David Brooks argues that despite the fact that Liberals constitute the bulk of the American elite, no one wants to call themselves liberal because
The most important explanation is what you might call the Instrument Problem. Americans may agree with liberal diagnoses, but they don’t trust the instrument the Democrats use to solve problems. They don’t trust the federal government.
A few decades ago they did, but now they don’t. Roughly 10 percent of Americans trust government to do the right thing most of the time, according to an October New York Times, CBS News poll.
Why don’t Americans trust their government? It’s not because they dislike individual programs like Medicare. It’s more likely because they think the whole system is rigged. Or to put it in the economists’ language, they believe the government has been captured by rent-seekers.
This doesn’t seem quite right to me.
For one thing a plurality of Americans are Democrats and the growing ranks of Independents are drawn heavily from new voters and former Republicans.
Moreover, I don’t have hard data on this but the demographics should suggest than the ranks of liberals would be falling. A cursory look at America suggests that the liberal fertility rate is well, well, below replacement.
I am very much open to suggestion but my sense is that imbalance between liberal prominence and liberal affiliation probably turns around two related phenomena.
First, the term liberal is heavily associated with the social-sexual mores of the American upper class. Most Americans reject those. And, members of the upper class who are right-of-center on economic issues tend to call themselves fiscal conservatives or libertarians. My baseline sense is because Milton Friedman and his disciples convinced them that this was an acceptable cosmopolitan alternative to the label liberal.
Thus, one has to both embrace upper class social-sexual mores AND be traditionally left-of-center to be comfortable with the term liberal. The term progressive does better precisely because it does not carry that social-sexual baggage.
Second, many racial and ethnic minorities – blacks in particular – are solidly Democratic because they fear white Christian nationalism from the Republican Party. I am not arguing whether such fears are justified but they are undoubtedly real.
This means that when defining the goals and ideals of the liberal establishment, the cultural sentiments of ethnic minorities carry little weight. You are not going to lose the black vote by saying nice things about gays, veganism, or Prague in May.
This allowed Democratic leaders to flaunt their upper class values in a way that Republican leaders could not. Though things are changing for both groups.
Yet, it did not endear blacks to those values and so you still have many black Americans who answer “Conservative Democrat”, when pollsters ask for their affiliation.

32 comments
Comments feed for this article
Tuesday ~ January 10th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Becky Hargrove
There is a paradox in all of this – some of the present democratic values (strict regulation and credentialing) harken back to a time of pre-capitalism in which guilds were ascendant; guilds which limited economic access and participation. This limitation of economic participation still happens in education and healthcare. Yet, the (on the one hand) parochial republican values that emerged in the free market were in fact derived from values that opened up the individual to economic access in ways the guilds were reluctant to do. The once closed-to-outside-ideas village (and closed to other ethnicities) was opened by the free market. Move forward to the present, and it was the corporation that allowed my generation to interact with blacks on equal terms, after moving away from segregation in our youth. However, both the Democrat and Republican parties find it difficult to move forward from their social and economic limitations, at present.
Tuesday ~ January 10th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
rjs
“I don’t have hard data on this but the demographics should suggest than the ranks of liberals would be falling. A cursory look at America suggests that the liberal fertility rate is well, well, below replacement.”
that is a crazy thought…many on the far left have conservative parents, & likely the converse is true…
Tuesday ~ January 10th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Wonks Anonymous
Still, political ideology has been found to be significantly heritable.
Karl made the point that “liberal” is associated with a subset of upper (or upper-middle) class whites. The Dems are still a plurality, but the growth of ethnic minorities makes that subset a smaller portion of the party. That’s partially offset within the party due to “working class” whites who became Republican (or GOP-leaning “independents”, as Andrew Gelman would stress), but not the country as a whole.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 10:13 am
Exasperated
It *is* heritable, but there is a time lag. Even fairly conservative parents often have children who spend their young adulthood advocating fairly progressive positions, largely because media and education inputs are extremely liberal (and the world hasn’t beat them down too hard yet.) I have watched this happen with myself and my three siblings, all of whom were horrified by our father’s paleoconservative beliefs and all of whom have gradually come around not just to disenchantment with progressive politics but extreme dubiousness about progressive beliefs in general.
(I don’t use “liberal” as the antonym of “conservative.” I am a very liberal person. I’m not a very progressive person in matters sociopolitical.)
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 10:15 am
Exasperated
But see, it even gets to me… I did accidentally use “liberal” where I meant “progressive” just then. *sigh*
Tuesday ~ January 10th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Bob
Interestingly, those who identify as liberal are more likely not to vote:
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2007/12/01/are_voters_different_from_nonv/
Tuesday ~ January 10th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Benny Lava
This reminds me of the old canard Republicans like to tell about unions and Reagan. Union members were usually very socially conservative but economically liberal. When push came to shove social values were more important.
