Obama is likely the most moderate president since WWII

[fskimospy]

I'm thinking that DW-Nominate is rating policies that a POTUS advocates while in office rather than just what got passed/implemented? That would resolve my confusion over Clinton being rated so far to the left. His HC bill was further to the left than Obamacare, but of course it never passed. That might also explain some confusion over other rankings on the chart. There are likely policies pursued by these POTUSES which were never implemented and may have largely been forgotten in some cases?

It is rating based on explicit statements of presidential support for bills that were placed to a roll call vote in Congress. ie: it doesn't count if Obama says "we need to reform the financial system", it has to do with Obama explicitly expressing support for the Dodd-Frank Wall St. Reform and Consumer Protection Act in the form that was put before Congress for a vote.

 

[monovillage]

I'm curious eskimospy, i've been unable to find what their definition of Liberal/Conservative is, or what criteria they use to make the judgement.

 

[fskimospy]

With no offense to Eskimospy, it seems to me his professor's project is not only pretty useless but harmful, strengthening the 'left-right' identity politics.

That pushes people to not consider the issues, but to 'rate' people on misguided criterion. Is JFK 'better' or 'worse' by having a higher number than Clinton? That's nonsense.

Well if it is useless you better tell all the legions of political scientists, supranational organizations, governments, and NGOs that use this data. They appear to disagree. This project is one of the most significant advances in political science in our lifetimes, actually.

It makes no statement as to who is better, only to where people are relative to one another. I think posting this was a mistake however, as people on this forum tend to blindly attack things they don't understand. Many of the objections raised here show this, and I'm not really interested in spending a lot of time refuting these blind attacks.

 

[Texashiker]

Well if it is useless you better tell all the legions of political scientists, supranational organizations, governments, and NGOs that use this data. They appear to disagree. This project is one of the most significant advances in political science in our lifetimes, actually.

Take all of that with a grain of salt, or even a truckload of salt.

"The greatest minds of our time" have been known to make mistakes from time to time.

Its funny how the presidents were divided on party lines, but laws still managed to get passed. If the left and right are so different, wouldn't the left try to repeal the laws passed by the right?

 

[Craig234]

The fundamental flaw that I see in these ratings is that what is "conservative" and "liberal" has changed heavily over time. Even more so, what Democrats and Republicans support has changed by an even greater degree. Thus, trying to project a single definition of conservative/libaral values is somewhat misleading.

However if we're going to impose current definitions on previous times, instead of claiming that Obama is the most centrist president, I'd say that the center has moved over the past 50 years, particularly economically. In 1954, the top tax bracket paid 91% income tax on earnings over 200,000. In 1965, it was 70%. In 1982, 50%. These shifts reflect a stark ideological change in the way we view taxation and the role of government. It also makes me curious whenever conservatives talk about "going back to the old ways" by lowering taxes.

They mean the 1880's. No Social Security, no Medicare, no income tax, no unions (generally), no labor and environmental laws, 'small government', etc.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I suggest you read up more on these ratings, your concerns don't actually apply to how they are generated. The explicit purpose of these ratings is to use a single point of reference for all times in order to measure comparative ideology. The useful information gotten from this model is not that "President X was x% conservative", it is that "President X was more conservative than President Y using a common standard".

But that's exactly my point. We're judging previous eras by what we consider to be conservative or liberal now. It's like reading the old testament and declaring it draconian and socially conservative. By our modern standards that's entirely correct, but back then many of those laws were actually considered liberalizing reforms (even the parts about selling your daughter into slavery). This is particularly evident in the second link you provided. The widening of the gap between republicans and democrats is a natural artifact that appears as the party platforms get closer to our current definitions of liberal and conservative.

Edit: Particularly obvious is the "overlapping members" graph. The sudden spike and fall in overlapping members wasn't due to cooperation between ideologies, but rather a shift of social conservatism from Democrats to Republicans--particularly with regards to race issues--with Southern Democrats holding onto those conservative values for much longer.

As I said before, what that graph shows to me is a steady rightward (by our current definition of the term) shift of the country over the last 60 years, rather than a shift of democrats to moderation and republicans to extremism.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm curious eskimospy, i've been unable to find what their definition of Liberal/Conservative is, or what criteria they use to make the judgement.

You will also note the site uses "they said something positive/negative about ZYX bill" as the basis of their chart. Pretty bad reasoning.

