Krugman’s blog, 2/29/16

There was one post yesterday, “Partisan Classiness:”

Many people in the commentariat are utterly committed to the view that the two major parties are mirror images of each other, despite vast evidence to the contrary. But until Harry Enten directed me to this interesting paper by Grossman and Hopkins, I hadn’t really registered the extent to which the same assumption of symmetry is often made by political scientists. What Grossman and Hopkins do is try to document the very real differences in the two parties’ structure — not in terms of value judgments, but in terms of how they work:

Scholars commonly assume that the American left and right are configured as mirror images to each other, but in fact the two sides exhibit important and underappreciated differences. We argue that the Republican Party is the agent of an ideological movement, while the Democratic Party is best understood as a coalition of social groups.

The next question, which they really don’t answer, is why. And I find myself thinking about Karl Marx.

I don’t know how many people read Capital these days, and to be honest I don’t recommend it unless you’re a historian of some kind. But I’ve always been struck by the very last chapter, which takes on the issue of class. Marx declares that workers, capitalists, and landowners are the three great classes, and that they are so defined in part by shared economic interests. But he identifies a problem:

However, from this standpoint, physicians and officials, e.g., would also constitute two classes, for they belong to two distinct social groups, the members of each of these groups receiving their revenue from one and the same source. The same would also be true of the infinite fragmentation of interest and rank into which the division of social labour splits labourers as well as capitalists and landlords-the latter, e.g., into owners of vineyards, farm owners, owners of forests, mine owners and owners of fisheries.

So, why aren’t physicians and officials, vineyard owners and mine owners, different classes given the divergence of at least some of their interests? We turn back to the book for the explanation, and find:

[Here the manuscript breaks off.]

Oops.

What does this have to do with partisan asymmetry? Well, the Democratic Party looks kind of like the class system Marx said was wrong, without ever getting around to telling us why. It’s a coalition of teachers’ unions, trial lawyers, birth control advocates, wonkish (not, not “monkish” — down, spell check, down!) economists, etc., often finding common ground but by no means guaranteed to fall in line. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has generally been monolithic, with an orthodoxy nobody dares question. Or at least nobody until you-know-who, which is why the establishment keeps imagining that “But he’s not a true conservative!” can make the nightmare go away.

So why are the parties so different? Well, the answer is

[Here the manuscript breaks off.]

OK, not really. But it is a puzzle. I do think that wingnut welfare is part of the story. But there has to be more.

Any suggestions from real political scientists would be especially welcome.

Advertisements

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: