Political scientists Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins have written a book, Asymmetric Politics, that offers a framework for understanding American politics – and in particular to explain consistent differences in the behavior of Democrats and Republicans. Beginning with a key insight – party asymmetry – that has been noted in the past (prominently by Jo Freeman, “The Political Culture of the Democratic and Republican Parties,” 1986), but often ignored in subsequent inquiry and analysis, their book provides a window into contemporary politics in the United States.
Party asymmetry is at the root of much that is distinctive about American politics and government. We synthesize a wide variety of research in order to document the most consequential differences between Democrats and Republicans and emphasize their widespread implications…. Recognizing the distinct styles of each party can produce better explanations for political events and trends, including contemporary polarization and dysfunction.
Their analysis is spot on and, if I’m right, it reaches beyond the differentiating patterns they discuss in their book.
One difference between Republicans and Democrats – and this is my observation (though hardly original) and not Grossmann and Hopkins’ – is found in the relationship each side has to truth, facts, and evidence. Here’s one way to put it (my first take): Republicans rely on lies, half-truths, and a variety of tactics – such as throwing up chaff, muddying the waters, attacking the messenger, and spreading false narratives – to obscure, hide, and distract from inconvenient facts and credible standards of evidence. This behavior represents a consistent difference between Republicans and Democrats (whose political success requires, for instance, a more rigorous embrace of facts, both general and specific).
In reading the book, I realized early on that Asymmetric Politics offered a persuasive explanation for this difference in the behavior of the two parties – a difference that is clearly observable and (even with the he-said-she-said, both-sides-are-squabbling journalistic style of the mainstream media) increasingly hard to ignore. (The impeachment spectacle – with Republican defenses of Trump that point in every direction except the President’s, will not acknowledge any facts not embraced by Fox News Channel or @realDonaldTrump, and finally rely on “flat-out falsehoods,” as Jonathan Bernstein observed – is a case in point.) While Asymmetric Politics never addresses this specific difference, the framework that Grossmann and Hopkins establish explains why we find this divergence vis-à-vis truth, facts, and evidence in the behavior of the two parties.
In this post, I will set out the first step of an explanation that follows from the framework developed in Asymmetric Politics. It is only the first step, so it doesn’t take us as far as I believe the complete explanation does. But the first step is significant.
To simplify and advance my argument, I will set aside the description in the italicized sentence above and adopt the language of a former Republican Member of Congress. Republicans are (in the words of David Jolly) “willing to engage in overlooking the truth, overlooking facts.” Democrats, not so much.
Let’s begin with Jolly’s characterization of Republican behavior. Note that the discussion in Part I does not draw on the account in Asymmetric Politics. Note also: how Republican messaging has come to rely on outright falsehoods (rather than simply overlooking truth and facts) appears at a subsequent step in the explanation. For this post, and step one, we will stick with Jolly’s way of putting things.
I. Republicans engage in overlooking the truth and overlooking facts
David Jolly, commenting on
the Republican response to the testimony of Fiona Hill before the House
Intelligence Committee (on MSNBC during a break in Fiona Hill and David Holmes’
testimony), had this to say:
What Fiona Hill said to us and the nation is, ‘We’re in trouble.’ It reflected very much what we heard from Bob Mueller’s closing statement. It reflected what he heard from an impassioned Elijah Cummings: That we are a nation whose divisions have been exploited by a foreign state. And the reason that context is important is, first, what are we going to do about it? And, secondly, it paints the Republican line of questioning as not just maddening but sickening in many ways. Heartbreaking. That, in fact, perhaps Russia has achieved what it was striking out to achieve. That we have one of the two major parties who’s willing to engage in overlooking the truth, overlooking facts.
These comments (which are hardly controversial among informed observers not sheltered within the conservative media bubble) highlight the phenomenon I wish to discuss. Jolly doesn’t use the word, ‘lie’ (or ‘falsehood’ or another synonym). His words are less harsh, more compatible with traditional norms of civil discourse, and nearer to the traditional language of the mainstream media, than my italicized statement.
Jolly frames the phenomenon as overlooking the truth and facts. And his way of putting it – “willing to engage in overlooking” – suggests that this phenomenon is not characterized by carelessness, or inattention, or neglect; it is, instead, an active accomplishment performed freely. It is, in my view (taking Jolly off the hook regarding my argument), something that Republicans have set out to do – purposely, with malice aforethought. Overlooking the truth and facts is an act of artifice or evasion.