Tuesday ~ January 10th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Curt Doolittle
Ponder this bit of text:
“Liberals are smarter than conservatives, but Republicans are smarter than Democrats.”
There is plenty of research on this topic Karl. The answer is that the majority of the country is conservative even if they vote democratic. The country is center-right.
The reason “Republicans are smarter than Democrats” is that people vote for the republican economic program. The reason “Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives” is because there are very few liberals, and they’re all products of the educational system’s dogma.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Wonks Anonymous
I recall reading at “The Monkey Cage” or some other such poli-sci blog the majority of those self-described “conservatives” don’t actually favor conservative policies, but seem more likely to merely be identifying themselves as religiously conservative. And then there are some people who simply have no idea what “liberal” and “conservative” mean and appear to answer survey questions randomly.
Tuesday ~ January 10th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Curt Doolittle
This is really kind of humorous. You do know that there are people who study this topic for a living and have it down to such a science that they know how many dollars to apply to advertising in which neighborhood using what messaging? RIght? Politics is much more accurate a science than economics.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Ed Cone
“…the term liberal is heavily associated with the social-sexual mores of the American upper class. Most Americans reject those. ”
Maybe, but the term also is heavily associated, fairly or not, with profligate government spending and high taxes, and that motivates a lot of voters.
As for that second sentence, could you elaborate a bit on what these social-sexual mores might be — the ones that the upper classes embrace and “most Americans” reject?
Certainly some very large number of Americans have accepted all manner of changes to social-sexual rules, including divorce, cohabitation, children out of wedlock (the upper class may lag much of the nation on that one), and gay rights. Even gay marriage has become less of a wedge issue. So…what exactly are these issues rejected by “most Americans?”
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Matt (@MeCampbell30)
He must mean hippies (now called hipsters). That’s all that really comes to mind.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Assorted links — Marginal Revolution
[...] 1. Whence no liberals. [...]
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
steve
I think the explanation is much simpler. They lost an election and suddenly they were progressives instead of liberals. It wasn’t some sort of sea change. It was just rebranding. No more significant then a corporation changing it’s slogan or logo.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
derek
I am an example of what is described in the quote that this post argues against. I have very liberal views on society and the government’s role but very pessimistic views on corruption within the government.
This is, in part, because of a pessimistic outlook on human nature, which results in the belief that the disadvantaged must be helped through the government because they are being exploited and artificially held down by rent-seeking interests. However, because of the pessimism regarding humankind, the government is an untrustworthy agent.
My voting priorities are usually more pragmatic. Instead of seeking to vote for some ideal reform candidate, I try to avoid outright idiocy from making it to office. Lately, this has meant voting Democrat in every election. I would very much like both parties to begin fielding non-insane candidates so that I may return to throwing my vote away on a third-party.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
steve
If you think it is about sexual mores, then tell me how the positions of liberals and progressives differ on gay marriage, birth control or anything else for that matter. No one is fooled into thinking one name means one thing and the other means something else.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
talldave2
“Progressive” is just poorly defined.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/12/Americans-unsure-of-progressive-label/UPI-33071278970832/
“Second, many racial and ethnic minorities – blacks in particular – are solidly Democratic because they fear white Christian nationalism from the Republican Party.”
Oh please, Democrats are the party of the slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow. The switch of minority support that began in the 1960s is driven primarily by Democrat Party efforts to extract rents on their behalf through affirmative action, racist legislation, gerrymandered elections, welfare, and etc — you know, the same things they used to do for white.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Curt Doolittle
Exactly.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Benny Lava
Keep telling yourself that. I bet it helps you sleep at night.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Curt Doolittle
ONE WORD: SCHUMPETER:
“The competition is not between the proletariat and the capitalists. It’s between public intellectuals (priests) and entrepreneurs (kings).”
Public intellectuals make a living selling packaging and selling rents. Just like bankers make a living packaging and selling CDO’s.
( Oh. That felt good to get off my chest. )
lol
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Curt Doolittle
Yes, that’s the point I’m trying to make. Most americans are suspicious of their government either way. That’s what makes them ‘conservative’. Because that’s the first principle of conservatism: caution in the face of human hubris and ease of corruption. There is still a little classical liberalism left, despite the destruction of the rule of (common) law, and the takeover of the school system, and the intentional avoidance of teaching history.
As for defining progressive? It needn’t be confusing. Just ask their view of property rights. That’s how to determine whether someone is a libertarian, a classical liberal (conservative), a social democrat (progressive) or a socialist. The difference between a classical liberal (conservative) and a social democrat (progressive) is that conservatives prefer voluntary transfer of money in order to provide positive incentives for the body politic, and that progressives prefer involuntary transfer of money in order to provide the less capable insulation from economic volatility, and their own poor judgement and impulsiveness. That’s the difference. Conservatives=Voluntary. Progressives=In voluntary. Conservatives push achievement, Progressives push “lifeguarding”. It’s nothing more that he masculine and feminine preferences writ large. (Which any demographer that’s being honest will tell you.)
