January 16, 2005
Act Now to Enhance Diversity of Ideas
Not too long ago, a Red Team editor made an eloquent argument for political diversity on college campuses. I applaud the goal of diversity of ideas, and I don’t want to see this important point get lost - particularly since there appears to be second, unremarked subclass of America that also lacks diversity.
As we become increasingly distracted by social security, Abu Ghraib, Armstrong Williams, and the NFL playoffs, let us not forget the recent academic study which shows that in six academic fields, including anthropology and sociology, there are actually more liberals than conservatives. The study begins with a reference to an article poignantly entitled "Lonely Campus Voices" about the plight of "isolated conservatives" in a "hostile" world. Now, I've been reading a lot about tsunami and mudslide victims, but they honestly don't compare with the tragedy of an isolated, lonely, tenured anthropology professor who can't talk politics to his colleagues.
Since Jack's column, I've been doing some reading. Horrible to tell, this is not the only strata of our society that lacks political diversity! The 2004 election exit polls show that two out three of those earning $200,000/year or more voted Republican - a shocking, shocking lack of diversity.
Now, some of you will say, sure, that's not because of their personal convictions - it's because they're making out like bandits due to Bush's tax cuts. However, this hypothesis doesn't hold up to close examination. An informal survey I conducted on several high-income people revealed that none supported lower taxes on the wealthy for reasons of personal gain: invariably, they either supported lower taxes for philosophical reasons, or else just refused to answer the phone.
Others will say, ah, but what about the "liberal elite"? Sadly, like the California Condor, they are written about more than they are actually encountered. Though Google finds almost 10x more pages on the "liberal elite" than the "conservative elite", the liberal elite appears to be rather rare, from the exit polls.
In summary, there seems to be a second, unrecognized subclass of America in which new lonely, isolated souls are trapped in sea of political monoculture - the subclass of the very rich. Arguably, these people are even more important, culturally and economically, than anthropologists. But don't fear - I have a plan to help encourage diversity among the rich, and fight this Imminent Crisis!
If you are conservative, simply send as much money as you can afford to spare to me. I
will collect it and give it to fund a few deserving true-Blue
liberals, and lift them into the $200k income bracket. It may be hard
to find liberals willing to suffer the loneliness and hostility, but I
know a few brave, unselfish souls that are willing. Astonishing, yes. But some people will do anything for diversity.
Posted by William Cohen at January 16, 2005 03:35 PM
This is very clever, William. I do appreciate the satire.
I would like to take a couple of points seriously.
Support for tax cuts is more ideological than practical. Nobody likes to pay more in taxes, but I really wouldn’t mind paying more if I believed the money would be well spent. Our government is actually a fairly good user of our tax money (compared with others). But one important reason is that we keep it on a lower taxes diet.
Rich voting Republican. You may be confusing cause and effect. The effect of inherited wealth has been declining and today most wealthy Americans earned their money and created more through clever or lucky investments. I don’t say that Republicans are smarter or necessarily better with money, but it does help if you believe in what you are doing when you are making investments.
We had a lot of argument on the other side of this blog re conservatives not wanting to go into academia. There might be a self-selection going both directions when it comes to studies. A master’s degree in gender studies is worth less in the market than an MBA. Twenty years later the MBA is probably making more than $200,000, while our gender studies major is making less.
Besides all the above, I think it is likely that both rich and poor can be a little delusional. The rich tend to believe that they are responsible for all their success and that they don’t need the government. The poor tend to believe that someone else is responsible for their lack of success and they need the government all the time. Both are wrong, but it might explain voting behavior in both groups
Jack had this to say:
+Rich voting Republican. You may be confusing
+cause and effect. The effect of inherited wealth
+has been declining and today most wealthy
+Americans earned their money and created more
+through clever or lucky investments.
The argument itself is a bit confusing as you might be confusing (a) the fact that most wealthy folks are republican, and (b) there’s been a sharp decline in inherited wealth. My point is that (a) has nothing to do with (b), and (a/b) they are neither of them directly related to the “why” of the lack of ideological parity in the ranks of the “haves.” I’m not sure why but it’s a sucker bet that intellectuals gravitate towards the left and capitalists gravitate towards the right. I have my suspicions, but I’ve also got enough manners not to spiral into terminal speculation mode. My point? It’s simple, really. It’s a fait accomplis that more lefties are gonna be on campus, and more righties on Wall Street. The exact “cause & effect” would make a very enlightening study, any takers? As for lucky investments… I’ve got a feeling, well, more than a feeling, really, that when more than six figures enter into it, luck doesn’t figure into it at all. Call me cynical, but there’s definitely something quanitfiable at work. (Another study?)
