Dave’s recent post on the national Tea Parties generated a bit of a spat on this blog. Dave, essentially, argues that the racist charges of the authors of the Racism Review, to the Tea Party(goers), is, at best poor social science. And their charge is, at worst, an ad hominem attack on the Tea Party(goers). Dave’s point is an astute one. However, it is not consistent with the following social scientific principle: “What People Believe are the Facts of the Social Sciences” (or Subjectivism).
Take a look at these General Social Survey data.
The Public Opinion of Government Spending (2006)
“We are faced with many problems in this country, none of which can be solved easily or inexpensively. I’m going to name some of these problems, and for each one I’d like you tell me whether you think we’re spending too much money on it, too little money, or about the right amount. Are we spending too much money, too little money, or about the right amount on…”
Too little money – (1) About the right amount – (2) Too much money – (3)
Median Mean
|
Extremely Popular Spending |
||
|
Improving/protecting the environment |
1.0 |
1.375 |
|
Health Care |
1.0 |
1.297 |
|
Improving the nation’s educational system |
1.0 |
1.317 |
|
Halting the rising crime rate |
1.0 |
1.446 |
|
Dealing with drug addiction |
1.0 |
1.450 |
|
Social Security |
1.0 |
1.407 |
|
Assistance for childcare |
1.0 |
1.517 |
|
Popular Spending |
||
|
Solving the problems of big cities |
2 |
1.634 |
|
Highways/Bridges |
2 |
1.756 |
|
Parks and Recreation |
2 |
1.724 |
|
Supporting scientific research |
2 |
1.688 |
|
Mass transportation |
2 |
1.656 |
|
Marginally Popular Spending |
||
|
Improving the conditions of blacks |
2 |
1.780 |
|
Unpopular Spending |
||
|
Military/armaments/defense |
2 |
2.144 |
|
Space Exploration |
2 |
2.237 |
|
Welfare |
2 |
2.110 |
|
Extremely Unpopular Spending |
||
|
Foreign Aid |
3 |
2.52 |
Do these data indicate that there is widespread opposition to healthcare spending – or to any government spending on a social welfare measure (sans “welfare,” improving the condition of blacks, space exploration, defense, and foreign aid)?
Hey, the authors of the Racism Review may not be categorically correct, but they are not totally off-base by charging racism given the consensus of US public opinion on social welfare spending – and health care spending in particular, the most popular spending item, just three years ago. If Dave is correct, he must consider one or more of the following:
- The Tea Party(goers) are not representative of the US population.
- US public opinion, on health care spending, has significantly changed in fewer than three years.
Brian A. Pitt
Not sure those numbers say very much. My guess is that the GSS numbers show a bunch of folks who want to see more medicare spending. At the same time, my guess is that they oppose more spending on what they perceive as spending on illegal (or undocumented) immigrants, so that just throws another wrench in there.
I can’t speak for David, but the reason I am critical of the folks at racism review is that they label people racist, not based on any sort of evidence (or even so much as a theory), but because they take certain political positions.
Again, I have no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of racists in the anti-government crowd (and the pro-government crowd as well to be sure), but I don’t go around labeling every single participant as racist. That’s what the racism review folks do and that’s the reason I call it bad social science.
You’re right Josh, these statistics, or any for that matter, do not tell very much. However, these statistics reveal, at least to me, that the United States citizenry believes that the government is NOT spending enough on social welfare programs.
Let me state that I do not find it useful, or interesting, to take issue with the authors of the Racism Review or the legions of folks who, incessantly, aver racism at every opportunity. That said, I do, however, find it odd when non-minorities hastily jettison the possibility of glints of racism, conscious or unconscious, without themselves bringing more than their impressions to the debate (read claiming no racism, without a theoretical lens and empirics, is just as shameful as claiming racism, without a theoretical lens and empirics).
To conclude, these data do not definitively say anything. What they do say, however, is that a substantial number (N=1200) of randomized adults, from across the United States, believe that citizens should be getting MORE from government. This, at least to me, flies in the face of the Tea Party(goers’) solicitude about massive government spending on healthcare.
I’m a little confused. How would not being representative of the general population on maters of government spending make them possibly racist?
It’s been said that the absence of anti-government protest during the Bush years is evidence of racism. I’d say it’s evidence of political ignorance, and the popular reliance on empty labels such as “Democrat” (anti-freedom, anti-market, pro-socialist) and “Republican” (the opposite) because most people aren’t political science grad students.
As far as I know more spending on these various issues is popular everywhere, even in countries with more prejudicial attitudes overall.
“I’m a little confused. How would not being representative of the general population on maters of government spending make them possibly racist?”
Dain, the GSS data set, due to it being a nationally randomized questionaire, is considered to represent US citizens’ attitudes toward various socio-economic-political issues. The issue, here, is attitudes toward government spending on various social welfare measures.
Of course not being representative of the general population will not definitively make them racist (or not racist). But, the Tea Party(goers’) attitudes not being captured in these data, essentially, frees them from both being maligned as racist – and it should keep folks from presumptuously stating positively that the Tea Party(goers) are not racist. (In short, there could be an element of unconscious racism present. And without data to support your claim of racism (or not), though invariably questionable, one should simply keep silent – or, better yet, not speak dogmatically in either direction. I am speaking to Dave’s point about the Racism Review authors providing bad social science. I am not saying that the Racism Review authors’ science is “bad” or “good.” I am, rather, asking David to provide a metric that suggest non-racism on the part of the Tea Party(goers).)
Dain, what these data suggest, as I have already recalled, is that social welfare spending is quite popular in the United States. And health care is THE most popular spending item. The (presumptuous) charge of racism, by the authors of the Racism Review and many others, amongst the Tea Party(goers) may be a consequence of the silence of the United States public on social welfare spending for quite some time.
Brian–The problem isn’t with the representativeness of the GSS, it’s with the representativeness of the demonstrators. Most people never demonstrate. Converse’s “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics” puts the percentage at some tiny fraction of the public–and they are among the best informed members of the public (which is itself a small fraction of the public).
Am I saying that whoever is well informed would attend a Tea Party? No. I’m saying that to understand political behavior, you have to ask where the actors are getting their ideas. Isn’t that what Austrian economics is (or used to be) all about?
So if you ask about the sources of people’s ideas here, you’d ask: Has the Ku Klux Klan suddenly begun TV broadcasts? No, it hasn’t, but Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh et al. have been telling a slice of the relatively well-informed public (although not the best-informed slice) that Obama is threatening them with “socialism” (whatever they think that means), “death panels,” and monstrously higher taxes and budget deficits.
Note that I take no position on whether Beck et al. are right. I’m just saying that if sociologists want to study political behavior, you’ve gotta do what the political scientists have been doing for more than half a century: recognize that the public is not homogeneous when it comes to “information” receipt. And then, as I’ve said before, you sociologists are perfectly positioned to go study the heterogeneous sources of people’s “information,” a k a: culture.
Jeffrey Friedman
Editor, Critical Review