(Since I’ve invoked Jolly, I’ll acknowledge in passing a December 6 Vox interview regarding Republicans’ efforts to defend Trump. When Sean Illing asks, “You know these people. I assume you still talk to them. What are they thinking?” Jolly responds:
I can’t tell you how many Republican members of Congress have told me, “I’m just trying to keep my head down and not get noticed.” They see all the excitement stirred up by people like Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes but at least half the caucus wants to stay the hell out of the media. They’re not looking to make a name through this, they’re looking to survive this.
I struggle with whether some of their behaviors are an intentional decision on their part to engage in either misdirection, or to overlook the facts because they have a fealty to the president or because they want to put a stake in the ground in right-wing media or because it just works in their districts. Or are some of them just duped into it by following the leader?)
For the purposes of this post, we need not wrestle with motivation or states of mind. Instead, I will confine myself to an observation for which there is ample evidence: Republicans engage in overlooking the truth and the facts, in contrast to Democrats.
To see how Asymmetric Politics explains this difference, let’s turn to the authors’ analysis:
II. Why do Democrats and Republicans act so differently?
The
answer offered by Professors Grossman and Hopkins begins with a look at the
foundational differences between the two parties. The Democratic Party is a
coalition of diverse social groups. The Republican Party is the vehicle of an
ideological movement.
Asymmetric Politics describes and documents this fundamental asymmetry. Many groups, with diverse interests, mobilize under the big tent of the Democratic Party: women (especially single and professional women and millennials), African Americans, urbanites, union households, environmentalists, ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants, the LGBTQ community, …. These groups (and others) may embrace different agendas (and may spurn liberalism), but they each look to the Democrats for policies that advance their interests. The Republican Party, in contrast, is more homogenous, attracting true believers to an ideological crusade marked by devotion to a revered ideology. Adherents self-identify as conservative and, by the beginning of the 21st century, liberal and moderate Republicans had largely been purged from the GOP. (Even most of the prominent never-Trumpers in the party are conservative.)
Thus, the parties are not mirror images of one another or two sides of the same coin. They are different in kind. The disparate foundations of each party result in a cascade of consequences that play out in the political arena.
The Democratic Party’s character as a social group coalition fosters a relatively pragmatic, results-oriented style of politics in which officeholders are rewarded for delivering concrete benefits to targeted groups in order to address specific social problems. Republicans, in contrast, are more likely to forge partisan ties based on common ideological beliefs, encouraging party officials to pursue broad rightward shifts in public policy. As a result, Republican voters and activists are more likely than their Democratic counterparts to prize symbolic demonstrations of ideological purity and to pressure their party leaders to reject moderation and compromise.
The foundational asymmetry of the two parties
produces distinct differences in the approaches of Democrats and Republicans,
respectively, to public policy debates, campaigning, voting, and governing. Republicans
– leaders and followers – behave differently than Democratic leaders and
followers.
From a simple, elegant beginning – the asymmetric roots of each party – Grossmann and Hopkins develop an explanation of the partisan skirmishes we witness in national politics. Another step in their analysis hinges on the distinctive ways the parties campaign in response to “a collective inconsistency” among American voters.
III. Americans are symbolic conservatives and operational liberals
Democrats and Republicans characteristically regard political choices differently.
In surveys dating back to 1981, when Americans respond to surveys regarding specific issues, a majority – often even a majority of Republicans – favor liberal social policies (which represent the Democratic agenda). Social Security and Medicare, environmental and consumer protections, funding for education, transportation, and even welfare have ample popular support. A majority of Americans are, in the language of political scientists, “operational liberals.”
But don’t tell that to American voters. They may (whether they’ve reflected on it or not) like liberal programs, but when asked to describe their political views, more Americans identify as conservatives, than as liberals. (Gallup, in January 2019, put the number of liberals at 26%, while 35% of Americans regarded themselves as conservative.) Further, when waxing philosophical, Americans lean right, expressing a preference for a smaller, less powerful government that provides less “free stuff” (in Mitt Romney’s words, reflecting the Republican point of view). In the idiom of social science, this conservative predisposition makes Americans “symbolic conservatives.”