 

[crashtestdummy]

They mean the 1880's. No Social Security, no Medicare, no income tax, no unions (generally), no labor and environmental laws, 'small government', etc.

I think Ron Paul and some of the new wave Republicans (Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, for instance) would certainly go with that, but it seems to me that the old school guys (Romney, Gingrich, McConnell, Boehner etc.) are nostalgic for the baby boomers' childhood years and feel like the sexual revolution was the demarcation of the disintegration of America's moral fabric.

 

[fskimospy]

But that's exactly my point. We're judging previous eras by what we consider to be conservative or liberal now. It's like reading the old testament and declaring it draconian and socially conservative. By our modern standards that's entirely correct, but back then many of those laws were actually considered liberalizing reforms (even the parts about selling your daughter into slavery). This is particularly evident in the second link you provided. The widening of the gap between republicans and democrats is a natural artifact that appears as the party platforms get closer to our current definitions of liberal and conservative.

As I said before, what that graph shows to me is a steady rightward (by our current definition of the term) shift of the country over the last 60 years, rather than a shift of democrats to moderation and republicans to extremism.

But none of that matters in the slightest? Like seriously, that objection is entirely irrelevant. I don't have the time to debate their methodology here, and honestly I sincerely doubt a single person who has raised objections to it has read even one of the dozens if not hundreds of papers on this system in order to be in a position to critique it.

If you think their methodology is bad, fine. Your personal internet person opinion runs counter to the vast majority of current political science and the principles of academic peer review, but it is the internet and you are welcome to your opinion.

I feel like this topic might be too wonky and technical for this forum.

 

[Craig234]

Well if it is useless you better tell all the legions of political scientists, supranational organizations, governments, and NGOs that use this data. They appear to disagree. This project is one of the most significant advances in political science in our lifetimes, actually.

It makes no statement as to who is better, only to where people are relative to one another. I think posting this was a mistake however, as people on this forum tend to blindly attack things they don't understand. Many of the objections raised here show this, and I'm not really interested in spending a lot of time refuting these blind attacks.

I'm not a huge fan of a lot of what a lot of political scientists do - sort of an industry supporting a system with less use than good progressive leadership creating change.

Was it political science studies that gave us Medicare or the Civil Rights Bill? Hardly. They can spend millions on reports about those changes, but do little to help society IMO.

There is some worth to some of it, but when they can help society counter the harmful effects of a Fox News, let me know.

Where were they when the World Bank and IMF were pursuing destructive policies against less powerful nations? A ton of studies, I'm sure, not much help for fixing the problem.

I'll grant some small uses for a project like this - one of which is to move from the really idiotic, partisan misuse of 'left' and 'right' to some more solid basis for discussion.

But I stand by my comments. Most of society doesn't need more team-based info.

We need more things to help the public understand when they're being lied to, more to strengthen democracy against the assault of narrow but powerful interests.

To make an analogy, let me quote Roberty Kennedy's comment on economics rather than political science, in discussing its fixation on GDP:

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.


"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

A project like this runs around finding better ways to measure 'right' and 'left' the way the GDP finds ways to measure 'gun sales' but can't measure the things he lists.

Rather, it strips away the qualititative policies and issues to reinforce a spectrum that is not especially useful when it comes to good policy.

We have enough people who use simplistic identity politics instead of looking at policies already.

So no, I'm not a big fan of this sort of project that seems more designed for advancement in the academic circle by what it rewards than use for improving society.

Did the people who created Social Security get a Ph.D for it? No.

I suspect a book the professor would benefit from - and perhaps you, if you defend his project a lot - though it's a depressing read, is:

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Liberal-Class-Chris-Hedges/dp/1568586442

Description:

The liberal class plays a vital role in a democracy. It gives moral legitimacy to the state. It makes limited forms of dissent and incremental change possible. The liberal class posits itself as the conscience of the nation. It permits us, through its appeal to public virtues and the public good, to define ourselves as a good and noble people. Most importantly, on behalf of the power elite the liberal class serves as bulwarks against radical movements by offering a safety valve for popular frustrations and discontentment by discrediting those who talk of profound structural change. Once this class loses its social and political role then the delicate fabric of a democracy breaks down and the liberal class, along with the values it espouses, becomes an object of ridicule and hatred. The door that has been opened to proto-fascists has been opened by a bankrupt liberalism

The Death of the Liberal Class examines the failure of the liberal class to confront the rise of the corporate state and the consequences of a liberalism that has become profoundly bankrupted. Hedges argues there are five pillars of the liberal establishment – the press, liberal religious institutions, labor unions, universities and the Democratic Party— and that each of these institutions, more concerned with status and privilege than justice and progress, sold out the constituents they represented. In doing so, the liberal class has become irrelevant to society at large and ultimately the corporate power elite they once served.

