Mind the Gap

I was reading "How The Two-Party System Obscures The Complexity Of Black Americans’ Politics" on FiveThirtyEight, and one of the points that was being made is despite the fact that an overwhelmingly large majority of Black voters regularly vote Democratic, the politics of the Black community is much more nuanced. Which is something that I suspect is familiar to anyone who understands how socially conservative Black people can be.

In any event, information from American National Election Studies was referenced, and one of the survey items mentioned was a question about whether the Federal government should be in the business of guaranteeing that citizens have jobs. The premise was worded this way on FiveThirtyEight:

Jobs Guarantee "The government should see to it that every person has a job and a good standard of living."

And there were two positions that people could take on this. A Liberal one: "Government should guarantee a living," and a Conservative one: "Each person should be on his/her own." When I first saw this, it struck me as odd to have these two options as the only choices. After all, it's not like they meet in the middle, or cover all of the possible options. And in looking at the graphic, this stood out for me: "On the jobs guarantee question, respondents were given a response scale, so we grouped responses."

I decided that I was better off finding the information myself, so I looked up American National Election Studies to get the information for myself. It turns out that they've been asking this question for quite some time, and in two forms. Interestingly, the first of them, Government Guaranteed Job and Standard of Living (1), yes/no 1956 -2002, is a simple agree or disagree (yes/no) formulation. The question had been asked this way back in the 1950s and 60s, before making a short comeback in 2002. Between 1956 and 1960, is was phrased as: "The government in Washington ought to see to it that everybody who wants to work can find a job." Presumably, Yes/No followed that. Between 1964 and 1968, the question was posed as was a two-parter, opening with: "In general, some people feel that the government in Washington should see to it that every person has a job and a good standard of living. Others think the government should just let each person get ahead on his own. Have you been interested enough in this to favor one side over the other." If the respondent answered "yes," a follow-up determined which side of the fence the respondent came down on. For 2002, it had been restored to a one-part question, abeit with more than just a yes/no answer: "Some people feel the government in Washington should see to it that every person has A JOB AND A GOOD STANDARD OF LIVING. Others think the government should just LET EACH PERSON GET AHEAD ON THEIR OWN. Which is closer to the way you feel or haven't you thought much about this?"

From 1972 onward, a second form of the question was /is asked, the response scale question that FiveThirtyEight references: "Government Guaranteed Job and Standard of Living (2), 7 point scale," The question is/was posed as follows:

Some people feel that the government in Washington should see to it that every person has a job and a good standard of living... Others think the government should just let each person get ahead on his/their own... Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you thought much about this?

While I admit that the scaled version of the question allows for more nuance, it still comes across as an oddly binary choice; perhaps due to a need to keep the question similar to the one that had been asked starting in 1956. But it triggered a question for me... When we speak of the divide between opposing partisans, self-sorting into different areas and ideological echo chambers are the common culprits. But what if the way that neutral parties speak of partisans to other partisans is also part of the equation? If someone had told me that liberals believe that " the government in Washington should guarantee that every person has a job and a good standard of living," or that conservatives believe that "the government should just leave each person be on their own," I would have immediately suspected a straw man, especially given the weaselly "some people feel" framing. "Who are these 'some people'... precisely?" I can hear myself saying.

And while I hadn't really thought much of it before seeing this, it seems to me that a lot of descriptions of partisan positions works this way, phrased as stereotypically lefty/rightist, but also apparently divorced from any known policy platforms. I doubt that this is a serious problem, but then again, we don't really need any more minor ones, either. Political canvassing that's less inflammatory and more in line with the sorts of discussions that people actually have about the topics at hand certainly can't hurt anything. Of course, having partisans actually speaking to one another rather than sourcing their information second-hand would be ideal... But one can't have everything, unfortunately.