Recognizing
this disparity, the parties play to their strengths in political campaigns and
policy debates.
Candidates battling for the nomination of either party face an obvious strategic incentive to adopt the most effective means of stimulating popular appeal among their fellow partisans, which might be expected to carry over into elevated enthusiasm within the loyal party base once a successful nominee turns to face the opposition in the fall campaign. But the tendency of Democrats to emphasize policy specifics and group benefits and the corresponding Republican penchant for stressing more abstract ideological themes are both further reinforced by the broader American public’s simultaneous preference for operational liberalism and symbolic conservatism. Democratic and Republican candidates compete for the support of persuadable voters in general elections by battling to establish their preferred frame of partisan conflict: Democrats gain an advantage by portraying the differences between the candidates as primarily defined by distinct policy positions, while Republicans benefit when voters instead view their electoral options as representing a choice between contrasting philosophical commitments.
IV. Overlooking the truth and the facts is deeply embedded in the Republican Party
The foundational differences between the parties (as described in Part II) and the differences in the way the two parties communicate their messages (as described in Part III) provides an explanation for why Republicans engage in overlooking the truth and overlooking facts, in contrast to the approach of Democrats. To see why this is so, let’s explore the implications of these contrasts – beginning with the Democrats.
Democrats
in office, responsive to members of their coalition, “are rewarded for delivering concrete benefits
to targeted groups in order to address specific social problems.” Democrats are intent on doing something
tangible – crafting, enacting, and implementing public policies – to benefit
their constituents. Practical results matter.
A moment’s reflection shows why this pragmatic imperative precludes Democratic indifference to, or dodging of, facts and evidence. Crafting legislation and rulemaking, for instance, are unlikely to turn out well unless Democrats have their facts straight. Without a solid understanding of the social problem, disadvantage, or injustice they seek to remedy or mitigate, Democrats would be hard pressed to know how to proceed. Research, policy expertise, and real-world feedback are essential to creating programs that benefit constituents.
Results-oriented Democrats have a stake
in making things work – even if they must compromise or proceed incrementally
to move nearer to the goal. Half a loaf is better than none. Democrats aim to
offer help through public policy initiatives. This enterprise is thoroughly
fact-based because that maximizes the prospects of success. And failure is
unlikely to yield votes.
Republicans, on the other hand, risk defeat
if they are perceived as straying from what counts as conservative doctrine. “Republican voters and activists are more likely
than their Democratic counterparts to prize symbolic demonstrations of
ideological purity and to pressure their party leaders to reject moderation and
compromise.”
Standing up for conservative values is paramount. Moreover, conservative ideology affirms both a belief in limited government and skepticism, even hostility, toward fixing social problems through government initiatives. Add to this an aversion to helping the “takers” (Mitt Romney, again Paul Ryan) in the Democratic coalition.
When ideology is front and center, facts are beside the point. Republicans aren’t interested in facts about disadvantaged groups, or communities experiencing injustice, or public policy options to address social problems. Doing nothing – without taking facts into account – is the default position of conservative ideology.
Loyalty to conservatism demands resistance to
government intervention. Any compromise – tacking this way or that way to get
something done – is a failure to uphold principle. Half a loaf is half a loaf
too much. Obstruction counts as success. The adage, ‘Don’t confuse me with the
facts,’ is completely apropos here.
V. Democratic ACA and Republican Repeal and Replace
Consider,
by way of illustrating the parties’ distinct stances regarding truth and facts,
a major piece of Democratic legislation, the Affordable Care Act, and the
Republican pledge to repeal and replace it.
When Barack Obama directed Congress to reform health care, after pledging to do so during his campaign, he knew there were Democrats in the House and the Senate who had spent decades studying the issue and who therefore: understood the real-world problems that accompany the way health care is delivered in the U.S.; were familiar with a range of proposed solutions, the costs and trade-offs, and the industry interests that would have to be accommodated; and had learned from Bill Clinton’s failed effort at reform early in his administration.
Health care policy is complicated, expensive, and affects everyone. Democrats were well-prepared to take up the challenge, beginning with a clear sense of the policy goals: to increase the number of Americans with health insurance, to make health care more affordable, and to enact consumer protections.