Save234

 

[fskimospy]

Edit: Particularly obvious is the "overlapping members" graph. The sudden spike and fall in overlapping members wasn't due to cooperation between ideologies, but rather a shift of social conservatism from Democrats to Republicans--particularly with regards to race issues--with Southern Democrats holding onto those conservative values for much longer.

This edit reinforces the validity of the model. Nowhere does the model ever speak of 'cooperation between ideologies', nor would it ever. That's not what it is measuring in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Throckmorton]

Giving amnesty to millions of trespassers is not left leaning? - Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

Driving up the national debt is not left leaning?

Moving our oil production to OPEC, with caused drill rig production and ship building companies to close. Which in turned left tens of thousands of people in the ship building industry without jobs.

In the southeast Texas area (Beaumont, Port Arthur, Orange area), at least 3 large companies closed - Bethlehem steel, Livingston shipyard and American Bridge. When those companies closed, over 7,000 people lost their jobs. An unknown number of support chain jobs were also lost. Entire shipyards were closed, striped and the parts sold off. I put the number close to 10,000 people lost their jobs.

Those people losing their jobs was in direct relation to the policies set forth by reagan.

Its taken southeast Texas almost 30 years to recover. It was not until the late 1990s when construction in the local refiners started to expand that we had a surplus of high wage jobs come back. Here we are in 2010s, and the economy has just about recovered. In the late 1990s, the southeast Texas region had the second highest unemployment rate in the state of Texas , second to El Paso.

WTF does OPEC have to do with liberal/conservative? And why do you think not "ending the wars" makes Obama more liberal? Does that make Bush a super liberal for starting those wars? It sounds like you're a Paulbot who calls everything you disagree with "liberal".

 

[Texashiker]

If you think their methodology is bad, fine.

Just because someone disagrees with something, does not make it bad.

WTF does OPEC have to do with liberal/conservative?

Reducing our ability to produce domestic oil
Costing tens of thousands of workers their jobs
Increasing dependance on foreign production
Weakening our overall national security by increasing dependance on foreign nations for oil

 

[fskimospy]

Just because someone disagrees with something, does not make it bad.

My complaint is not that people disagree with it, it is that they do not understand what they are disagreeing with.

 

[Craig234]

I think Ron Paul and some of the new wave Republicans (Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, for instance) would certainly go with that, but it seems to me that the old school guys (Romney, Gingrich, McConnell, Boehner etc.) are nostalgic for the baby boomers' childhood years and feel like the sexual revolution was the demarcation of the disintegration of America's moral fabric.

And that's largely a myth.

It's funny how myths work - creating people chasing false utopias, that cause more harm than good.

It reminds me a little of how in the old west, when Geronimo and a handful - like ten - warriors were loose, citizens wrote hysterical letters to Washington begging for troops to come protect them because the band was going to wipe them all out - but a few years later with that small band captured as the last, Geronimo became a huge national entertainment figure as people flocked to a nostalgic 'wild west show' missing the 'good old days of the wild west'.

It's funny how these things work, how people in good times often don't appreciate them and in bad times often thrive more than expected.

Projects like the Hoover Dam and Golden Gate Bridge were built in the mid 1930's in the Great Depression but would be daunting tasks today with far greater wealth.

IMO the 1960's were a very positive time overall at improving our country in ways that we now take for granted, but there are myths attacking them.

People forget or never new the downsides of the times they praise, with all kinds of bigotry and hate and deeply rooted discrimination against any number of groups.

Our society has reached levels of openness in information not dreamed of in earlier days, better fulfilling democracy. Take slavery and colonies for just two examples of change.

Save234

 

[crashtestdummy]

But none of that matters in the slightest? Like seriously, that objection is entirely irrelevant. I don't have the time to debate their methodology here, and honestly I sincerely doubt a single person who has raised objections to it has read even one of the dozens if not hundreds of papers on this system in order to be in a position to critique it.

