Disagreements About Disagreeing And Agreeing to Disagree (Or Something Like That)

I don’t know what it is about the Economist, but they have this knack for publishing useful commentaries related directly to whatever’s being bandied about here on the SRC. 

Here’s another.  We’ve had considerable back-and-forth here of late about the state and implications of polarization in U.S. political discourse. Is it good or bad? Both, these guys say.  But when it gets out of hand like it is now, mostly bad.  Worth a look.

And partisanship pundits will be pleased at the prospect of more polarity-pondering pleasures in the just-published, critically acclaimed weighty tome referenced within the column. 

— Hornseth

5 thoughts on “Disagreements About Disagreeing And Agreeing to Disagree (Or Something Like That)

  1. Statistician says:

    Study: Democrats the party of the rich

    November 23, 2007

    By Donald Lambro

    Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional districts.

    In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

    He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

    “If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions,” Mr. Franc said.

    A key measure of each district’s wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

    “Increasingly, we will see Democrats responding to the economic demands of this particular upper-income constituency,” he said.

    “What the data suggests is that there will be a natural limit to how far and how much the Democrats can sock it to the rich, because in doing so, it means they will have to sock it to their own constituents,” Mr. Franc said.

  2. Impressive how they equate Rich’s observation of GW’s “governing” principles with Coulter’s impression of democrats as a whole. I’m thinking democrats need to find an air-headed shill to prop up and call republicans a bunch of incompetent ninnies who can’t keep their pants on. That way, when democrats legitimately call into question a republican president’s leadership motive and abilities, it’s not brought up in an article about partisanship.

    Oh wait…that’s going the wrong way, isn’t it.

  3. The Analyst says:

    ECONOMIST: Only 52% of Democratic voters describe themselves as liberals, compared with the 77% of Republican voters who call themselves conservatives.

    That’s because conservatives aren’t ashamed of their appelation. This is true, and explains why liberals are clamoring to relabel themselves as “progressives.” I would bet that upwards of 75% of Democrats see themselves as liberal but resist the label because of its pejorative connotations. Politicians simply can’t get elected on liberal agendas.

  4. Kev says:

    November 30, 2007
    Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others
    Relationship persists even when controlling for other variables


    Health and Healthcare
    Social Issues
    Northern America

    by Frank Newport

    PRINCETON, NJ — Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.
    The basic data — based on an aggregated sample of more than 4,000 interviews conducted since 2004 — are straightforward.

Comments are closed.