+I don�t say that Republicans are smarter or
+necessarily better with money, but it does help
+if you believe in what you are doing when you are
+making investments.
I’ve got to wonder about just how far that argument can run on it’s own two legs. Take Bush. He believed in what he was doing when he ran several businesses into the ground, (remember “El Busto?”) not to mention that after reading “Plan of Attack” I can honestly say that I believe that *he* believed that Iraq had WMD’s. His intensity of belief, however, doesn’t alter facts and it sure hasn’t helped out overall. Knowing what he’s doing would’ve made him much more likely to succeed. Same thing with poker. It’s knowing what’s what, who’s who and calculating probabilities. You go by gut feelings, you go home naked. Yeah, I know. That’s about five bucks worth of my .02 cents worth.
Posted by: Jeff Hatmaker at January 16, 2005 08:39 PMGreat Post William. If you recieve any checks please email me so I can send you my address for the American Enterprising Liberal Institute.
Posted by: Greg at January 16, 2005 09:55 PMNobody likes to pay more in taxes, but I really wouldn’t mind paying more if I believed the money would be well spent.
Haha! Spoken like a true Democrat. :)
Rich voting Republican. You may be confusing cause and effect.
Or maybe not.
The effect of inherited wealth has been declining and today most wealthy Americans earned their money and created more through clever or lucky investments.
I’d love to know where you got that stat.
Nice article William. The Punditry Institute of America needs help too. Your “old money” can change the future!
Great Post William. If you recieve any checks please email me so I can send you my address for the American Enterprising Liberal Institute.
Actually, I plan to use the Dick Cheney plan for selecting the best candidate ;-)
Posted by: William Cohen at January 17, 2005 09:22 AMHilarious piece, William!
Jack:
“Rich voting Republican. You may be confusing cause and effect. The effect of inherited wealth has been declining and today most wealthy Americans earned their money and created more through clever or lucky investments. I don’t say that Republicans are smarter or necessarily better with money, but it does help if you believe in what you are doing when you are making investments.”
It also helps if you have no scruples over how those you are investing in are making you so much money.
Hmmm. And might this paucity of conscience very often be a prerequisite to becoming a Republican?
That might also be an interesting study…
“Twenty years later the MBA is probably making more than $200,000, while our gender studies major is making less.”
Yes, but then, money isn’t _everything_ to some people.
“The rich tend to believe that they are responsible for all their success”
Often without considering exactly _who_ they are making it on the backs of.
“and that they don’t need the government.”
Well, they’re making out great with our current government leaders, aren’t they?
“The poor tend to believe that someone else is responsible for their lack of success”
I guess you mean at making money. Surely you realize that not everyone assumes that people who are less wealthy are generally unsuccessful in every aspect of their lives.
“and they need the government all the time.”
They need the government to keep a sharp eye out so they can keep from being completely steam-rollered due to the greed of others. And yes, they need that all the time.
“it might explain voting behavior in both groups”
Quite obviously, it does.
When I was a businessman in the medical device industry, in charge of clinical studies of new devices, I once tried to make the argument to the director of marketing that randomized trials not only would give us a better idea of the quality of our devices, but would also make regulatory and marketing tasks much easier. I was arguing this because the large customers (e.g., $5M/year of business) he wanted to include as study investigators were opposed to randomized trials. When I pulled out my secret weapon, that randomized trials were ethically imperative when you couldn’t be certain that the new therapy was better or more risky, he responded that it was an ethical imperative to not randomize, because the new therapies were better.
I think that, for some people, money does influence their adoption of ethical stances. And not one of them would admit it, especially to themselves.
By the way, we did the randomized trial, it successfully proved our new therapy was better, we got the shortest turn-around time in history from the FDA, and doubled our volume and revenue in a 1-month time frame. The MBAs all chalked it up to good timing. You can see why I left.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 19, 2005 04:35 PM