If you think their methodology is bad, fine. Your personal internet person opinion runs counter to the vast majority of current political science and the principles of academic peer review, but it is the internet and you are welcome to your opinion.

I feel like this topic might be too wonky and technical for this forum.

Eskimospy, I apologize that these comments have put you on the defensive, as I do really enjoy your posts in general and was hoping to have an intellectual discussion of what the data means.

Let me be clear, I don't think the methodology is bad, and lots of information can be extracted from it. I do, however, have some disagreements with details of the way that they interpret the data. For example, I posit as a counter to your second link that the parties were always as polarized as they are now, but that they were simply polarized over a different list of things, making them less sharply divided along modern left/right lines.

As for the comments regarding our ignorance: you're certainly right that we haven't read the literature on this methodology, and that this seems to be our field. However, instead of simply chastising us, perhaps use this opportunity to educate us. The literature on topics like this is vast, and since my field (materials science and biophysics) doesn't intersect in any way, I have neither the time nor ability to know where to start. Could you provide something of a review of the methodology, either with a breakdown of your own or links to relevant journal/review articles?

 

[Craig234]

Reducing our ability to produce domestic oil
Costing tens of thousands of workers their jobs
Increasing dependance on foreign production
Weakening our overall national security by increasing dependance on foreign nations for oil

That's not 'liberal/consdervative'.

In fact, 'conservative' is largely a useless label, not describing the real agenda of the conservative politicians who follow an agenda of wealth but run on 'conservatism'.

Conservatism is largely a marketing effort to get votes for policies of wealth.

 

[Craig234]

Eskimospy, I apologize that these comments have put you on the defensive, as I do really enjoy your posts in general and was hoping to have an intellectual discussion of what the data means.

Let me be clear, I don't think the methodology is bad, and lots of information can be extracted from it. I do, however, have some disagreements with details of the way that they interpret the data. For example, I posit as a counter to your second link that the parties were always as polarized as they are now, but that they were simply polarized over a different list of things, making them less sharply divided along modern left/right lines.

As for the comments regarding our ignorance: you're certainly right that we haven't read the literature on this methodology, and that this seems to be our field. However, instead of simply chastising us, perhaps use this opportunity to educate us. The literature on topics like this is vast, and since my field (materials science and biophysics) doesn't intersect in any way, I have neither the time nor ability to know where to start. Could you provide something of a review of the methodology, either with a breakdown of your own or links to relevant journal/review articles?

Of course it's up to you what you want to read, but I'd far rather you read some good books (I'd be happy to recommend some) on important issues over nuts and bolts.

 

[IGBT]

The jackass has certainly proven to be the appropriate mascot of the democrat party. Counter fit compassion/false premise of fairness/fails to connect with reality and to top it all off he replaced Bin Laden with trillions of dollars of debt. You obama is doing a fine job.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Of course it's up to you what you want to read, but I'd far rather you read some good books (I'd be happy to recommend some) on important issues over nuts and bolts.

I'll always listen to literature recommendations (I can't guarantee that I'll read them), but I do consider myself to be reasonably well read in my ideology. Rawlsianism has long been one of the greater tenants of my political philosophy. However, I also have enough Burke in me to remark that sudden, violent upheavals of the status quo often do not result in pleasant or effective outcomes. It is better to gradually shift the status quo in the direction you want it rather than discard it entirely.

 

[Craig234]

The jackass has certainly proven to be the appropriate mascot of the democrat party. Counter fit compassion/false premise of fairness/fails to connect with reality and to top it all off he replaced Bin Laden with trillions of dollars of debt. You obama is doing a fine job.

I want to add water to you to dilute the ignorance, hate and ideology.

 

[fskimospy]

Eskimospy, I apologize that these comments have put you on the defensive, as I do really enjoy your posts in general and was hoping to have an intellectual discussion of what the data means.

Let me be clear, I don't think the methodology is bad, and lots of information can be extracted from it. I do, however, have some disagreements with details of the way that they interpret the data. For example, I posit as a counter to your second link that the parties were always as polarized as they are now, but that they were simply polarized over a different list of things, making them less sharply divided along modern left/right lines.

As for the comments regarding our ignorance: you're certainly right that we haven't read the literature on this methodology, and that this seems to be our field. However, instead of simply chastising us, perhaps use this opportunity to educate us. The literature on topics like this is vast, and since my field (materials science and biophysics) doesn't intersect in any way, I have neither the time nor ability to know where to start. Could you provide something of a review of the methodology, either with a breakdown of your own or links to relevant journal/review articles?

