Comments on: The Democrats Are Doomed, or How A ‘Big Tent’ Can Be Too Big http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/ The Official Blog of OkCupid.com Sat, 22 May 2010 04:30:59 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: John http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-10848 John Thu, 06 May 2010 07:33:57 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-10848 most people happy == social and economical centrism most people happy == social and economical centrism

]]>
By: heather Waller http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-10809 heather Waller Wed, 05 May 2010 16:32:02 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-10809 so, whats with the website being down? so, whats with the website being down?

]]>
By: Apollo846 http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-10574 Apollo846 Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:17:34 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-10574 The factor with the strongest correlation between social conservatism is age, as is implied by the graph. However, that doesn't mean that as one gets older, they become more socially conservative. You're taking a correlation and assuming that it's causal. What I think is more likely is that the general society has become more socially liberal in the past century, so that is why young people are much more likely to be socially liberal. I can't say for sure, but I doubt that the young socially liberal people of today will get more socially conservative as they get older; it's just that when they get older, the young will be even more socially liberal than they were (if the trend keeps going). The factor with the strongest correlation between social conservatism is age, as is implied by the graph. However, that doesn’t mean that as one gets older, they become more socially conservative. You’re taking a correlation and assuming that it’s causal. What I think is more likely is that the general society has become more socially liberal in the past century, so that is why young people are much more likely to be socially liberal. I can’t say for sure, but I doubt that the young socially liberal people of today will get more socially conservative as they get older; it’s just that when they get older, the young will be even more socially liberal than they were (if the trend keeps going).

]]>
By: Ryan W. http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-10331 Ryan W. Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:19:12 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-10331 I realize the intent here was to make a few generalizations and not to sweat the details, But I'd like to sweat the details a bit. There's a fine line between being socially permissive and enforcing mandates which are viewed by the enactor as socially permissive, which I'd consider 'authoritarian.' To use an apropos example; eHarmony, a private company, was sued for not doing same sex matching. (The judge told them to settle or he would rule against them, so they settled.) I know a lot of people on the left who are okay with using the courts in this fashion. Support for lawsuits like this conflate an authoritarian social mandate for servicing specific populations with a lassiez faire concept of "negative rights." There's probably a correlation between the two, of course, since rejection of free association, informed consent and personal responsibility as the basis for economic interaction would easily lead to stronger support for progressive economics and also social regulation. (And those favoring progressive economics would be more likely to focus on market failures to justify taxation and regulation, in a kind of cycle.) But "people should be allowed to..." is not the same as "people should be forced by law to accommodate..." Just because the Hilton doesn't provide a Eucharist service doesn't mean that it "discriminates against Christians, who are a protected group." Failure to keep a kosher kitchen doesn't mean the restaurant discriminates against Jews, even if such a setup means Orthodox Jews can't use the restaurant. This is especially true when many Republican candidates have taken the same public stance as Democrats on gay rights issues; that they'd support civic unions. Republicans can easily be found who support liberty for those in same sex relationships. We're not talking about a Loving v. Virginia situation where the couple is hauled off to jail. Rather, we're talking about if private institutions should be compelled to behave in a certain fashion to accommodate private individuals. Republican and Democrat are not the best standin for Conservative and Progressive. I don't think the government or laws should discriminate based on sex, race, or national origin. But I'm skeptical of forcing private entities to follow the same standards, via threat of lawsuits. In short, I think many progressives are more authoritarian than they're willing to admit to, and are fine with authoritarianism when it coincides with their values. I realize the intent here was to make a few generalizations and not to sweat the details, But I’d like to sweat the details a bit. There’s a fine line between being socially permissive and enforcing mandates which are viewed by the enactor as socially permissive, which I’d consider ‘authoritarian.’

To use an apropos example; eHarmony, a private company, was sued for not doing same sex matching. (The judge told them to settle or he would rule against them, so they settled.) I know a lot of people on the left who are okay with using the courts in this fashion. Support for lawsuits like this conflate an authoritarian social mandate for servicing specific populations with a lassiez faire concept of “negative rights.” There’s probably a correlation between the two, of course, since rejection of free association, informed consent and personal responsibility as the basis for economic interaction would easily lead to stronger support for progressive economics and also social regulation. (And those favoring progressive economics would be more likely to focus on market failures to justify taxation and regulation, in a kind of cycle.) But “people should be allowed to…” is not the same as “people should be forced by law to accommodate…” Just because the Hilton doesn’t provide a Eucharist service doesn’t mean that it “discriminates against Christians, who are a protected group.” Failure to keep a kosher kitchen doesn’t mean the restaurant discriminates against Jews, even if such a setup means Orthodox Jews can’t use the restaurant. This is especially true when many Republican candidates have taken the same public stance as Democrats on gay rights issues; that they’d support civic unions. Republicans can easily be found who support liberty for those in same sex relationships. We’re not talking about a Loving v. Virginia situation where the couple is hauled off to jail. Rather, we’re talking about if private institutions should be compelled to behave in a certain fashion to accommodate private individuals. Republican and Democrat are not the best standin for Conservative and Progressive.