The term “liberal” was appropriated by the social democrats in the same way that “libertarian” and “austrian” have been taken over by the Rothbardian anarchists. I’m a liberal. I think Karl might be. But the term has lost it’s meaning. Classical liberals and social democrats are the correct terms.
Progressive and Conservative terms have specific meaning: they mean only reaction to change. A change toward totalitarianism and away from classical liberalism is a Progressive ideology. The progressive conservative dichotomy has no meaning in relation to what one is progressive or conservative ABOUT.
An American “Conservative” is an “Anglo American Classical Liberal” – which mean’s he’s in favor of meritocratic european Aristocracy extended to the middle class through expansion of enfranchisement in property rights and adherence to norms. An American “Progressive” is a rationalist Ideologue pursuing the utopian ideals of the French Revolutionary movement, restructured in language of marx, and making the best use of the aristocratic classical liberal institutions that he can, in order to bring about that Franco-utopian end.
Academic scribblers have an impact on the world. Marx killed more than a hundred million with his, and the French loaded the inkwell for him.
Really.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
lemmy caution
Maybe the term “liberal” got attached to to progressives in the united states since a lot of conservative thinking through the 20th century was expressly anti-liberal in the classic sense: anti-feminist, pro-segregation, anti-gay rights.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
jennifer
I find my Christian friends who are African American more right wing Christian than Anglo Americans. The reason why gay marriage didn’t go through in California was because more African Americans voted (because of Obama).
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
lemmy caution
As hispanics become a growing proportion of the democratic party, non-hispanic whites drift to the republicans.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Romain W
Your statement that a plurality of Americans are Democrats, while conventional wisdom, now seems incorrect:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Curt Doolittle
About 25% of left and right are committed. The rest just vote a pragmatically as they can, but usually along class, race and gender lines.
Women are moving to the left to seek rents as divorce rates have increased. Men are countering by moving to the right. Recent immigrants are not affecting the numbers as heavily as we expected. But the rise in hispanics is moving whites to the right.
The “liberal’ wing is about 19% on the left, and the “libertarian” wing is about 10-12% (I’m being gracious) on the right, and increasingly consists of the technocratic elite and financial conservatives. Military, social and religious conservatives are the traditional ‘conservative’ narrative and its publicists. The left consists of “liberals”, an army of public intellectuals in the popular press, and a coalition of those minority groups seeking power with which to adjust their social status.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Wonks Anonymous
I’m going to agree that “progressive” was chosen because “liberal” became a dirty word.
Curt, what I’ve heard from political scientists is that women haven’t moved much politically, while men’s preferences seem more volatile (I think men are also more likely to be politically engaged/informed). Sailer often points out that there is no “gender gap” among the married, so your point about divorce is relevant. But many of those not currently married were never married in the first place.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Curt Doolittle
WonksA:
On women: Pull the papers out of Jstor, and the metrics out of Pew.
On Men: Yes, men have a demonstrated preference for accumulating political and economic knowledge, and the change in women’s political knowledge tends to coincide with their childrearing. Yes men are more volatile.
Yes to everything else you’ve said.
The point I’m making is the traditional one: in general, people inherit their political preferences, and vote their race, class, culture, and gender. None of our thrashing does very much to change it.
Wednesday ~ January 11th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
dennis
Yes it is ironic that had the Republican party not allowed itself to become infested by racist assholes in the 70s to break the Democrat’s stranglehold on the South then the growing hispanic and sizable African American communities would be solidly Republican. Oh well, thank god for short termism among Republican elites.
Thursday ~ January 12th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Curt Doolittle
NEW DATA TODAY FROM GALLUP
“Conservatives remain largest ideological group in the USA.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
The drift is to the ideological extremes. Moderates are declining. It’s been happening for years now.
Monday ~ January 23rd, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Monday Morning Staff Meeting – It’s The Economy, Stupid. It’s Also Sex. « the coffee philosopher
[...] Sexual politics and why people don’t call themselves liberal so much anymore. Rate this: Share this:ShareStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditPrintLinkedInEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
Saturday ~ February 4th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Shawn Eng
Spot on.
Thanks to gerrymandering and clustering, political and cultural affiliations are pretty much locked in, making competitive races and “purple” states less common. Therefore at the national level, the Presidential candidate who gets the white swing voter will get the job. So in effect, about 12 states make all the difference.
http://www.270towin.com
Part of being liberal is steadfastness and standing up for one’s principles, no matter what the consequences are. So if they continue to alienate working class white male voters, they should accept the consequences. Everyone should vote their conscience and let the chips fall where they may.