They fundamentally use a scaling algorithms to determine ideal legislator preferences as they relate to one another, basicallly.

For an overview of it from the guy who created it, here: http://voteview.com/nominate/nominate.htm

Hopefully this clears up that the legislators are being rated in reference to each other, which is how they are determining polarization. As for the single common point of reference for comparisons between congresses, it is called the 'common space' DW-nominate scores, detailed here:
http://voteview.com/dwnomin_joint_house_and_senate.htm

EDIT: For a bit of a more layman's description (which is mostly accurate) you can read this: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/do_the_math/2001/12/growing_apart.html

 

[monovillage]

That's not 'liberal/consdervative'.

In fact, 'conservative' is largely a useless label, not describing the real agenda of the conservative politicians who follow an agenda of wealth but run on 'conservatism'.

Conservatism is largely a marketing effort to get votes for policies of wealth.

Liberal is a totally useless label as is progressive. The only political label that counts in this country (the U.S.) is party affiliation.

 

[Texashiker]

My complaint is not that people disagree with it, it is that they do not understand what they are disagreeing with.

What I disagree with is an organization trying to say there was that much difference in the presidents listed.

bush sr. started NAFTA, bill clinton signed it into law. Even though clinton ran on a ticket of anti-free trade, clinton flipped after being elected.

There are other similarities between bush sr and clinton, but the chart ranks the two presidents on opposite sides of the scale?

reagan increased or dependance on foreign oil, all other presidents are done nothing about it.

nixon renewed relations with china. From there, president after president has promoted free trade with china.

george sr. should be at the bottom of the barrel for the randy weaver incident. An unarmed woman is shot and killed, and nothing is done about it.

obama orders US citizens assassinated without a trial.

What is the difference in an FBI sniper killing an unarmed woman holding an infant child, and the military using an air strike to kill a US citizen in another country.

bush jr holds accused terrorist without a trial, obama does nothing about it.

 

[Craig234]

I'll always listen to literature recommendations (I can't guarantee that I'll read them), but I do consider myself to be reasonably well read in my ideology. Rawlsianism has long been one of the greater tenants of my political philosophy. However, I also have enough Burke in me to remark that sudden, violent upheavals of the status quo often do not result in pleasant or effective outcomes. It is better to gradually shift the status quo in the direction you want it rather than discard it entirely.

I'd question that. There is a high price to real change, but that's something that helps preserve tyranny.

For example, Mubarak or Marcos seemed invulnerable in power; if you had been a citizen suffering them and tried to change things, you'd have likely been tortured/killed.

So, instead, you adapt to it and it continues. It took pretty remarkable events and people getting killed to bring change - but how else was it going to come?

We could compare the American and French revolutions - but both involved heavy prices and killing, in order to displace entrenched concentration of wealth - monarchies.

The Russian revolution would better fit your example - another violent revolution costing lives to overthrow a corrupt monarchy, but with 'unintended consequences' of harm.

Does that mean it was better to leave the corrupt tyranny in place?

My sig says 'ideology is the enemy', and I'd suggest that a simple dogma about 'fast change' versus 'slow change' falls under that, as not correct to generalize.

The thing is, first, suffering and tyranny are not easy to change; they rely on more suffering and tyranny to protect their power. Second, the conditions when they finally are overthrown tend to be especially bad, which are not good times a lot, in the throes of people risking their lives to fight tyranny, to create a wonderful, stable new system.

You might cite our founding fathers as doing pretty well, but they have an ocean and over 10 years to come up with the new system (and did poorly on the first try).

And whatever we say about 'overthrowing tyranny', it does little to help with the difficulty of a more moderate corruption, like that in the US today, where citizens can do little.

In the US, money is concentrating more and more and pushing that 'gradual push' you mention in the wrong direction, and the people do poorly to prevent that.

Tell me of an interest, and I'll see what sounds good for a recommendation. My sig of course has a number of good authors.

The introduction to Paul Krugman's 'The Great Unraveling' has a good counter-point to your post - arguing that stable societies are too easily destabilized by bad radicals.

Funny enough, he finds the point made in the Ph.D. paper by Henry Kissinger, applied to the French revolution - but he applies it to the US under Bush and the modern right.