I don’t think the government or laws should discriminate based on sex, race, or national origin. But I’m skeptical of forcing private entities to follow the same standards, via threat of lawsuits.

In short, I think many progressives are more authoritarian than they’re willing to admit to, and are fine with authoritarianism when it coincides with their values.

]]>
By: Mike Colbert http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-10321 Mike Colbert Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:04:43 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-10321 If this information was not written for a class assignment in college, he probably has........... no life. If this information was not written for a class assignment in college, he probably has……….. no life.

]]>
By: Loren http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-10252 Loren Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:59:14 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-10252 Love this. Can you divide things across Libertarian/Authoritarian boundaries and do the same analysis? I've always been curious about why the Libertarian party isn't stronger. Thanks! Love this. Can you divide things across Libertarian/Authoritarian boundaries and do the same analysis? I’ve always been curious about why the Libertarian party isn’t stronger.

Thanks!

]]>
By: Jack http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-10197 Jack Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:48:10 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-10197 I want to see the "How economic and social values change with age" graph 5 years from now. If the author is interpreting the data correctly the shape won't change very much. If the curve shifts to the right then it means the next generation of voters is moving towards libertarianism. I want to see the “How economic and social values change with age” graph 5 years from now.

If the author is interpreting the data correctly the shape won’t change very much. If the curve shifts to the right then it means the next generation of voters is moving towards libertarianism.

]]>
By: idealise http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-10138 idealise Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:47:14 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-10138 Wow. This post convinced me to sign up for an OkCupid account. It's worthy of -- and indeed better than -- even some of FiveThirtyEight's posts. Fantastic job. Wow. This post convinced me to sign up for an OkCupid account. It’s worthy of — and indeed better than — even some of FiveThirtyEight’s posts. Fantastic job.

]]>
By: Stephen http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-9909 Stephen Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:18:07 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-9909 Couldn't much of the cohesion in the Republican party be put on one axis: respect/desire for authority? Support for the military, for economic elites, for restrictions imposed on abortion? The alliance of religion, capitalism, small government EXCEPT the military (which tends over 50% of the non-social-security non-medicare that neither party will touch), less care for whether babies have health-care but willingness to impose rules on women -- those don't fit together except under a respect for authority/power/order. This explains more simply why economic conservatives are aligned on Pro-life, but economic liberals as usual don't fit together. And explains why both parties have complex big-tents but the Republicans respect authority at a political level as well: Republican voters respect a loyal politician who sticks with the party, Democrats respect one that thinks for themselves, so that's how they vote. Couldn’t much of the cohesion in the Republican party be put on one axis: respect/desire for authority? Support for the military, for economic elites, for restrictions imposed on abortion? The alliance of religion, capitalism, small government EXCEPT the military (which tends over 50% of the non-social-security non-medicare that neither party will touch), less care for whether babies have health-care but willingness to impose rules on women — those don’t fit together except under a respect for authority/power/order. This explains more simply why economic conservatives are aligned on Pro-life, but economic liberals as usual don’t fit together. And explains why both parties have complex big-tents but the Republicans respect authority at a political level as well: Republican voters respect a loyal politician who sticks with the party, Democrats respect one that thinks for themselves, so that’s how they vote.

]]>
By: Michael http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/comment-page-4/#comment-9889 Michael Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:45:35 +0000 http://blog.okcupid.com/?p=2713#comment-9889 I've never understood why the Republicans won the elections during the Bush Jr Administration when to me a UK resident the Democrats had superior and sensible policy. That was until yesterday when I seen the TV debate between George and Gore. What was Gore doing given George W an aggressive stare down, did he think he could bully his way into government with violence? George W was always made out to be an evil man here in the UK in the press but I dread to think what the world would have looked like after Gore was done bullying it. I’ve never understood why the Republicans won the elections during the Bush Jr Administration when to me a UK resident the Democrats had superior and sensible policy. That was until yesterday when I seen the TV debate between George and Gore. What was Gore doing given George W an aggressive stare down, did he think he could bully his way into government with violence?

George W was always made out to be an evil man here in the UK in the press but I dread to think what the world would have looked like after Gore was done bullying it.

]]>