Pew's One-Dimensional Ideology Scale

Fascinating chart from the Pew Center (via Yglesias) on voter perceptions of the candidates:


There's so much one could do with this. Yes, I know it is "linear," but that is the way voters think--how else to evaluate a warmonger who likes dresses? How else explain Huckabee and Bush, at opposite poles on the likeability scale, huddled together on the same datapoint?

I'm particularly impressed by the demonstration that Republicans see Hillary as far more liberal than Democrats do. I assume it is a triumph of talk radio and talking-head TV, and pretty much a flat contradiction to Bruce Bartlett's argument that Bill Clinton was a much more fiscally responsible president than George Bush is (link; cf. link). But you can match it with the datum that they see Mitt Romney as pretty conservative: as I've said too many times, I think he is far too insincere for that, and that he will abandon his conservative allies when convenience dictates just as much as he will the liberal.

Yglesias says it is "it's interesting that all voters seem to classify the contenders almost entirely on the basis of cultural matters. " True in part, although I suppose if the voters went the whole way with that, they'd have Rudi at the far left end. And voters have a maddening way of crossing category lines: recall that McCain, perhaps the most hawkish of Republicans (but they are all hawkish)--McCain does best among Republicans most disaffected with the war.

Moi, Your Honor?

Eeuw, don’t tell. I just took the Pew Research “Beyond Red vs. Blue” survey and it turns out I’m a L*b*r*l.

Just what my enemies have always said, although a lot of my friends think I am a raging reactionary. And actually, I was a bit surprised myself. But let’s go to the tape:

• US relies too much on military force? Check.
• Worry that government is getting too involved in issues of morality? Checkeroo.
• Strict environmental laws are worth the cost. Well, um, not crazy about the question.
• Poor people have hard lives? Checkeroo.
…because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them? Um, complicated.

Well, okay, I guess they told me I might not always like the choices. Anyway, on to basic demographics. White, check. Highly educated, check. Religious? Well, Mrs. B says I am a communicant of a sect in which only I am a member, but I guess that is not what they had in mind. Wealthy? Hmph, not an investment banker, but again, I guess I know what they mean here, so check.

Young? Ah…

So I guess they got me. Still, I want to squirm, for a couple of reasons. One, I’d really like to do this Chinese-menu style. I suspect I’m a lot more pro-market than the “liberals”—more like the “enterprisers” here, and they vote overwhelmingly Republican. Correspondingly, I find have something in common with the “disaffected,” who think that government is wasteful, and that government officials don’t care much about what I think. But unlike the “disaffected,” I’m not—well, I’m not “disaffected.” And I pay a huge amount of attention—more than is good for me, I suspect—to current events.

But there are interesting curiosities all across the board. Example: another Pew category is the “upbeats:” they believe that elected officials care, that government does a good job, that immigrants help to make our country stronger (I don’t think I’d want to be stuck in an elevator with these folks). In 2004, the “upbeats” broke about 4.5-1 for Bush over Kerry (“liberals,” big surprise, were an absurd 40-1 for Kerry over Bush). The interesting part is that “disaffecteds—well, nearly a quarter of them didn’t vote, but when they did vote, they joined their “upbeat” neighbors, and broke for Bush (about 2-1).

One thing I miss here is a category for “libertarians”—pro-market, pro-gay-rights, skeptical about any government program, including war. Seems to be a major presence in the blogosphere, but evidently for Pew, not big enough to notice.

Go ahead, take the quiz. Can't hurt, kinda fun (link).