Ezra Klein channels Andrew Gelman:
…small states tend to be more approving of their governors. Why? Gelman
has some theories: "In a large state, there will be more ambitious
politicians on the other side, eager to knock off the incumbent
governor; small states often have part-time legislatures and thus the
governor is involved in less political conflict; small states (notably
Alaska) tend to get more funds per capita from the federal government,
and it’s easier to be popular when you can disburse more funds; large
states tend to be more heterogeneous and so it’s harder to keep all the
voters happy. As the graphs show, the pattern isn’t perfect, but it
looks real to me."
I have an additional hypothesis. People from small states, especially atypical small states, sometimes have an inferiority complex vis-a-vis the other states or regions. Taking pride in their politicians is one way of compensating for that. Furthermore there is often less to do in underpopulated states and is not pride sometimes a substitute for action? New Yorkers are not in fact so proud of the Metropolitan Opera, but in parts of Wisconsin the Green Bay Packers are king.
Or perhaps government really does work better in a smaller polity.
There are fewer degrees of separation between the governor of a small state and the average citizen than in a big state. So even those who disagree with the governor politically are more likely to see him as a human being, not some remote figure. They met him at a dinner, or know a top staffer or relative, etc., and so are more inclined to give credit for effort.
I agree with Bernard Yomtov; you’re much more likely to have met your politicians personally in small states (just as you’re much more likely to have met your local politicians, really). Growing up in West Virginia I met Robert C. Byrd on several occasions, and lobbied Rockefeller once, and in neither occasion did I have to go out of my way to meet them — they came to places I was; having spent almost a decade in Massachusetts now, I’ve come nowhere close to meeting Kerry or Kennedy, despite having taught at a school they both attended.
(I intentionally use senators rather than governors here because WV governors are not necessarily popular as they tend to be riddled with scandal. But it would have been easy to meet my governors as well had I been motivated to do so.)
I also think that, in smaller states, governors are more likely to be involved with more local politics. One, this makes them more visible, and two, local politics tend to be less partisan. In a heavily partisan environment it’s hard to be popular with more than x% of people, where x = “your party plus the independents”, but if you’re dealing with issues like school funding or road maintenance where there aren’t necessarily partisan lines, people just want to see that you delivered for them, and if you did, they’ll like you, regardless of party.
Alex,
Yes, there is more variability in small states. But the mean is higher in small states too, in 2006 and also in 2008.
“People from small states, especially atypical small states, sometimes have an inferiority complex vis-a-vis the other states or regions”
I spent most of my life in Oklahoma, and I can vouch for this. The most perverse example was the OKC Murrah Building bombing. While everyone was horrified, a lot of people seemed to take some sort of pride in all the attention it brought. We’ve been quick to build memorials for things like bridge collapses since then.
Another example: the city of Tulsa seriously considered helping fund a project to build a 21-story statue of an Indian. This was spearheaded by a huckster or visionary whose design was rejected for our capital dome (but likely would have been accepted by the Franklin Mint for Sunday supplements).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_(statue)
Another thought. A better comparison may be between small-state governors and big-city mayors. Nobody would consider George Pataki for president, but Rudy was a viable candidate.
I’m dubious of the premise. Palin’s predecessor Murkowski was extremely unpopular. The graph is a snapshot in time, and does not capture historical information. It’s quite possible that over time the differences will disappear.
If it is true, then a part of this is the point made by Diversity and Yomtov, that greater personal familiarity can lead to greater popularity – but that only holds if the governor is, in fact, likeable. Palin is personally likeable (although former governor Tony Knowles is also quite likeable personally, and was not nearly so popular as Palin).
ziggurat – I can’t speak for other states, but in Alaska it isn’t the governor who hands out the federal money – it’s Ted Stevens. For years he was the most popular politician in the state, probably for that reason.
I think small states are simply more homogeneous and thus political divisions are not as sharp. It is easier for politicians to build consensus, and more importantly, related to their constituency. Large states on the other hand tend to have one or more large cities as well as rural/exurban area. This creates friction between the “small town America” and the sophisticated cosmopolitan elite in the big cities. Politicians have a much harder time bringing everyone together.
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It’s really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful–in any country! It’s because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that’s messy, politically.
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It’s really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful–in any country! It’s because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that’s messy, politically.
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It’s really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful–in any country! It’s because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that’s messy, politically.
I think the real reason is that small states tend to have greater homogeneity of political and cultural interests and therefore greater collective spirit. It’s really a corollary of the reason why agricultural interests are disproportionately powerful–in any country! It’s because everyone in agg country is if favour of ag. In short: large states are more multicultural and that’s messy, politically.
ziggurat – sorry, I didn’t read your comment carefully enough. Ted hands out the federal dough, the legislature (with the encouragement of our governor) does hand out the oil money.
As far as most states – in most states, the government does not own 90% or so of the land, has not retained mineral rights on the land it does give up, and does not own the assets of all the state’s major industries (oil and gas, mining, fishing, tourism, timber). In most states the wealth is in the hands of the private sector and government taxes the revenue generated by that wealth. In Alaska the wealth is in the hands of the government, so it obtains the money by renting out the right to use those assets.
Just to point out, Wisconsin isn’t a particularly small state (according to the most recent census, we rank 20th), and our governor has decidedly mixed reviews (like most everything else political in the state, he’s about 50-50). I’d be curious to see at which point, either in population or in population homogeneity, that this trend breaks down…
I lived in Wisconsin for 11 years, and it would be more accurate to say that in EVERY part of Wisconsin, the Packers are king.
Welcome to our company which sells all kinds of ro zeny.
Comments on this entry are closed.