Ross Douthat thinks through liberaltarianism and the new spatial equilibrium has him worried:
What could happen, instead, is a bigger-tent liberalism – somewhat
chastened, perhaps, by some big-government failures in the Obama era -
that makes libertarian intellectuals feel welcome, engages them in
conversations about smarter regulations and more efficient tax policy,
and generally woos them away from their culturally-dissonant alliance
with people who attend megachurches and Sarah Palin rallies. This would
make for a smarter left-of-center in the short run, but I think in the
long run it would be pernicious. It would further the Democratic
Party's transformation into a closed circle of brainy meritocrats, and
push the Republican Party in a yet more anti-intellectual direction.
And it would produce an elite consensus more impervious to structural
critiques, and a right-wing populism more incapable of providing them.
The Democratic Party would hold power more often, and become more
sclerotic as a result; the GOP would take office less often, and behave
more recklessly on those rare occasions when it did manage to seize the
reins of state.
Put aside your views on the R, D, and L people and think in terms of an abstract argument. There is an optimal distribution of smart people across political parties and it need not be all in the same party. For one thing, the marginal product of a smart person in a stupid party might be very high. For another, being in power all the time may corrupt the thinking processes of smart people and we want to have some smart people insulated from this corruption.
So should a smart person attempt to move the world toward an optimal distribution of smart people across parties? Or should a smart person join the party he or she most wishes to belong to? Should a smart person advise others according to the same standard she uses to regulate herself? In general does the world "cluster" smart people too much or too little?
You'll notice that many of these questions apply to fun parties and not just political parties.
The excellent Arnold Kling adds insightful comment.
← Previous Comments
Aren’t all the smart people are already in the same party?
Oh, I figured that my remark that the gang of tax cut enforcers in the
GOP are like Stalinist commissars would raise a hackle somewhere. Sure
enough, the person who boiled over in an explosive apoplexy was the
reliably overheated “Superheater.”
Yeah, I’m overheated about dimwitted analogies between Republicans and Stalin.
Its not even close. It’s daily kook lunacy.
I would definitely say that Republican anti-intellectualism has played a huge role. Plus the dishonesty of their so-called more intellectual arguments (e.g. the Laffer curve) drives away others. Democrats have their own burdens to bear with populist rhetoric and blind protectionism, but overall, there is a definite bias that Republicans should overcome.
Frankly if the current Republican party falls, any party that rose to replace it would probably be one of two: a conservative split from the Democratic party or a rabid right wing party much as what is happening in Europe.
If the natural distribution of intelligence is not occurring across party lines, perhaps it should self correct as the parties either lose their populist appeal or become too rabid and engage in demagoguery – there are hardly the problems that plague Japan that would keep a sclerotic party in power.
@TN: “Plus the dishonesty of their so-called more intellectual arguments (e.g. the Laffer curve) drives away others.”
The existence of the Laffer Curve is indisputable; all the quibbles between advocates of higher or lower taxes boil down to identifying the point at which dy/dx=0.
It’s worth noting that the largest group of voters in this country belongs to neither the Dems or the GOP – they’re Independents, and they don’t make decisions based on party lines.
Instead, they tend to evaluate issues on a case-by-case basis, agreeing with the left at times, tending towards the right at others. Also, influence between this group and the major organized parties tends to flow in both directions.
Only now, the GOP has walked itself off a cliff, and has lost nearly all its influence. But that implosion on their part hasn’t led to some dramatic change in the case-by-case modality, giving the Dems a whole new group of reliable voted they didn’t have before. They still have to come up with policies that work – and they can’t expect that they’ll command full loyalty if half their platform is a shambles (which it’s likley to be).
If the GOP can develop policy framework that (a) has a basic level of coherence, and (b) leads to positions that this independent middle doesn’t find unpalatable, then they have a chance of recovering lost influence.
But they’ll need plenty of issues that independents can embrace. A critical mass, really. And they’ll have to remember that 10 good positions can be neutralized by one insanely stupid position, so it’s important to remain aware of the mix.
Because the smart people aren’t on either side. They know the value of their vote, and recognize that you can get more by keeping the door open to both sides, and making both sides work to get in.
Every party seems to have it’s fair share of intellects and idiots. Some of folks who’ve fled either the R or D parties are hoping some sane alternative will appear on the horizon. The Democratic Party, busy creating debt that will haunt future generations, does not appear to be that political haven to me. The Republican party with it’s collective ear glued to Rush Limbaugh and the Sunday morning pulpits of fundamentalists churches has not endeared itself either. “Look before your leap.”
Everything is very open and very clear explanation of issues. was truly information. Your website is very useful. Thanks for sharing.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.