Ten Miles Square

Blog

May 03, 2012 7:30 AM Myths About Conservative Voters

By Jonathan Bernstein

Why, why, why, did the Washington Post give over space to discredited GOP hack Frank Luntz over the weekend?

Luntz, as part of the Post’s “five myths” feature, writes about what he calls “five myths about conservative voters.” But exactly why should we believe Luntz’s version of the truth, which he (for most of the items) pulls from his own polling — which is well known for producing the answers that he wants. For example: Luntz begins by claiming that conservative voters are not, after all, interested in smaller government — only in more efficient government. Is that true? I have no idea. What Luntz reports is that the words “‘efficient’ and ‘effective’ government clearly beat ‘less’ and ‘smaller’ government.” But that says nothing at all — nothing — about people’s real policy preferences, if any. It just tells us what words poll better. I mean, presumably people would also like “good” or “excellent” or “awesome” government, too. So what? There is no policy clash between those who favor effective government and those who prefer ineffective. But there certainly are disputes about the size of government. What do conservatives believe about that — or about real decisions, such as what should be done about military spending or specific programs? No hint of that from Luntz.

Basically, there’s nothing much to take away from his piece. That’s true when I suspect he’s mostly wrong (in the abstract, I’m pretty sure that self-identified conservatives do in fact prefer smaller government, although that changes when you move to specific programs). It’s also true when he’s probably right — as in his claim that conservatives oppose slashing Social Security and Medicare. Granted, his argument there is a bit strange. Is it a myth that conservative voters want to slash these programs, and that “This charge is at the heart of the Democrats’ campaign against the GOP”? Uh, no. What’s at the heart of the Democrats’ campaign is that Republican politicians plan to slash Medicare. Which is, you know, true. Indeed, the reason that Democrats are campaigning on it is because Democrats believe that it’s an issue on which Republican voters do not agree with the plans of Republican politicians. Which is why Luntz advises Republicans to talk about making these programs “work,” instead of admitting that they’re cutting spending on Medicare.

The problem is that playing with words to find out whether ones test best just doesn’t tell us anything interesting, whether it’s done by Luntz for the Republicans or his equivalents for the Democrats. Oh, it proves that most voters can be easily manipulated into giving the polling result that the pollster wants to produce — but that doesn’t mean that they can be easily manipulated into actually changing their minds about policy, or that they can therefore be easily manipulated into changing who they vote for. Both parties are suckers when they pay to get this kind of advice, and the WaPo is a sucker to run it.

[Cross-posted at A plain blog about politics]

Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who writes about American politics, especially the presidency, Congress, parties, and elections.
tags

Comments

  • Peter C on May 02, 2012 9:43 AM:

    Luntz's column was merely an exercise in his typical "don't believe your lying eyes, believe me" brand of political hypnosis.

  • Potsy on May 02, 2012 10:22 AM:

    I'd like a cool government, a Fonzie cool government.

  • Robert Waldmann on May 02, 2012 9:26 PM:

    I wish I had a clue about the answer to the rhetorical question with which you open your post. Why indeed does the Washington Post publish the writing of a political operative who studies how to convince people and declares his indifference to the truth ? When asked if Obamacare really was a "government takeover" he said he is a language person not a policy person -- he tells Republicans what to say (and they all obey him) -- he doesn't care if it is true (he said so not just me).

    It is possible that Fred Hiatt thinks his role in life is to piss off liberals. I suspect the problem is that he thinks he is a liberal, or at least an establishment centrist. I think he (or the person who really decides these things if he doesn't) feels obliged to present conservatives other than Krauthammer, Will, Thiessen, Gerson, Samuelson, Rubin, Kristol and whatshername and also feels it would be unfair if he, a non conservative, chose them. So the opinion pages of the Post print shamelessly dishonest partisan propaganda.

    I would really like to watch a long debate Hiatt vs Atrios or Krugman or Brock or you or someone. I have no idea what he would say.