Distinguishing Political Indentity From Ideology

This is excellent stuff from Brink Lindsey on Partisanship published at the Cato Unbound. (Pointer to Bryan Caplan of Econlog).

Here, Mr. Lindsey observes that partisanship is much about identity more than ideology.

Here is an excerpt: (bold highlights mine)

``It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa."

``So yes, most partisans are “better informed” than most independents, because they have a political identity that motivates them to have opinions and then tells them which ones to have as well as the reasons for having them. Consequently, partisans may have more information in their heads, but their partisanship ensures that this information is riddled with biases and errors and then shields those biases and errors from scrutiny. This is not a state of affairs worth defending.

``Virtue as well as truth is a casualty of partisan zeal. Even when partisans know what the score is, they’re constantly tempted to shade the truth, or at least keep silent, in order to be a good team player. Recall, for example, the fury unleashed this past fall on the handful of conservative commentators who were willing to admit the obvious: Sarah Palin was obviously, embarrassingly unprepared for the office she was seeking. In coalitional psychology, the only thing worse than an infidel is a heretic, and that fact ensures that most partisans keep their heterodox opinions to themselves. Good for the team, perhaps, but bad for the soul — and the republic."

My comment:

Mr. Lindsey' observation, in my opinion is spot on.

In the Philippines, the partisan crowd think that they argue about issues, but all the while their arguments revolve around identity or personality. Definitely not ideology. That's why I call this Personality Based politics, where leadership preferences are based mainly on popularity, symbolism or connections.

For example, the public's impression of corruption appears mainly a moral issue. Lost in the argument is the interrelationship between regulatory structure and how these affects behavior of affected agents, the bloated bureaucracy, the quality and web of laws, the incentives governing the officials and the bureaucracy, patronage system, election spending, restrictions, and many more.

And it's why the elixir of "clean" government won't happen. Not when the critical decisions affecting the economy are determined politically.

It's just that democracy allows people to vent changes in terms of hope-even when they are false hopes.

In addition, it is also true that highly partisan people engage in analysis that are highly biased and full of logical errors. Although this would seem like economic creed, perhaps identity indeed is more the culprit for such incoherence. The confusion perhaps stems from forcing to fit data mined facts to the belief adhered to by the leaders.

Mr. Lindsey sees a change in the shape of politics as a sign of hope,

``In America until relatively recently, and in less developed democracies today, the predominant form of partisanship has been a concrete, personal loyalty to specific leaders and comrades. This is the partisanship of patronage and clientelism — of the Jacksonian spoils system, Tammany Hall, and the Chicago machine. In the twilight of this phase of American democracy, 64-year-old Illinois state legislator John G. Fary won a seat to Congress and made this statement of his plans: “I will go to Washington to help represent Mayor Daley. For twenty-one years, I represented the mayor in the legislature, and he was always right.”

``In the newer style of partisanship, which has emerged with a richer and better educated electorate, loyalty has grown more abstract. Now shared allegiance to broad principles of public policy is the defining element of party ID. Parties have grown more ideological, and so have partisans. Polarization is the name we’ve given to this development.

``I regard the shift toward a more ideological politics as progress. Broadly speaking, we have been moving away from politics as an amoral struggle between rival gangs and in the direction of politics as a contest of competing values. Because people have differing values, and assign different weights to the values they share, there can never be an end to politics. Accordingly, even in an ideal world where all citizens are completely rational and equally public-spirited, a politics and thus a partisanship of values would still be necessary. Here, then, in the realm of values, is the purest and most durable source of political identity."

My comment: Somehow, the web should be able to amplify on such shift as people learn more about ideals and form groups 'tribes' that eventually command the public's attention, draw a larger following and eventually acquire political heft.

Albeit perhaps, this would take longer to happen in the Philippines. Nevertheless, as a Confucian saying goes, a journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step.