A Democratic
Congress drew on academic research; the experience of doctors, hospitals, drug
makers, insurers, and consumers, among others; policy expertise inside and
outside of government; and lobbyists representing every sector with a stake in
the issue. Congress held scores of hearings as it crafted the Affordable
Healthcare Act and revised the law both to satisfy the policy goals and to
secure majorities in both the House and the Senate for a bill that the
President could sign.
ACA was signed into law in March 2010. It has for the most part worked as intended (even as both the Trump administration and many Republican-led states have done their best to sabotage it – efforts that are ongoing). The great majority of people with insurance from the exchanges are pleased with the law, as are others who have received tangible benefits as a result of the changes.
Passing and implementing the ACA would have been utterly impossible without an exacting command of the facts – and an unwillingness to permit wishful thinking, or ideological fervor, or irresistible campaign talking points to trump the empirically grounded details that guided the effort.
Compare that
success to the Republican failure to undo the ACA, aka, Obamacare. Republicans
campaigned in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 on the promise to repeal and replace
Obamacare (with something better and cheaper), but after winning the White
House and both houses of Congress in 2016, they proved incapable of doing so.
Why? Republicans don’t have a very deep public policy bench in Congress. GOP Congressional leaders have shown little interest in health care apart from opposition to Obamacare. The GOP didn’t conduct scores of hearings to clarify their understanding of the problems with the delivery of health care, or to assess and refine proposed solutions. Furthermore, previous GOP ideas – such as Heritage Foundation plans as early as 1989 – are no longer viable because the Republican Party has moved so far to right in the intervening years. That Heritage plan, like Mitt Romney’s reform in Massachusetts, is far too socialistic for the party now (though perhaps it was then, as well; it may have been a stalking horse).
The ideal health care policy of conservative true believers is probably the 1950s-era status quo in the United States (before the passage of Medicare). Although moderates and liberals have been purged from the party, that anachronistic vision is too draconian for many Republicans (or at least for their constituents). Tens of millions of people are insured because of Obamacare – in red states and blue. Subsidies are available. Pre-existing conditions are covered. Parents can insure their children up to age 26.
Campaigning against the individual mandate might have won votes, but coverage for preexisting conditions wouldn’t be possible without requiring everyone to have insurance. Republican voters get riled up over “socialism,” but most don’t want to see their representatives disrupt the post-Obamacare state of affairs. That might be a contradiction, but, as we know, many Republicans are operational liberals (and have benefited from the law).
So, here’s the box the GOP found itself in after November 2016: repealing unpopular provisions and regulations of ACA would eliminate the popular features. Millions of Americans appreciate the coverage the law provides; no one wants to lose benefits or to see deductibles and premiums rise. Republicans found themselves in a familiar place: opposed to government ‘overreach,’ but unable to eliminate a major social welfare program.
In the GOP, as described in Asymmetric Politics, general themes expressing traditional values (and attacks on liberalism and socialism) trump specific, concrete facts. We saw that in the case of repeatedly invoked pledges to repeal and replace. There was never, over seven years’ time, a viable plan to replace Obamacare with. There was no way to keep the popular provisions of the law, while throwing out what conservatives detested. There was hardly a plausible political route to repeal and replace. Yet Republicans repeatedly campaigned on that promise. What can we say about them? At the least: Republicans engaged in overlooking the truth and the facts when repeatedly invoking that pledge.
This is a well-worn pattern baked into the foundational fabric of the Republican Party. Facts don’t matter much when officeholders are guided by ideology (and raw partisan calculation).
V. Subsequent steps in the explanation
The next steps in the explanation of the distinctive Republican aversion to truth, facts, and trustworthy evidentiary standards begin with a look at the conservative media universe, which Grossmann and Hopkins analyze and document in Chapter 4 (“The Not-So-Great Debate”) of their book. As we approach 2020, as many observers have noted, Fox News has become a dominating force in the Republican Party; FNC not only informs (and misinforms), it motivates activists, increases Republican turnout, and punishes officeholders in the GOP; and, as Fox has gained strength, distortion and distraction have morphed into conspiracy theories and falsehoods in Republican messaging.
All topics to explore in future posts.
(Image: screen grab of video by Meg Kelly, “President Trump has made 15,413 false or misleading claims over 1,055 days,” December 16, 2019, Washington Post.)
