liberal who has only begun self-identifying as such since 2003. In the 1990's, when I came of age politically, I was a "centrist", a "moderate" or especially a "Clinton democrat". Bush, and some real introspection changed me into a progressive and now a liberal.
I think that conservatives have been effective at portraying "liberal" men as effeminate, as Glenn Greenwald has argued this week. I've experienced it personally, since I came out as a liberal, and I'd bet that this may be explanatory as to why certain groups of people would not want to self-identify as such.
When I think liberal, I think of these guys. That doesn't have anything to do with the survey where because of a lack of options I'd have to identify with liberal, but I thought it's worth noting.
This is the result of the DLC policies of attacking the base. The Republican party treats its base with reverence! Think about it: in 2000, President Bush spoke at a College that, among other things; prohibited interracial dating, expelled students for listening to popular music, lost its IRS tax exempt status; and whose founder called G.H. Bush "the devil." Meanwhile, the DLC threw a fit about Rage Against the Machine playing outside of the Staples Center, and (if I remember correctly) shut off the band's power. Now, the Republicans don't give the religious right as many legislative victories as they would like, but make no mistake; the Republican party legitimizes extreme conservatism, and pushes the national debate to the right through this practice. The DLC has been waging a war against the left by constantly bashing liberal positions, and eschewing liberal candidates for "someone who could win."
Depends on how you define "liberal", I suppose. I think the DLC has a pretty good historic claim on the title.
Ed, I doubt many DLCers would consider themselves liberals. Also, the DLC doesn't have "a pretty good historic claim on the title" considering the DLC was founded in 1985.
Thanks to years of incessant mindless media propaganda, everyone knows liberals are all white affluent volvo-driving, latte-sipping, snobby, anti-Christian pacifists who speak French for fun and are probably gay. It is no surprise to me that most African-Americans, and most working class white or Hispanic Democratic voters, don't consider themselves "liberals".
I wonder if it has anything to do with the greater religiosity among African-Americans. I've read that African-Americans are more likely to oppose same-sex marriage, for instance. Insofar as "liberal" is identified with the social issues, vs. the economic ones, it could account for some of their discomfort with the term. Controlling for religiosity, I wonder if African-Americans are still less likely to self-identify liberal.
"This even though everyone knows that African-Americans are much more likely to vote for Democratic candidates..."
Empirically true
"...and have more left-wing views than white people on most issues."
Doubtful, and I think provably false, depending on how many issues you throw into the left-wing basket.
African Americans are loyal to the Democratic party primarily because they believe the Republican party is more hospitable to racists. 50 years ago, the Republican party didn't have that image. In 1960, Nixon got half the black vote. If a Republican broke 20 percent of the black vote today, he'd be hailed as a bridge-builder.
From your comments, I have to respond to this old chestnut:
"Thanks to years of incessant mindless media propaganda, everyone knows liberals are all white affluent volvo-driving, latte-sipping, snobby, anti-Christian pacifists who speak French for fun and are probably gay."
Which "media" communicates this stereotype? I go all across the spectrum, print, radio, TV, biased media, unbiased media, and except as a joke, I've almost never seen this stereotype -- except in left wing blogs. If it was so "incessant," I'd have to think I'd run into it more.
Duh. White folks have made "liberal" into political watermelon to black folks: eat it, and the racist stereotype is validated.
Sure, Ed, if we use the definition of "liberal" as someone who believes in private property, limited government (constitutions), and markets, the DLC is kind of "liberal." That's not how the term is used in the US, for the most part. Regardless, the constant incessant attacks from the DLC undermined "progressives," "social responsibility advocates," "intellectuals," whatever you want to call us. The point is, the DLC has been terrible to the left, almost to the point of absurdity. Here's some advice for the DLC; after reading about a left-leaning interest group's position on an issue, try to avoid parroting the right wing attack against that position. While you won't be invited to as many "cool" parties, we may actually see social justice become popular again. Think about it; a world where the government tries to make the world better!
Comments closed March 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Funny, I remember a survey showing the exact opposite.
Posted by David Weman | March 11, 2007 2:47 PM