Constituents and Representatives...

Superinteresting article on Vox that looks at four studies about how representatives and their constituents align ideologically. The title is a bit misleading (approaching click-baitey), but the article is worth the read.

Most interesting analysis (to me) was regarding the fourth paper:

"Each party, [the researchers] find, represents the rich more than the poor on certain issues. Republican senators were likelier to vote with the rich than the poor on economic issues, and likelier to vote with the poor than the rich on social ones. Democrats were likely to reflect the views of poorer constituents on economic policy, but not on social issues. 'We find strong evidence that Republicans over-represent the rich on economic issues—pushing them further right than they would otherwise be, as well as that Democrats over-represent the rich on moral issues—pushing them further left than they would otherwise be,' Rigby and Maks-Solomon conclude."

Part of what I find interesting is the implication that poorer Republican-voting constituents seem to value social issues over economic issues, while poorer Democratic-voting constituents seem to value economic issues over social issues; and vice versa for rich Republican- and Democratic- voting constituents.

And an interesting point in the summary at the end:

"...because of the ideological sorting that has taken place in Congress over the past 50 years — with the dying out of both conservative Southern Democrats and liberal-leaning Northern Republicans — voters’ responsiveness to elite opinion has arguably exacerbated polarization at the voter level."

It makes me wonder if the absence of socially-conservative Democrats and socially-liberal Republicans in leadership positions on each party makes it harder for us to find common ground in our political disagreements. I have always thought the core of the two party system was the disagreement over economic policy with most other topics existing as secondary agreements and/or disagreements. I'm not so sure that it is anymore.

********************

Something that makes this interesting to me is to consider my personal "transition of political values." In high school and through most of my college experience, I valued strong moral opposition to those things which I considered disreputable (/sinful/evil/etc). When I surrendered my personal obsession with being not gay, I allowed myself to listen to opposing political views because the proponents of such positions listened to people like me.

And I found that I value the economic message of the left and abhor the economic message of the right.

And that I sense Democratic leaders actively strive to be willing to listen to "the least of these."

********************

Also worth noting - I read white-paper/journal/article/whatever analyses such as this one as descriptive rather than prescriptive as much as possible. Which is to say, I assume the intent of the authors is to infer a conclusion by examining the data rather than to imply a conclusion via manipulation of the data.

For one thing, it is above my pay grade (and skill level) to delve into methodological details.

For another, I like trying to assume positive things about people as much as possible - including journalists and academics.