# I'm trying to understand Republicans, but I just can't **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2011, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079 "2011-06-11T04:38:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/101 "2011-06-13T21:27:43Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Exactly. Why bother having any sort of property rights? All land should belong to the people, and then assigned to each person based on what they need, by a benevolent government that loves and cares for us, and knows exactly what each of us needs. That’s quite the excluded middle there. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/102 "2011-06-13T21:48:10Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Exactly. Why bother having any sort of property rights? All land should belong to the people, and then assigned to each person based on what they need, by a benevolent government that loves and cares for us, and knows exactly what each of us needs. Did I say anything about abolishing property rights? The point is that they’re not a matter of “natural law” or anything, they’re purely a matter of social consensus, which varies enormously from one society to the next and from one historical period to another. E.g., there is no **scientific test,** as distinct from a legal test, by which one could determine whether this here Rolex, that you were wearing a moment ago, is thine or mine. (It’s objectively and eternally mine **now,** of course, but you know what I mean.) ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/103 "2011-06-13T22:01:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Repeating an unproven assertion multiple times does change it into a proven assertion. Your correlation is not proven to be causation. The analysis is so simplistic as to be laughable, really. “Correlation does not prove causation,” has become a favored cliche of those who prefer to disregard facts that conflict with what they want to believe. Not only is there more economic growth under Democrat presidents, but there is certainly more job creation. [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/) Is this correlation a coincidence? No I do not think so. I think it is causation. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/104 "2011-06-13T22:04:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Did I say anything about abolishing property rights? The point is that they’re not a matter of “natural law” or anything, they’re purely a matter of social consensus, which varies enormously from one society to the next and from one historical period to another. E.g., there is no **scientific test,** as distinct from a legal test, by which one could determine whether this here Rolex, that you were wearing a moment ago, is thine or mine. (It’s objectively and eternally mine **now,** of course, but you know what I mean.) Now that I’ve been accused of excluding the middle, perhaps you could point to it. How long may I own my Rolex? At what point can you decide it’s not mine any more? Would you like my land now? Or would you like to wait until my crops are ready for harvest? Or is that too much trouble for you, would you rather just take what you want after I’ve harvested it? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/105 "2011-06-13T22:05:40Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > “Correlation does not prove causation,” has become a favored cliche of those who prefer to disregard facts that conflict with what they want to believe. That was awesome, you should put that in your signature line. ---
**Author:** ![Cort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/77aa72/32.png) [@Cort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cort)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/106 "2011-06-13T22:13:39Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > That was awesome, you should put that in your signature line. He’s kinda got a point, though. Correlation doesn’t necessarily _prove_ causation, but it generally _implies_ it to varying degrees. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/107 "2011-06-13T22:18:28Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > They should pay more because above a certain income level in the US their lifestyles cannot really get any better unless they become part of the very, very few ultra wealthy. Likewise, losing that income does not materially affect their lifestyle either. The average family exists on around 50k a year with two working parents. Consider that same income will provide nearly everything for three to four people in a modest manner in _most_ parts of the country. A single person making 100K could provide for eight, 200k-16, 300k-_24_. Do the math and you can see how fast the luxury grows. I do not begrudge them their fortunes, but a higher tax rate on them will not affect them in any real sense of the word. A progressive tax system is fair to a point. But after that point it serves no purpose other than to punish the wealthy. I could provide for 8-18 people according to your math, but why should I and more than some billionare should provide for me? > [@emacknight](#): > > That’s because to make money you have to commit a crime > > Behind every fortune is a crime, claimed Balzac. Are there exceptions? Or be their attorney.😉 In this day and age, what constitutes a “crime” (actual theft and fraud notwithstanding) is often the wranglings of lawyers and politicans trying to redistribute wealth in their own interests. I still believe Sorbanes Oxley just ended up being a jobs program for accountants, lawyers and consultants. But yeah, I think most people aquire wealth without commiting amoral or criminal acts. > [@New Deal Democrat](#): > > Someone whose family has been rich for generations, and who attended Ivy League schools with buildings named after ancestors is likely to have a sense of noblesse oblige. I would rather be governed by someone like that than the poorly educated son of a truck driver who has read too much Ayn Rand. Yes, god forbid you are actually ruled by someone who has real world experience and has actually built something of significance from nothing. Your belief in that fairy tale is reason enough for it to be a bad idea. I have seen little to indicate that people who come from wealth care for little more than preserving their wealth, distancing themselves from the masses and keeping themselves amused. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/108 "2011-06-13T22:26:40Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > perhaps you are right but the relationship is buttressed by consistency across multiple outcomes. You choose an economic indicator. You’ll find that the same relationship exists for it. > > Now you are correct that it has not been empirically proven that democrats in the white house are causal in this matter. I would invite you to show me any economic causal factor that has been empirically proven. > > Otherwise you appear to be engaging in tedious hand waving. Perhaps your hypothesis has merit. Perhaps there is no relationship between our government and our economic outcomes. Do you have any empirical support for that position? I’m not making any assertions about the causal relationship between the executive’s party and the state of the economy one way or the other. I don’t see that \*\*NDD \*\*has provided sufficient evidence for his assertion. That is all. I’d be more interested in seeing, at the very least, how the economy did when the legislative branch and the executive branch were held by the same party vs when they were held by opposite parties (all combinations). Then there’s the delayed effect since any new administration or Congress isn’t going to change policies right away. Further, \*\*NDD \*\*makes the claim that Democrats raise taxes on the rich and Republicans lower them on the rich. How many times did that actually happen? He’s just saying he thinks it might happen sometimes. And then you have the problem of the assumption that a given political party being in power (in one branch of the government) is a first order effect on the economy while everything else is a second order effect. If you’re not assuming that, then you’ll need to control for other first order effects. And that’s just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. This “research” wouldn’t make it past the starting gate for a peer reviewed article on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/109 "2011-06-13T22:46:49Z")
> [@Cort](#): > > He’s kinda got a point, though. Correlation doesn’t necessarily _prove_ causation, but it generally _implies_ it to varying degrees. Well, as long as it _implies_ it that’s good enough for me. Would you like to buy a rock that keeps polar bears away? I don’t know how it works, but ever since I put it under my bed there haven’t been any polar bears. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/110 "2011-06-13T23:03:16Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Well, as long as it _implies_ it that’s good enough for me. Would you like to buy a rock that keeps polar bears away? I don’t know how it works, but ever since I put it under my bed there haven’t been any polar bears. Whenever a conservative spouts the _propter hoc_ fallacy, they invariably believe that correlation _excludes_ causation. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/111 "2011-06-13T23:08:00Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Whenever a conservative spouts the _propter hoc_ fallacy, they usually believe that correlation _excludes_ causation. What about when I do it? Obviously correlation does not _exclude_ causation. Nor does not _imply_ causation. Odd that you seem to be okay with _liberals_ using correlation to imply causation, why is that? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/112 "2011-06-13T23:20:11Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > What about when I do it? > > Obviously correlation does not _exclude_ causation. Nor does not _imply_ causation. > > Odd that you seem to be okay with _liberals_ using correlation to imply causation, why is that? The notion that correlation is a useless data point seems to be unique to conservatives. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/113 "2011-06-13T23:26:35Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Now that I’ve been accused of excluding the middle, perhaps you could point to it. How long may I own my Rolex? At what point can you decide it’s not mine any more? > > Would you like my land now? Or would you like to wait until my crops are ready for harvest? Or is that too much trouble for you, would you rather just take what you want after I’ve harvested it? I was merely pointing out the **exclusive** relevance of laws and social conventions in determining property rights. Having done so, I am not obliged to invent any laws or conventions. But, if you insist, it does seem Balzac would be a good place to start. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/114 "2011-06-13T23:29:22Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The notion that correlation is a useless data point seems to be unique to conservatives. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? How did you manage to twist this into a left/right issue? Correlation does not imply causation, it’s just that simple. Correlation is not a data point. It can be a hint that there is causation, it can be a reason for further study. But that’s about it. But don’t let that stop you from painting everything as liberal vs conservative. It seems this time statistics have a conservative bias. How are you not embarrassed by this? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/115 "2011-06-13T23:29:59Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The notion that correlation is a useless data point seems to be unique to conservatives. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? No one is saying it’s useless, in general. It is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, in general. In this particular instance there are many reasons why it is insufficient, some of which I stated explicitly, above. In this case it’s certainly enough to make one want to dig deeper. But that’s just it. No deeper digging has been done. Not to mention the fact that the best and proper tax rate for any income bracket is something that will almost certainly vary over time, depending on external conditions. Raising taxes might be right one year and wrong another year. This is a complex subject being treated like a school bake sale. But if you think you’ve got an economic discovery, I invite you to try and get it published. I’d recommend a pier reviewed journal, though, not a peer reviewed one. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/116 "2011-06-14T02:29:48Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > How did you manage to twist this into a left/right issue? > > Correlation does not imply causation, it’s just that simple. > > Correlation is not a data point. It can be a hint that there is causation, it can be a reason for further study. But that’s about it. Of course correlation doesn’t imply causation when it comes to the economy performing better under one party or the other. I’m more interested in how specific policies enacted under either party affected the economy. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/117 "2011-06-14T02:45:01Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > The Roman Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution, and I think you will find most protestant denominations, in America and around the world, do too. St Augustine, the greatest of the “Church Fathers,” and almost certainly the most influential Christian thinker since St Paul and Jesus himself, argued, in the 5th century AD, that the creation and Eden stories in the Book of Genesis were not intended to be read literally. People who believe literally in talking snakes are, in fact, out of line with mainstream Christian tradition. Modern American fundamentalism, of the sort that has become associated with modern Republicanism, is something very different from what Christianity has been at most times in its history, and what it is still in most of the world (including in very many churches in the USA). If anything, it is the right-wing fundamentalists who are not “proper Christians” by comparison with what Christianity has traditionally been (and indeed, by comparison with how the Bible depicts the early Christian movement). > > So yes, it is very possible to be a sincere Christian who believes in evolution and does not believe in talking snakes, and even to be a sincere Christian of very liberal and even socialist political views. Plenty of European Christians think that their Christin moral principles pretty much require them to be socialists. American Democrats will have no problem at all with being Christians. Thank you for doing a great job voicing exactly what I was thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/118 "2011-06-14T02:59:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In this case it’s certainly enough to make one want to dig deeper. But that’s just it. No deeper digging has been done. Not to mention the fact that the best and proper tax rate for any income bracket is something that will almost certainly vary over time, depending on external conditions. Raising taxes might be right one year and wrong another year. > > This is a complex subject being treated like a school bake sale. > > But if you think you’ve got an economic discovery, I invite you to try and get it published. I’d recommend a pier reviewed journal, though, not a peer reviewed one. This annoys me greatly for two reasons. First, I’ve probably posted on this subject a dozen or more times here. I’m quite sure that **John Mace** has to have seen these posts in the past. These posts have illustrated that even lagging the data relative to the terms of office, the data indicate greater performance under Democrats, yet he speculates whether or not this might be the case above. Secondly, suddenly the standard for argument here is publication in a peer-reviewed journal? Bullshit. **John Mace** , if you ever propose anything other than a coincident relationship between anything ever here on the SDMB at any point in the future, I will demand that you have published in a peer reviewed journal and recall this post here for you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/119 "2011-06-14T03:29:07Z")
Did everybody have a simultaneous brain-fart? Of course, correlation implies causality, what it doesn’t do is prove causality. Usually, your first clue to causality is a correlation, you look for correlations, catch a hint. If you were to say correlation _suggests_ causality, you aren’t saying anything that demands proof, nor requires it. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079/120 "2011-06-14T06:38:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not making any assertions about the causal relationship between the executive’s party and the state of the economy one way or the other. I don’t see that \*\*NDD \*\*has provided sufficient evidence for his assertion. That is all. Well, there’s pretty good evidence that the economy during Democratic administrations outperforms the economy during Republican ones. The data is striking and IIRC statistically significant [1]. This applies to GDP growth, unemployment and changes in the Gini coefficient: even the stock market during Democratic administrations outperforms Republican ones. [Cite](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/notes-to-self-f.html). The question is why? Krugman is supposedly some big ultra-liberal but he has noted that it’s hard to find a convincing reason that the effect would be this strong. I think it’s a combination of a sociological sense of _carte blanche_ among CEOs during Republican administrations, combined with consistent but qualitatively varying negative policy shocks – or policy foot-dragging-- when Republicans rule the Executive branch. But these explanations are sheer conjecture. The puzzle remains. [1] Statistical significance: that’s not in the link. It comes from my memory of a secondary reference to Bartels. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-trying-to-understand-republicans-but-i-just-cant/585079.md?page=7)