What Just Ain't So

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” - Mark Twain
I thought this was an appropriate quote to start this post with. After all, we can think of many examples of this in the world. How people were so sure that communism would create a "domino effect" if it got a foothold in Southeast Asia, that Canada is a perfect example of socialized medicine, that Jesus Christ would support a massive buildup of nuclear arms and cutting down every tree on the planet, and so on.

But both left and right, have very similar misconceptions about American voters. That pundits, editors, political theorists, authors, organizers, and more would paint the same picture where the Democrats were supported by a bunch of affluent New York Times Reading, Volvo Driving, Latte Drinking, Sushi Eating, Body Piercing, flakes on the coast with their so called "60's values". While the Republican party is supported by hardworking, beer drinking, church-going, country music listening Blue collar real Americans with more "traditional values". It has been said time and time again that the Democratic party has lost its status as the workingman's party and is now the party of effete and snobby wine and cheese liberals, flaky Hollywood stars, and liberal academics who are just out of touch with ordinary people. And of course, different theories have brought different ways of assigning blame. Some argue that the Democrats who foolishly alienated the left with their reckless embrace of frivolous causes such as feminism, secularism, starving children in Bosnia, gay rights, and global warming, along with their irresponsible embrace of 60's values, their opposition to the Vietnam War, and their absolute blatant snobbery and abandonment of labor unions.
Others insist that it was the rise of fundamentalism that turned people "against their economic interests. Or blamed racism and the Civil Rights movements. Some insisted that the left simply didn't have a very good communication strategy and that the Republicans had some magic secret on how to win people. Linguist George Lakoff insisted that this magic formula was in the way Republicans used language. Thomas Frank insisted that it was because voters prefer emotional engagement over logic and David Western claimed that most people just didn't like it when politicians claimed to be helping them.

But what if it was all wrong? What if Blue Collar republicans are in the minority outside a few specific demographics such as Mormons, ultra-fundamentalists, and a few occupational groups?

Sounds difficult to believe doesn't? After all, we being hearing it repeatedly for over a decade. But statistician Andrew Gelman reports his finding about the American voter in his famous book "Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State", where among other conclusions he finds that the chances of voting Republican increases with income among nearly all demographic in the US. He also found that most of the Blue State vs. Red State differences existed among the upper 50% as far as income is concerned. That much ballyhooed phenomena such as the "God, guns, and gays" vote and "losing the white working class" were at best regional phenomena and at worst utter myths. Also he found that American patterns of money, church attendance, and regional difference weren't entirely unique when compared to other countries.

Of course, my point here isn't to spend this post reiterating Gelman's book. Because here presents the basic information along with answers to some very thoughtful questions here:

Click to See Gelman's Presentation.

To me what the stark contrast between what most people and many analysts of American voting patterns believe, versus the reality outlines to me is the lack of hypothesis testings in terms of political strategy. To a large extent political strategies are hashed out in theory but the quality of data or examples used is extremely poor in quality, and in fact often meaningless or misleading.

Another thing that I take from this example is how conventional wisdom, often based on a number of statements from well placed people can just take on a life of it's own and how after decades of having been said enough times can ossify into something that "everyone knows" to be "just common sense", with very few opportunities for sweet reason or new information to get any kind of a fair hearing.

Other examples of what people are so sure they know but just ain't so abound. One example is the idea that most members of the supposedly brave self-sacrificing "GI Generation" ardently supported the Vietnam War, while their supposedly spoiled rotten Baby Boomer offspring opposed the war. But the reality wasn't quite like that according to polls taken at the time. Also people tend to assume that the better educated and more affluent were more likely to oppose the war than those with a high school education at most. This also was not the case.

Another things that people "are so sure they know" involve African American opinions regarding issues such as the environment. One common assumption is the idea that most blacks are either unconcerned with the environment or only concerned about from an "environmental justice" angle. However, this also seems to be more often assumed than demonstrated. (I remember when this article was first presented, sitting with a bunch of graduate school friends and being the only person in the group who wasn't either extremely surprised nor had trouble believing the conclusions.)

But wait a minute you might say? Why are you using so many statistics to prove your point while quoting a man who was once known to have said that the three kinds of lies were "lies, damned lies, and statistics"?

And that would be a good question. The truth is that statistics ARE often used a means of deception, and are easy to use in intellectually dishonest ways if the presenters means to do so.

In fact, I would highly recommend a book that was written in the 50's, called "How To Lie With Statistics". Despite it's somewhat dated use of language and reference to The Kinsey Report on Women being discussed as a big current and shocking news item, the ideas and content is absolutely timeless, straightforward and brilliantly presented.

While I have presented several statistical references and expressed the opinion, that Andrew Gelman is an honest and impecable statistician, I'd also encourage you not to take my word for it. Examine the fact yourself. But don't make skepticism a reason to fall back into the assumption that "If everyone believes it there must be some kernel of truth." Question the conventional wisdom.

But above remember that the larger of this post is the paucity of hypothesis testing in dealing with voters. Do we really know from hard data rather than theorizing what the most effective strategies truly are? Do we know what the most effective ways of organizing groups that have low voter turnout rates, but also low sympathy with conservative views.

I would submit that we know very little about that, and so does the right. And we know less still about how to influence opinions on certain issues. Do different types of speeches and pamphlets appeal to different demographics, different personality types, and so on? One the whole the information is largely speculative and unproven. And it's obvious that many of the speculations are based upon ossified forms of conventional wisdom if not out and out stereotyping.

Say Goodnight Readers!