> Michael, this was in the excerpt I attached to the post to which
> you're responding:
>
>> Frank's white working-class voters were neither liberal in absolute
>> terms nor closer to the Democratic Party than to the Republican Party
>> on economic issues. On the central issue of government spending and
>> services, voters who saw themselves as closer to the Republican Party
>> outnumbered those who saw themselves as closer to the Democratic
>> Party by four percentage points. On the issues of government jobs and
>> aid to blacks the pluralities seeing themselves as closer to the
>> Republican Party were even larger – nine and 15 percentage points,
>> respectively. Moreover, 60% to 85% of the voters who perceived
>> differences between their own position and the Democratic Party's
>> position on each of these economic issues said the Democratic Party
>> was too liberal, not too conservative. Thus, it is hard to see why
>> taking even more liberal positions on these issues, or stressing them
>> more heavily, would help the Democrats win back the white working class.
>>
>> On the other hand, the only two issues on which Frank's white
>> working-class voters did see themselves as closer to the Democratic
>> Party than to the Republican Party were the two social issues in the
>> table, abortion and gender roles. In the case of abortion the
>> advantage is quite modest and not statistically reliable;
>> nevertheless, voters who saw themselves as closer to the Democratic
>> Party outnumbered those who saw themselves as closer to the
>> Republican Party by nine percentage points. For the item on women the
>> Democratic advantage is more substantial, and Frank's white
>> working-class voters actually saw themselves as more liberal than
>> either party.
>
> In other words, Bartels' research contradicts both your points.
Bartels does contradict MP's points, but not in a way that's fully convincing - it's well known that Americans are much less in favor of "government programs" than they are of actual government programs, i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, Soc Sec, food stamps. The GSS question Bartels cites posed the following very generic alternatives:
> Government should provide
> many fewer services to reduce
> spending
or
> Government should provide
> many more services even if it
> means an increase in spending
Now, you yourself, Doug, commented on a poll earlier this year that showed a healthy plurality in favor of - of all things - "socialized medicine":
> This is an amazing spontaneous level of support (45-39) for the
> undefined and presumably radioactive term "socialized medicine." With
> an actual movement and actual political leadership, these numbers
> could change dramatically. The Dem candidates are consciously and
> deliberately not talking about this sort of thing, yet trying to
> appeal to an underlying sensibility with the word "universal."
And as someone commented in response:
> Call it "single payer" instead of "socialized medicine" and the level
> of support goes to 54%. Call it "universal medicare" instead of
> "single payer" and the level of support goes to 65%.
All three of these formulations are to the *left* of the Democrats -
and, of course, they involve lots of "government services." Now, the GSS
*also* posed the following two alternatives on health care, but unless
I'm mistaken Bartels doesn't report how respondents rated themselves on
that issue:
> All medical expenses should be
> paid by individuals through
> private insurance plans
or
> A government insurance plan
> should cover all medical and
> hospital expenses for everyone
SA